Here we go again… the government want to take your ancient coins away from you.
This is different from other conspiracy theories because since there is no mechanism for them. Here, foreign governments are working in collusion with the United States Department of State Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC). The problem with CPAC is that it is not a real committee. They are largely a rubber-stamp part of the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs kowtowing to any foreign government who feels that items found in their country have been stolen from regardless of the evidence. This includes common ancient coins or coins that were removed from circulation long before the existence of the 1970 UNESCO Convention that created this situation.
If you want to read a more extensive discussion on the problems facing collectors of ancient coins, read my post “An ancient dilemma” from 2014.
The information comes from the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG). Even if you are not a collector of ancient coins you should appreciate that the problems with governments wanting to stop your hobby. If they go after the ancients, what is to prevent these countries from trying to recall obsolete money? We need to support the ACCG and the community to prevent overreach by foreign governments and a committee who does not care what the coin collectors think.
Here’s the current issue as outlined by ACCG Executive Director Peter Tompa
The U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee will review these comments and make recommendations based upon them with regard to any extension of the current agreement with Cyprus.
According to U.S. Customs’ interpretation of the governing statute, import restrictions authorized by this MOU currently bar entry into the United States of the following coin types unless they are accompanied with documentation establishing that they were out of Cyprus as of the date of the restrictions, July 16, 2007:
1. Issues of the ancient kingdoms of Amathus, Kition, Kourion, Idalion, Lapethos, Marion, Paphos, Soli, and Salamis dating from the end of the 6th century B.C. to 332 B.C.
2. Issues of the Hellenistic period, such as those of Paphos, Salamis, and Kition from 332 B.C. to c. 30 B.C. (including coins of Alexander the Great, Ptolemy, and his Dynasty)
3. Provincial and local issues of the Roman period from c. 30 B.C. to 235 A.D.
You may ask, why bother to comment—when Jay Kislak, CPAC’s Chairman at the time, has stated that the State Department rejected CPAC’s recommendations against import restrictions on Cypriot coins back in 2007 and then misled both Congress and the public about its actions? And isn’t it also true that although the vast majority of public comments recorded have been squarely against import restrictions, the State Department and U.S. Customs have imposed import restrictions on coins anyway, most recently on ancient coins from Bulgaria?
Simply because, our silence allows the State Department bureaucrats and their allies in the archaeological establishment to claim that collectors have acquiesced to broad restrictions on their ability to import common ancient coins that are widely available worldwide. And, of course, acquiescence is all that may be needed to justify going back and imposing import restrictions on more recent coins that are still exempt from these regulations.
Under the circumstances, please take 5 minutes and tell CPAC, the State Department bureaucrats and the archaeologists what you think.
How do I comment? Go to https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/08/10/2016-19018/notice-of-meeting-of-the-cultural-property-advisory-committee to submit short comment just click on the green box on the upper right hand side of the above notice that says “submit a formal comment” and follow their directions.
If you are having trouble, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov), and enter Docket No. DOS-2016-0054 for Cyprus, and follow the prompts to submit comments. What should I say? The State Department bureaucracy has dictated that any public comments should relate solely to the following statutory criteria:
Whether the cultural patrimony of Cyprus is in jeopardy from looting of its archaeological materials;
Whether Cyprus has taken measures consistent with the 1970 UNESCO Convention to protect its cultural patrimony;
Whether application of U.S. import restrictions, if applied in concert with similar restrictions by other art importing countries, would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage and that less drastic remedies are not available;and,
Whether the application of import restrictions is consistent with the general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes.
(See 19 U.S.C. § 2602 (a).) Yet, collectors can really only speak to what they know. So, tell them what you think within this broad framework. For instance, over time, import restrictions will certainly impact the American public’s ability to study and preserve historical coins and maintain people to people contacts with collectors abroad. (These particular restrictions have hurt the ability of Cypriot Americans to collect ancient coins of their own culture.) Yet, foreign collectors—including collectors in Cyprus—will be able to import coins as before. And, one can also remind CPAC that less drastic remedies, like regulating metal detectors or instituting reporting programs akin to the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme, must be tried first. Finally, Cyprus is a member of the European Union, so why not allow legal exports of Cypriot coins from other EU countries?
