Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Error Coins
>
The gang at the Mint 1966-7?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Rob Woodside, post: 4963927, member: 96187"]Thanks John. This all started following up a rumour that 4 varieties (1966 small beads, diving goose, inverted goose, and double struck 1967) were maliciously produced by a criminal gang at the mint. We found the criminal gang, led by Rudolf Hoffman with Frederick Priebe and Darlene Ruddick on the inside. So far I've found no credible evidence linking these varieties to this gang. Without that it makes a great conpiracy theory based on circumstanial facts and speculation.</p><p><br /></p><p>John was also right to question the 1965 issues as in Hoffman's trial in 1971 the article above reports:</p><p>"Police testified that there were complaints dating back to 1965 that some coin dealers or dealer was obtaining the coin oddities, or "varieties" as they are known in the trade. The RCMP soon became aware that the oddities were not mint errors but the result of deliberate actions on the part of a mint employee."</p><p>Sadly which varieties are not mentioned but one finds</p><p><a href="http://www.coinscan.com/err/doll.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.coinscan.com/err/doll.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.coinscan.com/err/doll.html</a></p><p>where errors on blunt and pointed 5's and a small beads obverse are shown. If there aren't any other 1965 errors then these coins are the ones the police are testifying about and is a direct link of silver dollar errors to the gang. So this adds another 3 varities to the four I initially tagged, giving 7 suspcious varieties from 1965 to 1967. </p><p><br /></p><p>Until credible evidence for a connexion between the gang and the 7 varieties is found all we can do is speculate. In the Mid sixties there was a coin collecting craze with the Newspapers full of articles for inflation wary investors that good coins were a good investment and the change in your pocket was worth more than you think. Dealers were doing well with prices rising. The mint was flooded with proof orders and couldn't keep up with circulation production. So times at the mint were clearly hectic, if not chaotic. That's a recipe for honest errors, but all 7? I'm a newbie at Silver dollar errors, but was there any other three year period that produced as many egregious errors that somehow passed quality control? I suspect there was no other time when the mint was so busy, but these varieties are not hard to find "dots" or misplaced jewels. They are are obvious, well maybe not the 66 small beads.</p><p><br /></p><p>I don't know the quanties of the 65 errors. If low, one might speculate that it was a dry run for later efforts. Priebe might have kept the small bead die for the 1966 small beads or as John suggests it was an old die that just happened to get used with 1966 reverse. Interesting that the 1966 small beads was a circulation coin and not a proof coin, so it really was a one off. J.E. Charleton first reports the '66 large bead coins in his column Coin Corner on March 18, 1966 in the Calgary Herald. In March he is not aware of the '66 small beads, but has noticed the proof and circulation '66s all have large beads and asks the mint if the small beads will return?</p><p>"Delivery on the Canadian 1966 proof-like sets from the mint is four to six weeks from receipt of orders, which is a big improvement over a year ago It is also gratifying to note the absence of wild speculation as occurred with these sets early in 1965. It is interesting to note that the dollar in these early sets has the large beads, and the regular issue silver dollar also has the large beads on the obverse. This naturally raises the question as to whether or not later issues will have the small beads. I checked with an official of the Mint and was informed that, according to present plans, no change will be made in the dies for this year's dollar apart from those now being used. It was explained that an unusual amount of trouble encountered with the dies last year resulted in the various varieties. There are now five known varieties of the 1965 silver dollar. Latest discovery is one similar to Type 4 except there is a different relationship in the lettering and beads on the obverse. A characteristic of the letter "A" in Regina on the large bead variety is that a line extended along its right side will pass directly through the bead In the new variety, this line passes between the beads: in the small bead variety it barely touches the left side of the bead."</p><p>So the medium beads '65 is discovered by March 1966 and the mint has no intention of using the small beads in 1966 or ever. Howver by Oct 15 1966 on pg 79 of the Calgary Herald Charleton says in Coin Corner that some months earlier (Summer 1966?) 