| Author |
Message |
 eagamesExpert Member
Posts: 3013
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
|
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:46 pm |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 KurtSSenior Member
Posts: 875
Joined: 15 Feb 2008
|
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:56 pm |
|
|
Hmm...sorta an odd writeup:
| Quote: |
| This is the finest example of the 1856 S-3 Flying Eagle that I, or any one I've ever shown it to, has ever seen...ANACS is the only grading company that recognizes the coin as a business strike...At first they insisted it had been altered (hence the "cleaned" label) |
Actually Rick Snow's own census lists 7 in MS64-66, and that's not one of them. It looks like Rick Snow bought this from Stack's, got it slabbed by ANACS, and then sold it at a loss for $14,500. I think the best thing would be to sell it back to Rick Snow...there's always a market for the 1856, and he's the best one to get top price, imo.
People say funny things on eBay.  I enjoy reading stuff like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
eagamesExpert Member
Posts: 3013
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
|
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:14 pm |
|
|
Kurt, That makes sense.
I thought all of the 1856 FEs were proofs.
Do you know why they think there are also bus strikes? Is it proven?
I thought the mintage was limited to proofs and the coins were given as samples to the gov people to see if they would accept the "small new cents" (like 1974 aluminum cents) but the gov people kept or spent them.
This made no sense, if at first they thought altered then they changed their decision I doubt they would put cleaned on it.
I'm more likely to think that they think it was cleaned, still it's a nice coin.
| Quote: |
| At first they insisted it had been altered (hence the "cleaned" label) |
_________________
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
|
KurtSSenior Member
Posts: 875
Joined: 15 Feb 2008
|
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:54 pm |
|
|
1856 is a confusing year, probably because it's essentially a pattern coin. According to Rick Snow's Red Book on FEs, there were 1500 proofs struck and 800 "circulation" mintage.
I think the difference has more to do with die preparation than actual use of the coins, since they were struck for presentation purposes. I recall that both proof and "business strike" coins have been found with circulation wear.
I would also be perfectly happy with a cleaned 1856. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
 GarryNExpert Member
Posts: 1296
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Location: Chicago
|
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 2:42 pm |
|
|
Here is the striking sequence for 1856 cents and which are proofs and business strikes. The S9 is far and away the most "common" of the proofs and the S3 the most "common" of the business strikes. When Rick has them for sale, the S3's are more often than not designated Proof on the PCGS or NGC slabs and thus are wrong...
http://indiancent.wikispaces.com/1856
Right now he has two S-3's, one in a PF PCGS slab and the other in an MS PCGS slab.
The last 5 lines on that page discuss why some are proofs and some are business strikes. If someone can interpret, we would all appreciate it. It is a little too technical for me!!  And I agree Kurt, there is no such thing as a bad 1856.
|
|
|
|
|
|
KurtSSenior Member
Posts: 875
Joined: 15 Feb 2008
|
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:15 pm |
|
|
|
That's an fascinating sequence, and if I owned one of those I suppose I'd try to wrap my brain around it. Also interesting to note how some were struck into 1858, and obviously kept separate from the business strike dies of that year. There was a lot of funny business going on during Franklin Peale's tenure at the mint, and we'll probably never know exactly what transpired to produce these later coins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
