@Floridafacelifter said:
The pedigree on the HR is Bass - A&A
It was not in the recent Bass sales it’s an older Bass coin that was sold quite a while ago. Resided in an NGC PR68 >holder until recently crossed. PCGS has recently started calling certain of the HRs “SP” because they are different- >they are struck with the UHR collar. I spoke with JD at length about this coin at FUN.
The author of Renaissance of American Coinage and the HA-inspired Saint-Gaudens Double Eagles book whom many of you know addressed this in his books. Rather than try and pass off his words as my own and suffer the fate of the Harvard President on plagiarism charges , I'll quote him directly:
His position on this UHR collar: ".....ALL MCMVII coins were made the same way. Differences in appearance are normal variation and there are/were no special pieces, specimens, proof or other such pieces...."
"Re: Collars....There were only two collars used for the HR MCMVII. The first was carried forward from the pattern pieces and was in sole use until mid-November when a second collar and pair of dies were added to manufacture. From then until the final pieces were struck both collars were in use without special distinction or identification."
Admirably, RWB gave Equal Time to both the pro- and anti-Proof MCMVII HR positions in his book. The debate is above my pay grade, but the stronger arguments seemed to be that there wasn't any specially-struck proof MCMVII HR's.
Maybe FUN can have a panel discussion if the debating participants feel strongly enough about it.
@Floridafacelifter said:
The pedigree on the HR is Bass - A&A
It was not in the recent Bass sales it’s an older Bass coin that was sold quite a while ago. Resided in an NGC PR68 >holder until recently crossed. PCGS has recently started calling certain of the HRs “SP” because they are different- >they are struck with the UHR collar. I spoke with JD at length about this coin at FUN.
The author of Renaissance of American Coinage and the HA-inspired Saint-Gaudens Double Eagles book whom many of you know addressed this in his books. Rather than try and pass off his words as my own and suffer the fate of the Harvard President on plagiarism charges , I'll quote him directly:
His position on this UHR collar: ".....ALL MCMVII coins were made the same way. Differences in appearance are normal variation and there are/were no special pieces, specimens, proof or other such pieces...."
"Re: Collars....There were only two collars used for the HR MCMVII. The first was carried forward from the pattern pieces and was in sole use until mid-November when a second collar and pair of dies were added to manufacture. From then until the final pieces were struck both collars were in use without special distinction or identification."
Admirably, RWB gave Equal Time to both the pro- and anti-Proof MCMVII HR positions in his book. The debate is above my pay grade, but the stronger arguments seemed to be that there wasn't any specially-struck proof MCMVII HR's.
Maybe FUN can have a panel discussion if the debating participants feel strongly enough about it.
In this case, I believe the SP grade is used in a way that denotes a superior appearance to a standard high relief, like how NGC denotes the Proofs when they match this die pair.
There were several true Proofs struck and these were in the Newcomer estate. I will need to research if this particular coin is one of those true Proofs.
@FlyingAl said:
In this case, I believe the SP grade is used in a way that denotes a superior appearance to a standard high relief, >like how NGC denotes the Proofs when they match this die pair.
I think this is something most can agree on. Some people just wonder if this commercialization on the label is justifiable. The coins do or may look a bit special...but that's probably just randomness, as there is no definitive account of any special process or dies or equipment being used.
Like I said, above my pay grade, FA !!
There were several true Proofs struck and these were in the Newcomer estate. I will need to research if this > >particular coin is one of those true Proofs.
You mean MCMVII HR's designated as proofs via NGC, right (PCGS has never recognized them) ? Again, while a representative from NGC got equal time in the SG DE book, it appeared that PL was more worthy of an accurate description than true proof.
@FlyingAl said:
In this case, I believe the SP grade is used in a way that denotes a superior appearance to a standard high relief, >like how NGC denotes the Proofs when they match this die pair.
I think this is something most can agree on. Some people just wonder if this commercialization on the label is justifiable. The coins do or may look a bit special...but that's probably just randomness, as there is no definitive account of any special process or dies or equipment being used.
Like I said, above my pay grade, FA !!
There were several true Proofs struck and these were in the Newcomer estate. I will need to research if this > >particular coin is one of those true Proofs.
