Options
The Proof 1892 Columbian Half Mystery: Updated 6/14/06
JadeRareCoin
Posts: 2,768 ✭
Keets reminded me to post an update on the Proof vs. Prooflike debate on our 1892 Columbian Half that we originally posted in this thread. Well, unfortunately, we have not yet solved the mystery, but we have added some information that is getting us closer to solving the case.
We first submitted the coin to PCGS. We stated in the original thread that it had some light hairlines on the obverse due to a light cleaning. We graded the coin PF-60 (+/- a point). We knew that there was a possibility that it would get bagged for cleaning. Since we own and have seen other PCGS graded proofs from the era slabbed despite having hairlines (look at seated proofs), we took the chance. Result: body bag!
Since we only wanted the coin slabbed for authentication purposes with the grade truly being secondary, we decided the send the coin in through ANACS. We were set-up directly across from them at the MSNS in Dearborn, so that made it easy. I talked with their show grader and he said that he could not determine if the coin was a proof or a business strike, but their in-house team could make the determination. They also had me sign something giving them the right to send the coin to a specialist if they could not make the decision in-house. We got the coin back at the Baltimore show. Result: MS-61 (no mention of cleaning)
Since NGC was at the Baltimore show, we decided to sit down with them and discuss the coin in detail before giving them our money. I waited patiently for David Lange at NGC so that we could meet and discuss the proof vs. business strike issue. After a few minutes of discussing diagnostics, he stated that it was "more likely a real proof than not", but "it would get bagged at NGC for cleaning". He suggested that I send it in to NCS to get it authenticated. I asked if the NCS graders knew the difference between a proof and a p/l business strike and he said that he thought that they did. I told him that I would not send it in unless he could put a note with the coin saying that it was proof and he said that they couldn't do that; I would just have to send it in.
Well, by this time, I am tired of wasting time and money on the coin, so I just took it back to our table and put it in the case. The coin did receive a lot of attention and even drew some specialists in to look at the coin. The conclusion: 3 dealers/collectors said "proof", 1 said "p/l business strike". I showed the coin to Julian Leidman (a fellow forum member....julian) and he said "more likely a proof than not". His opinion is important to me as he has owned proofs in the past and, as a matter of fact, owns 2 Columbian Half proofs at this time (an 1892 and an 1893). We actually compared our coin to his 2 coins at the Bay State show in Boston recently.
Conclusion: I don't know. Still a mystery. Of all the experts that I have talked to, there's really no solid diagnostics for distinguishing a proof from a business strike, other than finish and strike quality. One specialist suggested that the die chip in the date is a business strike characteristic, but that was refuted by others. One guy had even discussed this very issue with Walter Breen in the 70's. My opinion is that no grading service is willing to stick their neck out for us to grade/authenticate this piece. That's okay with me. I have decided to keep the coin in it's raw state. It's more attractive this way, imho, although harder to sell. I just wish I knew how the other certified proofs made their way into slabs. That is perhaps the bigger mystery............
We first submitted the coin to PCGS. We stated in the original thread that it had some light hairlines on the obverse due to a light cleaning. We graded the coin PF-60 (+/- a point). We knew that there was a possibility that it would get bagged for cleaning. Since we own and have seen other PCGS graded proofs from the era slabbed despite having hairlines (look at seated proofs), we took the chance. Result: body bag!
Since we only wanted the coin slabbed for authentication purposes with the grade truly being secondary, we decided the send the coin in through ANACS. We were set-up directly across from them at the MSNS in Dearborn, so that made it easy. I talked with their show grader and he said that he could not determine if the coin was a proof or a business strike, but their in-house team could make the determination. They also had me sign something giving them the right to send the coin to a specialist if they could not make the decision in-house. We got the coin back at the Baltimore show. Result: MS-61 (no mention of cleaning)
Since NGC was at the Baltimore show, we decided to sit down with them and discuss the coin in detail before giving them our money. I waited patiently for David Lange at NGC so that we could meet and discuss the proof vs. business strike issue. After a few minutes of discussing diagnostics, he stated that it was "more likely a real proof than not", but "it would get bagged at NGC for cleaning". He suggested that I send it in to NCS to get it authenticated. I asked if the NCS graders knew the difference between a proof and a p/l business strike and he said that he thought that they did. I told him that I would not send it in unless he could put a note with the coin saying that it was proof and he said that they couldn't do that; I would just have to send it in.
