Interesting discussion, and shows how photography can produce such different pictures of the same coin... It would be great fun to see the coin 'in hand' with all the same people in the viewing group...Cheers, RickO
So, not necessarily missed, but a couple bidders willing to take a gamble on it since it was raw. Wonder why Doyle didn’t try to have it graded if they thought it might be a presentation piece...
As promised, the additional information I mentioned I had:
The engraved coin is VAM 60, which was thought to have been the first struck. It turns out that VAM 60 wasn't the first struck. As mentioned earlier, VAM 60 shares an obverse with VAM 26 and VAM 57. It was thought that the production sequence was 60-57-26. Then an early die stage of the VAM 26 was found and determined to be produced earlier than the VAM 60, and that the VAM 26 struck after VAM 57 was a re-marriage of the VAM 26 dies. As the article mentions an early die failure, it still makes sense that the ceremonial coins struck on the afternoon of 4/17 were the rare VAM 60. Since there were VAM 26 coins struck earlier, perhaps either as "practice" for the ceremony or to get a jump on production before the VIPs showed up, that reverse die was still in good shape.
I've asked for distinguishing marks for proving the 26-60-57-26 sequence, and I assume I'll find out today. Hopefully, this collector will bring the coins to the ANA show so that I can get a closer look at the sequence and perhaps get good pictures of the set. He has the best set of the 78-S Long Nocks on the PCGS and SSDC registries by far. These coins are typically found in VG-F, and his lowest is AU50, with 5 out of 9 being MS. Here's a link to his set.
I'll let Roger chime in because he has turned much of what I ever heard/was taught about making Proofs upside down.
As I recall, Roger insists that all Proofs are struck one time on the medal press. I'll never be convinced of this. While his opinion may be true for some time periods and for some specific coins, the Franklin series of Proofs providesirrefutable evidence of at least two blows!
There is a thread about this, perhaps a member can link it.
@messydesk said:
As promised, the additional information I mentioned I had:
The engraved coin is VAM 60, which was thought to have been the first struck. It turns out that VAM 60 wasn't the first struck. As mentioned earlier, VAM 60 shares an obverse with VAM 26 and VAM 57. It was thought that the production sequence was 60-57-26. Then an early die stage of the VAM 26 was found and determined to be produced earlier than the VAM 60, and that the VAM 26 struck after VAM 57 was a re-marriage of the VAM 26 dies. As the article mentions an early die failure, it still makes sense that the ceremonial coins struck on the afternoon of 4/17 were the rare VAM 60. Since there were VAM 26 coins struck earlier, perhaps either as "practice" for the ceremony or to get a jump on production before the VIPs showed up, that reverse die was still in good shape.
I've asked for distinguishing marks for proving the 26-60-57-26 sequence, and I assume I'll find out today. Hopefully, this collector will bring the coins to the ANA show so that I can get a closer look at the sequence and perhaps get good pictures of the set. He has the best set of the 78-S Long Nocks on the PCGS and SSDC registries by far. These coins are typically found in VG-F, and his lowest is AU50, with 5 out of 9 being MS. Here's a link to his set.
I've imaged his sets before, you might ask him for my links or permission for me to share with you.
@messydesk said:
As promised, the additional information I mentioned I had:
The engraved coin is VAM 60, which was thought to have been the first struck. It turns out that VAM 60 wasn't the first struck. As mentioned earlier, VAM 60 shares an obverse with VAM 26 and VAM 57. It was thought that the production sequence was 60-57-26. Then an early die stage of the VAM 26 was found and determined to be produced earlier than the VAM 60, and that the VAM 26 struck after VAM 57 was a re-marriage of the VAM 26 dies. As the article mentions an early die failure, it still makes sense that the ceremonial coins struck on the afternoon of 4/17 were the rare VAM 60. Since there were VAM 26 coins struck earlier, perhaps either as "practice" for the ceremony or to get a jump on production before the VIPs showed up, that reverse die was still in good shape.
If what you say is true, wouldn't it be more likely that the engraving on the VAM 60 is inaccurate? The assumption that the VAM 60 was struck first was based upon the existence of the engraved coin, I thought.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
No, the Walton piece fits with the modern authentication. The old opinion from the 1960s lacks detail of examination and direct comparison with known examples.
My objection is when anyone, especially a TPG, runs off the diving board into an empty pool. Calling anything that is slightly different, yet entirely within normal operational range, a "specimen" is like calling Japanese spider crab, "Maine lobster" (Homarus americanus).
@StrikeOutXXX said:
Here is the best I can do bringing the new pictures down to size with the old pictures. I don't think the Doyle auction photos are clear enough and it's washed out as all can be and out of focus. Just look at the lack of details on the eagle's chest. The obverse Doyle pictures are so washed out you can't even make out the fold in her neck.
If PCGS says the lineage traces back to the Doyle Auction - they must have had some proof besides an older subpar auction catalog picture.
On the obverse, I can see:
The dot in the fields directly in line with Star #7 and the nose tip
Rim ding adjacent star #5
The dot inside the "U" of "PLURIBUS"
The toning pattern around star #8 after the "M" as well as most of the highs/lows of toning (old pics don't show colors at all, new ones at least match the shading) look between the cap and the "UM"
On reverse - Dots inside the "O" of "ONE"
Rim nick @ 10:00 (Thanks Ron)
I mean - I see what the others are seeing too, for everything I can find that matches, I can find stuff that doesn't, but... I'm betting the Doyle auction pictures suck much more than PCGS didn't do their homework before certifying this and stating it is pedigreed as such that would make this the Doyle auction coin.
LOOK AT THE RIM NICKS ON THE REVERSE. Easiest to see is over the "ED." Case closed!
@Insider2 and @StrikeOutXXX TEASER POST: This case is just getting hot!! What if I were to tell you that I know that the coin in question was previous holdered by PCGS as MS65PL VAM 58 Long Arrow Shaft??