Be forceful, but polite. We can and should disagree with what the State Department bureaucrats and their allies in the archaeological establishment are doing to our hobby, but we should endeavor to do so in an upstanding manner. Please submit comment just once, before the deadline on September 30, 2016.
Thank you for your help,
Peter,
Peter K. Tompa,
Executive Director
Ancient Coin Collectors Guild
A reader who found the Coin Collectors Blog through a search came across the two-part series I wrote in 2012 about “How Are Coins Priced” (links to Part I and Part II). After asking a few questions this new reader asked me about the section about Negotiating in Part II.
My principles of negotiating are to be nice, do your homework, know when to stop and always be gracious. Although some of us consider negotiating a sport, there is no reason to be nasty. Always say “please” and “thank you” even if you did not buy the coin. Thank that dealer for taking the time to talk with you. Good will can go a long way!
As a new collector, this reader visited a few regional shows before going to the World’s Fair of Money. Thinking that as a big show there might be some good finds and can jumpstart an interesting collection. While this was not my reader’s first large show, it was the first time the family visited the World’s Fair of Money. It was also an excuse to go visit Mickey’s first theme park.
With his permission I am reprinting his note. I removed the section that described the dealer and his inventory:
My family and I went to Anaheim for the World’s Fair of Money. As we searched the tables looking for something of everyone’s interest we came across a table with books of coins. While I have seen notebooks like this with pages full of coins this was the first time we have seen so many. Each of us sat at the dealer’s table and started to look through the books.
My son is interested in Middle Eastern coins because my family emigrated from the Middle East after World War II. My daughter is fascinated by Queen Elizabeth and want to try to collect different coins with her picture. My wife’s family is from Japan and she has been picking up some older Japanese coins. As for me, I decided to try to complete a set of quarters after collecting the states quarters.
We are collectors. We are not putting the kids in front of the books to keep them occupied. At one point my son, who is trying to learn Arabic, was asking me what a few coins said and picked out a small handful for his collection. Nobody else found anything they liked.
We finished five minutes later and went to pay. My son has his own money and asked the dealer for the price. If we go by the numbers written on the coins, the price was $42. While that does not sound like much it is for a kid whose job is to cut grass and do odd jobs around the neighborhood. No discount was offered.
Standing next to my son I asked if he could do better on the price and that’s where the trouble began. He turned to me and said, “For what, hogging my table?” I was taken aback! Not only were we really looking to buy but my son was buying. As a matter of fact when my wife did not see anything she like she gave up her chair to another collector passing by.
I sort of stammered something about that we are all collectors and were looking but did not find anything and he said, then he said something like, “Then you should have gone somewhere else!” He was very rough.
I asked my son what he wanted to do. It was his collection and his money. With nobody else around this dealer’s table he blurts out, “yeah, kid, I don’t have time for this. Give me 40 and go away.”
I could see that my son was conflicted. While he wanted the coins he did not like the dealer. He then dropped his head and said in a soft voice, “No Thank you.” Although he looked like he wanted to cry the dealer responded, “great, now I have to figure out what book to put these coins in.” My son reached over and tapped the book and walked away.
I have never been embarrassed for my son like this. Why would a dealer treat a child or a customer like this?
I had no answers for these parents. Even though I do not deal with coins, when I do shows I try to treat everyone with courtesy, even when I can tell they have no intention of buying from my inventory.
When I am working shows, as I will be this weekend, days can be long and difficult. You have to be attentive to everything around you not just to complete the sale but to also prevent theft. Even on the slowest day, it does not pay to get nasty with a customer or potential customer.
