Newly Discovered Proof 1830 Bust Half (Grade Posted, Not Proof)

Rexford

Hi guys,

Just wanted to share this piece that I recently purchased raw from Europe. I bought it sight-unseen based on a scanned photo, but I was hedging on it being a proof due to the extremely detailed strike (see: stars and upper hair curl), the way the light appeared to reflect off of the devices overall, and the very heavy strike doubling to the left of the portrait.

Borrowing from the item description in Heritage’s auction of the PR65 example of the date (now PR65+, and likewise discovered in Europe), here is the roster of the known individuals proofs of the date:

1. PR65+ PCGS, O-110. A recent discovery in the collection of a European noble family, it was in the family collection since the mid-19th century until January, 2014. To our knowledge it has never been in the hands of a U.S. collector since it was minted (per Marc Emory, December 1, 2013 email). The present coin.
2. Gem Brilliant Proof, O-108. Dr. Christian Allenburger Collection (B. Max Mehl, 3/1948), lot 865; John Jay Pittman; Pittman Collection, Part II (David Akers, 5/1998), lot 1494; Medio-Gomez Collections (American Numismatic Rarities, 6/2004), lot 4360; Public Auction Sale (Stack's, 12/2003), lot 351.
3. PR64 NGC, O-111. Terrell Collection (American Auction Association, 5/1973), lot 837; Gary Burghoff Collection (Superior, 1/1980), lot 205; Massachusetts Historical Society Sale (Bowers and Merena, 11/19994), lot 2252; Rarities Sale (Bowers and Merena, 8/1999), lot 125; ANA Sale of the Millennium (Bowers and Merena, 8/2000), lot 4111; Benson Collection, Part II (Ira and Larry Goldberg, 2/2002), lot 966; ANA Auction (Bowers and Merena, 7/2003), lot 1503; FUN Signature (Heritage, 1/2005), lot 30217.
4. PR63, O-117. ANA Sale (Kagin's, 8/1977), lot 1460; Auction '84 (Paramount, 7/1984), lot 663; L.W. Hoffecker Collection (Superior, 2/1987), lot 3158; Brilliant-Sieck Collections (Bowers and Merena, 1/1992), lot 347; George "Buddy" Byers Collection (Stack's, 10/2006), lot 1075.
5. PR62+ Cameo PCGS, O-103. Long Beach Signature (Heritage, 10/1989), lot 602; Thomas Chalkley Collection (Superior, 1/1990), lot 3531; Chicago Sale (Superior, 8/1991), lot 509; Pittsburgh Signature (Heritage, 8/2004), lot 6215; FUN Signature (Heritage, 1/2013), lot 5635.
6. Brilliant Proof, O-110. Public Auction Sale (Lester Merkin, 2/1971), lot 720; Reed Hawn Collection (Stack's, 8/1973), lot 93; Robison Collection (Stack's, 2/1982), lot 1589.

As you can see, except for the two O-110s, all of the dies used to strike these proofs are different. The present example is from yet another die, the O-107a (easily distinguishable by the obverse die cracks).

The photos below are of the coin as I received it. Unfortunately it was not stored very well over the last two centuries and was coated with a haze of PVC. Keeping the coin as is, PVC and all, would preserve the “original” look of the surfaces (though that original look is just a haze of PVC, and not patina) for the short-term, but would only allow that haze to dig deeper into the surfaces over time and damage it further. So, I neutralized it and removed the PVC. Upon doing so, it became clear that a decent amount of damage had been done to the surfaces by the PVC already, though the conservation also revealed a full cameo effect in the fields.

So in essence, I turned an original-looking (keyword: looking) coin that might pass as a 62 or plausibly even a 63 at a TPG, with the haze blocking any view of the surface issues, into what will probably be a 60, or if I am very lucky a 61CAM - but in doing so preserved the coin better for the long-term. Obviously I feel terrible about it, since there’s potentially a big difference in value and immediate eye appeal, but it was probably for the best in terms of future owners of the coin. I don’t have pics of how it looked after conservation, but I’m sure PCGS will get some nice TrueViews of it in about a week. Anyway, here it is:

Videos of each side: https://imgur.com/a/mYhZxQc

ricko

Nice looking coin....I believe you did the right thing by removing the PVC....Leaving it would lead to complete disaster. Let us know what it grades. Cheers, RickO

MFeld

While the strike is very sharp, the photos don't make me think "Proof".