It's interesting what a curious, open mind and a little detective work will discover! More to follow hopefully soon........
@messydesk said:
As promised, the additional information I mentioned I had:
The engraved coin is VAM 60, which was thought to have been the first struck. It turns out that VAM 60 wasn't the first struck. As mentioned earlier, VAM 60 shares an obverse with VAM 26 and VAM 57. It was thought that the production sequence was 60-57-26. Then an early die stage of the VAM 26 was found and determined to be produced earlier than the VAM 60, and that the VAM 26 struck after VAM 57 was a re-marriage of the VAM 26 dies. As the article mentions an early die failure, it still makes sense that the ceremonial coins struck on the afternoon of 4/17 were the rare VAM 60. Since there were VAM 26 coins struck earlier, perhaps either as "practice" for the ceremony or to get a jump on production before the VIPs showed up, that reverse die was still in good shape.
If what you say is true, wouldn't it be more likely that the engraving on the VAM 60 is inaccurate? The assumption that the VAM 60 was struck first was based upon the existence of the engraved coin, I thought.
There are a few possibilities:
1. The engraving is missing an asterisk. This would be if the VAM 60 was the ceremonial First Strike™ for VIPs, who may have also been shown a new reverse die being put in the press, but technically not the first one struck. They wanted to make sure the ceremony went well. Perhaps this is after reading that the first coins struck in Philadelphia during their ceremony a month earlier were rejected.
2. The engraving is total BS. This would be the case if the VAM 60 had nothing to do with the ceremonies of 4/17, and it was done outside the mint by someone wanting to promote the coin. The accounting of the die breaking after fewer than 1000 strikes combined with the rarity of VAM 60 and the existence of the seemingly ceremonial pieces lend credibility to the engraving, however.
3. The VAM 26 remarriage is a mistake. I haven't seen the coins, but the collector has all four varieties in MS, except for the EDS VAM 26, which is AU58, and given the effort he has spent studying these coins, I will give the benefit of the doubt here.
@StrikeOutXXX said:
Here is the best I can do bringing the new pictures down to size with the old pictures. I don't think the Doyle auction photos are clear enough and it's washed out as all can be and out of focus. Just look at the lack of details on the eagle's chest. The obverse Doyle pictures are so washed out you can't even make out the fold in her neck.
If PCGS says the lineage traces back to the Doyle Auction - they must have had some proof besides an older subpar auction catalog picture.
On the obverse, I can see:
The dot in the fields directly in line with Star #7 and the nose tip
Rim ding adjacent star #5
The dot inside the "U" of "PLURIBUS"
The toning pattern around star #8 after the "M" as well as most of the highs/lows of toning (old pics don't show colors at all, new ones at least match the shading) look between the cap and the "UM"
On reverse - Dots inside the "O" of "ONE"
Rim nick @ 10:00 (Thanks Ron)
I mean - I see what the others are seeing too, for everything I can find that matches, I can find stuff that doesn't, but... I'm betting the Doyle auction pictures suck much more than PCGS didn't do their homework before certifying this and stating it is pedigreed as such that would make this the Doyle auction coin.
LOOK AT THE RIM NICKS ON THE REVERSE. Easiest to see is over the "ED." Case closed!
@Insider2 and @StrikeOutXXX TEASER POST: This case is just getting hot!! What if I were to tell you that I know that the coin in question was previous holdered by PCGS as MS65PL VAM 58 Long Arrow Shaft??
It's interesting what a curious, open mind and a little detective work will discover! More to follow hopefully soon........
Doesn’t matter. TPGs have a long history of changing their minds on specimen designations. The 1855-S BMPs were first holdered by PCGS and NGC threw a conniption fit that they weren’t specimens. Later, when they reappeared for auction in the Richmond Collection, NGC had crossed them.
The coin is engraved. It says what the coin is. FOR WHAT REASON would anyone at any time after the coin was struck engrave something on a coin that was not 100% true? Who would think of doing something like that? Of course it had to be done by a Mint engraver!
@StrikeOutXXX said:
Here is the best I can do bringing the new pictures down to size with the old pictures. I don't think the Doyle auction photos are clear enough and it's washed out as all can be and out of focus. Just look at the lack of details on the eagle's chest. The obverse Doyle pictures are so washed out you can't even make out the fold in her neck.
If PCGS says the lineage traces back to the Doyle Auction - they must have had some proof besides an older subpar auction catalog picture.
On the obverse, I can see:
The dot in the fields directly in line with Star #7 and the nose tip
Rim ding adjacent star #5
The dot inside the "U" of "PLURIBUS"
The toning pattern around star #8 after the "M" as well as most of the highs/lows of toning (old pics don't show colors at all, new ones at least match the shading) look between the cap and the "UM"
On reverse - Dots inside the "O" of "ONE"
Rim nick @ 10:00 (Thanks Ron)
I mean - I see what the others are seeing too, for everything I can find that matches, I can find stuff that doesn't, but... I'm betting the Doyle auction pictures suck much more than PCGS didn't do their homework before certifying this and stating it is pedigreed as such that would make this the Doyle auction coin.
LOOK AT THE RIM NICKS ON THE REVERSE. Easiest to see is over the "ED." Case closed!
@Insider2 and @StrikeOutXXX TEASER POST **This case is just getting hot!! **What if I were to tell you that I know that the coin in question was previous holdered by PCGS as MS65PL VAM 58 Long Arrow Shaft??
It's interesting what a curious, open mind and a little detective work will discover! More to follow hopefully soon........ > @tradedollarnut said:
@StrikeOutXXX said:
Here is the best I can do bringing the new pictures down to size with the old pictures. I don't think the Doyle auction photos are clear enough and it's washed out as all can be and out of focus. Just look at the lack of details on the eagle's chest. The obverse Doyle pictures are so washed out you can't even make out the fold in her neck.