This is not the first time I have heard stories like this and based on this reader’s description, it is not the first time I have heard this type of story about the dealer. I know for some it is just a job and like many jobs, after a while there are aspects that can be frustrating.
But this is a job that is about customer service for a product people do not have to buy. Coin collecting is a luxury, not a necessity. Even if you are frustrated, showing it to customers will give you a reputation and hurt business. Then what will you do when the customers do not show up?
There comes a point in time when you have to ask yourself whether it is worth the investment in time, money, and your sanity to continue or would it be better to just retire? Unfortunately, when it comes to some of the very long-time numismatic dealers who attend some of these major shows, there are too many that should consider retirement.
Over the last few years there have been many numismatic writers who have taken to their keyboards to complain about the state of coins grading. Aside from your intrepid blogger there was a series of articles that appeared in Coin World by Q. David Bowers. In his articles, Bowers notes that even though the American Numismatic Association grading standards have not changed in quite some time, coins in older holders usually are graded higher today than they were when originally graded.
One area where this is hurting the hobby is when trying to buy coins using online auctions. In a less than scientific study, I have noticed that while looking for a specific coin that coin once graded by the Professional Coin Grading Service in their old green holders (OGH) tend to sell at a price half-way to what it would be if it was the next grade higher. Coins in older Numismatic Guarantee Corporation holders sell close to a similar price.
It is not known how many coins are cracked out of their holders and submitted to the grading services are submitted as raw coins. Most of these “crack out artists” do not turn in the labels for the grading services to adjust their population reports. Some coins could be counted several times by all of the major grading services while collectors fish for better grades.
Part of the problem is with the concept called market grading. Rather than looking at the coin and determine the technical state of preservation, the grading services take that grade and try to rank it within the market of similar coins. In the mean time, they participate in forums that teach technical grading without explaining market grading.
Could there be a better way? On the CDN Publishing Blog is a post by Rick Snow suggesting a different type of grading system based on a 15-point technical scale. Coins would be graded on a 0-5 scale for the condition of the planchet, state of the die as struck, and the strike. In this notation there would be no “Full Bands,” “Full Head,” or similar designations. Those coins would receive a strike score of 5. If that Jefferson nickel does not show all six steps, then the strike would be a 4. A final column would be a color designator with either a percentage of color loss from the original strike or RD (red), RB (red-brown), or BN (brown) for copper coins.
Rather than seeing a grade like XF, AU, or MS and trying to figure out why the coin received the grade, a coin would receive a grade like:
“Adjectival grade” (“Qualifier”: “Factor for Planchet”, “Factor for Die”, “Factor for Strike”, “Color Designation”).
As an example: Gem AU (13: 4, 4, 5, 10%)
The “Qualifier” would be the sum of the factors for the planchet, die, and strike.
It is an interesting idea especially for the current bullion coins. Honestly, can anyone really tell the difference between an American Silver Eagle graded MS69 versus one graded MS70? Yet, just because a grading service can allegedly tell the difference, there could be a two-to-three times difference in the price. However, I wonder if those coins were cracked out of their holders and resubmitted would they maintain their grades?
Could you tell the difference if they were not in the holders?
2016 American Silver Eagle graded MS-69 by NGC
2016 American Silver Eagle graded MS-70 by NGC
Although the grading services claim that they are doing what is best for the hobby, they are for-profit corporations that has to satisfy a market that seems to be more interested in the plastic and the label than the coin it holds. Even these verification services are for-profit corporations that has owners and investors to answer to. One is even into “market making” by doing arbitrage-like trading of its own stickered coins. This type of market making questions their independence because it appears that they are using their influence to drive up the price of those coins.
Would this type of grading be better for the hobby by providing the collector with more information? Is there an alternative that would fix the current system? Or is the current system just fine? Read the article on the CDN Publishing Blog and leave comments there and/or here!
The U.S. Mintannounced that they will hold a one-day forum to “share perspectives on the past, present, and future of the numismatic hobby.” It is part of their preparation for the U.S. Mint’s 225th anniversary in 2017. The agenda will be the future of the Mint and the numismatic environment as a whole.
