I prefer Heritage's description from the ANA sale:
"NGC has certified this piece as a branch mint proof. We respectfully disagree with their conclusion. In 1995 we sold the Anita Maxwell Collection of branch mint proof Morgan dollars, and used that collection as an opportunity to write a detailed analysis of each of the coins and the diagnostic markers that would appear on any other coin that might be considered as a branch mint proof in the future. There are seven obverse and two reverse diagnostics that we found on the Anita Maxwell coin, and since then we have offered three other pieces for sale at auction and each has had all the diagnostics we saw on the Anita Maxwell piece. None of these characteristics are visible on this coin, which leads us to the conclusion that either, a) two sets of obverse and reverse dies were used to strike branch mint proof 1893-CC dollars, or b) this coin is actually a business strike with Deep Mirror Prooflike fields. While not unprecedented (consider the 1864-L proof cent) we consider it highly unlikely that two sets of dies were used to strike a limited production run of twelve proofs."
BTW, I have seen the coin in person and I agree with Heritage.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Andy Do you really think the coin would grade DMPL if it was determined to be a business strike? I didn't think there was enough contrast or depth of mirrors to achieve the DMPL designation. The coin just doesn't have typical DMPL "flash" IMO.
BTW, I have seen the coin in person and I agree with Heritage.
Interesting. I assume there's no doubt on the Anita Maxwell proof coin, which Heritage has based it's analysis on. Branch Mint proofs are tricky things!
Comments
"NGC has certified this piece as a branch mint proof. We respectfully disagree with their conclusion. In 1995 we sold the Anita Maxwell Collection of branch mint proof Morgan dollars, and used that collection as an opportunity to write a detailed analysis of each of the coins and the diagnostic markers that would appear on any other coin that might be considered as a branch mint proof in the future. There are seven obverse and two reverse diagnostics that we found on the Anita Maxwell coin, and since then we have offered three other pieces for sale at auction and each has had all the diagnostics we saw on the Anita Maxwell piece. None of these characteristics are visible on this coin, which leads us to the conclusion that either, a) two sets of obverse and reverse dies were used to strike branch mint proof 1893-CC dollars, or b) this coin is actually a business strike with Deep Mirror Prooflike fields. While not unprecedented (consider the 1864-L proof cent) we consider it highly unlikely that two sets of dies were used to strike a limited production run of twelve proofs."
BTW, I have seen the coin in person and I agree with Heritage.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Do you really think the coin would grade DMPL if it was determined to be a business strike? I didn't think there was enough contrast or depth of mirrors to achieve the DMPL designation. The coin just doesn't have typical DMPL "flash" IMO.
Mark
Yes.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
it was in a pr64 or pr65 holder.
anyone want to research this one?
Sold for $120,750 at the Heritage 2004 August Pittsburgh, PA Signature Sale #352.
CDN: $70,000
Trends: $90,000
Cameron Kiefer
Interesting. I assume there's no doubt on the Anita Maxwell proof coin, which Heritage has based it's analysis on. Branch Mint proofs are tricky things!
Free Trial