You might say a collector of tiny dimes and things is indeed a bit crazy, but no one can ever challenge their observational ability/eyesight Billy!! The coins an impared proof, period----obvious when you see the picture comparisons.
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.
why is this comment constantly overlooked or otherwise ignored with regard to this coin?? you guys want to authenticate it from pictures online which are at different angles and with different lighting which is a GGUUEESSSS at best and a joke at worst. Dennis is so convinced that it's a Proof that all evidence to the contrary is meaningless, even when it comes from someone who's opinion he holds in high regard, an opinion he sought.
while this may eventually end up as an authenticated Proof it's probably wise to keep an open mind to the fact that it's just a well struck P/L business strike.
Dennis is so convinced that it's a Proof that all evidence to the contrary is meaningless
If you read my earlier posts to this thread, you will see comments that I made like: 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. I think that you are taking this too seriously. This is a fun little numismatic mystery. That's all. As I stated before, I know what the coin is, what it's worth and can sell it for a profit at any time.
<<I don't get it. I brought this subject up again at your request, but you seem upset that I won't agree with your diagnostic that the coin is a P/L business strike. You then slam other forum members for trying to "authenticate it from pictures online which are at different angles and with different lighting which is a GGUUEESSSS at best and a joke at worst" (your words), yet you have determined the coin to be a business strike from the very same images.>>
That is an interesting point. Photo/die diagnostics did some good with that 1895 a while back. Keets, how many different dies were used to strike the 1892 Columbians? These were used to strike the business strikes as well, yes? Tell me what I am seeing wrong re fonts, masts, denticles etc. - I am learning here.
it's true that i did make the request, as much out of curiosity as anything else and that my last reply may have seemed harsh but was directed mostly at the other guys. really, though, it does appear that you're stuck on it being a proof since that's what you consistently try to prove and that's what you actually believe. what does concern me is aiming to prove things with a distorted collection of pictures while ignoring the contrary opinion of an expert who's had the coin in his hands to evaluate. do you think that serves us well??
by my count it must be close to a draw by now. several of the experts you've asked have said "Proof" and several have said "P/L Business" while the entire group has nothing to lose by stating their opinion. upon grading by an independent service, the coin has been called Mint State. your response---you accept "Proof" from biased experts and reject the grading service. you accept David Lange's "Proof" but stop short of NCS/NGC attribution over a less than $50 charge. you ignore a suggestion to speak with HRH about the coin and what he thinks it is since they BB'd it without necessarily giving an answer about the PR/MS question. you state that you know what the coin is and it'll not see a holder, it'll stay raw.
I just posted images of slabbed proofs and slabbed prooflike business strikes, then asked for opinions from forum members. Here's the text under my last image: Compare to the above 3 images and please render your opinions. All opinions welcome, so please don't be shy if you disagree.
Why do you think that I so bent on this being a proof? There is little information known on proof diagnostics for Columbian Halves, so this thread it truly educational. We have compiled information from Heritage's web site, Breen's work on proof issues and even comments from astute colletors/dealers who have owned multiple examples of proofs and prooflike business strikes. This is an educational thread.
Well, I took keet's advice and showed the coin to Anthony Swiatek at the FUN show. For those who do not know this, Mr. Swiatek wrote the book on U.S. Commemoratives and is considered a leading expert in that area of numismatics. He was very generous with his time and very informative. His conclusion was that it is more than likely a proof. After a minute of examining the coin, he said "I think that you have something here". The only area of concern to him was the hairline on Columbus' forehead, which he said should be stronger, but he's seen them like this before. Everything else (dentils, rim, mast lines, rigging, planks, mirrored surfaces, etc.) checked out.
I asked what he would do if it were his coin and he said that he would submit it to NCS, which I did. I will update everyone later when the coin arrives.
it seems Dennis is taking a reasoned approach after some time out to cool off and further research the coin's true nature. hopefully it won't get the quick once over and will be authenticated instead of graded, two distinctly different processes.