“It seems only appropriate that, while we as a bureau are celebrating our history, the Mint is also looking for ways to improve the way we engage our customers and invigorate our relevance into the future,” said United States Mint Principal Deputy Director Rhett Jeppson.
It will be interesting to hear the discussion and to observe the outcome of this forum because of the limited things the U.S. Mint can do without an act of congress. Although the U.S. Mint can create medals without an act of congress many of the medals they produce are required by law such as the duplicates of the awards to congressional gold medal recipients. As for legal tender coins, most of what the U.S. Mint does is governed by legislation. Although there is some leeway in areas like special finishes for proof and other non-circulating legal tender (NCLT) coins, what the U.S. Mint is allowed to produce is governed by law (see 31 U.S. Code §5112).
One area that they U.S. Mint has had a lot of freedom is the with the 24-karat gold special issue coins. As part of the bill that created the Presidential $1 Coins, there was a section (31 U.S. Code §5112(q))) that allowed the U.S. Mint to string $50 gold bullion coins of .9999 purity (24-karat). The law says that only the first issue must resemble the 1913 Type 1 Buffalo Nickel. Subsequent designs are at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury with designs reviewed by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee and the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts.
Subsequently, the U.S. Mint used this law to issue the 2009 Saint-Gaudens Ultra High Relief Gold Coin, 2014 Kennedy Half Dollar 50th Anniversary Gold Coin, 2015 American Liberty High Relief Gold Coin, and the 2016 Centennial Gold Coins. Even though the coins are popular and their low mintage does help generate interest, these coins are not affordable to the ordinary collector.
One way to make these available to the average collector is to strike a version as a medal, similar to the First Spouse medals that resemble their gold counterparts without a denomination. First Spouse medals are struck on the same planchet as the modern dollar coins.
The U.S. Mint does not have the freedom other world mints have. It is highly regulated by a congress with a parochial view on its constitutional obligation to coin money (Article I, Section 8). Remember, the U.S. Constitution says that “The Congress shall have Power… To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,” not micro-manage the process.
From a collector’s perspective, I am not sure what the U.S. Mint can do. They can take notes and recommendations from this forum and ask congress to make changes. However, given the behavior of the members of congress does anyone really think that they will craft any reasonable legislation?
Shortly after the press release landed in my Inbox I responded to the U.S. Mint expressing my interest in attending.
Those interested in attending should submit requests to USMintNumismaticForum@usmint.treas.gov by no later than Sept. 15, 2016. Individual requests to attend should include the person’s affiliation (e.g., hobbyist, coin dealer, coin grader, etc.). Seating is limited and submitting a request does not guarantee admission. Attendance will be at the cost of the participant. Detailed information will be provided to confirmed attendees. For those unable to attend or who do not receive an invitation, any formal presentations made by the Mint during the forum will be made available online as soon as practicable after the event.
At the beginning of each month, I review the previous month’s activity in congress looking for numismatic nuggets that we hope will bring us new coins to collect. However, congress has been on their summer vacation since mid-July, right before the conventions.
There are two ways of looking at congress being away for at least seven weeks: they get how much vacation while the rest of us have to work? At least they aren’t doing anything to mess things up further.
If congress sticks to their own law of two commemorative programs per year, the next available year is 2019. Although most commemorative programs are fund raising programs, let’s have one that has some meaning. Maybe at some point, in between budget battles, congress will pass Apollo 11 50th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act.
The Apollo space program has to be one of the greatest accomplishments this nation has made at least in the 20th century. We were challenged by President Kennedy to make it to the moon and to return the astronauts safely back to earth. And in 1969, after getting beat at every milestone into space, Apollo 11 landed on the moon and safely returned their three astronaut payload to Earth before the Soviet Union could do so.
