Unique PDS Matte Proof Classic Commems!
Zoins
Posts: 34,117 ✭✭✭✭✭
Wow! The US Mint made what sounds like a unique PDS set of matte proof 1937 Daniel Boone Half Dollars.
The Philadelphia coin is being auctioned by Heritage and is up to $70,000 / $84,000 now!
These have sequential PCGS numbers so it's interesting it looks like the set is being broken up now.
Provenance for these includes: US Mint Chief Engraver John R. Sinnock; Abe Kosoff; Jerry Bauman; Anthony Swiatek
- CoinWeek: https://coinweek.com/auctions-news/classic-commemorative-coins-possibly-unique-matte-proof-1937-boone-half-dollar/
- Heritage: https://coins.ha.com/itm/commemorative-silver/1937-50c-boone-matte-pr63-pcgs-cac/a/1318-4115.s?
Here are the cert numbers:
From Walter Breen's observation, these are MS70 coins, but PCGS graded them all MS63.
Walter Breen wrote:
There is a set of the three 1937 coins with matte finish, which has been represented as matte proofs. These are extremely rare and show more detail than on the business strikes. These MS-70 coins must be seen to be fully appreciated. Each of them possesses a double strike with sharp squares letters — especially notable on the PIONEER YEAR inscription. In other words, there isn’t the usual roundness on the lettering, dates or mint marks
Comments
just when i am starting to think i know a few things, you guys & gals post amazing items like these!
for those that want to climb over these things, up-close and personal. p - d - s
edited to add:
ok. i've been a little bummed about seeing coins on the internet w/o full slab shots, even at places you'd think they would take the time but didn't. grrr - so i'm posting one for principle.
Is it accurate to state that “the Mint” made them, even if not authorized or recorded and produced for the chief engraver?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Heritage says the following, emphasis mine.
If they were made in the Mint facilities, I think people generally say the coins were made by the Mint, even unauthorized "errors" and the like.
Wise that they made them with this finish. First of all, it looks nice. Second of all, had they tried the brilliant finish that they were just starting to make a year earlier, chances are much of the background detail on the reverse would be wiped out by die polishing, as would Boone's left arm and other fine, low-relief detail.
The coins look antiqued. I wonder if they were made this way, or if that appearance was acquired over time.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
63 seems like an odd grade for these, as much as trophy coins get grade-flated...these seem to have been punished (for some reason).
They were made that way as matte/sand-blast Proofs. There are a small number of other commemorative issues that were made the same way and also believed to have come from Sinnock.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It’s a finish very similar to Mint medals of this period. I agree; it is very attractive on these commems.
Are there any known collectors that might be going for these?
The major half dollar collections I've seen tend to focus around high grade toners.
Walter Breen wrote: "...These MS-70 coins must be seen to be fully appreciated..."
Yet they only achieved PR63...at least the Philly version.
Interesting pieces, but may not be on the up and up, considering their pedigree of the Mint Engraver and other prominent collectors. (Provenance for these includes: US Mint Chief Engraver John R. Sinnock; Abe Kosoff; Jerry Bauman; Anthony Swiatek)
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
Very attractive coins.... I am puzzled by the PR63 grade though... I guess I would have to see one in hand....Cheers, RickO
I can say that the TPGs are all over the place on 20th Century British matte proofs, so that these got "63"s is not much of a surprise to me.
Well, just Love coins, period.
On coins like that, does grade even matter?
Forgive me for being skeptical.
You are telling me that each mint made one single matte proof, and that they all ended up at the same place? I don't buy it.
Collector, occasional seller
Hopefully no one told you that. The linked article says: "..The origin of the PDS set from which this Proof originates has been researched by commemorative authority Anthony Swiatek with the conclusion that the coins were all struck at the Philadelphia Mint for Chief Engraver John R. Sinnock before the branch mint dies were shipped to their respective facilities."
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Grade seems to matter for just about any and all coins, even if some of us think it shouldn't.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If these had been "lost" over the years, they could have ended up at any local coin shop as "cleaned" uncs.
Yes I missed that in skimming the article. And four rumored sets?
Collector, occasional seller
I like the coin, don’t get me wrong, but I don’t remember Fess Parker being that ugly.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
On coins like that grade does not matter. Cool coins
I have a feeling that some Commem collectors of high grade toned Commems are going to be surprised by the detail on a fully struck Boone!
