@RogerB said:
The slug in question might have been made as a sample to show the full design. However, it is not a "proof coin" by definition. This kind of definition creep, like grade inflation, is common among those selling stuff who want to pump up the price.
As far as I can determine, there is no official definition of “proof” that applies to all coins. Am I missing something?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@RogerB said:
The slug in question might have been made as a sample to show the full design. However, it is not a "proof coin" by definition. This kind of definition creep, like grade inflation, is common among those selling stuff who want to pump up the price.
I'd repeat my prior post, as I think it's an adequate commentary on the nature of the piece, but don't wan't to type the same stuff twice...
"Proof" is evidently defined by different people in different ways in this business; this was apparently true in the 1909 Zabriskie Sale, when the coin in question was described as one.
I'm content in world where people define proof coins as only being produced at the Philadelphia Mint on a medal press, as long as we acknowledge the presence of specially made items when they appear.
I'm not as concerned with what prefix people use to describe the slug pictured here. I am, however, interested in its nature: to wit, I find it significant that it was Augustus Humbert's personal coin, with a provenance that goes directly back to him, by way of his brother. It was manufactured to the same specs as the specimen sent to the U.S. Mint for their cabinet: both were struck from freshly made and polished dies, on specially selected and prepared planchets, and were obviously struck under greater pressure than any ordinary examples that have been seen in the 20th century. Call them proofs, specimens, or turtles, for all I care.
I agree that some ordinary coins - struck from new or freshly polished dies - have been called "Branch Mint Proof" or are described as "SP" and shouldn't be. I'd also posit that there are unquestionably special items that were made outside the Philadelphia Mint, whether at U.S. Branch Mints or in this case, the U.S. Assay Office (although I'd like to look at the ledgers from 1851, just to make sure that the dies weren't used in Philadelphia to make these, like the 1853 Assay $20 Proofs struck in Philadelphia with the 1858 federal $20 collars).
Semantics bore me. Language is, at its core, an anomalous, haphazard map of reality, not an accurate model of the world: the map is not the territory here. I'd rather talk about the nature of the item in question - as accurately as possible - instead of discussing whether or not it conforms to one set of narrow conditions for the use of the word "proof".
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Both coins are wonderful examples. Not being an expert in the territorial gold field my opinion isn't worth much, but the $50 at a glance looked "special" in terms of having slightly mirrored surfaces and well struck. Love coins that have a special story behind them, as that coin does.
@Regulated said:
I wonder whether anyone reading my last post will feel nostalgic for the good old DISAGREE button...
I want a button that says "SPLUNGE!"
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I am feeling mellow this morning. Took my wife to the ER yesterday and all it was was appendicitis, rather than one of the nastier things that people of our ages are prone to. The surgery was last night and everything went fine. Have a cup of your favorite brew and relax and count your blessings, people.
A few thoughts on Proofs in general. Philadelphia Mint Proofs are Proofs because the Philadelphia Mint says they are Proofs, including 1886 Three Cent Nickels which were not struck to the standard for Proofs of the day. There are other examples of low-quality Proofs of other years that are dang near impossible to tell from the business strikes the Mint issued to avoid Proof-only years. The 1885 Three Cent Nickel is Exhibit A.
A private mint has the right to call its products Proofs, though I see no indication that Humbert ever called this magnificent piece a Proof. (I would not call it a Proof, BUT I DON'T CARE! I would love to own it for what it is, regardless of what anybody else says about it.) That said, the coin hobby/industry is under no obligation to accept a private mint's designation of a coin as Proof.
A foreign government mint has the right to call its products Proofs, though again the coin hobby/industry is under no obligation to accept a foreign government's designation of a coin as Proof.
During the coin boom of the 1960's and 70's many foreign governments tried to jump on the bandwagon and offer sets of their coins as Proofs to cash in on the hot coin market. Some of these were laughable. Coin World as the industry leader established a "Proof Board" that every foreign Proof set had to pass before it could be advertised as such. I served on the Board for a few years.
Lacking official standards, we said that a coin or a set either was or was not "...a Proof as that term is understood by North American collectors." Our call, and we had the power to enforce it in "Coin World" and "World Coins" and "The Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine" after we bought it. That said, Numismatic News or The Numismatist had the right to accept or reject ads for Proofs as they saw fit.
I would have no problem with a major TPG such as our gracious host setting up a "Proof Board" of their own with experts both on and off the paid staff willing and able to rule on whether a particular coin was a "Proof" or a "Specimen" or what have you. Perhaps a special label could be created for coins judged by such a panel. There would certainly need to be a special charge for such a service.
