Options
How Would You Grade This Dollar....look closely
dragon
Posts: 4,548 ✭✭
Look closely and give an opinion on this 1884-CC
0
Comments
Rob the Newbie
Check out a Vanguard Roth IRA.
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
Check out some of my 1794 Large Cents on www.coingallery.org
LSCC#1864
Ebay Stuff
The declaration argued that governments exist by and for the people with citizens obligated to overthrow a tyrannical government.
UNC details, net AU58 cleaned by ANACS;
MS63 by SEGS, NTC, ICG;
MS64 by PCI;
MS65 by ACG/TruGrade.
I hate it when you see my post before I can edit the spelling.
Always looking for nice type coins
my local dealer
ahh...Placid saw it first. Good enough. PR66? Depending on the hairlines.
Free Trial
The declaration argued that governments exist by and for the people with citizens obligated to overthrow a tyrannical government.
<< <i>Stman must have been pretty close >>
Nope, but I was close in my initial opinion to myself. It has many characteristics of a proof coin. I didn't think they made proofs at the Carson City mint. I have since been corrected. I don't know how many were minted but my guess is very few proof Morgan's were minted at the CC mint. I'm sure there is different opinions and controversy on which ones are for real. I also think Dog was correct that this may be secondary toning on this piece.
Interesting thread Dragon.
prooflikeness is often not captured in a photo at this angle and manner. thus insufficient data to nail this one unless you are lucky
The declaration argued that governments exist by and for the people with citizens obligated to overthrow a tyrannical government.
Tell us, please! What is the grade?!?!
Check out a Vanguard Roth IRA.
Check out a Vanguard Roth IRA.
The only other Branch Mint Proofs are the 83-O & 79-O, of which 12 each were struck.
This IS NOT a Proof, it is a clearly a biz strike Vam 8.
And, there are a number of others you did not mention, which NGC has certified as Proofs and which numerous experts have concurred with. I have seen some of them and they look entirely distinct from business strikes.
Finally, if you haven't seen the coin in person (and probably, even if you have), you shouldn't make absolute pronouncements such as "This is NOT a Proof, it is clearly....". Bad dog, bad, bad dog.
The declaration argued that governments exist by and for the people with citizens obligated to overthrow a tyrannical government.
<< <i>This IS NOT a Proof, it is a clearly a biz strike Vam 8. >>
Oh, so you want to get huffy? Bring a sandwich OK
Hey Coinguy1.... how bout some insight here? It would be appreciated.
I'm glad that at least you have learned that in many or most cases, people can't grade (or, in this case determine the Proof status of coins) accurately from images.
Regarding some of the branch mint proofs I made reference to - the best way I can put it to you and others, is - if you saw their obverses and not their reverses (with the mintmarks) you would bet they were Proofs, as opposed to business strikes.
Yeah ok so I forgot the 24 1921-S BMP.
I've never heard of an 84-CC Proof and if everybody else knows so much about it then please provide some info. The "informative posts" thread only says PCGS has certified 20 BMP and Heritage sold 8 BMP @ auction. It gives no dates or mm.
The only CC BMP that I know of is the 93 and I stand by my opinion that the 84-CC isn't a Proof until somebody proves me wrong.
NGC has slabbed this one and the Jack Lee coin (66) as "PR." I haven't seen either in person so I can't tell you much more than that.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
1884-CC SILVER DOLLAR
Mintage:
Circulation strikes: 1,136,000
Proofs: 3 known
NGC Proof-66. Jack Lee collection - Superior Galleries' "Pre-Long Beach" Sale, June 5-7, 2000, Lot 1737, sold for $109,250.00 "to the book"
The Heritage auction for this coin.