If PCGS says the lineage traces back to the Doyle Auction - they must have had some proof besides an older subpar auction catalog picture.
On the obverse, I can see:
The dot in the fields directly in line with Star #7 and the nose tip
Rim ding adjacent star #5
The dot inside the "U" of "PLURIBUS"
The toning pattern around star #8 after the "M" as well as most of the highs/lows of toning (old pics don't show colors at all, new ones at least match the shading) look between the cap and the "UM"
On reverse - Dots inside the "O" of "ONE"
Rim nick @ 10:00 (Thanks Ron)
I mean - I see what the others are seeing too, for everything I can find that matches, I can find stuff that doesn't, but... I'm betting the Doyle auction pictures suck much more than PCGS didn't do their homework before certifying this and stating it is pedigreed as such that would make this the Doyle auction coin.
LOOK AT THE RIM NICKS ON THE REVERSE. Easiest to see is over the "ED." Case closed!
@Insider2 and @StrikeOutXXX TEASER POST: This case is just getting hot!! What if I were to tell you that I know that the coin in question was previous holdered by PCGS as MS65PL VAM 58 Long Arrow Shaft??
It's interesting what a curious, open mind and a little detective work will discover! More to follow hopefully soon........
Doesn’t matter. TPGs have a long history of changing their minds on specimen designations. The 1855-S BMPs were first holdered by PCGS and NGC threw a conniption fit that they weren’t specimens. Later, when they reappeared for auction in the Richmond Collection, NGC had crossed them.
Not the same situation as the current one. What started my inquiry was the question of whether the imaged coin from the Damon Collection auctioned by Doyle's in 2006, is the same coin that is shown in the press release from PCGS. My contention is that they are NOT the same coin. Apples and oranges!
@StrikeOutXXX said:
Here is the best I can do bringing the new pictures down to size with the old pictures. I don't think the Doyle auction photos are clear enough and it's washed out as all can be and out of focus. Just look at the lack of details on the eagle's chest. The obverse Doyle pictures are so washed out you can't even make out the fold in her neck.
If PCGS says the lineage traces back to the Doyle Auction - they must have had some proof besides an older subpar auction catalog picture.
On the obverse, I can see:
The dot in the fields directly in line with Star #7 and the nose tip
Rim ding adjacent star #5
The dot inside the "U" of "PLURIBUS"
The toning pattern around star #8 after the "M" as well as most of the highs/lows of toning (old pics don't show colors at all, new ones at least match the shading) look between the cap and the "UM"
On reverse - Dots inside the "O" of "ONE"
Rim nick @ 10:00 (Thanks Ron)
I mean - I see what the others are seeing too, for everything I can find that matches, I can find stuff that doesn't, but... I'm betting the Doyle auction pictures suck much more than PCGS didn't do their homework before certifying this and stating it is pedigreed as such that would make this the Doyle auction coin.
LOOK AT THE RIM NICKS ON THE REVERSE. Easiest to see is over the "ED." Case closed!
@Insider2 and @StrikeOutXXX TEASER POST **This case is just getting hot!! **What if I were to tell you that I know that the coin in question was previous holdered by PCGS as MS65PL VAM 58 Long Arrow Shaft??
It's interesting what a curious, open mind and a little detective work will discover! More to follow hopefully soon........ > @tradedollarnut said:
@StrikeOutXXX said:
Here is the best I can do bringing the new pictures down to size with the old pictures. I don't think the Doyle auction photos are clear enough and it's washed out as all can be and out of focus. Just look at the lack of details on the eagle's chest. The obverse Doyle pictures are so washed out you can't even make out the fold in her neck.
If PCGS says the lineage traces back to the Doyle Auction - they must have had some proof besides an older subpar auction catalog picture.
On the obverse, I can see:
The dot in the fields directly in line with Star #7 and the nose tip
Rim ding adjacent star #5
The dot inside the "U" of "PLURIBUS"
The toning pattern around star #8 after the "M" as well as most of the highs/lows of toning (old pics don't show colors at all, new ones at least match the shading) look between the cap and the "UM"
On reverse - Dots inside the "O" of "ONE"
Rim nick @ 10:00 (Thanks Ron)
I mean - I see what the others are seeing too, for everything I can find that matches, I can find stuff that doesn't, but... I'm betting the Doyle auction pictures suck much more than PCGS didn't do their homework before certifying this and stating it is pedigreed as such that would make this the Doyle auction coin.
LOOK AT THE RIM NICKS ON THE REVERSE. Easiest to see is over the "ED." Case closed!
@Insider2 and @StrikeOutXXX TEASER POST: This case is just getting hot!! What if I were to tell you that I know that the coin in question was previous holdered by PCGS as MS65PL VAM 58 Long Arrow Shaft??
It's interesting what a curious, open mind and a little detective work will discover! More to follow hopefully soon........
Doesn’t matter. TPGs have a long history of changing their minds on specimen designations. The 1855-S BMPs were first holdered by PCGS and NGC threw a conniption fit that they weren’t specimens. Later, when they reappeared for auction in the Richmond Collection, NGC had crossed them.
Not the same situation as the current one. What started my inquiry was the question of whether the imaged coin from the Damon Collection auctioned by Doyle's in 2006, is the same coin that is shown in the press release from PCGS. My contention is that they are NOT the same coin. Apples and oranges!
@StrikeOutXXX said:
Here is the best I can do bringing the new pictures down to size with the old pictures. I don't think the Doyle auction photos are clear enough and it's washed out as all can be and out of focus. Just look at the lack of details on the eagle's chest. The obverse Doyle pictures are so washed out you can't even make out the fold in her neck.
If PCGS says the lineage traces back to the Doyle Auction - they must have had some proof besides an older subpar auction catalog picture.