Well, by this time, I am tired of wasting time and money on the coin, so I just took it back to our table and put it in the case. The coin did receive a lot of attention and even drew some specialists in to look at the coin. The conclusion: 3 dealers/collectors said "proof", 1 said "p/l business strike". I showed the coin to Julian Leidman (a fellow forum member....julian) and he said "more likely a proof than not". His opinion is important to me as he has owned proofs in the past and, as a matter of fact, owns 2 Columbian Half proofs at this time (an 1892 and an 1893). We actually compared our coin to his 2 coins at the Bay State show in Boston recently.
Conclusion: I don't know. Still a mystery. Of all the experts that I have talked to, there's really no solid diagnostics for distinguishing a proof from a business strike, other than finish and strike quality. One specialist suggested that the die chip in the date is a business strike characteristic, but that was refuted by others. One guy had even discussed this very issue with Walter Breen in the 70's. My opinion is that no grading service is willing to stick their neck out for us to grade/authenticate this piece. That's okay with me. I have decided to keep the coin in it's raw state. It's more attractive this way, imho, although harder to sell. I just wish I knew how the other certified proofs made their way into slabs. That is perhaps the bigger mystery............
www.jaderarecoin.com - Updated 6/8/06. Many new coins added!
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
0
Comments
Russ, NCNE
Self Indulgence | Holey Coins | Flickr Photostream
<< <i>It's a proof. Okay, now you have a definitive answer.
Russ, NCNE >>
Well, that's good enough for me.
And the scarey thing is.... I could EASILY seeing You... James... or No-H Jon selling that coin in a Crap-U-Slab holder........
42/92
It's a proof. Okay, now you have a definitive answer.
Thanks Russ! That's all I really wanted. See? Was it that difficult to do? Now, to which address do I send my grading fee?
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
You of all people know that I feel your pain...
John
siliconvalleycoins.com
Opps. Forgot to mention that ANACS graded it "MS-61 P/L". I didn't mention the "P/L" in my first post.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
There were about 100 of the 92's made, but there are only 2 of the 93's, that I am aware of, one of which I own, and the other is in a major US commemorative collection.
I am pretty sure that the coin under discussion is a proof, but I was unable to see a couple of diagnostics that I discovered back in the 80's.
I would think that NCS could very well attribute the coin as a Proof, and I certainly could not disagree with them.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
The coin pictured is an 1892, not 1893.
Opps! Sloppy typing on my part. Title fixed. Thanks, Dennis
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
I will post more images tonight.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
Camelot
Mark
On the one hand, they can have an opinion, BUT if they are wrong, then the service has to ante up the value of the coin.
I have some coins like that, which I am virtually certain are proofs, but there is nothing else to compare them to, and/or their is no documentation for their existance.
I am willing to purchase raw coins and pay for them, but only the most advanced and sophisticated collectors or dealers will consider purchasing them, without TPG blessing.
It is an unfortunate situation, at a minimum.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
first off, i would like nothing more than for it to be a genuine and undeniable Proof. that would make things simple and i can surely appreciate a good "score" as much as the next guy. here's the hitch, though, as i see it: it isn't an undeniable Proof.
like you said, none of the grading services seem willing to stick their neck out for a coin that noone can really be sure of, which leads me to believe that there are ubdeniable Proofs they have stuck their necks out for. i look at it this way---you have made your mind up that the coin is a Proof and are unwilling to accept an opinion that it isn't, even when the best concensus opinion is a definite maybe!! also, would those experts who've looked at it and say "Proof!!" be saying the same thing if they had something riding on an eventual overturning of that declaration. i don't think they would and i base that on David Lange stopping short of going to bat for you. he doesn't seem to want to bear any responsibility or take a firm stand on it which might be wrong.
what i also see as strange is your unwillingness to possibly hear "not Proof" again by sending it to NCS. certainly the small fee for authentication is worth the risk of MS/cleaned or the possible PR61!!! what it comes down to for me is this; do you really believe in the coin as a Proof?? i think you do and i also think there's at least a 50-50 chance that it is----not the "more likely a real proof than not" chicken sh#t answer that does nothing but help you become more unwilling to accept non-Proof. in a nutshell, if we can't accept defeat we don't deserve success, and i think you deserve success---Read: Proof.
al h.