Yes. When I submitted the coin at the FUN show, I stapled a $100 bill to the submission form, but the guy behind the table ripped it off and said, "hey, I told you last time that bribes don't work here". Guess I should have made it $150.
Please tell me you are not having the coin "conserved"? IMO It won't be nearly as attractive with blast white surfaces.
Heck no! NCS is the only place that will grade the coin due to the cleaning on the obverse (hairlines). ANACS called it MS-61. I specifically told them NOT to mess with the coin, but just have it either net graded or just plain authenticated as a proof. If it comes back blast white, someone is gonna be in big trouble!
Dennis- I apologize for even thinking you might consider conservation on that coin. As I said before, it looks lika a proof to me. Hopefully NCS agrees.
I am very happy to hear the update - both Mr. Swiatek's opinion that it more than likely a Proof as speculated and that it has been submitted too! The denticle/mast line observations turned out to be of use? That would be great
I'm glad that the NGC/conservation services will closely examine this mystery. I'm slightly confused that Keets was critical of posters who gave their "opinions" that it was a proof when you JadeRC asked for observations and conclusions. Obviously no one knows without a close examination in hand plus documented proof/business examples to compare. Keep us updated Jade--very interesting & educational!
Prooflike fields are fairly common on Columbian halfs but this coin differs from a typical pl coin. I had the opportunity to examine this coin in person and the texture of the coins surfaces and the depth of the mirrors sure make a convincing argument for a proof designation.
I don't claim to be a commemorative expert and I admit that I have only owned a small handful (one of which was a deep pl Columbian)but I have collected both proof and mint state type coins extensively over the years.
IMO the differences between the Jade coin and a pl mint state Columbian are comparable to the differences between a DMPL and a proof Morgan.
If you saw the coin in hand I doubt if many of you would argue against a proof designation but that doesn't mean it will ever be designated as such.
Very interesting coin. Dennis comes up with some interesting material
I missed this thread the first time through, and I have completely enjoyed reviewing it now.
<<I think our hobby needs a new service, kind of like the old ANAAB (ANA Authentication Bureau).>>
<<be authenticated instead of graded, two distinctly different processes.>>
I think these two comments summarize the true nature of the dilemma. TPGs are about grading and authentication. ANAAB was just about the latter -- I managed to get two coins to them right before they shut down, and as I suspected, they both came back as fakes. But the point is this -- ANAAB had no stake in also grading the coin. They were concerned only with the true professional problem: what is it that we have in our hands? Once you add grading to that equation, a whole host of fiduciary cautions enter the picture, and that's the core theme in this thread, I think.
But as with the others who have put this back to the top, some (what is it?) eight weeks later:
I've enjoyed reading this thread, and would also like to hear what the outcome is from the submission to NCS. Also, I think keets should stop piling on top of jade- seems like keets has some kind of axe to grind, and it gets a little tired hearing him slam people that lean towards the coin being a proof.
My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable !
I've enjoyed reading this thread, and would also like to hear what the outcome is from the submission to NCS. Also, I think keets should stop piling on top of jade- seems like keets has some kind of axe to grind, and it gets a little tired hearing him slam people that lean towards the coin being a proof.
Hey everyone, thanks for the interest in this thread, especially magikbilly, since he has really showed a genuine interest in the outcome. Here's the latest:
The coin was graded by NCS as "Unc. Details, Cleaned". It was to be expected, even though I had a face-to-face talk with David Lange about NCS's ability to distinguish between a proof and a business strike Columbian. Oh well.
I probably already mentioned this elsewhere, but I did have a nice talk with Anthony Swiatek about this coin. He looked at it in detail and said that he thought that it was a proof. I asked him to walk over to the NCS table with me and state his opinion, but he wouldn't do it. He said that his opinion would not influence their grade decision.