On the obverse, I can see:
The dot in the fields directly in line with Star #7 and the nose tip
Rim ding adjacent star #5
The dot inside the "U" of "PLURIBUS"
The toning pattern around star #8 after the "M" as well as most of the highs/lows of toning (old pics don't show colors at all, new ones at least match the shading) look between the cap and the "UM"
On reverse - Dots inside the "O" of "ONE"
Rim nick @ 10:00 (Thanks Ron)
I mean - I see what the others are seeing too, for everything I can find that matches, I can find stuff that doesn't, but... I'm betting the Doyle auction pictures suck much more than PCGS didn't do their homework before certifying this and stating it is pedigreed as such that would make this the Doyle auction coin.
LOOK AT THE RIM NICKS ON THE REVERSE. Easiest to see is over the "ED." Case closed!
@Insider2 and @StrikeOutXXX TEASER POST: This case is just getting hot!! What if I were to tell you that I know that the coin in question was previous holdered by PCGS as MS65PL VAM 58 Long Arrow Shaft??
It's interesting what a curious, open mind and a little detective work will discover! More to follow hopefully soon........
I would say cool - we've all seen special pieces that were previously holdered as something else. Here is the truview from that grading:
I started this thread simply as sharing a news story I saw - I have nothing to gain either way. Since it was fresh in my mind, I did some digging and brought out a few things I posted in the thread, but certainly wasn't to champion them being a Specimen, or the same coin, or prove anything about VAMs. I've learned a lot in this thread, but have no real stake in it.
I'll leave all the VAM stuff to Messydesk - I couldn't tell these VAMs apart from each other anyhow, but adding the engraved coin as one of the 1st 10 from production just simply doesn't match the newspaper accounts, or timeline. If the OP coin was the 2nd off the presses of "Official" mintage (of course we're missing the April mint records) and ran for about 1000, and is VAM 58, then point blank - the engraved one can not be one of the 1st 10. I saw some other theories, that it was part of production prior to this public event, which could be, but by the accounts we have now, the first ~1000 were NOT VAM 60. That's not my mystery to solve.
My other question is why this one is called a Specimen - it's certainly very nice. If it was the 2nd off this die pairing, certainly well struck, but... if this run was intended to the first real "Production" of these coins, then they are simply early strikes of normal business strike coins, no? Maybe the mint records will be found someday, and there is a blurb about the first handful using some special planchets, or method to produce them different from the next 900 or so before one of the dies broke making them unique beyond simply first few from fresh dies. Not for me to decide either, but have enjoyed the conversations about them.
@pbj said: "What started my inquiry was the question of whether the imaged coin from the Damon Collection auctioned by Doyle's in 2006, is the same coin that is shown in the press release from PCGS. My contention is that they are NOT the same coin."
Members are leading you to a conclusion but they cannot force you to change your opinion. IMO, sticking to your opinion until you become totally beaten down is a very good trait to have!
Did you look? How would you explain the identical rim nicks? Serendipity?
@specialist said:
go find the old Wayne Miller coin. That should be called a specimen too
The Miller coin is spectacular and almost certainly the finest known, but the fabric is not all that special. The Damon coin is not as gemmy, but the fabric is even more convincingly special than the Eliasberg 91CC, a coin you know well.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@cameonut2011 said:
I think the image on the right is a glamour shot. The image on the left looks more realistic. Am I the only one who doesn't think this is anything special or deserving of a special designation? It looks like an early strike to be sure, but it looks to be well within the normal range of coinage.
FWIW, I’ve seen the coin in hand and consider it to be clearly outside “the normal range”. It would have been helpful if more of us had seen it before taking our positions.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I have seen the Wayne Miller coin and this one. I stand by my comment the Wayne Miller coin should be the FINEST specimen/PL. I do not know where to get the pics. I would conservatively value the WM coin at $250G today. It is currently in the ownership for the real richest man from Utah-Larry Miller jr (the guy whos family owns the Jazz). They have probably one of the greatest unknown coin collections-including an 1804 $1.
The Wayne Miller coin just knocks you off your feet.
I will still contend that those are planchet marks on the rim, not nicks or hits. Why would there be planchet marks on a specimen strike? Would not a specimen strike be struck on specially prepared planchets?
@specialist said:
I have seen the Wayne Miller coin and this one. I stand by my comment the Wayne Miller coin should be the FINEST specimen/PL.
I can understand why you might consider the Miller coin a specimen strike. I disagree, but I can understand the position. (To those who haven't seen it but have seen some of the wild Clapp-Eliasberg SF gold from the 1890's and early 00's, the Miller 78-S is of that quality and fabric.)
However, I can't see putting the Miller piece next to the Damon coin and not thinking that the Damon coin is more convincing as a "Special Strike".
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@cameonut2011 said:
I think the image on the right is a glamour shot. The image on the left looks more realistic. Am I the only one who doesn't think this is anything special or deserving of a special designation? It looks like an early strike to be sure, but it looks to be well within the normal range of coinage.
FWIW, I’ve seen the coin in hand and consider it to be clearly outside “the normal range”. It would have been helpful if more of us had seen it before taking our positions.
Having had the same in-hand experience, I've but sad condescension towards paper-trail-wonks who think they are gods of the dictionary when anomalies invite the thesaurus and the apprehension of fabric is the occasion of appreciation beyond analysis.
Would it be true that a dweeb reads and a geek gawks? Very special coin indeed!
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@mynamespat said:
I will still contend that those are planchet marks on the rim, not nicks or hits. Why would there be planchet marks on a specimen strike? Would not a specimen strike be struck on specially prepared planchets?
Take a guess and answer your own question: "Why would there be planchet marks on a specimen?" I'll give you a hint. What would we call the diagonal lines on the cheek and what caused them?
@specialist said:
I have seen the Wayne Miller coin and this one. I stand by my comment the Wayne Miller coin should be the FINEST specimen/PL.
