why no proof commems?

ychange

were no proof or prooflike strikes ever made of this series? i can only imagine some of the designs with any range of cameo effect.

is it because of the lower mintage nature of these pieces that there were only business strikes made with the dies?


any high grade commems out there needing a viewing? toned or blast white, anything coming close to 'prooflike'?


thanks.

BigE

Lots of early commems were made in proof but they are very rare----------BigE

Numismanic

Example of a proof 1892 Columbian commemorative half dollar.

BillJones

As was stated before quite a number of early commemorative coins were made in Proof, but all of them range from very rare to to very scarce. The problem with earliest pieces was that the mint did not know how to market them. If they were included in Proof sets, the normal Proof coin price for a piece like a Columbian half dollar would have been lower than the price the Columbian Commission was charging for the Mint State coins. So the mint left them out of the set.

Later Proof coinage was suspended because of World War I. After the war a few Proof commemorative coins were made, but the Treasury officials of the time thought that special coins, like Proofs, were a waste of the mint's time and resources. And worst of all during the presidency of Herbert Hoover there were no Proof or commemorative coins at all. Hoover and his treasury secretary, Andrew Mellon, were totally against such things.

After Proof coins were resumed in 1936, the marketing question continued to be an issue. As a result collectors had few opportunities to get Proof commemorative coins.

ychange

thanks all!

so, they are out there, but very hard to come by? shame, they must've been great coins.

does anyone collect these proof early commems? are the mintages and/or survival rates of these pieces known, or are they crazy rare like a pattern piece would be? were they melted and made into business strike commems or other coins soon after they weren't sold by the mint?

keep the commem eye candy coming if you got 'em.

commemguy

John Sinnock while Chief Mint Engraver made a variety of matte proof and specimen pieces and a few have been graded by PCGS and NGC, although never than a handful for any particular issue. In the 1962 ANA Auction, four proof commems came out of the Sinnock Estate, including a Maryland Matte Proof (now NGC PR62 ex: Pittman), a Maryland Sandblast Proof (raw and in private collection), a Connecticut Matte Proof (now NGC PR65) and a New Rochelle Matte Proof (NGC PR61). There is also an Elgin Matte specimen piece that Sinnock reportedly made for the Rovelstad, the coins designer:



The first Sinnock coin to come on the market in recent years was a Matte Proof Missouri 2x4 in PCGS PR66, which has traded hands several times until being placed in 1999 with a serious collector. A Vancouver PCGS PR66 appeared in the Heritage 1995 Denver ANA Sale, but did not meet its reserve. This coin is particularly gorgeous. There is also a Sesqui Matte Proof in the Smithsonian that was part of the Cox collection, and I have seen a second example of this issue that is a possible proof.

For the 1892 Columbian, 103 brilliant proofs were struck, the first 100 coins struck, the 400th, the 1492nd, and the 1892nd, and same for the Isabella Quarter. For the Hawaiian 50 Sandblast proofs were minted for distribution to committee officials. I think that the reason proof production was so limited is that there wasn't a reason to produce them. There was a lot of fan fare surrounding the above mentioned issues, which merited the production of special coins. I believe that Sinnock was a collector at heart, and he personally made a few proofs as an amusment for himself and for a few friends. I was told by Art Kagin years ago that very likely some sort of proof or specimen exists for just about every issue in the series. Without good and direct documentation, we have to take it on a case-by-case basis when these coins appear.

ychange

you rock, that's exactly the info i was wondering about. thanks, commemguy.

so indeed, these pieces must be droolmakers when seen, and only a lucky few will ever hold them.

if only the mint workers knew then, the interest in their best quality work we'd take 50, 100, 200 years down the road now, i think they would have been stashing away many more proof pieces. even relatively small runs of 1,000 or so would have been great to chase after today.


oh well, who knew?

coinguy1

Not surprisingly, a highly informative post from "commemguy". For those of you who do not know Scott at Pinnacle - he is an amazing source of information on the classic commemorative series. Please don't all of you contact him at once though, or I'll be in BIG trouble.

In addition to the items he mentioned above, while at NGC I saw/graded a Matte Proof 1938 Arkansas set. NGC has also certified a "Specimen" Grant with Star 50c and a Proof 1926 Oregon. And, in the commem gold area, they have recognized a Matte Proof Sesqui $2.50 and a couple of Proof Lewis and Clark pieces, in addition to the better known/documented/more "common" Proof Jefferson and McKinley issues.

coinguy1

<< <i>so indeed, these pieces must be droolmakers when seen, and only a lucky few will ever hold them. >>

Ychange, I've been fortunate to have seen and/or graded a number of the Proof commems mentioned in this thread. And, while some of them are impressive in the way they differ from business strikes, they are not especially attractive.

I say that because, for the most part, the Matte Proof pieces are fairly dark, dull and grainy in appearance, and not at all like the eye-catching brilliant proof coins.

BillJones

Yes, I agree.

Many of the Matte Proof silver coins are not that attractive. They are dull and dark with no luster.

I've read that the idea of Matte Proofs started with the French mint. They believed that that lack of luster put more emphasis on the design of the coin. Most collectors don't agree with this opinion. They prefer the brillant Proofs. As a result few Matte Proofs were ordered, which makes they scarce to rare today.

We see the same situation now. Everytime a new commemortive issue appears collectors buy more examples of the Proof version than they do the "uncirculated" version. In truth the modern "uncirculated" coins are really very similar to the classic Matte Proofs. They have the same detail, but lack the bright luster. Mintages often make them more expensive after the mints sales of the coins are over.

BillJones

As an addendum to this post I'd like to mention that there are also some Proof-like presentation pieces known. One example of this is the New Rochelle, New York commemorative half dollar. These pieces were polished examples of the regular production pieces that were officially issued. I’ve seen a couple of these coins, and they look pretty cheesy IMO. Still the asking price was a few hundred higher than the regular price for a New Rochelle.

Conder101

<< <i> The problem with earliest pieces was that the mint did not know how to market them. >>


The mint was not involved with the marketing of the early commems at all. They simply produced the coins for the various commissions and distributors handled all of the marketing. If the commisions had asked for proofs or gotten the auhorization for proofs written into the laws there would have been more proof commems. The mint did not have any authorization to make any of the commems for their own marketing purposes or to put into proof sets or anything like that.

nankraut

Wow! Another very informative/educational thread. Thank you, folks.

LeeG

Great Job by all!!!! Lee