So, uh...I found this Ike...

Post Reply
User avatar
1872Hokie
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 10:04 am
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: So, uh...I found this Ike...

Post by 1872Hokie »

Lee, based on the pictures, and I could be wrong, that looks like a Type 2 Rev. Anyone else seeing that? I'm going off of the shape of FL since it is the most visable detail.
Back to the Hunt...
-Bryan

User avatar
19Lyds
Posts: 1153
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:06 pm
Contact:

Re: So, uh...I found this Ike...

Post by 19Lyds »

1872Hokie wrote:Lee, based on the pictures, and I could be wrong, that looks like a Type 2 Rev. Anyone else seeing that? I'm going off of the shape of FL since it is the most visable detail.
Definitely a Type 2 Reverse.
I cannot and will not be held responsible for my typing errors as it appears that there is a bug in the keyboard!
........I've tried on numberous occasions to fix the problme but it just keeps coming back agin and again! -L. Lydston 2008

HerbHicks
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 4:46 pm
Contact:

Re: So, uh...I found this Ike...

Post by HerbHicks »

I disagree. I have a poor track record working from pictures, but I don't think it is a type 2. I see no incuse touchup and I think the picture quality is enough that it should show it, if it were there.

It looks like a high relief reverse with no touchup at all, perhaps an ancestor of type 2.

There is further discussion of Andy's find in the latter postings on this thread on the PCGS forum:

http://forums.collectors.com/messagevie ... did=619594

User avatar
1872Hokie
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 10:04 am
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: So, uh...I found this Ike...

Post by 1872Hokie »

Could it be the original Type two and everything we've seen from that point forward has been adjusted/touched up/incused?
But we're getting off track, and should probably refocus on the Nixon Presentation Ike that this thread is in reference to.

Who wants to wager that another one of these Nixon Boxes showes up within the next several weeks? Sometimes it takes a little exposure for people to realize what they really have.
Last edited by 1872Hokie on Sat Mar 09, 2013 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Back to the Hunt...
-Bryan

BrianVaile
Global Moderater
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:14 pm
Contact:

Re: So, uh...I found this Ike...

Post by BrianVaile »

I agree with Herb.
I don't think it's the Type 2 reverse as we know it. I've learned a lot from Herb over the years and have a ton of respect for what he says, so I took a real long (and blown-up) look at the picture provided and came up with these conclusions that support Herb conclusion (and now mine).

1. Florida is too "Straight up and down" and points the wrong way. In the 1971-S Type 2 reverse, Florida points to the very end tip of the Eagle's beak. The one in the picture appears to point to an area fairly well in front of, the Eagle's beak.

2. Florida is way too skinnyy. In the Type 2 it should be much fatter with a tornado-like appearance, being much fatter from the midpoint on up than I am seeing here.

3. Gulf Mexico appears to be more "roundish", like the FEV compared to the Type 2.

4. The outer banks appear more "nobbish" (like the FEV) than just the slight "roundish" protrusion (like the Type 2).

5. What faint islands are visible off the reflection are a little north of where the end of the Type 2 islands should be slanting.

Mind you, it IS just a picture on paper being transmitted over the internet. Would be a lot better to have one in hand. Make it even more difficult than the lighting seems to be coming at a slight angle, instead of from straight above or from a "Surround", round light.

But to me, it doesn't look like a match for the Type 2 Reverse. I think I've seen enough Type 2's to realize "something doesn't look right here" and I KNOW Herb has seen enough as well (hell, he's the one who discovered them!) If it don't look quite right to him, and it don't look quite right to me. Then, I'm not going to come out and just flat out declare that it is:
Definitely a Type 2 Reverse.
There might be those that disagree in some shape or form with my observations, but I am not going to get in a dispute or debate with them. They (my observations) are what they are...and I'm in Herb's corner that the coin pictured that was presented to Amon Carter isn't the Type 2 Reverse as we know it.

Happy Hunting!
Brian

User avatar
1872Hokie
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 10:04 am
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: So, uh...I found this Ike...

Post by 1872Hokie »

Very good points Brian. I wonder if the image used in the paper print could even be a stock photo of maybe a prototype coin since there is no context to them being images of the actual coin presented.
Back to the Hunt...
-Bryan

User avatar
robEzerman
Posts: 849
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:26 pm
Contact:

Re: So, uh...I found this Ike...

Post by robEzerman »

I also agree with Herb and with Brian, point by point.

If we could confirm, we'd have proof that the Mint dipped into their trial pieces/patterns for examples to pass along to politically important people.