1884-CC $1 PR64 NGC. Few areas in U.S. numismatics are as controversial as that of branch mint proof coinage. Almost no contemporary records exist and very little study has gone into these pieces. The largest collection of branch mint proof Morgans we have handled (or seen for that matter) was in the Anita Maxwell Collection that we sold in our 1995 ANA Sale. After extensive study of these pieces one of the most obvious differences between branch mint proofs and other proofs of that same era is that the level of workmanship on branch mint proofs is not comparable to that on proofs from the Philadelphia Mint. This is undoubtedly because the personnel in the branch mints were not familiar with the proofing techniques that were taken for granted in the Philadelphia Mint. Each branch mint proof issue has its own peculiarities, but in every case there are numerous diagnostics that simply would not be found (or not so easily found) on Philadelphia proofs. Incomplete die polishing is a good example. The branch mint coins will all show incomplete die polish behind the eagle's head and within the olive leaves on the reverse. This incompleteness of die polish is consistent from one coin to another in that specific issue, thus giving the researcher easy-to-use diagnostics. On this particular issue, there is considerable lack of die polish around the devices on each side, most notably in the field where the cap is tied back on the obverse, within the loop of the bow on the lower reverse, and around several of the leaves in the wreath.
Certain issues are well known as branch mint proofs, having been accepted by the numismatic community for generations. Issues such as the 1879-O, 1883-O, 1893-CC, and 1921-S were in major collections such Amon Carter, and are beyond doubt special strikings. Comparing these authorized and unquestioned branch mint proofs with other issues, such as the 1884-CC, forces one to make useful extrapolations regarding the possible proof status of less-well-accepted issues. Authentication of lesser-known branch mint proofs lacks the preciseness present with Philadelphia Mint proofs. In fact, sometimes what one is left with is nothing more than an impression or a feeling based upon having seen thousands of other proofs and prooflike business strikes. Once one has a positive feeling about such a piece, the question is: will the marketplace also perceive it as a proof and back it up with a strong price realized at public auction?
The 1884-CC is an issue that has been shrouded in controversy for thirty years. Breen authenticated a coin in 1973 as a proof (not this piece). Wayne Miller later opined that it was a Superb Gem Prooflike. In the intervening years, the marketplace as well as NGC have vindicated Walter Breen's initial assessment of the 1884-CC branch mint proof. We offered the Ex: Jack Lee specimen (PR66 Cameo NGC) in our 2002 Central States Sale. Unfortunately, that coin did not sell, but that is often the case with esoteric coins where pride of ownership is a significant factor. That coin as well as this one show the same diagnostic die polishing in front of Liberty's eye. Also, the same hairline die crack is seen at the bottom of the digits in the date, and the same die striations are present in the fields in front of and behind the eagle's head. This coin does not, however, exhibit any of the lint marks present on the Lee PR66 coin; presumably, this coin was struck prior to the Lee coin, the dies were then wiped, and then the Lee coin was struck. The striking details are uniformly strong throughout. The branch mints did not have hydraulic presses as the Philadelphia Mint did; therefore, strength of strike such as seen on this coin could only have been achieved by multiple strikings. One curious aspect on this coin is that even with the strong striking details present, very light roller marks can still be seen over Liberty's ear and on the highpoint of the cap on the obverse. We are at a loss to explain their presence on this coin, and merely point out this feature as a numismatic curiosity as well as a pedigree identifier.
The surfaces are deeply toned with golden-brown and lilac patina covering each side. When closely examined one can see evidence of light hairlining in the fields, which accounts for the less-than-Gem grade, but this must have been done long ago as the coin has since reacquired a rich and natural looking patina. The fields are deeply mirrored and there are no obvious surface flaws on either side. This is a rare opportunity for the specialist in branch mint proofs to acquire this controversial issue with the endorsement of a major certification service.(#7346)
The Heritage Auction doesn't convince me it's a Proof.
So they quote 2 experts: Breen, who made up stuff to fill in the blanks and lots of his material is more opinion than fact, says Proof. Miller, who is much more the Morgan expert says it's a Prooflike biz strike. I'll put my $$ on WM.