Rexford

@ricko said:
Nice looking coin....I believe you did the right thing by removing the PVC....Leaving it would lead to complete disaster. Let us know what it grades. Cheers, RickO

Thank you, it’s a comfort to hear that since I’ve been beating myself up internally over it for the past couple of days.

Here’s the photo of the coin from the seller, incidentally:

Rexford

@MFeld said:
While the strike is very sharp, the photos don't make me think "Proof".

I can understand that, it’s hard to tell from two-dimensional photos. Check out the videos! The other thing to note is that proofs of this era are not quite the same in appearance as proofs of even a couple of decades later would be.

MFeld

@Rexford said:

@MFeld said:
While the strike is very sharp, the photos don't make me think "Proof".

I can understand that, it’s hard to tell from two-dimensional photos. Check out the videos! The other thing to note is that proofs of this era are not quite the same in appearance as proofs of even a couple of decades later would be.

I understand about the photos and the fabric of Proofs from that era. I have handled a fair number of them, however, including a killer 1827.

While not foolproof as indicators, I look for mirrored surfaces within the shield stripes on the reverse and within the ribbon of the headband (surrounding the letters LIBERTY) on the obverse. Many non-Proofs exhibit reflective surfaces in most other areas, but not those.

DelawareDoons

The strongly doubled profile is a very interesting characteristic.

I also am not sure it is a proof, personally. But it's... Something. Heck of a coin.

I would not sweat the PVC removal. It would have had to come off one way or another.

NumisOxide

Wow very reflective fields! Nice coin. Is that a die crack on the obverse at 4oclock? Would the mint strike a proof coin back then with a damaged die?

johnny9434

Nice strike I like

Rexford

@coinJP said:
Wow very reflective fields! Nice coin. Is that a die crack on the obverse at 4oclock? Would the mint strike a proof coin back then with a damaged die?

Yep, that’s a die crack. I had that thought as well, but I could see it happening. Based on the variance in dies used to strike the other proofs, it kind of seems to me like they just struck them when they needed them, probably from the freshest die they had available. Though it has the cracking, the detail of the devices upon the die was evidently full.

lkeigwin

Removing the PVC was definitely the right thing to do. I hope acetone was used, not something harmful to the surfaces.

The O.107 often has portrait doubling. I suppose the loose die was not tightened until many halves were struck.

The coin does not look like a proof to me -- nor a cameo, but I have not handled many and am not that familiar. I would be surprised if the Mint used a cracked, wobbly die. And I would expect greater depth and definition than this coin has (hair curls, lower feathers and arrow fletchings, banner, etc.).

But good luck with grading and be sure to let us know how it fared. The True View too!
Lance.

Wahoo554

Great coin. Cool that you sourced it from Europe. Did you win it in an auction, or was it just listed for sale?

Rexford

I can understand the above comments, though I think it is a piece that requires viewing in hand. To reiterate, these images were taken pre-conservation, meaning the mirrors and reflectivity are not very visible.

Regarding strike - the strike on this thing is insane. There is essentially no weakness, and the details are hammered to the point of having a decent amount of relief (third pic). Strike is also not universally perfect among proofs of this era, so it’s not the be-all-end-all. As an example, here’s one of the same date that is undeniably weaker: https://coins.ha.com/itm/bust-half-dollars/half-dollars/1830-50c-pr64-ngc-o-111-this-is-an-extremely-rare-date-to-find-in-proof-the-present-writer-jmm-cataloged-this-coin-whe/a/360-30217.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

I think the only thing we can do now is wait for our host to review it.

lkeigwin

Here are two coins to compare. The first is a non-cameo proof (not mine) and the second a very nicely struck business strike (I own). Each has stronger detail.

Again, I wish you luck on the grading and hope you'll share results.
Lance.

Rexford

@lkeigwin said:
Here are two coins to compare. The first is a non-cameo proof (not mine) and the second a very nicely struck business strike (I own). Each has stronger detail.

Again, I wish you luck on the grading and hope you'll share results.
Lance.

Thank you. That specific proof example is extremely well struck, overall better so than mine (incidentally, that’s the other proof that was sourced from Europe) - but it has slight weakness in some of the obverse stars while mine does not. And again, there isn’t necessarily consistency with the strikes on these, even among proofs, as they’re almost all struck on different dies from one another. The more important thing, in my view, is the fact that it is struck more than once while at the same time being such an early die state.

