A new genre for me, an 1873 proof Trade Dollar

trueblood

First year of issue for my type set.

koynekwest

That is a beauty!

Tekkie1

Suhweet!!

bsshog40

Sweeeeeeeeeeet!

Crusty

Holy crap! That thing is incredible....

Kliao

Really nice piece! Love it!

Jimnight

Nice

ilmcoins

Wow!! Very nice!!

golden

Very nice!

Mgarmy

Love it!

pursuitofliberty

Oh my, my, my!!

This is when you say, "I don't always buy Trade Dollars, but when I do ..."

Gorgeous coin! Congrat's!!

OriginalDan

Great coin!

Did you notice the long die scratch through liberty’s dress? Not too many proof coins with something like that.

Smudge

If you’re going to get one it may as well be magnificent. Well done.

kiyote

Wow that’s nice.

I am somewhat ignorant of the series but it seems to me that buying a proof would be an even additional layer against buying a counterfeit.

trueblood

Update!!
This forum is so educational it is amazing. I listened to all the learned members and purchased the following books way ahead of time:
Bowers Silver Dollar & Trade Dollar Encyclopedia for its wide breadth of info on Trade Dollars
Eliasberg Catalog 1997 for its Proofs photos of close to the finest known examples

And a hearty thank you to all the members here you posted in this thread.

ricko

Proof Trade Dollars are just a work of art.... Though I prefer them without tarnish, the beauty of the design and fine details are just incredible. Cheers, RickO

amwldcoin

How can you not like that tarnish?

@ricko said:
Proof Trade Dollars are just a work of art.... Though I prefer them without tarnish, the beauty of the design and fine details are just incredible. Cheers, RickO

ricko

@amwldcoin .... Very easily.... Tarnish is environmental damage. I do not like damage to a coin. Pretty colors are for flower arrangements, not coins.... In my ever so humble, but firm, opinion. Cheers, RickO

ThreeCentSilverFL

Wow nice coin. It's the same 1873 T$1 PF65 pictured on the first page of the Coinfacts site.

https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1873-t-1-trade/7053

NumisOxide

Fantastic coin!

Eldorado9

the 73 is rarest of the proofs! Very nice piece....

crazyhounddog

What a beast!! Congratulations on such a terrific addition.
A beautiful piece in every way👍

johnny9434

I could live with that. its a beauty

TwoSides2aCoin

Nice. Looks like the deep pool.

TwoSides2aCoin

@ricko said:
@amwldcoin .... Very easily.... Tarnish is environmental damage. I do not like damage to a coin. Pretty colors are for flower arrangements, not coins.... In my ever so humble, but firm, opinion. Cheers, RickO

Well a dip might give the coin a numeric upgrade but who would chance it ?

Yorkshireman

@TwoSides2aCoin said:

@ricko said:
@amwldcoin .... Very easily.... Tarnish is environmental damage. I do not like damage to a coin. Pretty colors are for flower arrangements, not coins.... In my ever so humble, but firm, opinion. Cheers, RickO

Well a dip might give the coin a numeric upgrade but who would chance it ?

It seems like Ricko would!!

coinsarefun

That is a beautiful Trade Dollar proof!

JRocco

Fantastic coin.
Congrats on the purchase.

santinidollar

Very nice! A proof trade dollar is on my list. Pardon me if I drool with envy...

OriginalDan

The Garrett pedigree is just gravy on top of an already great coin.

Not literally.

abcde12345

@Jimnight said:
Nice

Super nice! :)

kaz

Wow, just a superb specimen. Nice job tracking down the provenance as well. Garrett!!!
(Looks a lot like the coin on the cover of M. Goodman's book, too.)

Crypto

@kaz said:
Wow, just a superb specimen. Nice job tracking down the provenance as well. Garrett!!!
(Looks a lot like the coin on the cover of M. Goodman's book, too.)

The pre 1878 proofs are so much scarer, Great coin. Thanks for sharing it with us as having someone to share your stuff with is important. Also being a totally new forum member, if you need any advice in the series just ask... there are some real experts on here. We have seen some people jump into Trade $ without the needed comprehension and make some embarrassing mistakes.

TennesseeDave

Beautiful example. Congrats

MFeld

@Eldorado9 said:
the 73 is rarest of the proofs! Very nice piece....

While not generally considered to be collectible, I think the 1884‘s and 1885’s would disagree.😉

Edited to add: My apologies for not having commented on the subject coin, first. It looks both highly attractive and wholly original - congratulations.

TurtleCat

@MFeld said:

@Eldorado9 said:
the 73 is rarest of the proofs! Very nice piece....

While not generally considered to be collectible, I think the 1884‘s and 1885’s would disagree.😉

They would but those two dates weren’t made for the general public anyway. It’s funny how the mint would make just enough dollar gold coins to prevent them from being instant rarities and then surreptitiously mint things like those two for themselves and/or well connected people.

Maybe things haven’t changed at the mint all that much when you look at more recent shenanigans.