200 '66 small bead coins were bought from the mint by a dealer who wanted to sit on them until they were worth a lot more. Charleton says:</p><p>"Another discovery of interest to collectors is the 1966 silver dollar With small obverse beads. The existence of this variety has been known for some months but it has not been publicized. The reason was the owner of the 200 pieces was not anxious to sell, hoping for a higher price."</p><p>Was this an innocent dealer set up to discover a new variety or was he in on it or did he just get lucky? Anyway if Hoffman was involved, Hoffman must have had some himself to make a profit.</p><p><br /></p><p>Lastly J.E. Charlton in Coin Corner (Ottawa Journal, May 4, 1968) first reprts the Diving Goose as a "slight" die rotation. According to a listing on EBay:</p><p><a href="https://www.ebay.ca/itm/1967-1-DOLLAR-ELIZABETH-II-CANADA-PL-64-DIVING-TILTED-GOOSE-COIN-MINT-ERROR/254734672583?hash=item3b4f5ea2c7:g:Hh0AAOSwIU1fdPlk" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.ebay.ca/itm/1967-1-DOLLAR-ELIZABETH-II-CANADA-PL-64-DIVING-TILTED-GOOSE-COIN-MINT-ERROR/254734672583?hash=item3b4f5ea2c7:g:Hh0AAOSwIU1fdPlk" rel="nofollow">https://www.ebay.ca/itm/1967-1-DOLLAR-ELIZABETH-II-CANADA-PL-64-DIVING-TILTED-GOOSE-COIN-MINT-ERROR/254734672583?hash=item3b4f5ea2c7:g:Hh0AAOSwIU1fdPlk</a></p><p><br /></p><p><img src="https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/xVEAAOSwrhBfdRpf/s-l400.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Charleton says you could get a diving goose for $50. By November another article reported that they were now $65. and a pair, normal and diving, could be had for $97.50. I don't know the construction of the press they used but geese diving at all sorts of angles sounds like the die just rattled around in the press? My lack of knowlege of mint produced die rotations in Canadian coins leads me to believe that the die axes must be set and are mechanical fixed in postion so they can't rotate. Perhaps a sleepy pressman thought he was tightening the die when he was loosening or rotaing it? Was the same sleepy pressman setting the die so the goose was horizontal and accidently created the inverted goose? I don't know. I'll keep looking.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=61631324&fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjQ4MTIyMTQxOSwiaWF0IjoxNjAzNDE3MjAxLCJleHAiOjE2MDM1MDM2MDF9.u6g9vfbzW-hvj_RG7Y0LDUxF8td5NJsk4lYmr1OMj_g" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=61631324&fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjQ4MTIyMTQxOSwiaWF0IjoxNjAzNDE3MjAxLCJleHAiOjE2MDM1MDM2MDF9.u6g9vfbzW-hvj_RG7Y0LDUxF8td5NJsk4lYmr1OMj_g" rel="nofollow"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/thumbnail/481221419/250/0/0_0_5025_6736/0/yes/491_3820_1382_1423.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></a></p><ul> <li>CLIPPED FROM</li> </ul><p><a href="https://www.newspapers.com/paper/calgary-herald/8803/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.newspapers.com/paper/calgary-herald/8803/" rel="nofollow">Calgary Herald</a></p><p><a href="https://www.newspapers.com/paper/calgary-herald/8803/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.newspapers.com/paper/calgary-herald/8803/" rel="nofollow">Calgary, Alberta, Canada</a></p><p>18 Mar 1966, Fri • Page 63[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Rob Woodside, post: 4963927, member: 96187"]Thanks John. This all started following up a rumour that 4 varieties (1966 small beads, diving goose, inverted goose, and double struck 1967) were maliciously produced by a criminal gang at the mint. We found the criminal gang, led by Rudolf Hoffman with Frederick Priebe and Darlene Ruddick on the inside. So far I've found no credible evidence linking these varieties to this gang. Without that it makes a great conpiracy theory based on circumstanial facts and speculation. John was also right to question the 1965 issues as in Hoffman's trial in 1971 the article above reports: "Police testified that there were complaints dating back to 1965 that some coin dealers or dealer was obtaining the coin oddities, or "varieties" as they are known in the trade. The RCMP soon became aware that the oddities were not mint errors but the result of deliberate actions on the part of a mint employee." Sadly which varieties are not mentioned but one finds [URL]http://www.coinscan.com/err/doll.html[/URL] where errors on blunt and pointed 5's and a small beads obverse are shown. If there aren't any other 1965 errors then these coins are the ones the police are testifying about and is a direct link of silver dollar errors to the gang. So this adds another 3 varities to the four I initially tagged, giving 7 suspcious varieties from 1965 to 1967. Until credible evidence for a connexion between the gang and the 7 varieties is found all we can do is speculate. In the Mid sixties there was a coin collecting craze with the Newspapers full of articles for inflation wary investors that good coins were a good investment and the change in your pocket was worth more than you think. Dealers were doing well with prices rising. The mint was flooded with proof orders and couldn't keep up with circulation production. So times at the mint were clearly