Rob
Now is the time to cherry Ikes. Lots of fruit still on the trees but don't wait too long. Rob Ezerman

SteveP
Global Moderater
Posts: 1671
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:20 pm
Contact:

Re: So, uh...I found this Ike...

Post by SteveP »

Bad sluthing on my part. A re-read of July 27 in the Nixon Daily calendar has the presentation listed plain as day. The event was between 11:03 and 12:03:
"The President and former First Lady Mamie
Eisenhower received
silver proof coins of the Eisenhower silver dollar in
ceremonies with: John B. Connally, Secretary of the Treasury Mary Brooks, Director of the Mint Members of the press, in/out
"

I would guess that the Nixon box was part of the presentation, and that it was produced in the weeks prior. Since the Nixon box appears to be from the same manufacturer/producer of the regular mint brown boxes, that could be a lead. Does anyone know what company produced those for the mint? If they are still in business, perhaps their July 1971 records might list how many of the Nixon boxes were produced?
Steve Palladino

User avatar
robEzerman
Posts: 849
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:26 pm
Contact:

Re: So, uh...I found this Ike...

Post by robEzerman »

SteveP, heck of a suggestion! And thanks for coming up with what now seems the most likely Presentation date (July 27, 1971).

May I quote from the 1971 '71-S Ike Proof minting dates as reported by the Mint and published as Chapter 38 of our book?
June - 0
July - 0
Aug - 0
Sept - 2,180
Oct - 0
Nov - 0
Dec - 1,219,990

We have no record of any specifics of the Proof Ikes the Mint produced in September. I speculated that perhaps 2,180 expendable test strikes were gathered to satisfy the need for publicity and patronage handouts, perhaps accounting for the Lydston and Chatham Prototypes that take up so many pages in Chapter 34 (guys, you really do need to have this book).

Unqustionably, however, a July handout would have been way out in front of any meaningful Ike Proof production.

The Mint's Ike die records (reproduced in Chapter 36) provide clear evidence that the high relief designs, both obverse and reverse, were well underway back in early 1971: the low relief reverse design seems to be late to the ball, however, with its master hubs and master dies being created in mid-June, just in time for Denver's July 71-D production (after an initial week or 10 days of using the FEV reverse dies).
Bottom line is THE most chaotic time at the Philly Mint would have been in June with the scramble to arrive at an acceptable low relief reverse design and to get the dies ready for production ASAP (wound up being mid-July). Perhaps this chaos makes more likely the "accidental" explanation for Andy's mule?

Rob
Now is the time to cherry Ikes. Lots of fruit still on the trees but don't wait too long. Rob Ezerman

SteveP
Global Moderater
Posts: 1671
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:20 pm
Contact:

Re: So, uh...I found this Ike...

Post by SteveP »

robEzerman wrote:SteveP, heck of a suggestion! And thanks for coming up with what now seems the most likely Presentation date (July 27, 1971).

May I quote from the 1971 '71-S Ike Proof minting dates as reported by the Mint and published as Chapter 38 of our book?
June - 0
July - 0
Aug - 0
Sept - 2,180
Oct - 0
Nov - 0
Dec - 1,219,990

We have no record of any specifics of the Proof Ikes the Mint produced in September. I speculated that perhaps 2,180 expendable test strikes were gathered to satisfy the need for publicity and patronage handouts, perhaps accounting for the Lydston and Chatham Prototypes that take up so many pages in Chapter 34 (guys, you really do need to have this book).

Unqustionably, however, a July handout would have been way out in front of any meaningful Ike Proof production.

The Mint's Ike die records (reproduced in Chapter 36) provide clear evidence that the high relief designs, both obverse and reverse, were well underway back in early 1971: the low relief reverse design seems to be late to the ball, however, with its master hubs and master dies being created in mid-June, just in time for Denver's July 71-D production (after an initial week or 10 days of using the FEV reverse dies).
Bottom line is THE most chaotic time at the Philly Mint would have been in June with the scramble to arrive at an acceptable low relief reverse design and to get the dies ready for production ASAP (wound up being mid-July). Perhaps this chaos makes more likely the "accidental" explanation for Andy's mule?

Rob
Hypothesis 1: purely accidental / random. Out of the early-Ike chaos, someone accidentally / unknowingly pulls a low relief reverse die and polishes it up for production of some test and/or presentation pieces.
Hypothesis 2: not so accidental. Out of the early-Ike chaos, there is some issue in producing a "presentable" proof for President Nixon's ceremony using a high relief reverse, so a low relief reverse is polished up as a surrogate specifically for early presentation pieces.
Hypothesis 3: fully intentional. A can't fathom how this would hold water, since high relief dies were in hand at the mint in July.
Other hypotheses?
Steve Palladino

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest