Very proof-like business strikes and the curious case of the 1856 Flying Eagle cent
renomedphys
Posts: 3,608 ✭✭✭✭✭
As I am aware, there are quite a few business strike issues that can be found very PL. Certain seated liberty dimes for example come with cameo frost and mirrors, as with many Morgan dollars designated as DMPL. No-one really argues that these are business strike. Key diagnostics can at least show that the dies used to make these PL examples are the same ones used to make business strikes.
As we are told by the experts, the term "proof" is more about the coiner's intent, and less about the die used. In several discussions about this with John Danruther I have been told that for several gold issues, individual dies have been used to strike proofs, then used to strike business strikes, and then ONCE AGAIN used to make more proofs. In cases such as these, it would seem that the coiner's intent is obvious, more or less.
Certain issues though, definitely spark a little more heated discussion. Take the Isabella Quarter, or the Columbian Half. In the case of the Quarter, a total of four have been graded by PCGS out of a purported mintage of about 100. This number is undeniably low. As I understand, these were supposedly the first ones struck, seemingly as proofs. The rest were merely struck later in the run, perhaps with "run of the mill" planchets and the same dies. In my (and others) opinion, the reason so few are graded as proof is that there is no real distinguished characteristic of a "proof" versus a "non-proof", so what? Better safe than sorry?
As for the case of the 1856 Flying Eagle, I'm sure most of us have heard the story. With the cost of the old "large" cents exceeding the value of the coin, a new less expensive "small" cent was proposed. After a few pattern runs in the early 1850's, a design was settled on. Supposedly 500 of these were struck as business strikes in 1856 for presentation to members of congress for approval. These 500 (or so) coins have been identified by their die characteristics as "Snow-3". The easiest way to identify these is by the re-punched 5 in the date. As the design was approved, many of these coins were spent and can be found with varying degrees of circulation wear.
To continue the story, these small cents were hugely popular. Tales of people lined up with wheelbarrows full of large cents to trade in for small still persist. Collector interest soon sparked a search for these small cents dated 1856. By some accounts this was one of the genesis points in American numismatics. By 1858, the very concept of a proof coin really came into its own. Looking back, the "proof" mintages of the pre-1850 US mint were small, usually well under 25. After 1856 there was a collector boom. The notion of much larger mintages... 100, 500, 5000 specially made "proofs" took hold. These could be sold at a premium to collectors. in 1858 it would be decided to strike an additional quantity (about 1500) to satisfy demand. These coins were all struck as proofs, and were available individually or as part of a set that could be purchased from the mint. The majority of these 1500 coins are identified as the "Snow-9" die pairing.
So now we have, for the most part, 500 business strikes made in 1856 and 1500 proofs made in 1858, all dated 1856. From this we get the "Approx. 2000" mintage number that many of us remember right under that cardboard plug in the old blue Whitman albums. For most of us, there was never really any distinction between the die varieties. The total mintage of 2000 made this an undeniably rare issue, virtually unobtainable, regardless of the true nature of each individual coin.
Now, and for the past 30+ years, third-party grading and authentication services like PCGS, NGC, ANACS, etc have been certifying coins as authentic. Early on, it would seem that the primary focus was on "is it real" and not so much on die varieties or the provable nature of the coiner's intent. Generally, if it looked like a proof, it was a proof, and if it didn't, it wasn't. I mean sure, circulated proof only issues were graded as proofs, but also the converse, where very proof-like business strikes have been mistakenly attributed as proof. I mean, hey. (Sh)It happens.
Perhaps the most egregious cases of mistaken identity are with these 1856 Flying Eagle Cents. Mint records were pretty clear and understood by authenticators, but going off the old "looks like a proof" method, lots of mistakes were made. Just looking at CoinFacts images of business strike 1856 cents, it is clear that many of them are actually Snow-9's. And of course, many Snow-3 cents were also designated as proof. As I am told, a decision was made by grading company management that in light of these "errors", from this point forward all 1856 cents would be designated as "proof" regardless of their die pairing or appearance.
This was unfortunate, especially for collectors. And ESPECIALLY for collectors trying to complete a set of business strike Flying Eagles. I mean, sure, anybody with enough time, luck, or money could locate a true business strike, but unless it was previously designated as a business strike, it would be graded as a proof and not eligible for inclusion in the set. Worse still, many improperly attributed proofs exist in business strike holders, masquerading as the "real-deal" in registry sets. In this case, one of the primary purposes of third party grading services has failed the collector. Imagine how you would feel if you were sold a restrike as an original, unbeknownst.
Would you care? I mean, the plastic says.
For me, the distinction is important. First, the distinction that a coin is an original, not a restrike, is paramount. My biggest pet-peeve in numismatics is coins that are made AFTER the date on the coin. Sure, maybe I'll never buy an 1804 dollar. Whatever. I don't collect dollars anyway. But for small cents there are at least a couple examples that rub me the wrong way. The 1864-L Indian cent proof is another. From a purported mintage of twenty, perhaps only 8 are known to have been struck with original 1864 dies. The PR2 die pairing (10 known) has been shown to be a restrike produced sometime between 1868 and 1871. I guess that if this matters to you, then you'd better pay attention when you buy.
