Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;illini420, post: 632492, member: 19423&quot;]Never heard that theory before.&nbsp; But when I went back to read a Barber Quarter article I had saved it said the following:</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&quot;There is really no good way of explaining why the higher mintage 1901-S has always been so much more expensive than the 1913-S. It is clear that for some reason the 1901-S is not found in the numbers we would expect today based on its mintage. It has seemingly always been that way even though no one can come up with a reason why that is the case.</p><p><br /></p><p>The best observation might well be that almost all San Francisco dates from just prior to the earthquake of 1906 are more expensive that lower mintage dates that came after the destruction. It seems like a stretch to suggest that the 1901-S was an earthquake victim, but it may be the one way of explaining the situation that makes some sense other than simply observing that it did not survive. There actually is a certain amount of evidence to suggest that as a possibility.&quot;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The full article can be found here:</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="http://numismaticnews.net/article/Big_Three_dates_dominate_Barber_quarters/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://numismaticnews.net/article/Big_Three_dates_dominate_Barber_quarters/" rel="nofollow">http://numismaticnews.net/article/Big_Three_dates_dominate_Barber_quarters/</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Pretty cool.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>My lowest mintage 20th Century business strike coin is my 1909-D $20 with a mintage of only 52,500</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><img src="http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm111/illini420/1909Ddoubleeagle-1.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" />[/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