I agree that the reverse of the business strike is stronger than mine, but the obverse is not. See the hair curls below. The sharpness of these specific areas, as well as the stars, are what originally put this piece in a different league for me. But even so, strike is not the defining category of these, but rather one factor. It is the combination of strike, watery mirrored fields, extremely early die state, and double striking that together lead me to no other conclusion.

291fifth

Very well struck and struck from near new dies ... but probably not a proof. An interesting coin regardless.

keets

trying to compare different pictures with different lighting isn't a good way to establish a coins's method of manufacture. also, the Mint from this era helped make things confusing by using Proof dies to strike circulation issues. for that reason it's a hard sell using diagnostics from other Proof coins. I don't think the coin is a Proof, though it may be, so the best course of action is to submit it as such and allow PCGS to make a determination.

TomB

I'll be upfront with you and state that nearly every claim of proof coinage from this era is a claim that I don't believe after seeing images of, or handling, the coin in question. This coin is no exception. It has a lot going for it, but unless you had some type of undisputed hot trail of provenance or pedigree from the seller then I think we are simply looking at a well-struck coin.

The videos are a nice touch, but that fiber dangling from your ring finger was awfully distracting.

Rexford

@TomB said:
The videos are a nice touch, but that fiber dangling from your ring finger was awfully distracting.

I was hoping you all would ignore that 😅

lkeigwin

Huh. Well, I guess we'll just disagree which obverse strike is better. IMO the 1826 is far superior.
Lance.

Treashunt

either way, a nice coin

roadrunner

Lack of reverse striking details on the 1830 include the top most arrow head shaft (totally flat), some vertical shield lines merged, and the most obvious are the very flat upper wing tips. That's not just wear - that's mostly striking details. Note how on the proofs and better struck uncs the wing tips are rounded or peaked like a mountain top. While some of the talon and knuckle detail is sharp that's not enough when other reverse areas are lacking. It's easy to get fooled by "hair curls" in the centers of the coin. They are not as easy to evaluate and striking pressure their tends to be high. Instead, focus on the obverse stars, denticles, and edging. Too many of those denticles fade into the field with no clear demarcation or 3D profile.

topstuf

@Treashunt said:
either way, a nice coin

I'll second that in spite of its apparent abject failure at being a verified and much heralded proof.

keets

The videos are a nice touch, but that fiber dangling from your ring finger was awfully distracting.

we are indeed a tough crowd, but we keep it real and hold on to our sense of humor, don't we?? I will admit to not watching the videos until TomB mentioned the hair and when I went to view them.......................son-of-a-gun I couldn't stop laughing!!! nice touch, Rex!!

Elcontador

I don't want to sound like I have an attitude, but a hammered strike on a CBH in itself doesn't support the idea that your coin is PF. I have an 1817 business strike in MS 64 and I've never seen any other CBH with a strike as hammered as mine (which is why I bought it).

In a perfect world, I could have Mark Feld - he has handled a number of actual PF coins of the series, I have not - to see my coin and comment about it. Both Jim Stoutjesdtyk and Todd Imhoff at Heritage have seen it.

Rexford

@Elcontador said:
I don't want to sound like I have an attitude, but a hammered strike on a CBH in itself doesn't support the idea that your coin is PF.

I wholeheartedly agree.

tradedollarnut

That has more fabric of a proof than many early coins I’ve seen in tpg proof designated holders. Let us know the submission results.

Rexford

@tradedollarnut said:
That has more fabric of a proof than many early coins I’ve seen in tpg proof designated holders. Let us know the submission results.

Yay, a concurring opinion!

I certainly will post the results, regardless of the outcome.

astrorat

@Rexford said:

@tradedollarnut said:
That has more fabric of a proof than many early coins I’ve seen in tpg proof designated holders. Let us know the submission results.

Yay, a concurring opinion!

I certainly will post the results, regardless of the outcome.

Hmmmm ... a concurring opinion? I think something equivalent to "I have seen less proofy coins in TPG proof designated holders is not quite the same as "Your coin is a proof."

Please do post the results so we call can learn. Since you are a dealer, perhaps you can ask JD for his opinion. I bet if sent to PCGS it will cross his desk anyway.

Edited for spelling ...

Senator32

Amazing strike regardless of the strike type, but will be interesting to see how it grades @Rexford , nice find!