MFeld

@Eldorado9 said:
the 73 is rarest of the proofs! Very nice piece....

I think the 1884‘s and 1885’s would disagree.😉> @TurtleCat said:

@MFeld said:

@Eldorado9 said:
the 73 is rarest of the proofs! Very nice piece....

While not generally considered to be collectible, I think the 1884‘s and 1885’s would disagree.😉

They would but those two dates weren’t made for the general public anyway. It’s funny how the mint would make just enough dollar gold coins to prevent them from being instant rarities and then surreptitiously mint things like those two for themselves and/or well connected people.

Maybe things haven’t changed at the mint all that much when you look at more recent shenanigans.

That wasn’t necessarily the case with the 1884 Trade Dollars. The below is from an auction description of one of them:

“ Although no business-strike Trade dollars were struck at any U.S. Mint after 1878, the Philadelphia Mint continued to strike generous proof mintages every year through 1883 to satisfy collector demand for the coins. Apparently, Mint officials assumed this practice would be continued in 1884, as the Trade dollar denomination was not officially cancelled until 1887. The Die Record Book, kept by foremen A.W. Downing and A.W. Straub, records a receipt for both an obverse and reverse proof die for the 1884 Trade dollar prepared on January 3, 1884. Following the customary practice, Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Archibald Loudon Snowden probably ordered the striking of an initial batch of proof sets for the year in the first week of January. The Fourteenth Annual Report of the Director of the Mint for 1886, page 126, Table 30, notes that 264 Trade dollars were "Issued as Proof Pieces" in 1884. The coins were delivered to the Cashier on January 19. However, the Mint received orders to exclude Trade dollars from the annual proof offerings shortly afterward and it is presumed most of the coins were subsequently melted for recoinage. Both obverse and reverse dies were destroyed on January 2, 1885, according to the die destruction report of the Coiner.”

jesbroken

Absolutely a most beautiful specimen. Anyone would be proud to possess such a gorgeous example of our Coinage History. Thank you for sharing. Quite envious.
Jim

Zoins

@pursuitofliberty said:
Oh my, my, my!!

This is when you say, "I don't always buy Trade Dollars, but when I do ..."

Gorgeous coin! Congrat's!!

Awesome coin and totally agree!

Zoins

@MFeld said:

@Eldorado9 said:
the 73 is rarest of the proofs! Very nice piece....

I think the 1884‘s and 1885’s would disagree.😉> @TurtleCat said:

@MFeld said:

@Eldorado9 said:
the 73 is rarest of the proofs! Very nice piece....

While not generally considered to be collectible, I think the 1884‘s and 1885’s would disagree.😉

They would but those two dates weren’t made for the general public anyway. It’s funny how the mint would make just enough dollar gold coins to prevent them from being instant rarities and then surreptitiously mint things like those two for themselves and/or well connected people.

Maybe things haven’t changed at the mint all that much when you look at more recent shenanigans.

That wasn’t necessarily the case with the 1884 Trade Dollars. The below is from an auction description of one of them:

“ Although no business-strike Trade dollars were struck at any U.S. Mint after 1878, the Philadelphia Mint continued to strike generous proof mintages every year through 1883 to satisfy collector demand for the coins. Apparently, Mint officials assumed this practice would be continued in 1884, as the Trade dollar denomination was not officially cancelled until 1887. The Die Record Book, kept by foremen A.W. Downing and A.W. Straub, records a receipt for both an obverse and reverse proof die for the 1884 Trade dollar prepared on January 3, 1884. Following the customary practice, Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Archibald Loudon Snowden probably ordered the striking of an initial batch of proof sets for the year in the first week of January. The Fourteenth Annual Report of the Director of the Mint for 1886, page 126, Table 30, notes that 264 Trade dollars were "Issued as Proof Pieces" in 1884. The coins were delivered to the Cashier on January 19. However, the Mint received orders to exclude Trade dollars from the annual proof offerings shortly afterward and it is presumed most of the coins were subsequently melted for recoinage. Both obverse and reverse dies were destroyed on January 2, 1885, according to the die destruction report of the Coiner.”

While intended for normal distribution, it seems like that was interrupted.

How did the surviving 1884s get out?

Eldorado9

Speaking of 1884's.....This one is awful pretty.

trueblood

@kaz said:
Wow, just a superb specimen. Nice job tracking down the provenance as well. Garrett!!!
(Looks a lot like the coin on the cover of M. Goodman's book, too.)

Mark Goodman's book cover is a gorgeously toned high graded pattern piece.

scubafuel

Given the quality of your "new genre", I think we'd all like to know what you were working on before this!

trueblood

@scubafuel said:
Given the quality of your "new genre", I think we'd all like to know what you were working on before this!