<< <i>There were about 100 of the 92's made, but there are only 2 of the 93's, that I am aware of, one of which I own, and the other is in a major US commemorative collection. >>
Julian, in order to avoid any possible confusion or misunderstanding, your 1893 is uncertified (and not previously designated a Proof by PCGS or NGC) as I recall?
I saw another interesting possible proof at the same show. It was a 1917 half in a ANACS holder stating presentation piece MS64. It had sharp squarred off rims, a partial wire rim, proof matte surfaces, and a complete strike. The dealer took it out and let me examine it for 5 minutes. I thought it was a proof coin, but I'm not a pro grader so my opinion doesn't matter much. The coin had the same problem as your 1892 Columbian. It is a proof coin but the grading companies will not want to slab it and back it with their grading/authentication guarantee.
FrederickCoinClub
My specimen is unencapsulated. The other coin is encapsulated by either PCGS or NGC.
I have examined that coin, as well.
The two coins are of the same fabric.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
i don't think they would and i base that on David Lange stopping short of going to bat for you. he doesn't seem to want to bear any responsibility or take a firm stand on it which might be wrong.
what i also see as strange is your unwillingness to possibly hear "not Proof" again by sending it to NCS. certainly the small fee for authentication is worth the risk of MS/cleaned or the possible PR61!!! what it comes down to for me is this; do you really believe in the coin as a Proof?? i think you do and i also think there's at least a 50-50 chance that it is----
Keets, I should be clear that I don't need any TPG to bless the coin as a proof or not. Would I like to have it certified as such? Sure! Simply because it is easier to sell. I won't send it to NCS simply because I am tired of playing this silly game with any of the grading services. The TPGs do much better at grading coins then they do authenticating coins that have little to no known documentation. Let's face it: the TPGs are set up to grade coins quickly for their nominal fee of $20, $40, $50 or whatever. If they have to get the books out and spend a couple of hours, then their fee of $50 doesn't cover their time.
Here's the bottom line: why would a TPG put their neck on the line to authenticate a controversial piece for a paltry $50 fee? In other words, for $50 (or whatever), the TPG is guaranteeing that the coin is a proof and could be liable for $5,000 or much more if any future information surfaces that would deem it to be not a proof. It is much easier to just bag the coin and take your money. I admit that I can see their point. I wish they would just say, "please don't sumbit the coin as we don't want to take the risk through our grading guarantee". That would save everyone time and money. Remind me to tell you a story about this very subject. It proves the point.
Am I upset? A little bit disappointed, but that's just how it goes. Keets, you referred to this coin as a "score". Truth is that it was not a score, since we did not buy it as a generic coin. We bought it as a possible proof and paid a premium. In hindsight, I would venture to guess that the previous owner had the same troubles getting it authenticated and finally just got tired of it. Eventually it will sell and we will make a profit on the coin. It will just take that right person who is not afraid to form his/her own opinion about the coin's attribution and condition. I do know that it is a special coin and my opinion is good enough for me. I started to doubt my own opinion for awhile, but the vast majority of coin specialists agreed with me and I realized that I am not crazy (just nuts). That's when I realized that it would not get slabbed by me as a proof. Maybe someone down the road can get it done.
Conclusion: I will not attempt to slab the coin myself through any service. It shall remain raw. It looks nicer that way anyway.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
Graded NTC PR63
link
-Aaron
Proof or not, it's totally gorgeous.
Not that anyone would believe that in a New Mistrust holder...
<< <i>Here is one listed on eBay
Graded NTC PR63
link >>
NTC has more guts than the big two. Oh, that's right, they have no guarantee.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>BTW, I was gonna laugh uproariously at that NTC "PR63" on eBay, but it really does look like a proof! >>
Yeah, but it's an 1893 - the one that Julian knows of only two existing.