I can understand why you might consider the Miller coin a specimen strike. I disagree, but I can understand the position. (To those who haven't seen it but have seen some of the wild Clapp-Eliasberg SF gold from the 1890's and early 00's, the Miller 78-S is of that quality and fabric.)
However, I can't see putting the Miller piece next to the Damon coin and not thinking that the Damon coin is more convincing as a "Special Strike".
@MrEureka was losing money on special coins like this long before @specialist invented the internet so she and Bruce could make money on them. What a wealth of information!
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
So sorry you are too tired to contribute anything useful to this thread. I'm going to bed now and hopefully, you'll have added something about the coin in this discussion when I next log in. YAWN.
@mynamespat said:
I will still contend that those are planchet marks on the rim, not nicks or hits. Why would there be planchet marks on a specimen strike? Would not a specimen strike be struck on specially prepared planchets?
Take a guess and answer your own question: "Why would there be planchet marks on a specimen?" I'll give you a hint. What would we call the diagonal lines on the cheek and what caused them?
..uh, adjustment marks.. From my understanding of specially minted coins at the various mints at this time, if this were a specially minted branch mint proof, this planchet most likely would have been rejected before striking. If the planchet defects were somehow overlooked and the coin struck, the coin would have been hammered to death and thrown in the scrap bin after examination.
@mynamespat said:
I will still contend that those are planchet marks on the rim, not nicks or hits. Why would there be planchet marks on a specimen strike? Would not a specimen strike be struck on specially prepared planchets?
Take a guess and answer your own question: "Why would there be planchet marks on a specimen?" I'll give you a hint. What would we call the diagonal lines on the cheek and what caused them?
..uh, adjustment marks.. From my understanding of specially minted coins at the various mints at this time, if this were a specially minted branch mint proof, this planchet most likely would have been rejected before striking. If the planchet defects were somehow overlooked and the coin struck, the coin would have been hammered to death and thrown in the scrap bin after examination.
I would call the parallel lines "roller marks", and odds are that all of the available planchets had them.
As for why a "specimen strike" - or, "special strike", as PCGS calls them - might be struck to a less exacting standard than we might expect of a proof? First, they're not proofs. And second, all proofs are not created equally. Especially those struck at the branch mints in the 19th century. That is, if your definition of "proof" allows for branch mints to strike them.
Ultimately, calling a coin "SP" is all about definitions and judgement calls. And since few definitions are written in stone, and because coins don't keep diaries - calling a coin a "SP" is, as I see it, just an opinion that the coin was intentionally produced in a superior manner to others of its kind.
So is the Damon 78-S a "special strike"? I think so, PCGS thinks so, and none of us will ever know for sure.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I guess we can all agree that a coin may have planchet flaws (we are not considering strike thrus in this discussion) even if it is a Proof or SPECIMEN! Now, does anyone think that the identical marks on the rims are planchet flaws?
You can't drop that bombshell and then not tell us more about it!! What else is in the collection? I didn't know the Miller family was into coins, I knew they loved cars, but not coins.
@specialist said:
I have seen the Wayne Miller coin and this one. I stand by my comment the Wayne Miller coin should be the FINEST specimen/PL. I do not know where to get the pics. I would conservatively value the WM coin at $250G today. It is currently in the ownership for the real richest man from Utah-Larry Miller jr (the guy whos family owns the Jazz). They have probably one of the greatest unknown coin collections-including an 1804 $1.
The Wayne Miller coin just knocks you off your feet.
@ManifestDestiny said:
You can't drop that bombshell and then not tell us more about it!! What else is in the collection? I didn't know the Miller family was into coins, I knew they loved cars, but not coins.
@specialist said:
I have seen the Wayne Miller coin and this one. I stand by my comment the Wayne Miller coin should be the FINEST specimen/PL. I do not know where to get the pics. I would conservatively value the WM coin at $250G today. It is currently in the ownership for the real richest man from Utah-Larry Miller jr (the guy whos family owns the Jazz). They have probably one of the greatest unknown coin collections-including an 1804 $1.
The Wayne Miller coin just knocks you off your feet.
Specialist's post is sort of like those bonus feature snippets that get added to the end of the movie after all the credits have run. Nice treat for all who stayed with this thread to the end.
I think it has the "look" of a specimen. The dies look extra polished and there is a smooth cameo to the fields vs the devices that just isn't there on business strikes. I've seen a lot of foreign coins that look similar and usually I can pick out which ones will or won't be designated as specimen by TPGs just by whether they have this look or not.
Well......let me elaborate on a couple of views. The following coin exhibits two glaring indications its an EDS strike, possibly more presentational than the OP PCGS coin.
1. It's a dark, low luster coin likely due to dies having not been in use long enough to develop the flow lines that create luster but yet the OP coin is prooflike?? In other words, the first 1000 coins were likely handpicked from a larger first production base.
2. The other two pictures show what I believe are cutting tool die markings, evidence of the needle point cone bit that was used to cut the sculptor's design into the die. I don't see this on the OP coin. But the OP coin predates mine by 61 years.
The Op coin also shows wear on the high points. I don't know if that's from a slightly less than ideal strike or it's from handling or slightly circulated.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
@leothelyon said:
Well......let me elaborate on a couple of views. The following coin exhibits two glaring indications its an EDS strike, possibly more presentational than the OP PCGS coin.
Leo
I think that Leo's statement is precisely what one of the smartest people in the hobby was referring to here:
FWIW, I’ve seen the coin in hand and consider it to be clearly outside “the normal range”. It would have been helpful if more of us had seen it before taking our positions.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
I agree with Roger B on this issue. IMO BMP are one of the more risky investments in numismatics. I concede the whole special “fabric” portion of the argument but I simply don’t see how a TPG firm can issue an expert opinion without any evidence of special manufacturing.