I have a feeling that if you’re objective and compare the detail on several business strikes, you’ll see that the Proofs don’t have such great detail, after all.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'm skeptical. The surface looks unusual to be sure, but I find it odd that the Mint would choose to strike proof coins as "matte proof" in the 1930s rather than as brilliant proofs. Collectors largely disliked matte proof coins and preferred brilliant finishes. This is why there are a limited number of "satin" 1936 nickels. It is a also why the dies were polished so excessively that it is not uncommon to have finer elements polished away.
I see a lot of broad declarations of opinions as fact, but the article and auction description offer no proof or an explanation of how Swiatek reached his conclusion. I do believe Swiatek to be reputable and an expert, but no one should be expected to take anyone's bold proclamation without evidence on a coin where the designation will mean tens of thousands of dollars or more potentially.
If only four sets were struck, I'm not sure much thought would have been given to what collectors liked or disliked. Conjecture on my part.
I wish RWB were here. I thought he came across evidence suggesting that double or multiple strikes for proof coins was a modern invention and that during this era and for earlier classic proofs the coins were struck once under unusually high pressure using a medal press. Breen frequently claimed doubly struck coins for many of his "proofs" including many that were later refuted so I don't put much faith in the double strike comment.
If you're watching Roger, please find a way to chime in.
And I wonder, what evidence is there that four sets were produced?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Apparently it's just a rumor, so no evidence. I probably should have said "up to only four" for accuracy, but it wouldn't change my point.
And I wonder, what evidence is there that four sets were produced?
I understood where you got the number “four” and agree with your point.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The easiest way to get his feedback is to post ATS.
Someone PMed me. Apparently RWB has posted his views and considers the coins normal/trial strikes:
https://www.ngccoin.com/boards/topic/421311-boon-1937-commemorative-p-d-s-proofs-–-technical-corrections/
Nice write up by Roger.
He has some info on how they were made.
Here's the summary:
So, still unique pieces. Not sure if they are "proof" or not. Since they were struck on medallic presses, the pressure was higher than standard coining presses.
Were these released by John Sinnock then, like how a lot of pieces were distributed through Barber's collection?
Proofs were struck with medal presses. RWB opines that these were struck with normal dies. He says this was commonly done for trial strikes for most classic commemorative issues. If so, I think it would be more appropriate to designate these as specimens rather than matte proof, but I'm not sure the prefix really matters.
Since these were official strikings, I wonder what Sinnock called them?
Regardless of what they are called, I think these are even more special since they are official pieces made in the normal course of production.
I agree that the pieces are fascinating and worthy of a premium. I hesitate to use the word "official" though. RWB mentions that these are not included in official records since these weren't intended for distribution or sale. I think the term "trial strike" is best and is closer to a pattern than an "official" piece as I think most would define that term.
We may have different definitions of "official". To me, official doesn't need to mean made for sale. Regarding Mint records, many records were destroyed at the direction of Mint Director Stella Hackel to comply with President Carter's government waste reduction program.
When Roger wrote the following, they are official to me. (emphasis mine)
@MFeld - Do you think it matters value wise if these are designated as matte proofs rather than specimens? My gut tells me so, but I am curious as to an expert's opinion. I know some Redbook coins took off once designated regular issues rather than patterns (e.g. 1856 FE cent). I think these are closer to patterns than proof. Am I unreasonable in that position?
Sold for $84,000.
That’s a tough one for me, but in this case, I don’t think it matters. The coins appear to have been specially made, are quite distinctive, extremely rare and tied to mint personnel. That said, I don’t think you’re unreasonable in your position, though I’d call them “Specimens” before “Patterns”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Great info none the less. Out of his estate and moved from collection to collection. There it is. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
I agree but i guess my point was i see a lot of poorly struck Commems that people go ga ga over probably because of the toning. Ive had Boones that were at least as well struck as these Commems ( did i spell ga ga correctly ? )
Do you have pics
These are really cool pieces of numismatic history, never heard of them before. I think the grades assigned may be appropriate though. Typically proofs and medals are graded not by contact marks but imperfections and problems. All three of these pieces show dark spots and specs which will hurt the grade of the coin. In reality if they are unique, then who really cares about the grades assigned. It's not like another one is going to show up and grade higher than these three, to me the grade on these is just not that important.