Proof 68CAM Columbian .50C !

SeattleSlammer

Did any of you lucky forumites win this baby? If so, I’d love to see some in-hand pics! What a cool, cool, cool piece. ⭐️ Bingham really had some monsters.

Connecticoin

Holy crow, that is a monster.

Treashunt

Amazing!

Catbert

Nice, but that wouldn't have been my choice. I liked this one that sold at 11.4K - beautiful!

Floridafacelifter

I wanted this one but got blown out

clarkbar04

That Columbian does have a trueview.

Downtown1974

@clarkbar04 said:
That Columbian does have a trueview.

What a beauty!

MWallace

It's a shame it has fingerprints. I hate 'em.

Lakesammman

Love that Oregon - I had a 68 once but nothing like that one!

Catbert

I think I'll be in the minority but that Oregon's colors don't look natural to me.

erwindoc

Maybe this and the other sales will re-energize the series?

Floridafacelifter

@Catbert said:
I think I'll be in the minority but that Oregon's colors don't look natural to me.

I totally agree with you, and that’s probably why it doesn’t have a CAC sticker, but I still wanted it, just not that $$$ much!

Crypto

@Downtown1974 said:

@clarkbar04 said:
That Columbian does have a trueview.

What a beauty!

I’ll take my two PL toned examples for 1/175th the price but that is one of the few “proof” Columbus half’s that was a slam dunk proof

Broadstruck

@Catbert said:
I think I'll be in the minority but that Oregon's colors don't look natural to me.

Yeah, totally aided as 33-D's just don't come that way.

pursuitofliberty

I'm with you on a couple points @Catbert ... most importantly, the Antietam was on the very top of my list

Gregg was a super good guy ... and had a funny sense of humor years ago when he roamed around here.

HighRelief

Maywood

This thread should re-energize the decades old discussion about were there or weren't there any genuinely struck PROOF Columbian Half-Dollars. I don't think that ever been definitively answered.

jughead1893

houston has the oilers,
the greatest football team,
they take the ball from goal to goal,
like no one's ever seen
they're in the air and on the ground,
always in control,
and when you say the oilers,
you're talkin' superbowl

ricko

That Columbian is impressive with great detail. The dual sided tarnish raises some questions for me, and the fingerprint on the image is a spoiler. Probably part of why there is no CAC sticker. Cheers, RickO

joebb21

@Maywood said:
This thread should re-energize the decades old discussion about were there or weren't there any genuinely struck PROOF Columbian Half-Dollars. I don't think that ever been definitively answered.

The toning on the above mentioned coin looks VERY much in line with toning commonly seen on proof coins.
Add the sharp strike. Id heavily go with yes

Rexford

@Floridafacelifter said:
I wanted this one but got blown out

Blatantly AT.

Weiss

I'm probably in the minority, but I'm seeing way, way too much of a good thing here.

MFeld

@Rexford said:

@Floridafacelifter said:
I wanted this one but got blown out

Blatantly AT.

I'm pretty sure I recognize that 1933-D Oregon from a long time ago - is the below coin the same? I thought there was a prior sale to it at a much higher price, but presently, I can't find it.

http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?sale=31&site=1&lot=672

cnncoins

Mark, This is the same coin. I believe Gregg purchased the coin directly out of the Sale several years ago. I also
believe the toning is real. It is consistent with others I've seen that were removed from there original cardboard
holders, with the toning pattern acquired after 60 years in the Wayte Raymond albums. I'm probably one of the few people
that have seen/processed thousands of original commens Including the entire Guttag Collections) that have been stored
In various ways.

MFeld

@cnncoins said:
Mark, This is the same coin. I believe Gregg purchased the coin directly out of the Sale several years ago. I also
believe the toning is real. It is consistent with others I've seen that were removed from there original cardboard
holders, with the toning pattern acquired after 60 years in the Wayte Raymond albums. I'm probably one of the few people
that have seen/processed thousands of original commens Including the entire Guttag Collections) that have been stored
In various ways.

Thanks, Chris - I always enjoy reading your posts.

LanceNewmanOCC

@MFeld said:

I'm pretty sure I recognize that 1933-D Oregon from a long time ago - is the below coin the same? I thought there was a prior sale to it at a much higher price, but presently, I can't find it.

http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?sale=31&site=1&lot=672

.
wow. the goldberg sale 31 goes back a ways.

Auction 31 Closed May 30 - June 16, 2005

Crypto

@Maywood said:
This thread should re-energize the decades old discussion about were there or weren't there any genuinely struck PROOF Columbian Half-Dollars. I don't think that ever been definitively answered.

