1891-O Specimen/Proof Seated Quarter?

bignubnumismatics1

I have never seen anything about this, but I am entirely intrigued. Any help would be great.

IkesT

See:

https://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-quarters/1891-o-25c-specimen-ms65-ngc/a/1108-334.s

CaptHenway

A friendly suggestion: When citing an auction listing, identify the auction house, the name of the sale (if any), and the date of the sale.

CaptHenway

Looking at the high resolution images on the HA auction site, I am not inclined to say "Proof" but I certainly agree with "Specimen." There are various tiny weaknesses, for example the bottom serifs of the second "1," and the outer periphery of the rim is not squared off. Still a darned nice coin.

MOO.

MFeld

I checked the Heritage archives to see if this was the same coin I was thinking of. And sure enough, I had remembered it from its sale in 1980 (in the pre-NGC/PCGS grading days). I was highly enamored with it way back then.

Coinosaurus

@CaptHenway said:
A friendly suggestion: When citing an auction listing, identify the auction house, the name of the sale (if any), and the date of the sale.

The OP's clip is from the Superior Haifetz sale, October 1989.

FlyingAl

It seems ANACS has certified another Proof as well:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-seated-quarters/1891-o-25c-pr62-anacs/a/1219-5036.s

Welcome to the forums!

FlyingAl

And then the original OP coin upgraded to NGC SP66 here:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-quarters/1891-o-25c-specimen-66-ngc/a/1188-5585.s

It would seem NGC saw it as something special, but not as a proof.

CaptHenway

@Coinosaurus said:

@CaptHenway said:
A friendly suggestion: When citing an auction listing, identify the auction house, the name of the sale (if any), and the date of the sale.

The OP's clip is from the Superior Haifetz sale, October 1989.

Thank you.

BillJones

Maybe it looks better in person, but I'm not impressed by that "ANCS PR-62" at all. The obverse really falls short in my opinion. Compare it with these pieces which are Proofs.

Same coin, different angle.

FlyingAl

The coin certainly appears to have striking deficiencies, when compared to true medal press products. It would seem that the most likely event is that it was struck from PL dies at New Orleans, and had no special preparation or reason for striking. It's possible someone saved it from the start after seeing the PL fields. Looking at auction records, some high grade 1891-O quarters show similar PL fields.

True Branch Mint Proofs do exist, but they were all struck once on a medal press at Philadelphia (with mintmarked dies).

MFeld

@FlyingAl said:
The coin certainly appears to have striking deficiencies, when compared to true medal press products. It would seem that the most likely event is that it was struck from PL dies at New Orleans, and had no special preparation or reason for striking. It's possible someone saved it from the start after seeing the PL fields. Looking at auction records, some high grade 1891-O quarters show similar PL fields.

True Branch Mint Proofs do exist, but they were all struck once on a medal press at Philadelphia (with mintmarked dies).

@FlyingAl, in order to avoid potential confusion, which example mentioned in this thread are you speaking of?

cameonut2011

The ANACS coin looks like an “ordinary” prooflike business strike to me.

FlyingAl

@MFeld said:

@FlyingAl said:
The coin certainly appears to have striking deficiencies, when compared to true medal press products. It would seem that the most likely event is that it was struck from PL dies at New Orleans, and had no special preparation or reason for striking. It's possible someone saved it from the start after seeing the PL fields. Looking at auction records, some high grade 1891-O quarters show similar PL fields.

True Branch Mint Proofs do exist, but they were all struck once on a medal press at Philadelphia (with mintmarked dies).

@FlyingAl, in order to avoid potential confusion, which example mentioned in this thread are you speaking of?

I was directly referencing the NGC coin, my reply extends to the ANACS coin as well after reviewing those images.

MFeld

@FlyingAl said:

@MFeld said:

@FlyingAl said:
The coin certainly appears to have striking deficiencies, when compared to true medal press products. It would seem that the most likely event is that it was struck from PL dies at New Orleans, and had no special preparation or reason for striking. It's possible someone saved it from the start after seeing the PL fields. Looking at auction records, some high grade 1891-O quarters show similar PL fields.

True Branch Mint Proofs do exist, but they were all struck once on a medal press at Philadelphia (with mintmarked dies).

@FlyingAl, in order to avoid potential confusion, which example mentioned in this thread are you speaking of?

I was directly referencing the NGC coin, my reply extends to the ANACS coin as well after reviewing those images.

Thanks.

The_Dinosaur_Man

I'm in favor of it being a specially prepared piece at the very least. Not only did this mark New Orleans' return to striking quarters, it was also the last year of the Seated Liberty design. There are similar examples for the dime. If ever I became a multimillionaire, this coin and the dime would have a home in my collection.

Coinosaurus

@cameonut2011 said:
The ANACS coin looks like an “ordinary” prooflike business strike to me.

Yes, and it has clash marks - not the signature of a proof or "specimen" piece.