Apollo 11 was one of the most impactful memories of my youth, especially for that year. It only rivals rushing home from school (we had to walk in those days but I think I ran that day) to watch the last out of the 1969 World Series to begin that celebration!
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) introduced the bill in the Senate on May 19, 2016 (S. 2957) and Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) introduced the same bill in the House of Representatives on June 10, 2016 (H.R. 2726). Both bills have been referred to committee.
If congress passes either of these bills, it would create the following commemorative program:
Commemorative program issued in 2014
Required design elements:
Convex in shape “to more closely resemble the faceplate of the astronaut’s helmet of the time”
“The Secretary shall hold a juried, compensated competition to determine the design of the common obverse of the coins minted under this Act, with such design being emblematic of the United States space program leading up to the first manned Moon landing.”
Winning designer to receive no less than $5,000 for their design.
Common reverse design “shall be a representation of a close-up of the famous ‘Buzz Aldrin on the Moon’ photograph taken July 20, 1969, showing just the visor and part of the helmet of astronaut Edwin ‘Buzz’ Aldrin, in which the visor reflects the image of the United States flag, astronaut Neil Armstrong, and the lunar lander.”
Considering how times have changed and we seem to have a different look on the space program, it would be wonderful to honor this achievement to remind everyone of the accomplishment.
Yesterday I wrote about the announcement that the fifth edition of A Guide Book of Morgan Silver Dollars by Q. David Bowers will include evidence that a 1964 Morgan Dollar exists or has existed. As part of their press release, they sent out an image of the cover with the coin. I questioned whether this is real given that their image appears to be of a circulated coin.
After the story posted I have heard from a few readers in private email (I wish you would post it to the page for everyone to read) strongly on one side or another. One person asked why I question the well-respected Q. David Bowers. I responded that just because he is respected does not mean he is not fallible. Bowers is still human and can make mistakes. Besides, we do not learn about our world if questions are not asked.
To add to the suspicion, if you look at the image carefully, there appears to be doubling in the portrait. Look at the left side of Liberty’s face in the image of the 1964 coin and see the doubled image. There is also doubling over Liberty’s throat. Compare it to a known mint state Morgan Dollar and the questions mount.
Image of the alleged 1964 Morgan Dollar from the cover of A Guide Book to Morgan Silver Dollars 5th Ed. by Q. David Bowers
You decide! Click on the images to enlarge and use the slideshow controls to examine both coins. Do you see the doubling? Do you see the wearing? What do you think?
Do you think the report of the existence a 1964 Morgan Dollar is real?
No, it's a fish story to sell books. (40%, 10 Votes)
Maybe but I am just not sure. (24%, 6 Votes)
Let's wait and see when the book is released. (24%, 6 Votes)
Given the source of the information it has to be real. (12%, 3 Votes)
That explosion you might have heard was the collective minds of the numismatic community when it was revealed that a 1964 Morgan Dollar exists, or at least once existed.
The press release issued by Whitman Publishing for the new fifth edition of A Guide Book of Morgan Silver Dollars, by Q. David Bowers, that included the following paragraph:
The pricing, text, and certified population data in the fifth edition have been edited and updated. New research covers counterfeit error coins and other topics, including a numismatic bombshell: recent discoveries and photographs revealing the previously unknown 1964 Morgan silver dollar. (emphasis added)
Whitman included an image of the cover as part of its promotion of the book and features this coin. Its grey matte appearance with some flatness on Liberty’s face gives the appearance of a circulated coin.
No other information has been provided.
Close-up of the alleged 1964 Morgan Dollar from the cover of A Guide Book to Morgan Silver Dollars 5th Ed. by Q. David Bowers
Without seeing the evidence that is published in the book, the condition of the coin can lead one to question its authenticity. If the coin was a trial or experimental strike that coincides with the striking of the 1964 Peace Dollar, then should the coin appear uncirculated?
We will find out on September 27, 2017 when the book is scheduled to be released to retail outlets (or preorder on Whitman’s website). Until then, we are left to wonder if this is legitimate or a great fish story to sell books?
