Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;kaparthy, post: 4508110, member: 57463&quot;]Obviously, the word &quot;many&quot; means something different to you than it does to me. Collectors did not even care about mintmarks until a hundred years ago. And &quot;ten&quot; is not &quot;many, many&quot; of anything.</p><p><br /></p><p>I did some searching.\</p><p>in the ANS DONUM</p><p>Have you ever seen a prooflike 1876-CC trade dollar?.</p><p>by White, Weimar.</p><p>In: Gobrecht Journal Vol. 17, no. 51 (July 1991), p. 17-18</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>In the ANA Library</p><p>Silver dollar fortune telling (1st ed)</p><p><br /></p><p>Author:&nbsp; &nbsp; Fox, Les</p><p>Call Number:&nbsp; &nbsp; DD121.Fox.L 1977</p><p>Location:&nbsp; &nbsp; Main Stacks</p><p>Publisher:&nbsp; &nbsp; Closter, NJ. Carson City Associates Inc. 1977.</p><p><br /></p><p>The accugrade system; a comprehensive guide to Eisenhower dollars</p><p>Author:&nbsp; &nbsp; Hager, Alan</p><p>Call Number:&nbsp; &nbsp; DD121.Hag.A V3 1986</p><p>Location:&nbsp; &nbsp; Main Stacks</p><p>Publisher:&nbsp; &nbsp; Greenwich, CT. Accugrade Inc. 1986.</p><p><br /></p><p>So that puts it back to the 70s, perhaps, with the run-up in collecting because of the precious metals boom. Still not &quot;many, many.&quot;&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>So, I went to <i>The Numismatist</i> online. </p><p>See attached. For those from 1942, <b>I will grant one &quot;many.&quot; </b>Thanks for providing the challenge.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1117370[/ATTACH] </p><p>February 1942.&nbsp; [second one down] 1867 Unc V. brilliant prooflike...</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1117371[/ATTACH] </p><p>November 1942, Bottom right $20.00 1896-S Ex. Fine Slight Proof Sur.</p><p><br /></p><p>(BTW -- Gold was selling for the price of gold. There were no serious restrictions on gold as far as numismatists were concerned.)[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in