I'm not buying the part about substandard equipment at Carson City making it not look like the typical Proof. First of all Carson City didn't make their own dies, any dies the Branch Mints used were made @ the P mint. And the part about substandard CC presses striking it twice and still not ironing out the roller marks is balony. CC Morgans are generally well struck & filled out, and that's with just ONE strike.
Geeze, wouldn't the idiots at CC think to polish the planchets too?
Maybe it's a wannabe Proof from repolished biz dies struck by a "midnight minter' or some such foolishness; thus the die cracks & lack of cameo & frost.
NGC says it's a Proof, so what? Where did they get their info? Probably from Breen. They have no documention to prove it's an official Proof.
Just because it's in a 3rd party holder means little to me. 3 ex-dealers turned graders agreed that it looked like a Proof so now it's a Proof. OK.
Remember the PCGS sheep? Well I don't BAHH!! for any service.
They agreed this one was a Proof too and it sure looks biz strike to me.
Check out a Vanguard Roth IRA.
I suppose it could be one of the "controversial" coins Breen and Heritage would have you believe in, but I will always defer to the Van Allen and Miller positions, when it comes to Morgan dollars.
In any case, this one doesn't appear to have the crisp square details in the lettering and rims. Granted, the rim(s) may have been cropped and not fully shown and the toning id making it a tad hard to view the depth and sharpness of the motto(es), but I find it a bit hard to accept that sufficient die pressures could be reached for business strikes but not for the limited three supposed proofs struck. I mean, this only 7 years into striking Morgan; the master dies (proof and business strike) are still in outstanding shape.
If nothing else, surely it can be determined if the coin was struck by one of the attributed die pair(s) 1 thru 11. I am curious why a grading service would attribute a coin as a proof when no evidence of proof dies exist - isn't it normal the practice to designate it as prooflike (as Miller did) using similar logic to not designate Franklin halves as PL, as there was no evidence that the dies where processed to present a PL appearance, and could only result from post production die polishing (at least that is what Frank represented)
Can you really strike a proof from non-proof dies, no matter how many times you strike it.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean:
<< <i>Incomplete die polishing is a good example. The branch mint coins will all show incomplete die polish behind the eagle's head and within the olive leaves on the reverse. This incompleteness of die polish is consistent from one coin to another in that specific issue, thus giving the researcher easy-to-use diagnostics. On this particular issue, there is considerable lack of die polish around the devices on each side, most notably in the field where the cap is tied back on the obverse, within the loop of the bow on the lower reverse, and around several of the leaves in the wreath. >>
I guess it is talking about the "halo" of frost around the central device sometimes found on PL CC dollars, but this is a typical characteristic of CC dollars. Are they implying that the similar business strikes are actually struck from proof dies?
Anyways, barring any chatter or abrasions that haven't shown up in the image, I would hesitate to grade the coin higher that 67 with the strike, and it probably would merit a PL if one could get by the toning (which gives me the heebie jeebies the way it stops short of Lady Liberty).
I would sure like a more detail image to compare to the already attributed die pair(s).
So let us have it Dragon
As you know, positively identifying and attributing a branch mint proof Morgan can be difficult and definately subject to disagreement among experts. I guess SOME of the basic requirements are:
1) A lack of contact marks or abrasions from other coins, and very boldly struck
2) A distinctly squared off rim
3) Distinctly squared off lettering and stars on obv. and rev.
4) Some evidence that it was struck from either a specially prepared planchet and/or dies
5) The overall "appearance" and "finish" of a proof coin
6) Official documentation stating why a particular coin was struck, as well as auction records dictating the coins special status
Although the branch mints did not produce proofs from the huge medal press like the Philly mint using enormous pressure, a couple dates are immediatly recognizable as proof or special specimen coins at first glance like the 79-O's and the 93-CC's. Some of the other dates (like this 84-CC) exhibit some of the similarities to a proof/specimen piece but are obviously subject to opinions both ways.
dragon
The declaration argued that governments exist by and for the people with citizens obligated to overthrow a tyrannical government.