I also acquired a copy of Mr. Swiatek's book on commemorative coins (co-authored with Walter Breen). There are several pages dedicated to the Columbian Half proofs. Very detailed information and I am remiss for not going to that reference sooner. My next post to this thread will include images from the book that you can compare to my coin. The main diagnostic for the proof Columbian Halves is strike quality. It may take awhile to post the images. I am currently in Chicago on business, but will be back in the office for a few days next week, then on to the Michigan State Spring Show in Dearborn. If you want to see the half, please stop by our table!
Hi, cool. Thanks - I look forward to the pics and diagnostics. It was fun looking for new ones - did they ever pan out? Mast line, denticles, fonts etc?
All the 1892 Columbian PR examples I found have the center mast point "between" denticles, as they should. All the viewed prooflike MS examples appear to be included in the same "between" position or the mast points to the left edge of the denticle. It would be interesting to locate a TPD PR 1892 Columbian where the mast points other than the "between" position. All the 104 proof coins were made on the same day and with the original two dies so all proofs MUST show the same mast positioning.
There have been about 73 1892 Columbians graded PR by PCGS/NGC/ANACS and this number no doubt includes a number of resubmissions. NGC has graded about 332 as MS prooflike. I wonder how many of those 332 are actually PR. I also wonder how many die pairing were used to make the 950,000 1892 Columbians.
William Paul at American Heritage would be another specialist to ask for an opinion. William has handled some of the finest PR and MS prooflike Classic Commems and has a great eye for them.
I would love to compare my five 1892 NGC prooflikes to the coin under discussion.
This thread was started well before I joined CU and I am happy it was brought up from the dead.
I collect Capped Bust series by variety in PCGS AU/MS grades.
We are leaving for the ANA in a few hours, so I won't have time to post images tonight, but I will try to do so when I return next week. I cut several shows out of the Fall/Winter schedule so that I can have more time in the office for this type of stuff, and our new web site that is being launched next week.
Just as a brief update, the coin has been confirmed a proof by some of the leading experts in the field, including Anthony Swiatek (he wrote the book on the subject). However, no grading service will slab it as a proof. Why? I don't know. Maybe if I give them enough evidence and cry loudly somebody will slab it. I recently purchased a fully prooflike Columbian as a reference piece. It actually looked more prooflike than our proof, but it was just a prooflike business strike.
Swiatek's book on the subject has several pages related to the proof Columbian halves and I may post some images from the book to make our case. BTW, we turned down some nice offers for the coin. The offers were inbetween what a certified proof and a non-certified prooflike coin would sell for. Although we would have made a profit, I am now determined to fight this battle. AND WIN!
Thanks for the follow-up although the TPG's generally act like stubborn donkeys no matter what every expert says. I remember a similar story where over a hundred dealers all signed a sheet with their opinion that NGC was wrong (90% said so) and NGC still wouldn't change their mind.
i think you have finally gotten someone to look at the coin whom most of us can easily defer opinion to and agree with, me at least, that being Anthony Swiatek. his opinion is generally accepted as "on point" when it comes to Classic Commems. have you given any consideration to having him walk the coin through certification for you??
have you given any consideration to having him walk the coin through certification for you??
Yes! Actually, after he gave me his opinion, I asked him to walk over to the NGC/NCS table to walk-thru this special case coin. He laughed and said, "they really don't care about my opinion....won't do any good". Verbatim.
I am not an expert, but here is my take on the coin. I would say that the reverse is proof, without question. However, the obverse looks a little funny. I think that Columbus's head looks too much like a business strike. I may be terribly wrong though, especially with just pictures. Also, as others have mentioned, it might possibly make it into a PR slab w/ some authority behind the submitter. I think any of the services would take a longer look at it if it was submitted by QDB, Doug Winter, Julian, along those lines. These are expert numismatists, so perhaps they would take that into consideration when viewing the coin. Just a thought. Good luck, and if you ever want to sell, I am eager to buy it, beautiful coin!
chabot510, you are correct that the obverse looks funny. It has been cleaned, and that is the great excuse that everyone is using to bag the coin. Makes it real easy: gimme your $50 and we will put your coin in a baggy without incurring any liability regarding authenticity. It is a 5 second grading job to bag this coin. Anthony Swiatek suggested that I send the coin to NCS to get it in a holder that just stated "authentic", but they just graded it as "Unc. details, cleaned". I actually sat down with David Lange before submitting the coin and asked his opinion. He was a bit evasive, but stated that it made a good case as a proof. I asked if he would put a note with the submission form so that the graders at NCS would not simpy avoid the subject. He told me that they knew what they were doing and he didn't need to put a note with the submission form.
