Let's play is it a PROOF or not...Trade Dollar edition
OriginalDan
Posts: 3,747 ✭✭✭✭✭
I've had this coin for a while now and I'm pretty sure it's a proof. This die pair is only known as a proof, and the reverses are always weekly struck. I'd also point out that you don't see too many circulation strike trade dollars that tone like this...but you do on the proofs.
Here's another example, same die pair, graded Proof 62.
There's a very specific pickup on this reverse die that helps with identification. The 2nd L in DOLLAR has a missing serif.
The coin has clearly seen a small amount of circulation...PCGS graded it AU55. The picture doesn't do it any justice, the colors are too washed out compared to the coin in hand. The mirrors are faint, but they are there. I owned the other coin pictured at one point and the mirrors weren't overly strong on that coin either.
Looking for opinions. Proof or not? If it's not, then we've found the first known circulation strike of this die pair, but it wouldn't be the first "first" in the trade dollar variety realm we've seen on this forum.
Comments
A few more pics to show the coin "in hand".
Absolutely a proof and very rare as such but absolutely a slim chance of a PCGS graded it as so without a authoritative reference book for them defer to. Paging @keoj to provide such a book for them
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
what did NGC grade it?
Very cool. Little I know about trade $’s but still love them very much.
.
CoinsAreFun Toned Silver Eagle Proof Album
.
Gallery Mint Museum, Ron Landis& Joe Rust, The beginnings of the Golden Dollar
.
More CoinsAreFun Pictorials NGC
Looks like a circulated proof. As foe dies I have no clue.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Help me out here OD, please. I'm very new to studying $T, am I to understand that all 1876 $T Proofs have only the type ll reverse? I've read that no 1/1 obv/rev were found in a great search thru auctions, but does that mean their are none? I have a photo of an 1876 Proof $T that does not have the missing serif in the 2nd L. If it is a type l and they do exist, then I need a better book.
Which book is the most informative and correct?
Thanks for sharing and great find you have there.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
I did not know those proofs were struck so weakly on the rev... where was QC at the mint in those days? (probably having a stein and the free lunch at the beer hall down the street)
The Mint reused proof dies to mint circulations strikes. The first 1873 proof (not the one with the whip die scratches in the lower reverse, which was reused for subsequent years' proofs) was reprovisioned, though the obverse die was paired with a different reverse die and the reverse die was paired with a new obverse die for those business strikes. I am not convinced that 1875 had any true Type II reverse proofs. The timing of the things at the Mint suggests that they were simply nice specimen strikes for the new design. That would account for their rarity and the fact that a high proportion of the 1875 circulation strikes are of that die pair. Those business strikes were all done in August. So it is not unlikely that that Type I/I 1876 proof pair was used also for business strikes, especially considering the later delivery of Type II dies.
how about the reeds/edge and collar?
they can often contain info that impaired proof fields/surfaces fail to convey.
anyone here well versed in business strike vs proof slide marks? LVA is a rather large proponent of such study; especially for authentication.
slide marks = the lines/metal movement on the edges/sides of the devices that show a die struck it and sometimes even more info.
since we regularly run into situations like this for possible proofs that are impaired, where the diagnostics are a match for business strikes/proofs/sp and thus virtually useless, that leaves us with depth of strike, rim, edge, reed count etc. (and possibly dentil counts?)
fwiw, i still vote that in situations like this, it is best to send under the variety service as more attention is paid/spent and the tpg is incentivized to come up with a specific and accurate answer. also helps something like this simply being dismissed as i'm confident the tpgs get TONS of coins purporting to be one thing but turn out not to.
my 2c
How flashy are the mirrors at AU 55? You say faint...
I owned a Morgan dollar in PR 45. Even after all that circulation, the mirrors in the recesses were so deep that it was unquestionably a proof.
There are 4 die pairs of 76 proof in order of rareness
Type 1/1 very rare and identified by the die marker on dollar with a few other. No know circulation strikes with that die and very few proofs as well
Type 2/2 scarce in proof and rare in business
Type 1.5/2 scarce in proof and almost rare in business strike. Type 1 Obv with recut hand to mirror the 4 finger type 2
Type 2/2 common both proof and UNC
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
I can point to five Type I/I certified proofs in the Heritage auction archives. They are all in remarkably low grades: ICG 61, NGC 58, PCGS UNC Details, NGC 61, and NGC 63. Can relate links to the specific auctions if anyone is interested.
As for that broken lower left serif of the second L of DOLLAR, there is a curious earlier business strike from 1875-S and at least another pairing as well I am pretty sure. Here is one example:
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1051157
Of course, not the same die, but that characteristic is not specific to that one die.
NGC graded it AU58, but I doubt it was submitted as a proof. When I submitted to PCGS, I specified proof so I would assume they took a hard look at it and disagreed.
Edges are square with some remaining “wire effect” and say proof all day long.
I’m not familiar with what you’re talking about, but what I do observe is the “dished and mirrored” effect from the stars through the dentils. I’ve only ever seen that on a proof.
I don’t get this. There aren’t any varieties recognized for TD proof coins. I specified the proof coin number when I sent it in, what are you suggesting I should have done differently?