Russ, NCNE
with your reasoning, it's a gamble for PCGS or NGC to take a risk on any number of coins which may have less than rock solid certainty, yet they have done it. the current PCGS pop report lists 43 coins and i really doubt that it took a certain "right person" to get those in holders, that's kind of paranoid thinking. more than likely PCGS deemed them to be authentic Proof issues and deemed yours as not a genuine Proof, just an MS Proof-Like, nothing sinister. what i find telling is the fact that Julian had a chance to examine your coin and admits to not being able to find some diagnostics. is that automatically dismissed???
i had noticed that NTC listing, but Aaron beat me to the link. what i find strange about it is that it'll automatically be looked at as a non-Proof solely because it's in an NTC holder while at the same time, your coin has been looked at by the major services and judged to be a non-Proof, yet is heartily endorsed as a Proof by some who can only judge from a picture and some thread discussion. very bad bias at work.
BTW, i think it probably does matter if it gets authenticated, but the "by who" is the mystery. have you tried A.S. yet??
al h.
<< <i>Here is one listed on eBay
Graded NTC PR63 >>
Hmmm is that a grade? or a guess?
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
Marty, you're so cruel
BTW, cool looking coin!
<< <i>with your reasoning, it's a gamble for PCGS or NGC to take a risk on any number of coins which may have less than rock solid certainty, yet they have done it. the current PCGS pop report lists 43 coins and i really doubt that it took a certain "right person" to get those in holders, that's kind of paranoid thinking. more than likely PCGS deemed them to be authentic Proof issues and deemed yours as not a genuine Proof, just an MS Proof-Like, nothing sinister. >>
Isn't it possible that increased liability brought on by the current market conditions is turning what used to a PR Columbian into a MS Columbian, MS 1880 Shield Nickels into PR strikings, etc.?
RELLA
who boasts of twenty years experience in his craft
while in fact he has had only one year of experience...
twenty times.
this thing reeks of conspiracy theory-itis!! who will they get next, what rarity is gonna go down??
al h.
How many of the PR coins currently encapsulated would ever see the inside of a PR holder again (given current market conditions) if they were liberated? I don't know enough about this issue to guess but there are other issues from the 1800s that I would NEVER crack out of an NGC or PCGS holder.
RELLA
who boasts of twenty years experience in his craft
while in fact he has had only one year of experience...
twenty times.
You say conspiracy theory...I say economics.
BTW...I know this isn't the BST forum but could someone tell me the price tag on that bad boy?
RELLA
who boasts of twenty years experience in his craft
while in fact he has had only one year of experience...
twenty times.
al h.
Good luck with the coin, Dennis. I think you are getting a runaround.....
<< <i>more than likely PCGS...deemed yours as not a genuine Proof, just an MS Proof-Like, nothing sinister. >>
PCGS bodybagged it. We don't know one way or the other whether they thought it was a proof or a business strike.
Russ, NCNE
another option, if it matters, is to take the coin and talk to HRH about it or go the Presidential review route to see why it was bodybagged and if they thought it was a proof.
al h.
Cameron Kiefer
the current PCGS pop report lists 43 coins and i really doubt that it took a certain "right person" to get those in holders, that's kind of paranoid thinking.
Keets, either I am paranoid, or you are Naïve.
I want to be clear that I am not upset with PCGS regarding this matter. The coin is clearly cleaned on the obverse, and probably should have been bagged. I only posted this thread at the request of a few people asking for an update. It is an interesting mystery and a challenge. Kinda fun, imho.
Furthermore, if I owned a TPG I wouldn't want to continually take big $ risks for a paltry $30 slabbing fee. I think our hobby needs a new service, kind of like the old ANAAB (ANA Authentication Bureau). The grade on our "proof" Columbian is secondary to attribution/authentication.
I will post pics in a few minutes.
Thanks, Dennis
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
The reverse is "the money side" of the coin; nice mirrors and toning, with minimal distractions.
Note the sail lines in the main sail. The strength of these details are diagnostic for a proof, according to some sources (i.e. Breen)
A shot of the rim and some nice toning.
The often neglected "third side" of the coin. In hand, then edge is nice and sharp.
This shot shows a close-up of the wire edge and dentils.
This is a shot of the obverse, which shows some hairlines and signs of a light cleaning.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
Here are some images of coins borrowed from Heritage's web site. Compare the details and overall look of the 3 proofs and the 1 prooflike to get an idea of the difference between a proof issue Columbian and a business strike that is P/L.