During the busy week, I will empty my pocket of change and place it on my dresser. When it gets too piled up I will see if there is anything worth a further look before dumping them into a nearby container. After a year, the container is emptied and the proceeds go to charity. But that is after I search for anything interesting.
When I pay by cash, I pay using currency and pocket all of the change so that I can see what I find. Most of the time I am able to pick out items that require further examination when the change is handed to me. Those coins are put in another pocket for later. This week there was little time. Projects have to be completed and it is almost time for football season. No time to waste.
After four days, I did not think there would be much until the single layer started to grow higher. It was time to scoop them into my jar when I started to nice that a nickel did not look right on first glance. It looked worn but it was a nickel. After looking closer the date said 1902. It is a fairly beaten up 1902 Liberty Head “V” Nickel with scratches and what looks like was once graffiti scratched into the reverse. This coin is so bad off that I do not think the third-party grading services would encapsulate it even for a low-grade registry set!
1902 Liberty Head V Nickel from a pocket change find
1902 Liberty Head V Nickel (reverse) from a pocket change find
This nickel might be the oldest coin I have found in circulation that wasn’t copper.
My next find was interesting because I figured it out before looking closely. Of all the Jefferson nickels, the easiest ones to pick out are the wartime silver nickels. Wartime nickels have a different colored toning than the regular copper-nickel alloy. These coins do not contain any nickel. They are made of .350 silver, .560 copper, and .090 manganese. Without the nickel to keep some semblance of shine the wartime nickels will tone to a distinctive dark silvery gray. If graded G-4 the coin is worth about $1.20 which is not bad considering its silver value is $1.04!
A 1942-P Jefferson Wartime Nickel from a pocket change find
Reverse of 1942-P Jefferson Wartime Nickel from a pocket change find
The final find was also easy to identify even before a more careful look. Peaking out from under another coin was the clear sign of an acid date Buffalo nickel. An acid date Buffalo nickel is a coin that had its date restored using a chemical acid, although in this case it looks like the date was worn down after the acid treatment. The distinctive mark left by the chemical can be seen even though the date has worn away again.
A dateless Buffalo Nickel with acid stain from a pocket change find
Reverse of dateless Buffalo Nickel from a pocket change find
Other than the nickels I continue to find wheat-back cents. I seem to average one per week. This past week I found four with the oldest being a fairly common 1919 cent that looks like it has been well used and cleaned.
A 1919 Lincoln Cent from a pocket change find
A 1919 Lincoln Cent (reverse) from a pocket change find
One of the ten 1933 Saint-Gaudens $20 Double Eagle gold coins from the Longbord Hoard confiscated by the U.S. Mint
Earlier this months the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the procedural appeal that the ten 1933 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle gold coins did not have to be returned to the Langbord family.
This is a case that has been ongoing for ten years following the “discovery” of ten 1933 Saint-Gaudens $20 gold Double Eagle coins by Joan Langbord, the daughter of Philadelphia jeweler Israel Switt. Following the auction in 2002 of the only legal Double Eagle for a single coin record of $7,590,020 (since broken), Langbord claims that she found ten 1933 Double Eagles in a safe deposit box where Switt stored the coins.
Reverse of the iconic 1933 Saint Gaudens $20 Double Eagle gold coin
After adding her sons Roy and David as plaintiffs to protect the property since Joan is elderly, the case is finally heard in July 2011. The court handed down an unanimous decision against the Langbords. The coins are moved to the United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox, Kentucky.
Langbords appeal the trail to the Third Circuit where a three-judge panel vacated the forfeiture and order the government to return the coins.
The government appeals and asks that the return order be vacated in order to appeal the decision. Rather, the Chief Judge of the Third Circuit will stay the order and ruled that the appeal will be en banc, meaning that the appeal will be heard before the entire bench of judges.
In this round the government did not file in the proper time-frame and the Longboards appealed all rulings. The Third Circuit order the return of the coins but the government appealed the ruling again.