I also showed the coin to Julian Liedman at the Bay State Show last year. He had 2 proof Columbians in his case; an 1892 and an 1893!! He also thought that the coin in this thread was a proof.
I will keep working on it. I have the coin here with me at the ANA in San Francisco (just got here a few hours ago.....delayed flights).
Comments
Any closer one way or the other after examing the masts on the business strikes etc.?
Billy
why is this comment constantly overlooked or otherwise ignored with regard to this coin?? you guys want to authenticate it from pictures online which are at different angles and with different lighting which is a GGUUEESSSS at best and a joke at worst. Dennis is so convinced that it's a Proof that all evidence to the contrary is meaningless, even when it comes from someone who's opinion he holds in high regard, an opinion he sought.
while this may eventually end up as an authenticated Proof it's probably wise to keep an open mind to the fact that it's just a well struck P/L business strike.
al h.
Dennis is so convinced that it's a Proof that all evidence to the contrary is meaningless
If you read my earlier posts to this thread, you will see comments that I made like: 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. I think that you are taking this too seriously. This is a fun little numismatic mystery. That's all. As I stated before, I know what the coin is, what it's worth and can sell it for a profit at any time.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
That is an interesting point. Photo/die diagnostics did some good with that 1895 a while back.
Keets, how many different dies were used to strike the 1892 Columbians? These were used to strike the business strikes as well, yes? Tell me what I am seeing wrong re fonts, masts, denticles etc. - I am learning here.
Billy
it's true that i did make the request, as much out of curiosity as anything else and that my last reply may have seemed harsh but was directed mostly at the other guys. really, though, it does appear that you're stuck on it being a proof since that's what you consistently try to prove and that's what you actually believe. what does concern me is aiming to prove things with a distorted collection of pictures while ignoring the contrary opinion of an expert who's had the coin in his hands to evaluate. do you think that serves us well??
by my count it must be close to a draw by now. several of the experts you've asked have said "Proof" and several have said "P/L Business" while the entire group has nothing to lose by stating their opinion. upon grading by an independent service, the coin has been called Mint State. your response---you accept "Proof" from biased experts and reject the grading service. you accept David Lange's "Proof" but stop short of NCS/NGC attribution over a less than $50 charge. you ignore a suggestion to speak with HRH about the coin and what he thinks it is since they BB'd it without necessarily giving an answer about the PR/MS question. you state that you know what the coin is and it'll not see a holder, it'll stay raw.
i just think it's silly.
al h.
I just posted images of slabbed proofs and slabbed prooflike business strikes, then asked for opinions from forum members. Here's the text under my last image: Compare to the above 3 images and please render your opinions. All opinions welcome, so please don't be shy if you disagree.
Why do you think that I so bent on this being a proof? There is little information known on proof diagnostics for Columbian Halves, so this thread it truly educational. We have compiled information from Heritage's web site, Breen's work on proof issues and even comments from astute colletors/dealers who have owned multiple examples of proofs and prooflike business strikes. This is an educational thread.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
Billy
Anxious to find out one way or the other - and finding this thread very educational.
Well, I took keet's advice and showed the coin to Anthony Swiatek at the FUN show. For those who do not know this, Mr. Swiatek wrote the book on U.S. Commemoratives and is considered a leading expert in that area of numismatics. He was very generous with his time and very informative. His conclusion was that it is more than likely a proof. After a minute of examining the coin, he said "I think that you have something here". The only area of concern to him was the hairline on Columbus' forehead, which he said should be stronger, but he's seen them like this before. Everything else (dentils, rim, mast lines, rigging, planks, mirrored surfaces, etc.) checked out.