hectic, if not chaotic. That's a recipe for honest errors, but all 7? I'm a newbie at Silver dollar errors, but was there any other three year period that produced as many egregious errors that somehow passed quality control? I suspect there was no other time when the mint was so busy, but these varieties are not hard to find "dots" or misplaced jewels. They are are obvious, well maybe not the 66 small beads. I don't know the quanties of the 65 errors. If low, one might speculate that it was a dry run for later efforts. Priebe might have kept the small bead die for the 1966 small beads or as John suggests it was an old die that just happened to get used with 1966 reverse. Interesting that the 1966 small beads was a circulation coin and not a proof coin, so it really was a one off. J.E. Charleton first reports the '66 large bead coins in his column Coin Corner on March 18, 1966 in the Calgary Herald. In March he is not aware of the '66 small beads, but has noticed the proof and circulation '66s all have large beads and asks the mint if the small beads will return? "Delivery on the Canadian 1966 proof-like sets from the mint is four to six weeks from receipt of orders, which is a big improvement over a year ago It is also gratifying to note the absence of wild speculation as occurred with these sets early in 1965. It is interesting to note that the dollar in these early sets has the large beads, and the regular issue silver dollar also has the large beads on the obverse. This naturally raises the question as to whether or not later issues will have the small beads. I checked with an official of the Mint and was informed that, according to present plans, no change will be made in the dies for this year's dollar apart from those now being used. It was explained that an unusual amount of trouble encountered with the dies last year resulted in the various varieties. There are now five known varieties of the 1965 silver dollar. Latest discovery is one similar to Type 4 except there is a different relationship in the lettering and beads on the obverse. A characteristic of the letter "A" in Regina on the large bead variety is that a line extended along its right side will pass directly through the bead In the new variety, this line passes between the beads: in the small bead variety it barely touches the left side of the bead." So the medium beads '65 is discovered by March 1966 and the mint has no intention of using the small beads in 1966 or ever. Howver by Oct 15 1966 on pg 79 of the Calgary Herald Charleton says in Coin Corner that some months earlier (Summer 1966?) 200 '66 small bead coins were bought from the mint by a dealer who wanted to sit on them until they were worth a lot more. Charleton says: "Another discovery of interest to collectors is the 1966 silver dollar With small obverse beads. The existence of this variety has been known for some months but it has not been publicized. The reason was the owner of the 200 pieces was not anxious to sell, hoping for a higher price." Was this an innocent dealer set up to discover a new variety or was he in on it or did he just get lucky? Anyway if Hoffman was involved, Hoffman must have had some himself to make a profit. Lastly J.E. Charlton in Coin Corner (Ottawa Journal, May 4, 1968) first reprts the Diving Goose as a "slight" die rotation. According to a listing on EBay: [URL]https://www.ebay.ca/itm/1967-1-DOLLAR-ELIZABETH-II-CANADA-PL-64-DIVING-TILTED-GOOSE-COIN-MINT-ERROR/254734672583?hash=item3b4f5ea2c7:g:Hh0AAOSwIU1fdPlk[/URL] [IMG]https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/xVEAAOSwrhBfdRpf/s-l400.jpg[/IMG] Charleton says you could get a diving goose for $50. By November another article reported that they were now $65. and a pair, normal and diving, could be had for $97.50. I don't know the construction of the press they used but geese diving at all sorts of angles sounds like the die just rattled around in the press? My lack of knowlege of mint produced die rotations in Canadian coins leads me to believe that the die axes must be set and are mechanical fixed in postion so they can't rotate. Perhaps a sleepy pressman thought he was tightening the die when he was loosening or rotaing it? Was the same sleepy pressman setting the die so the goose was horizontal and accidently created the inverted goose? I don't know. I'll keep looking. [URL='https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=61631324&fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjQ4MTIyMTQxOSwiaWF0IjoxNjAzNDE3MjAxLCJleHAiOjE2MDM1MDM2MDF9.u6g9vfbzW-hvj_RG7Y0LDUxF8td5NJsk4lYmr1OMj_g'][IMG]https://img.newspapers.com/img/thumbnail/481221419/250/0/0_0_5025_6736/0/yes/491_3820_1382_1423.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [LIST] [*]CLIPPED FROM [/LIST] [URL='https://www.newspapers.com/paper/calgary-herald/8803/']Calgary Herald Calgary, Alberta, Canada[/URL] 18 Mar 1966, Fri • Page 63[/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Error Coins
>
The gang at the Mint 1966-7?
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...