Without records of production one is empowering imagination to fuel demand. That is the job of auction houses and dealers not TPGs. By labeling it as such they are acting like their guesses are as good as facts and evidence which isn’t any better than Breen was a generation ago or the people who confused PL or one sided proofs the generations before that.
@Insider2 said:
The coin is engraved. It says what the coin is. FOR WHAT REASON would anyone at any time after the coin was struck engrave something on a coin that was not 100% true? Who would think of doing something like that? Of course it had to be done by a Mint engraver!
While you make a good point, the engraved piece is also convincing as a special strike of some sort. That’s probably why Pcgs didn’t return it in a body bag for “graffiti”.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Here is coinworld’s article. Last paragraph brings up the whole VAM question and basically has 2 scenarios thought of here already.
The Eliasberg engraved coin/VAM 60 is either legit and the VAM 58 Damon coin not from the April. 17 Ceremony, or vice versa, the VAM 58/Damon coin is, and the Engraving isn’t legit.
You would think with the detailed newspaper article, it would have mentioned engraved coins if they were engraved that day. Maybe finding the other coins mentioned in the article will solve it. What did Cicott do with the first one? Museum, display, any records? Finding 3/4/5 simply written as given to 3 ladies present isn’t much to go on, nor others to different gentlemen present.
@StrikeOutXXX said:
Here is coinworld’s article. Last paragraph brings up the whole VAM question and basically has 2 scenarios thought of here already.
The Eliasberg engraved coin/VAM 60 is either legit and the VAM 58 Damon coin not from the April. 17 Ceremony, or vice versa, the VAM 58/Damon coin is, and the Engraving isn’t legit.
You would think with the detailed newspaper article, it would have mentioned engraved coins if they were engraved that day. Maybe finding the other coins mentioned in the article will solve it. What did Cicott do with the first one? Museum, display, any records? Finding 3/4/5 simply written as given to 3 ladies present isn’t much to go on, nor others to different gentlemen present.
There is also the possibility that the engraved piece was one of the first ten coins or represented as such at the time, that the coins were distributed at the ceremony, and that one of the recipients had it engraved after the fact.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@StrikeOutXXX said:
Here is coinworld’s article. Last paragraph brings up the whole VAM question and basically has 2 scenarios thought of here already.
The Eliasberg engraved coin/VAM 60 is either legit and the VAM 58 Damon coin not from the April. 17 Ceremony, or vice versa, the VAM 58/Damon coin is, and the Engraving isn’t legit.
You would think with the detailed newspaper article, it would have mentioned engraved coins if they were engraved that day. Maybe finding the other coins mentioned in the article will solve it. What did Cicott do with the first one? Museum, display, any records? Finding 3/4/5 simply written as given to 3 ladies present isn’t much to go on, nor others to different gentlemen present.
There is also the possibility that the engraved piece was one of the first ten coins or represented as such at the time, that the coins were distributed at the ceremony, and that one of the recipients had it engraved after the fact.
For sure. It wasn’t likely engraved that day at the ceremony anyhow. So if only one of the 2 are the rightful part of the first 10 (or 2nd) guess it comes down to verifiable history. If the Damon coin can for sure be tracked back to Bishop & Company bank, and Low, who is verified as being given the 2nd coin, I guess I have to ask, what is the providence of the engraved coin? Besides it being engraved and owned by someone famous, what can that coin be traced back to?
Comments
Interesting discussion, and shows how photography can produce such different pictures of the same coin... It would be great fun to see the coin 'in hand' with all the same people in the viewing group...Cheers, RickO
It appears to have sold for $1,900 plus the 22.5% buyer’s premium in Doyle.
You can see all of the results on LiveAuctioneers - https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/1795852_2596-1878-s-morgan-dollar
So, not necessarily missed, but a couple bidders willing to take a gamble on it since it was raw. Wonder why Doyle didn’t try to have it graded if they thought it might be a presentation piece...
Someone will make out for taking the gamble!
As promised, the additional information I mentioned I had:
The engraved coin is VAM 60, which was thought to have been the first struck. It turns out that VAM 60 wasn't the first struck. As mentioned earlier, VAM 60 shares an obverse with VAM 26 and VAM 57. It was thought that the production sequence was 60-57-26. Then an early die stage of the VAM 26 was found and determined to be produced earlier than the VAM 60, and that the VAM 26 struck after VAM 57 was a re-marriage of the VAM 26 dies. As the article mentions an early die failure, it still makes sense that the ceremonial coins struck on the afternoon of 4/17 were the rare VAM 60. Since there were VAM 26 coins struck earlier, perhaps either as "practice" for the ceremony or to get a jump on production before the VIPs showed up, that reverse die was still in good shape.
I've asked for distinguishing marks for proving the 26-60-57-26 sequence, and I assume I'll find out today. Hopefully, this collector will bring the coins to the ANA show so that I can get a closer look at the sequence and perhaps get good pictures of the set. He has the best set of the 78-S Long Nocks on the PCGS and SSDC registries by far. These coins are typically found in VG-F, and his lowest is AU50, with 5 out of 9 being MS. Here's a link to his set.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I'll let Roger chime in because he has turned much of what I ever heard/was taught about making Proofs upside down.
As I recall, Roger insists that all Proofs are struck one time on the medal press. I'll never be convinced of this. While his opinion may be true for some time periods and for some specific coins, the Franklin series of Proofs providesirrefutable evidence of at least two blows!
There is a thread about this, perhaps a member can link it.
I've imaged his sets before, you might ask him for my links or permission for me to share with you.
i
If what you say is true, wouldn't it be more likely that the engraving on the VAM 60 is inaccurate? The assumption that the VAM 60 was struck first was based upon the existence of the engraved coin, I thought.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
No, the Walton piece fits with the modern authentication. The old opinion from the 1960s lacks detail of examination and direct comparison with known examples.