A completely different genre but with similarities
This is a hand colored engraving of the U.S.S. Constitution vs the French Guierre. I have a great number of naval battle vintage prints.
.
Thanks for asking.
So if anyone is interested in selling naval medals and Proof Trade Dollars I am your man. And of course any vintage prints too.

airplanenut

@TwoSides2aCoin said:

@ricko said:
@amwldcoin .... Very easily.... Tarnish is environmental damage. I do not like damage to a coin. Pretty colors are for flower arrangements, not coins.... In my ever so humble, but firm, opinion. Cheers, RickO

Well a dip might give the coin a numeric upgrade but who would chance it ?

Not necessarily. Especially with proofs, toning can hide or diminish hairlines, and stripping the color could result in more marks being visible. That is, of course, not a knock on the coin in any way, nor a thought that it's improperly graded. Apart from being attractive, the toning may even come with a bonus of making the coin look just a bit cleaner, too. Another time where you see this often (and not always in such an attractive manner) is with business strike Franklins from mint sets, which can sometimes come very deeply toned (not always great), but grade well because the toning masks marks seen on untoned examples.

MFeld

@airplanenut said:

@TwoSides2aCoin said:

@ricko said:
@amwldcoin .... Very easily.... Tarnish is environmental damage. I do not like damage to a coin. Pretty colors are for flower arrangements, not coins.... In my ever so humble, but firm, opinion. Cheers, RickO

Well a dip might give the coin a numeric upgrade but who would chance it ?

Not necessarily. Especially with proofs, toning can hide or diminish hairlines, and stripping the color could result in more marks being visible. That is, of course, not a knock on the coin in any way, nor a thought that it's improperly graded. Apart from being attractive, the toning may even come with a bonus of making the coin look just a bit cleaner, too. Another time where you see this often (and not always in such an attractive manner) is with business strike Franklins from mint sets, which can sometimes come very deeply toned (not always great), but grade well because the toning masks marks seen on untoned examples.

The same that was said of Franklin halves can be said for just about any type of medium or deeply toned coin. Sure, dipping a coin can result in a grade increase. But it can just as (or more) easily lead to a grade decrease.

airplanenut

@MFeld said:

@airplanenut said:

@TwoSides2aCoin said:

@ricko said:
@amwldcoin .... Very easily.... Tarnish is environmental damage. I do not like damage to a coin. Pretty colors are for flower arrangements, not coins.... In my ever so humble, but firm, opinion. Cheers, RickO

Well a dip might give the coin a numeric upgrade but who would chance it ?

Not necessarily. Especially with proofs, toning can hide or diminish hairlines, and stripping the color could result in more marks being visible. That is, of course, not a knock on the coin in any way, nor a thought that it's improperly graded. Apart from being attractive, the toning may even come with a bonus of making the coin look just a bit cleaner, too. Another time where you see this often (and not always in such an attractive manner) is with business strike Franklins from mint sets, which can sometimes come very deeply toned (not always great), but grade well because the toning masks marks seen on untoned examples.

The same that was said of Franklin halves can be said for just about any type of medium or deeply toned coin. Sure, dipping a coin can result in a grade increase. But it can just as (or more) easily lead to a grade decrease.

Agreed. I chose Franklins because in my experience a large proportion of the higher graded pieces tend to be toned, but yes, it's an effect that can exist with most issues.

CalifornianKing

@ThreeCentSilverFL said:
Wow nice coin. It's the same 1873 T$1 PF65 pictured on the first page of the Coinfacts site.

https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1873-t-1-trade/7053

Looks like this is a troll, first off account was made fairly recently, and second of it's purchasing a multimillion dollar coin (probably). that's on the first page of coinfacts

MFeld

@CalifornianKing said:

@ThreeCentSilverFL said:
Wow nice coin. It's the same 1873 T$1 PF65 pictured on the first page of the Coinfacts site.

https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1873-t-1-trade/7053

Looks like this is a troll, first off account was made fairly recently, and second of it's purchasing a multimillion dollar coin (probably). that's on the first page of coinfacts

What are you talking about?
I’ve seen no hint of trolling and I don’t recall anyone in this thread talking about buying a multimillion dollar coin. I recommend that you carefully read all of the posts. And if you don’t don’t find solid evidence to support your accusation, you owe an apology.

airplanenut

@MFeld said:

@CalifornianKing said:

@ThreeCentSilverFL said:
Wow nice coin. It's the same 1873 T$1 PF65 pictured on the first page of the Coinfacts site.

https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1873-t-1-trade/7053

Looks like this is a troll, first off account was made fairly recently, and second of it's purchasing a multimillion dollar coin (probably). that's on the first page of coinfacts

What are you talking about?
I’ve seen no hint of trolling and I don’t recall anyone in this thread talking about buying a multimillion dollar coin. I recommend that you carefully read all of the posts. And if you don’t don’t find solid evidence to support your accusation, you owe an apology.

Nothing quite says multi-million dollar coin like a screenshot indicating that a coin one grade higher set the price record back in 2004 at OVER $63,000!

calgolddiver

VERY NICE !!!! congratulations on a great type coin !!!!