I asked what he would do if it were his coin and he said that he would submit it to NCS, which I did. I will update everyone later when the coin arrives.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
<< <i>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. >>
Now you are submitting it again?
Cameron Kiefer
it seems Dennis is taking a reasoned approach after some time out to cool off and further research the coin's true nature. hopefully it won't get the quick once over and will be authenticated instead of graded, two distinctly different processes.
al h.
I hope it gets the time and research at NCS it deserves! Keep us updated Jaderarecoin
Cameron Kiefer
Dennis is taking a reasoned approach
Yes. When I submitted the coin at the FUN show, I stapled a $100 bill to the submission form, but the guy behind the table ripped it off and said, "hey, I told you last time that bribes don't work here". Guess I should have made it $150.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
Please tell me you are not having the coin "conserved"? IMO It won't be nearly as attractive with blast white surfaces.
Heck no! NCS is the only place that will grade the coin due to the cleaning on the obverse (hairlines). ANACS called it MS-61. I specifically told them NOT to mess with the coin, but just have it either net graded or just plain authenticated as a proof. If it comes back blast white, someone is gonna be in big trouble!
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
U.S. Nickels Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
U.S. Dimes Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
I am very happy to hear the update - both Mr. Swiatek's opinion that it more than likely a Proof as speculated and that it has been submitted too! The denticle/mast line observations turned out to be of use? That would be great
Billy
designset
Treasury Seals Type Set
Edited to add linklink
I don't claim to be a commemorative expert and I admit that I have only owned a small handful (one of which was a deep pl Columbian
IMO the differences between the Jade coin and a pl mint state Columbian are comparable to the differences between a DMPL and a proof Morgan.
If you saw the coin in hand I doubt if many of you would argue against a proof designation but that doesn't mean it will ever be designated as such.
Very interesting coin. Dennis comes up with some interesting material
I will keep everyone updated on the status of the Columbian Half. Proof or just P/L? The mystery remains.................
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
Best,
Billy
Wow.
I missed this thread the first time through, and I have completely enjoyed reviewing it now.
<<I think our hobby needs a new service, kind of like the old ANAAB (ANA Authentication Bureau).>>
<<be authenticated instead of graded, two distinctly different processes.>>
I think these two comments summarize the true nature of the dilemma. TPGs are about grading and authentication. ANAAB was just about the latter -- I managed to get two coins to them right before they shut down, and as I suspected, they both came back as fakes. But the point is this -- ANAAB had no stake in also grading the coin. They were concerned only with the true professional problem: what is it that we have in our hands? Once you add grading to that equation, a whole host of fiduciary cautions enter the picture, and that's the core theme in this thread, I think.
But as with the others who have put this back to the top, some (what is it?) eight weeks later:
Curious minds want to know! Any news yet????
I've enjoyed reading this thread, and would also like to hear what the outcome is from the submission to NCS. Also, I think keets should stop piling on top of jade- seems like keets has some kind of axe to grind, and it gets a little tired hearing him slam people that lean towards the coin being a proof.
Hey everyone, thanks for the interest in this thread, especially magikbilly, since he has really showed a genuine interest in the outcome. Here's the latest:
The coin was graded by NCS as "Unc. Details, Cleaned". It was to be expected, even though I had a face-to-face talk with David Lange about NCS's ability to distinguish between a proof and a business strike Columbian. Oh well.
I probably already mentioned this elsewhere, but I did have a nice talk with Anthony Swiatek about this coin. He looked at it in detail and said that he thought that it was a proof. I asked him to walk over to the NCS table with me and state his opinion, but he wouldn't do it. He said that his opinion would not influence their grade decision.