Going back to the original point of this post, be it regarding 1856 cents, Isabella Quarters, Seated Dimes, and the intent of the coiner, I'd like to hazard a guess. My gut tells me that early on in the production of any issue, especially for a new type, when the dies are new and the planchets are among the first struck, regardless of the intent of the coiner, certain coins can be produced that really look proof-like. I don't think it's far-fetched that coins produced "in business-like fashion" made to impress members of congress would be, in the early part of their run, extremely well made.
Just saying.
Comments
There is a discussion about this topic ATS.
I guess the old adage 'If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck.' does not apply in old coin production.
In numismatics, we do examine - and try to define - the most finite details. There exists controversy in this and other areas. Cheers, RickO
I bet they were all mostly just flashy coins made with normal pressures. What we are seeing is the multiple restrikes made in different emissions with different care for collectors and VIPs. Maybe a few proofs were made the proof way. Same as the 58 and 59 mules. Most of those are PL on a least one side but clearly not made to proof standards. This one has weak diamonds but the shield side is quite flashy. That both doesn’t prove intention to circulate or special manufacturing as some have speculated.
This is a 59 and sorry it hard to capture flash with a cell
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
individual dies have been used to strike proofs, then used to strike business strikes, and then ONCE AGAIN used to make more proofs.
It wasn't just gold issues. For example, the 1959 Franklin is known in PL condition - and we are pretty sure they used old proof dies to make those. Many 19th century coins went through this process (Bust coinage did this often).
Planchet preparation doesn't really affect the mirrors of the finished coin. Below, I show an off center dime graded as PL.
As a collector of PL coinage with little interest in proofs, this is definitely a concern for me.
The time in production, or newness of the type, really has no impact on anything. I've got Seated coinage from the 1890's (quite close to the end of production) that are fully DPL.
It also has nothing to do with the newness of the individual die: it has to do with how recently the die was polished. A brand new die, just placed into service, is not typically polished unless it had some minor defects. A die is inspected before being used, and if there is rust or pitting it will be polished. Only if it is polished will it make a PL coin (most dies of that era were not polished... modern techniques are quite different). Additionally, later in the die's life it would be inspected and repolished. It might have already struck 100,000 coins, but if it was properly polished then it would also strike PL coins. These aren't specimen or presentation strikes, they are simply freshly polished dies to remove clashes, burrs, pitting, etc.
Now, since we're on the subject, how about a certified PL Flying Eagle cent? It isn't a '56, but it is pretty! In hand, the mirrors are flashy and bold.
My dream coin!!
Fantastic posts! I've never liked the arbitrary approach PCGS has taken with these. The bluebird is the only S-3 that seems to have proof characteristics. I have owned it before, and own several more still. My S-3 in PR66+ below is really more MS than proof, and looks much like the Blay MS66 below that one (pics don't show how close they really are). But merely one S-3 proof is not enough to refuse to put any other S-3's in a mint state holder. My MS-65 is at the bottom. The last three have field surfaces that say MS to me.
Bluebird
PR66+
MS66
MS65
Would an examination of the edge to see if it is square or chamferred apply to older issues as a distinction?
I never gave authentication of the subject coins a thought.
Pete
Thanks for all the comments. I've been away for a while and seeing these familiar names responding to my 8 AM rant is heartwarming.
Doug, I just love your fliers. Just the way I like to see them. In fact, I have probably actually seen all/most of those at least in a case if not in hand and they are all special coins. You have a truly amazing set of small cents.
I did manage to finally buy a nice S-3 that satisfies my desire for both EDS and original and yes, PCGS called it a proof. I posted it a couple weeks ago. Here it is:
And yes, it is irritating to me that our hosts call it a proof. I collect proofs. I know what a proof should look like and to me, none of these are actual proofs. Even seeing the Bluebird (in an auction preview that year the Baltimore show was in the back/downstairs hall) , I wasn't left with a sense of "oh wow, I guess they did make a proof" and Rick was there telling me, "It's a proof" To me there's something about the fields/rims/devices in all of these that just doesn't say: "Wow! Deep Mirrors!" or "Sharp Edges!" Most of them are actually kinda dull and while devices may be sharp, they aren't all that way. I mean, it was supposed to be a "production run"
And PL is an interesting distinction. That made sense what you said, Crypto. I guess that's why your PL designated 1858 there doesn't have a full strike on the reverse. Most all actual proofs do. I mean, if a die was used enough to require polishing it makes sense that other parts of the die would be worn.
Anyhoo, I've gotta go make some dinner now, so I'll just repeat this: "Intent of the coiner!"
Ahem, please carry on.
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
A very educational and thoughtful thread. Thank you.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Thank you! I need to go in and update that set. I love the detail in the one you bought! It's a beauty.