There are mint records for the first X number of coins being struck as special strikes. What isn’t know if the used proof dies or presses or Multiple stuck polished planchets

Steven59

Beautiful Toners - way out of my league.

cnncoins

I've had the Columbian in my hand several times. IMHO it is clearly a Proof. The story is that this coin was actually the
first Classic Commem stuck - actually the very first one. They decided it wasn't "perfect" and struck another which was sold
for 10K at the time as a big publicity stunt to a US Company - an enormous sum for the day. I do know it was graded
NGC PR 68CAM and it crossed immediately over to PCGS before the GC sale. Both this coin and the 1933-D Oregon are
2 of the coolest commems I've personally ever seen.

SeattleSlammer

@cnncoins said:
I've had the Columbian in my hand several times. IMHO it is clearly a Proof. The story is that this coin was actually the
first Classic Commem stuck - actually the very first one.

If true that would be exceptionally cool.

Maywood

@Crypto said: There are mint records for the first X number of coins being struck as special strikes. What isn’t know if the used proof dies or presses or Multiple stuck polished planchets

Everything I have seen is inconclusive as to the actual process: some believe there to be Proofs and some believe there to just be ceremonial special strikes, both opinions giving compelling arguments. PCGS at one time attributed these as "Proof" and then stopped, apparently they have once again started to do that. The thread below is quite informative and centers on the type of "press" used to strike the coins and the "intent" of the Mint, but even at that I don't think they ever use the word Proof to describe the coins(maybe they do and I missed it).

JMHO, but I think the best that I can infer from everything is that the Mint wanted to have a big Ceremony to release these coins, so they orchestrated one and made some special coins at the Exhibit before demonstrating how the equipment worked for the general public. The designation "SP" works for me.

@CaptHenway posted: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/995061/about-those-allegedly-proof-columbian-half-dollars/p1

FlyingAl

@Maywood said:
@Crypto said: There are mint records for the first X number of coins being struck as special strikes. What isn’t know if the used proof dies or presses or Multiple stuck polished planchets

Everything I have seen is inconclusive as to the actual process: some believe there to be Proofs and some believe there to just be ceremonial special strikes, both opinions giving compelling arguments. PCGS at one time attributed these as "Proof" and then stopped, apparently they have once again started to do that. The thread below is quite informative and centers on the type of "press" used to strike the coins and the "intent" of the Mint, but even at that I don't think they ever use the word Proof to describe the coins(maybe they do and I missed it).

JMHO, but I think the best that I can infer from everything is that the Mint wanted to have a big Ceremony to release these coins, so they orchestrated one and made some special coins at the Exhibit before demonstrating how the equipment worked for the general public. The designation "SP" works for me.

What I got from this thread is that there were no proofs struck. The mint stated rather clearly that they were not to strike proofs, as it just was not possible at the present time.

Without the use of a medal press and the above, the best descriptive term for these would be akin to the "Specimen" given to the 1878-S dollar here not to long ago. Really, what it is is simply proof-like. The newer dies with special handling after the strike would result in a distinctive appearance, but not equal to that of a proof. These are like the "SMS" 1964 coins.

HTubbs

Man, that's a gorgeous coin! I forgot these were struck as "proofs" too.

Crypto

@FlyingAl said:

@Maywood said:
@Crypto said: There are mint records for the first X number of coins being struck as special strikes. What isn’t know if the used proof dies or presses or Multiple stuck polished planchets

Everything I have seen is inconclusive as to the actual process: some believe there to be Proofs and some believe there to just be ceremonial special strikes, both opinions giving compelling arguments. PCGS at one time attributed these as "Proof" and then stopped, apparently they have once again started to do that. The thread below is quite informative and centers on the type of "press" used to strike the coins and the "intent" of the Mint, but even at that I don't think they ever use the word Proof to describe the coins(maybe they do and I missed it).

JMHO, but I think the best that I can infer from everything is that the Mint wanted to have a big Ceremony to release these coins, so they orchestrated one and made some special coins at the Exhibit before demonstrating how the equipment worked for the general public. The designation "SP" works for me.

What I got from this thread is that there were no proofs struck. The mint stated rather clearly that they were not to strike proofs, as it just was not possible at the present time.

Without the use of a medal press and the above, the best descriptive term for these would be akin to the "Specimen" given to the 1878-S dollar here not to long ago. Really, what it is is simply proof-like. The newer dies with special handling after the strike would result in a distinctive appearance, but not equal to that of a proof. These are like the "SMS" 1964 coins.