Relaxn

Where is @astrorat ? I would value his opinion... Some of the big boys have weighed in... interesting coin.
I hope it is what you hope it is.... If it is not what you think it is I hope you are not buried in it...

astrorat

@Relaxn said:
Where is @astrorat ? I would value his opinion... Some of the big boys have weighed in... interesting coin.
I hope it is what you hope it is.... If it is not what you think it is I hope you are not buried in it...

That's very kind of you.

I cannot gain enough information by viewing the images and videos provided to discern the difference between a well struck, proof-like 19th century half dollar from a proof of the same era.

It would be interesting to see what the coin looks like now that the PVC has been removed.

The lack of luster on the surfaces in the field in front of Liberty and on Liberty's cheek give me pause, but that is unrelated to it's status as a proof or circulation strike.

Rexford

@astrorat said:

@Relaxn said:
Where is @astrorat ? I would value his opinion... Some of the big boys have weighed in... interesting coin.
I hope it is what you hope it is.... If it is not what you think it is I hope you are not buried in it...

The lack of luster on the surfaces in the field in front of Liberty and on Liberty's cheek give me pause, but that is unrelated to it's status as a proof or circulation strike.

Glad you brought that bit up. Best I could figure, that seems to be a surface issue as a result of a particularly heavy patch of PVC sitting there for presumably a very long time and starting to permeate the surface. Removing the PVC didn’t do too much to the look of that area unfortunately. The rest of the fields are mirrored, save for a very small spot on the reverse with the same issue (not distinguishable in my photos).

astrorat

@Rexford said:

@astrorat said:

@Relaxn said:
Where is @astrorat ? I would value his opinion... Some of the big boys have weighed in... interesting coin.
I hope it is what you hope it is.... If it is not what you think it is I hope you are not buried in it...

The lack of luster on the surfaces in the field in front of Liberty and on Liberty's cheek give me pause, but that is unrelated to it's status as a proof or circulation strike.

Glad you brought that bit up. Best I could figure, that seems to be a surface issue as a result of a particularly heavy patch of PVC sitting there for presumably a very long time and starting to permeate the surface. Removing the PVC didn’t do too much to the look of that area unfortunately. The rest of the fields are mirrored, save for a very small spot on the reverse with the same issue (not distinguishable in my photos).

Gotcha ... that makes sense.

shorecoll

I know some experts have commented, but I'm surprised by the (lacking) strike details in the dentils, in this and some other early proofs.

Rexford

@shorecoll said:
I know some experts have commented, but I'm surprised by the (lacking) strike details in the dentils, in this and some other early proofs.

I assume that since all proof half dollars of this date are struck from dies also used for business strikes, the dentils would be no different in detail than those present upon normal business strikes of those dies (i.e. not necessarily super squared off or anything), though presumably of an early die state. I would assume this holds for similar proofs of this era.

Rexford

@btcollects said:
I don't know about the coin, but your fingers and fingernails are sharper and in far better condition than usually seen on the forum, so I'd grade them at least PR65

Now THAT’S the kind of critique I like to hear!

Bob13

Takes guts to bid based on those pics, on a raw coin, in a European auction.

I've won some, I've lost some that way. Lot of emotions when you final receive and open that package!

I'm rooting for ya!

logger7

I found the seller's pictures to be not indicative of proof vs. business strike. Just curious if you were consulting experts as you were contemplating the purchase at a price level commensurate with such a proof value? There are so many cons and frauds out there convincing some of the most scrupulous experts, I would not want to buy uncertified coins like this without an expert and impartial evaluation with some guaranties.

Hydrant

I am wondering why a proof would have machine doubling. Isn't a proof supposed to be as perfect as it can be?

Rexford

@Hydrant said:
I am wondering why a proof would have machine doubling. Isn't a proof supposed to be as perfect as it can be?

Quality control on proofs wasn’t great back then. I have another pre-1858 proof coin that actually has strike tripling.

yosclimber

The current theory in John Dannreuther's research (based on archived Mint letters) is that pre-1858 proofs
were made on demand in small quantities by polishing current dies and planchets.
It's 1858 and later where proofs were struck in quantity from new and relatively perfect dies.

This theory helps explain small quantities from different dies.
It also explains the occasional imperfect die.