I also acquired a copy of Mr. Swiatek's book on commemorative coins (co-authored with Walter Breen). There are several pages dedicated to the Columbian Half proofs. Very detailed information and I am remiss for not going to that reference sooner. My next post to this thread will include images from the book that you can compare to my coin. The main diagnostic for the proof Columbian Halves is strike quality. It may take awhile to post the images. I am currently in Chicago on business, but will be back in the office for a few days next week, then on to the Michigan State Spring Show in Dearborn. If you want to see the half, please stop by our table!
Thanks again, Dennis
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
">"http://www.cashcrate.com/5663377"
cool. Thanks - I look forward to the pics and diagnostics. It was fun looking for new ones - did they ever pan out? Mast line, denticles, fonts etc?
Best, Billy
There have been about 73 1892 Columbians graded PR by PCGS/NGC/ANACS and this number no doubt includes a number of resubmissions. NGC has graded about 332 as MS prooflike. I wonder how many of those 332 are actually PR. I also wonder how many die pairing were used to make the 950,000 1892 Columbians.
William Paul at American Heritage would be another specialist to ask for an opinion. William has handled some of the finest PR and MS prooflike Classic Commems and has a great eye for them.
I would love to compare my five 1892 NGC prooflikes to the coin under discussion.
This thread was started well before I joined CU and I am happy it was brought up from the dead.
We are leaving for the ANA in a few hours, so I won't have time to post images tonight, but I will try to do so when I return next week. I cut several shows out of the Fall/Winter schedule so that I can have more time in the office for this type of stuff, and our new web site that is being launched next week.
Just as a brief update, the coin has been confirmed a proof by some of the leading experts in the field, including Anthony Swiatek (he wrote the book on the subject). However, no grading service will slab it as a proof. Why? I don't know. Maybe if I give them enough evidence and cry loudly somebody will slab it. I recently purchased a fully prooflike Columbian as a reference piece. It actually looked more prooflike than our proof, but it was just a prooflike business strike.
Swiatek's book on the subject has several pages related to the proof Columbian halves and I may post some images from the book to make our case. BTW, we turned down some nice offers for the coin. The offers were inbetween what a certified proof and a non-certified prooflike coin would sell for. Although we would have made a profit, I am now determined to fight this battle. AND WIN!
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
<< <i>our new web site that is being launched next week >>
Looking forward to it
<< <i>Maybe if I give them enough evidence and cry loudly somebody will slab it. >>
It worked for the speared buffalo!
i think you have finally gotten someone to look at the coin whom most of us can easily defer opinion to and agree with, me at least, that being Anthony Swiatek. his opinion is generally accepted as "on point" when it comes to Classic Commems. have you given any consideration to having him walk the coin through certification for you??
have you given any consideration to having him walk the coin through certification for you??
Yes! Actually, after he gave me his opinion, I asked him to walk over to the NGC/NCS table to walk-thru this special case coin. He laughed and said, "they really don't care about my opinion....won't do any good". Verbatim.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
billy
chabot510, you are correct that the obverse looks funny. It has been cleaned, and that is the great excuse that everyone is using to bag the coin. Makes it real easy: gimme your $50 and we will put your coin in a baggy without incurring any liability regarding authenticity. It is a 5 second grading job to bag this coin. Anthony Swiatek suggested that I send the coin to NCS to get it in a holder that just stated "authentic", but they just graded it as "Unc. details, cleaned". I actually sat down with David Lange before submitting the coin and asked his opinion. He was a bit evasive, but stated that it made a good case as a proof. I asked if he would put a note with the submission form so that the graders at NCS would not simpy avoid the subject. He told me that they knew what they were doing and he didn't need to put a note with the submission form.
I also showed the coin to Julian Liedman at the Bay State Show last year. He had 2 proof Columbians in his case; an 1892 and an 1893!! He also thought that the coin in this thread was a proof.
I will keep working on it. I have the coin here with me at the ANA in San Francisco (just got here a few hours ago.....delayed flights).
Dennis
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!