Proof or MS 1877?

shylock

Someone posted this Heritage lot in another forum, wondering if it was actually a proof due to the obvious bold N of ONE on the reverse.

Rick Snow has an old webpage "Dies used to strike 1877 Indian Cents" that seems to identify both dies as proofs. The obverse looks like proof Obv 3, with the raised die lump on the neck and the spaced out date. The reverse looks like proof Rev 1872A, with a bulge on the T of CENT.

Question: If a coin has MS qualities (looks uncirculated but with no special die preparation), but can only be linked to proof dies, what is it?

Stuart

Shylock: I guess that they may eventually use the proof dies for making busines strikes, after the alotted proof mintage has been completed.

If so, then although they are using proof dies, they are making business strikes because the dies will soon lose their low mintage proof quality characterisics and the resulting coins will be single-struck at lower pressure, rather than be multiple-struck at higher pressure.

If this coin is an example of the above, it could be considered a business strike from proof dies... Any other thoughts or suggestions?

BigMoose

Shylock, it is a popular misconception that ALL business strike 1877 Indian Cents have the Shallow N reverse. Rick Snow has stated that there are business strike 1877s with the Bold N reverse. I think the coin in question is a business strike with the Bold N reverse. I wonder if Rick has decribed the die varieties for all business strike 1877s? TomT.

coinguy1

Paul, thanks for an interesting thread!

My (uninformed) answer would be that if a coin is struck from Proof dies and there is no documentation that those dies were later used to produce business strikes, the coin should be labeled a Proof.

I believe there are other (at least somewhat) similar examples, in the cases of some Shield Nickels and Nickel Three Cent Pieces, supposedly struck from Proof dies and even found in original Proof Sets, but which otherwise APPEAR to be business strikes.

That said, my above comment about "documentation" reminds me a bit, of the "chicken and the egg" quandary - perhaps the "documentation" appears in the form of the coins, themselves, which appear to be business strikes, though struck from Proof dies.

mr1931S

If mine, I'd call it a "presentation piece."

Pretty coin.

darktone

I had a 1903 indian cent that was labeled MS sometimes and sometimes proof by the various grading services- now if I buy any of these early proof coins I make sure for myself whether it is proof or not in my own mind. mike

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

Paul

I bought an 1874 Indian cent from Christies that was from the Byron Reed collection.All his Indian cents were bought directly from the mint.PCGS graded it as mint state.All of his Indian cents were catalogued as Proof.To me the coin looked somewhere inbetween mint state and proof.Kind of like the 1856 S3 Flyers that are called proof.

Stewart

MrEureka

I believe there are other (at least somewhat) similar examples, in the cases of some Shield Nickels and Nickel Three Cent Pieces, supposedly struck from Proof dies and even found in original Proof Sets, but which otherwise APPEAR to be business strikes.

Mark - As I'm sure you know, you are walking a slippery slope. Next thing we know, you'll be telling us that the completely frosty, clashed dies 1865 dime in my former and obviously original 1865 proof set is really a proof. (The set has an ancient provenance and came in a presentation case with a birthday note dated 1865! The dime is also the only MS looking one I've ever seen in any 1865 proof set.) In reality, we know it's a business strike that was used to fill a hole when the Mint ran out of proofs. Truth is, the Mint just wasn't that careful about quality control.

BTW, I haven't seen any 1877 proof Indians that look like business strikes. But I'll reserve judgment on the coin in the Heritage sale until I see it.

coinguy1

<< <i>Next thing we know, you'll be telling us that the completely frosty, clashed dies 1865 dime in my former and obviously original 1865 proof set is really a proof. >>

No, Andy, I wont be telling anyone that!

shylock

Interesting comments by all, this does remind me of the 1856 S3 Flying Eagle scenario. I'd love to hear your thoughts about this coin if you see it in person. The full feathertips would make me scratch my head before even turning it over. Try finding an MS65/66 with a 3rd feathertip like this MS63 has (Stewart's 1877 doesn't count!)

I've heard some long time dealers/collectors say they've seen MS 1877's with bold N's, but I've never seen a single certified example in the hundereds of auction archives I've scoured (until this one). That makes me wonder if the bold N examples in question, if authentic, were actually struck from the same proof dies that this coin seems to have been struck. His thoughts may have changed about this, but Snow states on that website that only one reverse die was used on MS 1877's -- the shallow N. Guess we'll have to wait for his 1870-1879 Attribution Guide to come out.