First Image:
This was lot 4257 in the ANA Pittsburg Sale (8/2004), where it sold for $16,100. Sure is a nice looking coin! Wow! Here's how it was described:
1892 50C Columbian PR66 Cameo PCGS. Sharpness of definition serves to distinguish true proof Columbian Half Dollars from their early impression, prooflike business strike counterparts. While this difference can be seen on many features (the denticles, for example), the Santa Maria's rigging in the center of the reverse is the best device to check. On proofs, the rigging is fully separated and crisp, whereas business strikes often display bluntness in this area. We note, however, that the later impression proofs may not be as full over the rigging as the first coins struck, but the definition should still be far sharper than that for the business strikes. We believe that 104 1892 Columbian Halves were produced in proof format: the initial 101 coins, and the 400th, 1,492nd, and 1,892nd examples.
Note the lesson in the auction description regarding Proof vs. Business Strike.
Second Image:
This was lot 5279 in Heritage's NY Signature Sale in 2002, where it sold for $2,645. Here's how it was described:
1892 50C Columbian PR62 PCGS. One of three proof Columbians in this sale, this coin is minimally toned in delicate golden-gray iridescence. The sharpness of detail over the central reverse rigging confirms this coin's status as a proof, and the fields also retain suitable reflectivity despite the presence of scattered hairlines. A shallow scratch on the obverse originates at the first A in AMERICA and goes over part of Columbus' portrait.
Hmmmmm. Read the above auction description a few times. Hairlines?
Third Image:
This was sold in October of 2004 in a Heritage Internet Only Auction for $1,115. It is graded by NGC as MS-65 P/L. No description in the auction listing, but look at the obvious difference in strike and mirrors. In all fairness, it probably has better mirrors than the image would indicate.
Forth Image:
Another shot of our "proof", showing the strike quality in the sail area. Compare to the above 3 images and please render your opinions. All opinions welcome, so please don't be shy if you disagree.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
.....one more for comparison purposes. This one is graded PF-61 by NGC:
this coin sold for $1,667 in 11/2002. Here's the description from the auction:
1892 50C Columbian PR61 NGC. The first 101 1892 Columbian Half Dollars were struck in proof format. Apparently, this was done by hand, with the Mint foreman and his assistant supplying the pressure. In addition, the 400th, 1,492nd, and 1,892nd coins struck were also proofs. These rare and coveted specimen strikings of the United States' premier Commemorative are distinguishable from business strikes by the razor sharp definition in the center of the reverse. In particular, the rigging and waves show considerably more sharpness of detail on the proofs than on the business strikes. We do not know which number in the order of production this coin holds, but it is unmistakable as a proof. Rich antique-copper and charcoal toning envelops both sides with faint, mottled, golden-blue and reddish tinged undertones. The surfaces are a little subdued with scattered hairlines that account for the assigned grade.
More useful information regarding the background of these early proofs.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
Just comparing the "9" in 1492 on the 3rd (MS P/L) example and "the coin in question" - the Mint State "9" appears to be a very different shape inside the numeral than the Proofs shown. But I have seen the rounder shape on other business strikes though. Look at the real date of 1892. Dare I say it again, the font of the numerals in the date looks a little different on the Mint State P/L Heritage example than that on "the coin in question", along with every other posted TPG Proof. The lighting on Heritage PR62 is, I speculate, making the negative spaces in the numerals appear thinner that they are - muddying the topic just like the Bowers 1895 photo.
Same type (no pun) of numeral font differences apparently as the 1885 business strike DMPL Morgan and not-Proof 1895 Morgan from a month ago. The business strikes seem to have less open negative spaces in the numerals, speaking very generally. I'll take a guess yours is a Proof from the images posted as all genuine PR examples, including your coin (and except the Mint State 65 P/L Heritage coin), seem to show a slight righthand upward tilt in the date 1892 from the way it was punched - as well as the different font numerals as noted. My .02. More and better lit scans of both MS and PR examples would be geat!
Best,
Billy
PS - also, the central mast on the M/S PL example points to the middle of a denticle - not so on any of the Proofs posted that I can see - they all point directly between 2 denticles - including "the coin in question". I did look at some other MS examples- those all had the mast tip pointing to a denticle or the side of a denticle. Only the Proofs seem to show the mast heading straight between the denticles. I would also like to point out that I am merely trying to apply what I learned last month in the altered 1895 Morgan thread - I could easily be quite wrong.
I noticed these very things as well but thought some might think me even crazier if I voiced them.
Billy