They’re so/so flashy, but the mirrors on the PR62 I owned were also pretty blah. For this specific die pair, the proofs are not well made. They are only somewhat mirrored, and you can see how weakly struck the eagles leg is. I wonder if none of them are proofs?
Sure, other coins show that broken serif. The point here is that this specific reverse 1876-P die is only known on proof coins, which I would expect to lend it credibility as a proof.
Show us the edge straight on.
Sure does have proof characteristics.... If it were mine, I would send in for reconsideration, with all the detail given here and specific print references. The more you give, the easier it will be for the TPG to certify - or give specifics for denial. Cheers, RickO
As a similar occurrence I transformed an NGC AU details cleaned Trade Dollar to a PCGS Pf 58!
I vote proof for all the reasons specified previously. Here's mine, PCGS PR62. Don't give up yet. It took me two tries to get it from an NGC MS62 into the PCGS PR62. First time as a cross-over (fail), second time cracked out and with paperwork (thanks Keoj!) showing why I believed it was a proof.
mbogoman
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/classic-issues-colonials-through-1964/zambezi-collection-trade-dollars/7345Asesabi Lutho
Rather not remove from the holder at this time.
I submitted the coin a few years ago and I believe I did submit with the same Keoj documentation, but maybe another try would do the trick. Congrats on getting yours into a PR holder.
Cool coin Dan. Gotta be a proof.
I would definitely try, but if Jeff Howard and Rick Montgomery and maybe Salzberg too already saw it, what are the odds of it getting past them not knowing the difference between a PF and an regular issue?
No question at all. This is a Proof. Missing serif in L is the tell along with the strike quality. The stars in this case. I know of about 5 to 8 Type I/I coins. The highest that I know is a NGC 65 in CAM. Second highest is PCGS in 64. Favorite is 62 in PCGS in CAM that is close to DC. Very tough coin. I'm on a quest to collect the four varieties (Crypto mentioned them). Hardest is I/I, followed by II/II, followed by Recut finger/II (some call it a 1.5), and the vastly easiest, the I/II. The PR I/I is roughly 3 to 4 times scarcer than the II/II.
Keoj
Quite good, I doubt circulated proofs draw many 2nd looks in a grading room. Beside the TPGs are simply not down to the die level diagnostic on every series like specialists are. The smoking gun for a coin like this is known by maybe 3 dozen people on earth, the rest use rules of thumb and the poor quality of this emission is misleading.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
np. you addressed the rest of my meandering post quite well !
i usually make posts like that not just for the person i quote but also for posterity; so i went on a bit more than the situation required.
as far as the variety comment, that was also kind of a posterity thing as i've seen several coins posted here where the variety research would have helped, that is done during the variety identification process (fee-based). i didn't really know specifically that proof TD don't have official variety/marriage listings and/or that the tpg wouldn't/don't specify the whole, i/ii, dot after such and such type of designations which may be missed by the every day graders but would likely not slip by a professional attributer. so now you got me thinking, even if a coin doesn't have a technical variety attribution designation, sending it under that service MAY help in decreasing the amounts of times a coin needs be sent off and for valuable/scarce/unreplaceable coins, this is a positive and of course decrease fees involved (lack of extra submissions) for a measly extra $25-30 for the variety service. (it seems more difficult these days to get a coin stopped in the process if one feels it is not accruately designated/graded) - i say all that because special coins often times need special attention and just adding that coin number may not get it that attention but a general grader may say, yes it looks like a xxx or no it doesn't.my experience comes from a LOT of diverse variety submissions of myself, along with discoveries, first graded with a tpg (new coin #s) etc. and extensive conversations with other very good and diverse numismatists and me just trying to help streamline that process (higher success/less subs) although i'm quite confident you have a lot of that experience yourself but we usually benefit form a consult/encouragement from others with such experience.
either way, don't forget us when you get that puppy professionally imaged into its final and properly designated holder!
I vote proof.
Another proof example.
I remember seeing this coin when it was first for sale, cool coin. Not really convinced one way or the other whether it is proof, other than the diagnostic, but I'm no expert
From the TrueView, the texture of the surfaces do look business strike-y (definitely just made that term up).
I typically agree with everything Stealer says form a technical perspective. That said they look like rubbed/worn mirrors to these eyes but would concede that you would expect more ticky tack/baggy hits that are prevalent on many (not all) worn proofs. The toning looks like old PL tone too
I would note there appears to be evidence of the multiple stikings on the letters of DOLLAR in Dan's close ups
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Something about how rounded the "D" in "UNITED" is what is really throwing me off.
@Crypto Could definitely see it just being worn mirrored fields -- I don't have my similar grade PR53/55 coins at hand currently, otherwise I'd shoot some videos.
The two PR53s IIRC have are fully mirrored in the protected areas around the devices. What say you @OriginalDan, are they there on this coin?
I have had PF50 and PF58 with almost no mirrors left. The PF58 was a 76 4 finger and the 50 was a 78P. Not all proof mirrors are equal to start esp on seated coins
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
shoo wee. gotta love that strike(s).