Specimen; The Word

It is widely accepted though!

The 66th Edition of the Charlton Catalogue (page 225) lists that specimen sets were present from 1858 through until 1967 (in mirror and/or matte finishes)

... actually, there is a better description in the "Introduction (page xx), which describes that through 1858-2011 there have been six different modifications used by the Mint on specimen coinage:

1858-1881 => a brilliant relief against a brillian background

1902-1938 => a frosted relief against a frosted background

1937-1967 => a brilliant relief against a brilliant background

1968-1995 => a brilliant relief against a brilliant background

1996-2009 => a brilliant relief, frosted legends and dates against a lined background

2010-2011 => a brilliant relief, frosted legends and dates against a laser lined background

=> clear as mud?

I find the "convictions of convenience" by some within the hobby to be no-less puzzling than that which does occur within other aspects of social endeavors...

Not only do some utilize the word "specimen" to describe the "quality-of-finish" before its rightful place in time ... we the hobbyist are also being led-to-believe that uncirculated coin sets exist in years other-than what is reported-to-be...

Adopting a word to further describe, when other words already exist is one-thing ... creatively-writing a whole-history for that word, is another matter...

dts...

The one that fits the agenda Zonad.

I am tired of this dot obsession.

The Mint Reports do not mention sets-of-coins for the years of 1939 through to 1957...

If there are sets around for these years, they were most-likely put together with cherry-picked coins and done so outside of Mint control...

Words like "Proof", "Specimen" & "Proof-like" are not legitimate words used by the Mint to describe the "quality-of-finish" of the "good-coin-produced" (ie: uncirculated coin), that were placed into sets for 1937, 1938 and resuming again in 1958...

dts...

*The sets made in 1938 were done with 1937 dated coins...

Change-1 > *information was added.

So the mint reports show no specimens in reports from 1937 to 1957? And you then conclude that the beautiful sets in the recent Moore Auction were cherry picked circulations strikes?

http://www.moorecoins.com/Moore-s-J...Sale_as23346

Sorry but these sets were obviously specimens in the common use of the word.

Isn't the more logical conclusion that the mint reports (gasp!!) included errors? Or that in 1937, when the RCNA had not even been formed and when many collectors sneered at decimal coins, that some funtionary at the mint didn't think it mattered whether specimen strikes were identified in the report?

I would imagine that the most important thing to report back in those days, was a balanced ledger showing ounces of silver and pounds of copper used, and the coins produced. Secondly, just because information lies within Government of Canada reports, does not necessarily mean it was correct. I work, and deal with archived Government data on a daily basis, and it is full of mistakes - to err is human.

Why are you accusing the numismatic community of creatively re-writing history, when, in fact, we are probably bringing that history closer to correctness, by examining the coins much closer than anyone ever has before? So we call the coins struck different than production strikes "Specimen" - what is wrong with that?

So, the mint made specific presentation boxes, include one in 1911 with a hole for the silver dollar, for no reason? As I said, the bottom line back then was not numismatic products, it was ounces of silver and total coins produced. I would imagine, that all the strikes were added up, for sake of the ledger. Perhaps it was not necessary to document a few hundred coins that less than 100 sets (an estimate) would contain, but lump everything together into "coins struck".




Magically? OK - that is just insulting. I realize that we are strictly speaking of observational properties of the coins - much like my science (geology) is observational. Have you ever held, in your hands, a specimen coin from Victoria, Edwardian or George V or even George VI? If you compare a specimen strike with a MS-66 or MS-67 equivalent you will see that they are not "magically" different. What you see with your own eyes, is a different surface texture (finish), even at a microscopic level, the pressure and quality of the strike, the rims - those coins were not struck like production coins. Nobody, driven by profit or otherwise, is telling me that my specimen coins are different than what they are reported to be - I know they are different, I have studied them with a microscope and can easily spot the differences between the strikes.

Anyone who collects those specimen strikes is driven by the beauty of the coin, made and struck as close as the original engraver probably intended. The price you pay is in the eye-appeal. I have specimen coins in my collection, and profit is the last thing on my mind... they are worth nothing, because I don't intend to sell them.

We don't have the exact answers; the people who wrote the reports, and those persons responsible who signed off on the reports, and the people who struck the coins, are all gone. Therefore, we have to draw conclusions based upon all the evidence we have, which is not just solely the reports, but include the coins themselves. Try studying the coins... not the reports...

This is my last post on this subject. I don't know what your agenda is, but if you start bringing "magic" to the debate, then I am out. I am not wasting my time trying to argue with logic. This is starting to feel like a religious argument with one of my creationist relatives....