So go have that cup of something good and kick back and relax because you are alive and well and your biggest problem is what to call some silly old piece of metal!
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
As far as I can determine, there is no official definition of “proof” that applies to all coins. Am I missing something?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I'd repeat my prior post, as I think it's an adequate commentary on the nature of the piece, but don't wan't to type the same stuff twice...
"Proof" is evidently defined by different people in different ways in this business; this was apparently true in the 1909 Zabriskie Sale, when the coin in question was described as one.
I'm content in world where people define proof coins as only being produced at the Philadelphia Mint on a medal press, as long as we acknowledge the presence of specially made items when they appear.
I'm not as concerned with what prefix people use to describe the slug pictured here. I am, however, interested in its nature: to wit, I find it significant that it was Augustus Humbert's personal coin, with a provenance that goes directly back to him, by way of his brother. It was manufactured to the same specs as the specimen sent to the U.S. Mint for their cabinet: both were struck from freshly made and polished dies, on specially selected and prepared planchets, and were obviously struck under greater pressure than any ordinary examples that have been seen in the 20th century. Call them proofs, specimens, or turtles, for all I care.
I agree that some ordinary coins - struck from new or freshly polished dies - have been called "Branch Mint Proof" or are described as "SP" and shouldn't be. I'd also posit that there are unquestionably special items that were made outside the Philadelphia Mint, whether at U.S. Branch Mints or in this case, the U.S. Assay Office (although I'd like to look at the ledgers from 1851, just to make sure that the dies weren't used in Philadelphia to make these, like the 1853 Assay $20 Proofs struck in Philadelphia with the 1858 federal $20 collars).
Semantics bore me. Language is, at its core, an anomalous, haphazard map of reality, not an accurate model of the world: the map is not the territory here. I'd rather talk about the nature of the item in question - as accurately as possible - instead of discussing whether or not it conforms to one set of narrow conditions for the use of the word "proof".
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
I wonder whether anyone reading my last post will feel nostalgic for the good old DISAGREE button...
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Both coins are wonderful examples. Not being an expert in the territorial gold field my opinion isn't worth much, but the $50 at a glance looked "special" in terms of having slightly mirrored surfaces and well struck. Love coins that have a special story behind them, as that coin does.
I want a button that says "SPLUNGE!"
I am feeling mellow this morning. Took my wife to the ER yesterday and all it was was appendicitis, rather than one of the nastier things that people of our ages are prone to. The surgery was last night and everything went fine. Have a cup of your favorite brew and relax and count your blessings, people.
A few thoughts on Proofs in general. Philadelphia Mint Proofs are Proofs because the Philadelphia Mint says they are Proofs, including 1886 Three Cent Nickels which were not struck to the standard for Proofs of the day. There are other examples of low-quality Proofs of other years that are dang near impossible to tell from the business strikes the Mint issued to avoid Proof-only years. The 1885 Three Cent Nickel is Exhibit A.
A private mint has the right to call its products Proofs, though I see no indication that Humbert ever called this magnificent piece a Proof. (I would not call it a Proof, BUT I DON'T CARE! I would love to own it for what it is, regardless of what anybody else says about it.) That said, the coin hobby/industry is under no obligation to accept a private mint's designation of a coin as Proof.
A foreign government mint has the right to call its products Proofs, though again the coin hobby/industry is under no obligation to accept a foreign government's designation of a coin as Proof.
During the coin boom of the 1960's and 70's many foreign governments tried to jump on the bandwagon and offer sets of their coins as Proofs to cash in on the hot coin market. Some of these were laughable. Coin World as the industry leader established a "Proof Board" that every foreign Proof set had to pass before it could be advertised as such. I served on the Board for a few years.
Lacking official standards, we said that a coin or a set either was or was not "...a Proof as that term is understood by North American collectors." Our call, and we had the power to enforce it in "Coin World" and "World Coins" and "The Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine" after we bought it. That said, Numismatic News or The Numismatist had the right to accept or reject ads for Proofs as they saw fit.
I would have no problem with a major TPG such as our gracious host setting up a "Proof Board" of their own with experts both on and off the paid staff willing and able to rule on whether a particular coin was a "Proof" or a "Specimen" or what have you. Perhaps a special label could be created for coins judged by such a panel. There would certainly need to be a special charge for such a service.
So go have that cup of something good and kick back and relax because you are alive and well and your biggest problem is what to call some silly old piece of metal!
TD