My objection is when anyone, especially a TPG, runs off the diving board into an empty pool. Calling anything that is slightly different, yet entirely within normal operational range, a "specimen" is like calling Japanese spider crab, "Maine lobster" (Homarus americanus).
@Insider2 and @StrikeOutXXX
TEASER POST: This case is just getting hot!! What if I were to tell you that I know that the coin in question was previous holdered by PCGS as MS65PL VAM 58 Long Arrow Shaft??
It's interesting what a curious, open mind and a little detective work will discover! More to follow hopefully soon........
There are a few possibilities:
1. The engraving is missing an asterisk. This would be if the VAM 60 was the ceremonial First Strike™ for VIPs, who may have also been shown a new reverse die being put in the press, but technically not the first one struck. They wanted to make sure the ceremony went well. Perhaps this is after reading that the first coins struck in Philadelphia during their ceremony a month earlier were rejected.
2. The engraving is total BS. This would be the case if the VAM 60 had nothing to do with the ceremonies of 4/17, and it was done outside the mint by someone wanting to promote the coin. The accounting of the die breaking after fewer than 1000 strikes combined with the rarity of VAM 60 and the existence of the seemingly ceremonial pieces lend credibility to the engraving, however.
3. The VAM 26 remarriage is a mistake. I haven't seen the coins, but the collector has all four varieties in MS, except for the EDS VAM 26, which is AU58, and given the effort he has spent studying these coins, I will give the benefit of the doubt here.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Doesn’t matter. TPGs have a long history of changing their minds on specimen designations. The 1855-S BMPs were first holdered by PCGS and NGC threw a conniption fit that they weren’t specimens. Later, when they reappeared for auction in the Richmond Collection, NGC had crossed them.
The coin is engraved. It says what the coin is. FOR WHAT REASON would anyone
at any time after the coin was struck 
engrave something on a coin 
that was not 100% true? Who 
would think of doing something like that? Of course it had to be done by a Mint engraver!
@Insider2 and @StrikeOutXXX
TEASER POST **This case is just getting hot!! **What if I were to tell you that I know that the coin in question was previous holdered by PCGS as MS65PL VAM 58 Long Arrow Shaft??
It's interesting what a curious, open mind and a little detective work will discover! More to follow hopefully soon........ > @tradedollarnut said:
Not the same situation as the current one. What started my inquiry was the question of whether the imaged coin from the Damon Collection auctioned by Doyle's in 2006, is the same coin that is shown in the press release from PCGS. My contention is that they are NOT the same coin. Apples and oranges!
And yet they are indeed the same coin...
They are the same coin, plain and simple.
I would say cool - we've all seen special pieces that were previously holdered as something else. Here is the truview from that grading:
I started this thread simply as sharing a news story I saw - I have nothing to gain either way. Since it was fresh in my mind, I did some digging and brought out a few things I posted in the thread, but certainly wasn't to champion them being a Specimen, or the same coin, or prove anything about VAMs. I've learned a lot in this thread, but have no real stake in it.
I'll leave all the VAM stuff to Messydesk - I couldn't tell these VAMs apart from each other anyhow, but adding the engraved coin as one of the 1st 10 from production just simply doesn't match the newspaper accounts, or timeline. If the OP coin was the 2nd off the presses of "Official" mintage (of course we're missing the April mint records) and ran for about 1000, and is VAM 58, then point blank - the engraved one can not be one of the 1st 10. I saw some other theories, that it was part of production prior to this public event, which could be, but by the accounts we have now, the first ~1000 were NOT VAM 60. That's not my mystery to solve.
My other question is why this one is called a Specimen - it's certainly very nice. If it was the 2nd off this die pairing, certainly well struck, but... if this run was intended to the first real "Production" of these coins, then they are simply early strikes of normal business strike coins, no? Maybe the mint records will be found someday, and there is a blurb about the first handful using some special planchets, or method to produce them different from the next 900 or so before one of the dies broke making them unique beyond simply first few from fresh dies. Not for me to decide either, but have enjoyed the conversations about them.
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
@pbj said: "What started my inquiry was the question of whether the imaged coin from the Damon Collection auctioned by Doyle's in 2006, is the same coin that is shown in the press release from PCGS. My contention is that they are NOT the same coin."
Members are leading you to a conclusion but they cannot force you to change your opinion. IMO, sticking to your opinion until you become totally beaten down is a very good trait to have!
Did you look? How would you explain the identical rim nicks? Serendipity?
The Miller coin is spectacular and almost certainly the finest known, but the fabric is not all that special. The Damon coin is not as gemmy, but the fabric is even more convincingly special than the Eliasberg 91CC, a coin you know well.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
FWIW, I’ve seen the coin in hand and consider it to be clearly outside “the normal range”. It would have been helpful if more of us had seen it before taking our positions.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
It has ‘the look’ from the true view image
I have seen the Wayne Miller coin and this one. I stand by my comment the Wayne Miller coin should be the FINEST specimen/PL. I do not know where to get the pics. I would conservatively value the WM coin at $250G today. It is currently in the ownership for the real richest man from Utah-Larry Miller jr (the guy whos family owns the Jazz). They have probably one of the greatest unknown coin collections-including an 1804 $1.
The Wayne Miller coin just knocks you off your feet.
I will still contend that those are planchet marks on the rim, not nicks or hits. Why would there be planchet marks on a specimen strike? Would not a specimen strike be struck on specially prepared planchets?
I can understand why you might consider the Miller coin a specimen strike. I disagree, but I can understand the position. (To those who haven't seen it but have seen some of the wild Clapp-Eliasberg SF gold from the 1890's and early 00's, the Miller 78-S is of that quality and fabric.)
However, I can't see putting the Miller piece next to the Damon coin and not thinking that the Damon coin is more convincing as a "Special Strike".