(photos courtesy of Heritage Auctions www.ha.com)
An example of an imperfect die proof is the 1838 V-10a half dime in the Pittman and Gardner collections (PCGS PR-67).
It has a large area on the reverse where the die crumbled/spalled (pieces fell off) between MERIC and the wreath.
This is a middle die state of the V-10.
V-10, V-10a and V-10b are fairly common as business strikes.
As a proof there is only one V-10a known, and it sold for $129,250 in the 2014-10 Gardner sale.

scubafuel

Is it possible to tell the difference between the following for pre 1850 coins?
1. Polished planchet, polished dies
2. Polished planchet, normal dies
3. Normal planchet, polished dies

Once dies had been polished to strike a proof “as needed”, they probably weren’t roughened up again before striking the next coin. Nobody would care. So telling the coin struck specially as a proof from the first coin struck afterwards on the same dies seems like it would be very difficult.

RyGuy

@Hydrant said:
I am wondering why a proof would have machine doubling. Isn't a proof supposed to be as perfect as it can be?

My thoughts as well.

Rexford

@scubafuel said:

Is it possible to tell the difference between the following for pre 1850 coins?
1. Polished planchet, polished dies
2. Polished planchet, normal dies
3. Normal planchet, polished dies

Once dies had been polished to strike a proof “as needed”, they probably weren’t roughened up again before striking the next coin. Nobody would care. So telling the coin struck specially as a proof from the first coin struck afterwards on the same dies seems like it would be very difficult.

This is something I’ve been curious about for a while as well. Of course, for the present piece to be the first coin struck after a proof was created from polished dies, would require that there be another O-107a proof out there.

I have a feeling that the present coin’s planchet was treated before striking, and not the die. I didn’t see any die lines despite the watery mirrored surfaces. That’s why I don’t believe it’s a prooflike business strike.

scubafuel

That would make sense to me. If you're at the mint providing a one-off for a visitor or such, it's much easier to shine up a planchet than to remove the dies and shine them.
That said, why would a "better than normal" strike be expected on such a coin? Is it likely they give this one coin extra pressure in the midst of the run, or just strike as normal so the visitor has an "extra shiny" souvenir? This is where my knowledge of mint machinery of that era is lacking. I have no idea how hard it would be to add an extra 10% or so of striking power for a one-off. Seems unlikely to be simple.
However, I can see how a slightly better-than-normal strike could be achieved simply by giving the planchet a good shine and removing any scuffing or debris.

Rexford

@scubafuel said:
That would make sense to me. If you're at the mint providing a one-off for a visitor or such, it's much easier to shine up a planchet than to remove the dies and shine them.
That said, why would a "better than normal" strike be expected on such a coin? Is it likely they give this one coin extra pressure in the midst of the run, or just strike as normal so the visitor has an "extra shiny" souvenir? This is where my knowledge of mint machinery of that era is lacking. I have no idea how hard it would be to add an extra 10% or so of striking power for a one-off. Seems unlikely to be simple.
However, I can see how a slightly better-than-normal strike could be achieved simply by giving the planchet a good shine and removing any scuffing or debris.

I assume the stronger strike is due to a) choosing a pair of dies that have not yet been worn down much, so the design is full, and b) physically striking the coin more than once, which seems to be evidenced here by the doubling detail.

scubafuel

Maybe. But the doubled profile is common on bust halves and is not due to multiple strikes, but rather to a loose die that "bounces" a bit during striking. Basically mechanical doubling. I believe a coin actually struck twice on center would present differently.
Below are two coins from HA archives. The first has a doubled profile (common) and the second is double struck on center (very rare).

Rexford

The other thing to keep in mind is that this is an O-107a. In other words, the second die state of the O-107, when light die cracks started to develop, but before the even later die state of O-107a when strike weakness started to show at the high points, the die cracks started to get really noticeable, and a die chip developed on the first star. This might be an appropriate time to strike a proof, but why would there be a prooflike example of a coin struck from the die at this point in time? The die is no longer fresh, and if polished recently nonetheless, where are the other prooflike O-107 or O-107a pieces?

Rexford

@scubafuel said:
Maybe. But the doubled profile is common on bust halves and is not due to multiple strikes, but rather to a loose die that "bounces" a bit during striking. Basically mechanical doubling. I believe a coin actually struck twice on center would present differently.
Below are two coins from HA archives. The first has a doubled profile (common) and the second is double struck on center (very rare).

Fair point! It does line up better with push doubling.