I would note that the fabric of the PCGS example with it fully formed denticles, full details (stars, ship), squared letters and rims speaks to multiple strikes or increased pressures and the fields appear more than merely PL. Coupled to its handling and some mint records I see no problems with at a minimum a specimen designation and many coins have been called Proof with less. The lack of designated dies or medal press might have not been intent more than operational after thoughts

Maywood

@Crypto said: I would note that the fabric of the PCGS example with it fully formed denticles, full details (stars, ship), squared letters and rims speaks to multiple strikes or increased pressures and the fields appear more than merely PL.

The reporting at the time and Mint records seem to indicate a single strike at normal pressure, again, unless I missed it in that other thread. Also, the rims don't look like what I've come to expect in a Proof coin.

FlyingAl

@Maywood said:
@Crypto said: I would note that the fabric of the PCGS example with it fully formed denticles, full details (stars, ship), squared letters and rims speaks to multiple strikes or increased pressures and the fields appear more than merely PL.

The reporting at the time and Mint records seem to indicate a single strike at normal pressure, again, unless I missed it in that other thread. Also, the rims don't look like what I've come to expect in a Proof coin.

I agree with this. The type of press used is critical, as a medal press will produce a coin that is entirely distinctive from a normal coin. Look at the "branch mint proofs" for examples. Take a look at the Hansen 1894-S dime (not the TrueView) and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. I'll find the thread that has a video of the coin, and when you see it you'll immediately see how it doesn't look anything like a proof. There are proofs of mint marked dies, but those were made at Philadelphia on a medal press. Edit: the video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3CaNvMQjxA

The 1894-S dime is shown at 23:30.

The particular example shown (Colombian half) would be consistent with an exceptionally well made and preserved coin from fresh dies. There's a reason why the 1964 "SMS" coins got that title - they look distinct because of new dies and special handling. There's nothing else special about them.

lilolme

The OP is a good example of how the colors can change in the photos (GC versus TV). I have seen many proof Morgans and trade $ and a few others where the TV can really bring out some color. But at a convention / show or auction viewing with the typical lamp lighting the coin is less to much less colorful and can occasionally be rather dark toned. I will note a very similar thing with HA photos and TV on many toned proofs and some MS. More often I find the auction photo on these to be closer to what I see when viewing but can understate the color also.

Maywood

@FlyingAl said: There's a reason why the 1964 "SMS" coins got that title - they look distinct because of new dies and special handling. There's nothing else special about them.

The 1964 SMS coins show fields which have a distinctive pattern of flow lines or remnants of polishing to finish the dies. They also seem to have unique diagnostics and a traceable provenance. A member, @Giorgio11, seems to be the forum specialist in this area and might be able to provide some insight if he's still around.

giorgio11

I am still around but have nothing to add publicly. It just encourages the crazies who have regular Kennedy halves.

FlyingAl

@giorgio11 said:
I am still around but have nothing to add publicly. It just encourages the crazies who have regular Kennedy halves.

This is unfortunately probably very true. Anyways, the point I was getting at and I think perhaps @Maywood was as well is that just because the label says proof, it doesn't mean the coin is actually a proof in every case.

Crypto

@FlyingAl said:

@Maywood said:
@Crypto said: I would note that the fabric of the PCGS example with it fully formed denticles, full details (stars, ship), squared letters and rims speaks to multiple strikes or increased pressures and the fields appear more than merely PL.

The reporting at the time and Mint records seem to indicate a single strike at normal pressure, again, unless I missed it in that other thread. Also, the rims don't look like what I've come to expect in a Proof coin.

I agree with this. The type of press used is critical, as a medal press will produce a coin that is entirely distinctive from a normal coin. Look at the "branch mint proofs" for examples. Take a look at the Hansen 1894-S dime (not the TrueView) and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. I'll find the thread that has a video of the coin, and when you see it you'll immediately see how it doesn't look anything like a proof. There are proofs of mint marked dies, but those were made at Philadelphia on a medal press. Edit: the video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3CaNvMQjxA

The 1894-S dime is shown at 23:30.

The particular example shown (Colombian half) would be consistent with an exceptionally well made and preserved coin from fresh dies. There's a reason why the 1964 "SMS" coins got that title - they look distinct because of new dies and special handling. There's nothing else special about them.

I agree with the 1894s dime being strictly a well made business strike but it is an important distinction that the San Fran mint subject matter expertise and the Columbian halves were made in Philly. The Ops team might have deployed proof practices to make special coins and there was clearly intent to make special coins and just not used the medal presses. At the time the classification proofs having to use a medal press might have been a modern interpretation of historical trends vs best practices

Maywood

I have always understood the term "Proof" to mean a very specific method of manufacture. To me, it seems silly to believe that just because the Mint had the "intent" to make a presentation piece(s) that it means they are Proof coins. The contributors to the linked thread make some good points but tend to attempt to evaluate what was done in 1892 by comparing it to what is done today on equipment that is relatively new by comparison. Of those contributors, RogerB makes a compelling case with his evaluation of the difference in quality of strike and flow lines created by the different types of coining presses in existence at the time(1892).

