My "Cheerios Dollar" two pattern population theory.

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by dennis5151, Apr 19, 2020.

  1. dennis5151

    dennis5151 Member

    The 2000-P Sacagawea Cheerios promo dollar has been well documented on numerous sites and has been written about in great detail. The summary is:

    5,500 coins were to be placed in the cereal boxes. Some were minted before Mr. Thomas Rogers Sr. (mint engraver) removed 2 flaws on the observe die and modified the reverse to give the tailfeathers a lighter look to represent the white feathers of the Bald Eagle.

    Finely detailed specimens of the dollar are now called by various names. "1999 Prototype", "Fine Detailed", "Pattern" and so on. It was assumed all Cheerio Dollars were of this type but "Non-Pattern", "2001 Reverse" and otherwise non-detailed specimens have been graded directly from the original packages.

    Mr. Tom DeLory, the person to discover the finely detailed coins theorized the reason for the two types was when the coins were received to be placed in the cereal boxes some may have been damaged, or spoiled during packaging and replacements were ordered. The second shipment would have contained the non-patterns.

    I have an additional theory. The number of non-pattern coins is too high to be a second shipment to replace damaged coins. I believe a test run was made, the dies corrected and a completion run was made. At that point, 5,500 coins were shipped.

    Why is this theory important? Rarity determines value. Using Mr. DeLory's theory the non-pattern 2000 Reverse smoothed tailfeathers should be rarer. If a short test run was made, the 1999 Prototype will be rarest.

    I asked the mint how many coins were made in a test run of the coin, the reply was they do not keep records. I speculate the number of coins in the first run depends on the technician executing the order. Did he or she set a number into the counter? Did he or she simply just press a button for a random time frame? Only the technician knows and perhaps that person will eventually see this post and come forward with an answer or estimate.

    If you know a mint technician, please ask how a test run is made.

    We can only guess how many coins are still in drawers or worse, are being worn out in circulation. My AU58 was salvaged at the point where a person with good vision can barely make out the fine detail. My guess is a 55 would take high magnification to determine any fine detail.

    For those that like pictures:

    Unopened box.
    Box front.jpg

    box rear.jpg

    Unopened Inserted Package DSC00525.JPG

    MS 68 Fine Details
    ms68 cheerios dollar july purchase 5.jpg

    AU58 Worn Details
    Sat Apr 18 09-30-46.jpg
     
    Goldsayshi463 likes this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. ldhair

    ldhair Clean Supporter

    Tom DeLory gave you his opinion of your coin in the other thread.
     
    Oldhoopster likes this.
  4. ldhair

    ldhair Clean Supporter

  5. dennis5151

    dennis5151 Member

    Glad to hear Mr. DeLory is on the site.

    I did not ask for an opinion on the coin. I was posting the fact I have an AU 58 fine detail 2000P Sac. that PCGS would not grade as a Cheerios Dollar. The tech told me regardless of the fine details, they could not call it a Cheerios because they did not open the original package. I can not argue with their policy, it is their policy, not mine.

    Moving on to this thread. The AU58 picture just shows how worn the coin is. It does not beg any opinion.

    What your opinion on how two types of coins ended up in the boxes? This is not a question of having to choose between two theories. I would like you to comment on any flaws in my theory.
     
  6. cpm9ball

    cpm9ball CANNOT RE-MEMBER

    Which thread, Larry? I must have missed it. ~ Chris
     
  7. dennis5151

    dennis5151 Member

    Nice pics from Idhair. My camera is not as good as his. I really like the two comparisons connected in one photo.
     
  8. Michael K

    Michael K Well-Known Member

    On the MS 68 coin it appears to have the strong details on only 1 of the 2 center tail feathers. Perhaps it's the lighting/ photo.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2020
  9. ldhair

    ldhair Clean Supporter

  10. dennis5151

    dennis5151 Member

    OK, give your opinions..... my granddaughter standing here behind me is saying posting anything on any website is asking for an opinion. LOL

    A dozen people have looked at this coin and agree the fine details exist. I have no doubt it is a circulated fine detailed dollar.

    I would like to point out there is another hint on the coin.

    The end of the toes are pointed. On the modified coins, the toes were truncated when the engraver smoothed out the feathers. In fact, the engraver erased essentially all of the toe details. This is more clear in the Idhair comparison pictures.
     
  11. Michael K

    Michael K Well-Known Member

  12. Robert Ransom

    Robert Ransom Well-Known Member

    Have you had it graded yet by ANACS?
     
  13. ldhair

    ldhair Clean Supporter

    Not my images. Good bet that Tom DeLory posted them on a forum many years ago.
     
  14. ldhair

    ldhair Clean Supporter

    I don't know the policy that ANACS goes by. One of the members here may be able to tell us how ICG deals with these. @Insider
    I don't have a theory for why there were more than one set of dies used for this promotion.
     
  15. Snowman

    Snowman Senior Member

    Dennis -with why there were 2 types - the mint probably made a certain amount of the 99 version and changed the dies to make the total amount that General Mills needed for this promotion which I believe started right after the New Years. With your Sac dollar -why don't you submit it to NGC - its looks like they do 2 free varieties - Cheerios Promotion which have to be opened by them without the Proto type wings or the Proto Type which doesn't have to be in the sealed Cheerios packaging - according to the NGC Website ????
     
  16. dennis5151

    dennis5151 Member

    I can submit it to NGC but most likely keep it in this package to remind me of the time I submitted to PCGS and was stunned they did not recognize circulated prototypes. Here is a better picture. I will trade it out on the OP. Sun Apr 19 15-05-16.jpg Sun Apr 19 15-05-22.jpg
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page