On August 1, 2016, in a 9-3 vote, a full Third Circuit panel of judges ruled that they agreed with the government who argued that forfeiture laws were not applicable because the coins were already U.S. property and could only be surrendered. The majority also ruled against granting a new trial noting that the errors of the 2011 trial were harmless even though a previous three-judge panel ruled differently.
In writing the dissenting opinion, Judge Majorie Rendell said that the majority based its opinion “mainly on its buy-in to the Government’s audacity—the Government’s say—so that it owned the 1933 Double Eagles and had no intention of forfeiting them.” She noted that the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act was designed to prevent the government from forcefully seizing civilian property and that the ruling sets an “incorrect and dangerous precedent.”
A part of the government’s argument that is disturbing is that the they claim the Langbords are “the family of a thief” and should not benefit. Switt was never charged or convicted of a crime. While there is significant circumstantial evidence that Switt was the private seller of the coins and probably worked with the Mint’s cashier, his role has not been legally proven in any of the cases regarding any of the Double Eagle coins. Although this sounds like a legal arm-twist, it is important not only for this case but for any possible case the government can levy against any citizen. It is not right, fair, or legal and a violation of rights.
Berk told Reuters, “The Langbord family fully intends to seek review by the Supreme Court of the important issue of the unbridled power of the government to take and keep a citizen’s property.”
It is likely that the case will be filed to the U.S. Supreme Court for hearing in its next session beginning in October. Hopefully by then a ninth justice will be seated before hearing this case.
Catching up with the numismatic news from the last few weeks, I saw a note that Professional Coin Grading Service is offering a bounty of $10,000 each to view and grade five of the very rarest coins. PCGS will grade the coins and return them to their owner along with the $10,000 reward.
It started with the 1964-D Peace Dollar, a coin that was struck but never put into circulation and allegedly destroyed. PCGS, along with many others, believes that not every 1964-D Peace dollar was destroyed. The reward was offered in hopes that it would give someone the incentive to bring the coin out of hiding. However, given the current status of the 1933 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagles and the recent confiscation of the 1974-D Aluminum Lincoln cent, $10,000 is not a big enough incentive to risk losing this coin.
Earlier this month, PCGS announced the addition of four coins to their reward list. These four coins are as follows:
1873-S Seated Dollar: It was reported that 700 were minted but none have ever been seen. Some think these coins were melted as a result of the Mint Act of February 12, 1873 which ended the series in favor of the Trade Dollar.
1894-S Barber Dime: The U.S. Mint reported that only 24 were struck by only 13 have been discovered. One was found in circulation. This leaves 11 chances to claim a reward, if they still exist.
1841-O $5 Half Eagle: This was one of those coins where the U.S. Mint reported one thing and did another—or they were partying too much in New Orleans. Although they reported striking 8,350 of these coins in 1841, research shows that 8,300 of the coins were dated 1840. Could the other 50 be out there somewhere?
1849 Templeton Reid $25: Only one was ever known and was once part of the U.S. Mint Cabinet Collection. It was stolen in August 1858. Was it melted, as experts believe, or hiding in some unknown treasure trove?
1873 Seated Liberty Dollar – NGC PR62 – because there are no pictures of a real 1873-S dollar (Heritage Auctions)
1841-C Half Eagle — NGC AU55 because there are no images of a real 1841-O coin (Heritage Auctions)
Only 13 1894-S Barber Dimes have been accounted for (PCGS)
1849 Templeton Reid $25 was stolen from U.S. Mint Cabinet Collection (PCGS)
I wonder if there are any other coins that could be added to this list? Comment below if you have a thought.
Here we go again… the government want to take your ancient coins away from you.
At the beginning of each month, I review the previous month’s activity in congress looking for numismatic nuggets that we hope will bring us new coins to collect. However, congress has been on their summer vacation since mid-July, right before the conventions.
Loading ...