FlyingAl

@Maywood said:
I have always understood the term "Proof" to mean a very specific method of manufacture. To me, it seems silly to believe that just because the Mint had the "intent" to make a presentation piece(s) that it means they are Proof coins. The contributors to the linked thread make some good points but tend to attempt to evaluate what was done in 1892 by comparing it to what is done today on equipment that is relatively new by comparison. Of those contributors, RogerB makes a compelling case with his evaluation of the difference in quality of strike and flow lines created by the different types of coining presses in existence at the time(1892).

Exactly. The type of press here becomes critical as yes, the dies were clearly polished. However, the mint director expressly (how I read it) forbade the mint from making proofs. Therefore, any proofs that were made had to be made against the director's orders. If they put a pair of polished dies in a toggle press, they didn't break the director's orders of making proofs and yet made some very nice proof-like coins. It's the most likely option.

rhedden

@MFeld said:

@Rexford said:

@Floridafacelifter said:
I wanted this one but got blown out

Blatantly AT.

I'm pretty sure I recognize that 1933-D Oregon from a long time ago - is the below coin the same? I thought there was a prior sale to it at a much higher price, but presently, I can't find it.

http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?sale=31&site=1&lot=672

I was going to say the same thing. I believe that this is the same coin from an ancient forum thread from the 2005-2010 era. It sold for some ludicrous amount of money like $87k at the time, and it generated an epic thread on this forum that kicked around for months. I'll see if I can find it...

MFeld

@rhedden said:

@MFeld said:

@Rexford said:

@Floridafacelifter said:
I wanted this one but got blown out

Blatantly AT.

I'm pretty sure I recognize that 1933-D Oregon from a long time ago - is the below coin the same? I thought there was a prior sale to it at a much higher price, but presently, I can't find it.

http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?sale=31&site=1&lot=672

I was going to say the same thing. I believe that this is the same coin from an ancient forum thread from the 2005-2010 era. It sold for some ludicrous amount of money like $87k at the time, and it generated an epic thread on this forum that kicked around for months. I'll see if I can find it...

Thank you. My recollection was that the coin had previously brought somewhere in the upper-$60,000 range and that it might have been in a Superior sale.

rhedden

After some searching, I found a thread from 2004 where a monster-toned MS67 Oregon was being discussed - but there were no pictures whatsoever. Every one of them was probably hosted on Photobucket.

MFeld

@rhedden said:
After some searching, I found a thread from 2004 where a monster-toned MS67 Oregon was being discussed - but there were no pictures whatsoever. Every one of them was probably hosted on Photobucket.

The timing of that thread preceded the Goldberg sale I linked, so it might have been about the coin in question. Was a price and/or the auction house mentioned? If you don’t mind, please PM me, as I don’t want to derail this thread. Thanks.

Edited to add: thank you - it turns out that it was two different coins.

Treashunt

Amazing!

TPRC

Thank you for such an informative thread and for the fantastic coins displayed! Really great thread.

nencoin

@MFeld said:

@rhedden said:
After some searching, I found a thread from 2004 where a monster-toned MS67 Oregon was being discussed - but there were no pictures whatsoever. Every one of them was probably hosted on Photobucket.

The timing of that thread preceded the Goldberg sale I linked, so it might have been about the coin in question. Was a price and/or the auction house mentioned? If you don’t mind, please PM me, as I don’t want to derail this thread. Thanks.

Edited to add: thank you - it turns out that it was two different coins.

@MFeld Mark, I recall some monster toned commem that I think was an Oregon and looked similar to that, which sold at a Santa Clara Coin Expo Superior sale way back in the day.

MFeld

@nencoin said:

@MFeld said:

@rhedden said:
After some searching, I found a thread from 2004 where a monster-toned MS67 Oregon was being discussed - but there were no pictures whatsoever. Every one of them was probably hosted on Photobucket.

The timing of that thread preceded the Goldberg sale I linked, so it might have been about the coin in question. Was a price and/or the auction house mentioned? If you don’t mind, please PM me, as I don’t want to derail this thread. Thanks.

Edited to add: thank you - it turns out that it was two different coins.

@MFeld Mark, I recall some monster toned commem that I think was an Oregon and looked similar to that, which sold at a Santa Clara Coin Expo Superior sale way back in the day.

Yes, that was the one I was thinking of, which I found out was a different coin than the one being discussed here, initially.