| Author |
 Replies: 17 / Views: 1,578 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3234 Posts |
I wonder why many collectors/accumulators prefer pre-1921 Morgans. I realize that there were a LOT of them minted, but there were a lot of 1880 and 1881 minted as well. They both look the same...right?
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
95018 Posts |
Well the pre 1921 coins have a nice authentic history to them, the new ones are just trying to repeat history.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2834 Posts |
For me its more psychological, there's something about owning a coin minted in the 1800's/19th century vs. a 1900's/20th century coin.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Hundreds of millions of silver dollars were melted under the terms of the Pittman Act of 1918. The subsequent mintages of 1921 left this date in vastly higher supply than any of the 1878-1904 issues.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3343 Posts |
Well, you know, those 1921's just aren't as nice.
"Two minutes ago I would have sold my chances for a tired dime." Fred Astaire
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
3234 Posts |
Quote:
Well, you know, those 1921's just aren't as nice. None of them? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2217 Posts |
For those who collect the series they will have 1921s in their collection. There's likely multiple reasons the 1921s aren't as desired. Maybe the gap between 1904-1921 made them a little less wanted plus their massive mintage numbers. There are 1921 VAMs and some 1921s are quite nice. Here's one on ebay:  Edited by livingwater
08/11/2024 12:05 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Sweden
1815 Posts |
For me I don't like the subtle change in design on the portrait. I find the original design more estetic
Edited by Moniker
08/12/2024 12:59 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
187806 Posts |
Quote:
They both look the same...right? When they decided to start minting the Morgan again in 1921, they no longer had the original hubs or master dies. They had to create news ones from scratch, hence the significant differences. http://goccf.com/t/192579 |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
8733 Posts |
Quote:
For me I don't like the subtle change in design on the portrait. I find the original design more estetic I agree. I have always felt the 21's almost look fake. I suppose the fact that Morgan redesigned the 21 from looking at actual pre 21 coins was not bad but the other changes made just made them look so different. The shallow obverse design and more defined hair, along with the different eagle's breast was just too much. along with many other smaller features too. I just don't like them. The tube of them I have, I just bought for the cheap silver at the time. -makecents-
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4589 Posts |
And the 21s were very much quantity over quality. The returned silver ingots had to - by law - be recoined. Get it done.
-----Burton 50+ year / Life / Emeritus ANA member (joined 12/1/1973) Life member: Numismatics International, CONECA Member: TNA, FtWCC, NETCC, EveryCountry (online) coin club Owned by three cats and a wife of 40+ years (joined 1983) Author: 3rd Edition of the Sample Slabs book, https://www.sampleslabs.info/ |
|
Moderator
United States
187806 Posts |
Quote:
And the 21s were very much quantity over quality. The returned silver ingots had to - by law - be recoined. Get it done. Indeed.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3323 Posts |
Quote:
The returned silver ingots had to - by law - be recoined My understanding of the Pittman Act is a little different. I've read that the silver melted under the Act was sold to Great Britain, at somewhere around $1/oz, to assist in eliminating their war debt. The Act further specified that the funds received from the sale be used for purchasing new silver (at $1/oz) from domestic producers to be used for coins. This was a stimulus package for the silver concerns out west which were suffering under depressed prices - a great transfer of wealth through government intervention. Very enterprising, but a sad day for future silver collectors! "Nummi rari mira sunt, si sumptus ferre potes." - Christophorus filius Scotiae
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
21's used a mongrel design. Obverse was copied from a 1900s O-mint Morgan but with a lower relief and the reverse was copied from an 1878 7TF; both were "strengthened" when engraved in numerous areas such as the breast feathers on the reverse and the hair on the obverse. It's like looking at a famous artwork, and then looking at a decent "close enough" copy of said artwork that's had a few minor changes here and there. Strike quality was indifferent at best even with the reworked dies. Prooflike coins are scarce for Philly and almost unheard of for Denver and San Fran. The emphasis was on quantity, not quality. 1921-D, in particular, is difficult to find "nice" in grades above MS63; even MS64 and MS65 coins can look dull and often have a lot of nicks and marks. There are a great number of VAM varieties and probably a great many more that haven't been catalogued yet. They saw a lot of use in casinos, and a great many were melted during the Hunt silver mania in the early 1980s. Despite that, they were still much more common than many other dates for a long time. Unlike the 1878-1904 Morgan dollars, they did not enjoy the cachet of being a "Wild West coin" that was attached to the originals. Dealers that bought bulk Morgans used to pay less for 1921's. Due to the way they were handled and stored you are unlikely to find coins with the beautiful toning that developed on the older Morgans so fans of toners aren't going to have much interest. Member ANA - EAC - TNA - SSDC - CCT #890 "Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." -- Louis D. Brandeis |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3234 Posts |
Great answers! Thank you, everyone.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Honestly, this forum is a lot better than Google.  |
| |
Replies: 17 / Views: 1,578 |
Posted 08/10/2024 1:41 pm