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Having had the same in-hand experience, I've but sad condescension towards paper-trail-wonks who think they are gods of the dictionary when anomalies invite the thesaurus and the apprehension of fabric is the occasion of appreciation beyond analysis.
Would it be true that a dweeb reads and a geek gawks?
Very special coin indeed!
Take a guess and answer your own question: "Why would there be planchet marks on a specimen?" I'll give you a hint. What would we call the diagonal lines on the cheek and what caused them?
@MrEureka was losing money on special coins like this long before @specialist invented the internet so she and Bruce could make money on them. What a wealth of information!
@afford posted: "Yawn."
So sorry you are too tired to contribute anything useful to this thread. I'm going to bed now and hopefully, you'll have added something about the coin in this discussion when I next log in. YAWN.
..uh, adjustment marks.. From my understanding of specially minted coins at the various mints at this time, if this were a specially minted branch mint proof, this planchet most likely would have been rejected before striking. If the planchet defects were somehow overlooked and the coin struck, the coin would have been hammered to death and thrown in the scrap bin after examination.
I would call the parallel lines "roller marks", and odds are that all of the available planchets had them.
As for why a "specimen strike" - or, "special strike", as PCGS calls them - might be struck to a less exacting standard than we might expect of a proof? First, they're not proofs. And second, all proofs are not created equally. Especially those struck at the branch mints in the 19th century. That is, if your definition of "proof" allows for branch mints to strike them.
Ultimately, calling a coin "SP" is all about definitions and judgement calls. And since few definitions are written in stone, and because coins don't keep diaries - calling a coin a "SP" is, as I see it, just an opinion that the coin was intentionally produced in a superior manner to others of its kind.
So is the Damon 78-S a "special strike"? I think so, PCGS thinks so, and none of us will ever know for sure.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I guess we can all agree that a coin may have planchet flaws (we are not considering strike thrus in this discussion) even if it is a Proof or SPECIMEN! Now, does anyone think that the identical marks on the rims are planchet flaws?
You can't drop that bombshell and then not tell us more about it!! What else is in the collection? I didn't know the Miller family was into coins, I knew they loved cars, but not coins.
Specialist's post is sort of like those bonus feature snippets that get added to the end of the movie after all the credits have run. Nice treat for all who stayed with this thread to the end.
So........an EDS example would be any different than the OP coin. And please elaborate on those differences. Thanks
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I think it has the "look" of a specimen. The dies look extra polished and there is a smooth cameo to the fields vs the devices that just isn't there on business strikes. I've seen a lot of foreign coins that look similar and usually I can pick out which ones will or won't be designated as specimen by TPGs just by whether they have this look or not.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Well......let me elaborate on a couple of views. The following coin exhibits two glaring indications its an EDS strike, possibly more presentational than the OP PCGS coin.
1. It's a dark, low luster coin likely due to dies having not been in use long enough to develop the flow lines that create luster but yet the OP coin is prooflike?? In other words, the first 1000 coins were likely handpicked from a larger first production base.
2. The other two pictures show what I believe are cutting tool die markings, evidence of the needle point cone bit that was used to cut the sculptor's design into the die. I don't see this on the OP coin. But the OP coin predates mine by 61 years.
The Op coin also shows wear on the high points. I don't know if that's from a slightly less than ideal strike or it's from handling or slightly circulated.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I think that Leo's statement is precisely what one of the smartest people in the hobby was referring to here:
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Huh?
I agree with Roger B on this issue. IMO BMP are one of the more risky investments in numismatics. I concede the whole special “fabric” portion of the argument but I simply don’t see how a TPG firm can issue an expert opinion without any evidence of special manufacturing.
Without records of production one is empowering imagination to fuel demand. That is the job of auction houses and dealers not TPGs. By labeling it as such they are acting like their guesses are as good as facts and evidence which isn’t any better than Breen was a generation ago or the people who confused PL or one sided proofs the generations before that.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
This was the coin previously. Based on the cert, graded quite a while back.
.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
While you make a good point, the engraved piece is also convincing as a special strike of some sort. That’s probably why Pcgs didn’t return it in a body bag for “graffiti”.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Perhaps they could have called it a love token.
It was in a collection sold at auction like 20 years ago. Some guy Eliasberg who thought he was going to be like Hansen. Yeah, right!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Looking for a picture of the Eliasberg coin, Google brought me to this old thread. Sadly, I have no recollection of posting it!
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/548626/the-eliasberg-1878-s-morgan
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I posted a picture on page 1 of this thread.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Here is coinworld’s article. Last paragraph brings up the whole VAM question and basically has 2 scenarios thought of here already.
The Eliasberg engraved coin/VAM 60 is either legit and the VAM 58 Damon coin not from the April. 17 Ceremony, or vice versa, the VAM 58/Damon coin is, and the Engraving isn’t legit.
https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2018/08/1878-s-morgan-dollar-may-be-presentation-piece.all.html
You would think with the detailed newspaper article, it would have mentioned engraved coins if they were engraved that day. Maybe finding the other coins mentioned in the article will solve it. What did Cicott do with the first one? Museum, display, any records? Finding 3/4/5 simply written as given to 3 ladies present isn’t much to go on, nor others to different gentlemen present.
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
There is also the possibility that the engraved piece was one of the first ten coins or represented as such at the time, that the coins were distributed at the ceremony, and that one of the recipients had it engraved after the fact.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
For sure. It wasn’t likely engraved that day at the ceremony anyhow. So if only one of the 2 are the rightful part of the first 10 (or 2nd) guess it comes down to verifiable history. If the Damon coin can for sure be tracked back to Bishop & Company bank, and Low, who is verified as being given the 2nd coin, I guess I have to ask, what is the providence of the engraved coin? Besides it being engraved and owned by someone famous, what can that coin be traced back to?
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101