You mean MCMVII HR's designated as proofs via NGC, right (PCGS has never recognized them) ? Again, while a representative from NGC got equal time in the SG DE book, it appeared that PL was more worthy of an accurate description than true proof.
Again...above my....
GF, no. True Proofs. They were made differently than all the other MCMVII HR's, and they are generally considered patterns.
None have been known to exist today (meaning they haven't surfaced, or been recognized).
@FlyingAl said:
GF, no. True Proofs. They were made differently than all the other MCMVII HR's, and they are generally considered >patterns.
None have been known to exist today (meaning they haven't surfaced, or been recognized).
Right...so you're saying that the MCMVII HR's are NOT proofs, which is consistent with what RWB believes and published in RoAC (2006) and SG DE (2018) books ?
I might be confused....you're saying "true proofs" were made differently but then say "none have been known to exist today...or recognized."
@FlyingAl said:
GF, no. True Proofs. They were made differently than all the other MCMVII HR's, and they are generally considered >patterns.
None have been known to exist today (meaning they haven't surfaced, or been recognized).
Right...so you're saying that the MCMVII HR's are NOT proofs, which is consistent with what RWB believes and published in RoAC (2006) and SG DE (2018) books ?
Tough call. They're either all Proofs or all not Proofs.
Personally, I feel they have characteristics of both. These coins are a grey area.
There are exceptions, such as the true Proofs mentioned above (patterns really).
The truth is this - the posted example is one of, if not the, best MCMVII HR's out there. What it says on the label doesn't matter - the coin will always bring a massive premium for its stellar appearance.
Comments
FlyingAl you get the rising star award.
The author of Renaissance of American Coinage and the HA-inspired Saint-Gaudens Double Eagles book whom many of you know addressed this in his books. Rather than try and pass off his words as my own and suffer the fate of the Harvard President on plagiarism charges
, I'll quote him directly:
His position on this UHR collar: ".....ALL MCMVII coins were made the same way. Differences in appearance are normal variation and there are/were no special pieces, specimens, proof or other such pieces...."
"Re: Collars....There were only two collars used for the HR MCMVII. The first was carried forward from the pattern pieces and was in sole use until mid-November when a second collar and pair of dies were added to manufacture. From then until the final pieces were struck both collars were in use without special distinction or identification."
Admirably, RWB gave Equal Time to both the pro- and anti-Proof MCMVII HR positions in his book. The debate is above my pay grade, but the stronger arguments seemed to be that there wasn't any specially-struck proof MCMVII HR's.
Maybe FUN can have a panel discussion if the debating participants feel strongly enough about it.
In this case, I believe the SP grade is used in a way that denotes a superior appearance to a standard high relief, like how NGC denotes the Proofs when they match this die pair.
There were several true Proofs struck and these were in the Newcomer estate. I will need to research if this particular coin is one of those true Proofs.
Coin Photographer.
Wow, thanks for the report and pictures.
I think this is something most can agree on. Some people just wonder if this commercialization on the label is justifiable. The coins do or may look a bit special...but that's probably just randomness, as there is no definitive account of any special process or dies or equipment being used.
Like I said, above my pay grade, FA !!
You mean MCMVII HR's designated as proofs via NGC, right (PCGS has never recognized them) ? Again, while a representative from NGC got equal time in the SG DE book, it appeared that PL was more worthy of an accurate description than true proof.
Again...above my....
GF, no. True Proofs. They were made differently than all the other MCMVII HR's, and they are generally considered patterns.
None have been known to exist today (meaning they haven't surfaced, or been recognized).
Coin Photographer.
Dynamite photographic technique Alex. Keep up the good work!
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
Right...so you're saying that the MCMVII HR's are NOT proofs, which is consistent with what RWB believes and published in RoAC (2006) and SG DE (2018) books ?
I might be confused....you're saying "true proofs" were made differently but then say "none have been known to exist today...or recognized."
Tough call. They're either all Proofs or all not Proofs.
Personally, I feel they have characteristics of both. These coins are a grey area.
There are exceptions, such as the true Proofs mentioned above (patterns really).
Coin Photographer.
The truth is this - the posted example is one of, if not the, best MCMVII HR's out there. What it says on the label doesn't matter - the coin will always bring a massive premium for its stellar appearance.
Coin Photographer.