Mint State 1880 Shield nickels and prices

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

It seems that Choice and gem mint state 1880 shield nickels are bringing more in Auction and privately than Proof 1867 with rays nickels.
An NGC mint state 65 brought $43,000 in the ANR Georgia auction.The Just Having Fun MS 66 coin supposedly sold for Six Figures.Now there is a PCGS MS 64 AND a PCGS ms 65 in the Heritage Platinum Night sale.
How rare is this coin ? What will these coins bring in the Heritage ANA sale?

Stewart

Conder101

The real problem with buying these is being sure you are getting a MS coin and not a proof coin. The proofs are MUCH more common than MS pieces and the proofs are worth a small fraction of what the Mint State coins are. But the quality of the proofs was not good and it is extremely difficult to tell the proofs and business strikes apart. Buying certified is not a big help either as most of the MS pieces in slabs, even from PCGS and NGC, are actually proof coins. (And some of the proofs are really MS coins.)

Sunnywood

As someone who has studied this issue in great depth, I second Conder's comments. There were only two obverse dies used for the entire issue, including both the (16000) business strikes and the (3200) proofs. The obverse dies correspond to Breen-2515 and Breen-2516. Both dies were used to strike proofs, and both dies were also used to strike business strikes. In addition, the Breen-2515 die was repolished and used to strike additional proofs at a later stage. Thus, die diagnostics, and even die states, are not dispositive.

As a further complication, it is my belief that the proof collar was left on during some or all of the business strike coining. I have examined a number of XF and AU coins whixh exhibited square edges. I do not believe they could all have been circulated proofs. And there is a lack of coins with blatantly rounded MS edges.

In addition, the MS coins can be semi-PL, and some poorly produced proofs can lack no-questions mirrored surfaces. So proper identification of genuine business strikes is very difficult. I do not believe the services have reseached the problem in such great depth, and therefore they are apt to make errors. Some MS coins end up in proof holders, some proofs in MS holders. Perhaps no-one can be 100% certain about every coin. There do exist 100% certain no-questions proofs from both dies, and there do exist 100% no questions business strikes as well. But most coins fall somewhere in between.

Stewart, this is why I was unable to step up to the plate and buy your PCGS MS64 a few years ago. It is a difficult task to be certain of the striking format. I am sorry that it made you so very angry at me at that time, and I'm glad that you subsequently got over it.

All of that being said, the right coin in the right holder will certainly fetch a goodly sum. Only a few years ago, the 1880 sheeted at $5000 in MS65. Partly as a result of my making a lot of noise looking for them, those bids have gone way up. Of course, it is also due to the "investor" demand for key dates and rarities. The 1880 MS nickel has now rightly achieved its status in that category.

Best,
Sunnywood

howards

Sunnywood provided an excellent summary of the 1880 situation. I particularly second his comments about the possibility that certain business strikes were struck with the proof collar still installed. I own a coin that I am certain is a business strike, yet it shows a wide, flat proof-collar style rim. The key is that the surfaces of the rim on the coin are not at all proof-like.

I had the opportunity to examine both of the 1880s in the Heritage auction at the recently concluded ANA. They brought high prices because both of them were obvious business strikes.

The original questioner asked about 1880 prices vs. 1867WR. The mintages were 16,000 vs. 2 million. A properly attributed no questions asked business strike 1880 is a rarity.

Because, as Sunnywood also pointed out, there are no for sure diagnostics for business strike vs proof and there are undoubtedly mistakes by the grading services, make sure you know what you are doing before you pay a lot of money for an 1880.

Howard
www.shieldnickels.net

291fifth

In the 1996-1999 period I put together a collection of mint state shield nickels. While it was never quite completed, I did learn that, as Condor 101 stated previously, that the 1880 is a problem coin in mint state due to the difficulty of determining whether a coin is really mint state and not proof. I personally came to the conclusion that the mint state coins are not worth the big premium paid for them. The fact that a coin was "certified" as mint state did not influence me as I came to the conclusion that, in many, if not most, cases it just wasn't possible to be certain.

howards

<< <i>In the 1996-1999 period I put together a collection of mint state shield nickels. While it was never quite completed, I did learn that, as Condor 101 stated previously, that the 1880 is a problem coin in mint state due to the difficulty of determining whether a coin is really mint state and not proof. I personally came to the conclusion that the mint state coins are not worth the big premium paid for them. The fact that a coin was "certified" as mint state did not influence me as I came to the conclusion that, in many, if not most, cases it just wasn't possible to be certain. >>



Couple of comments... In some cases, it is possible to be certain whether a particular 1880 is mint state or proof. Go look in the Heritage archives at the MS64 and MS65 that just sold at the most recent ANA (7/2005). These were unquestioned business strikes in my opinion. (I had the advantage of viewing them in person, not just a web page picture.)

I completely concur with your comment that a coin that is "certified" as mint state is no guarantee. It is very probable that there are proofs certified as mint state and mint state coins certified as proofs. There is no substitute for being able to form an opinion on your own in which you have confidence. Examining the edge of the coin is very useful in forming that opinion and (regrettably) that is not an option with a slabbed coin.

Lastly I would disagree with your assertion that true business strike 1880s are not worth substantial money. We are talking about 16,000 strikes only, the lowest mintage of any nickel 1866 to date. A fraction of those survive. A fraction of the survivors are unmistakeably attributable as business strikes. In my opinion, the real market aberration is the one that undervalued these coins for so long.

By the way, out of the 16,000 coins struck the COMBINED population in all grades at PCGS, NGC, and ANACS is 63. The only reason these coins don't cost much more is that there may not be 63 serious collectors of shield nickels.

Howard

Justhavingfun

I think the 1880 business strikes are rarest business strike nickels of the 19th century, and arguably even harder to find than the overdate Buffalo.

The problem is -- as Condor 101 and Sunnywood point out -- it's hard to tell the genuine business strikes from the proofs and PCGS and NGC sometimes get it very wrong. So this is one coin that I don't/won't trust even the PCGS slabs.

Still, anytime I see a genuine one, even in circulated condition, if I'm flush, I'll bid aggressively for it. I'm a collector, but that doesn't mean I have to turn away a "sure thing." At current price levels, I'm happy gobble up every single one of them that I can possibly afford. .

Warm regards,



Just Having Fun

howards

<< <i>The problem is -- as Condor 101 and Sunnywood point out -- it's hard to tell the genuine business strikes from the proofs and PCGS and NGC sometimes get it very wrong. So this is one coin that I don't/won't trust even the PCGS slabs.

Just Having Fun >>



Absolutely agreed that you can't trust the slabbers on this one. I am sure that they have made mistakes in both directions.

What's more, one of the most helpful things to look at when trying to distinguish proof vs. business strike is the edge, and of course you can't see it when it's locked up in a slab!

Howard
www.shieldnickels.net

howards

<< <i>I think the 1880 business strikes are rarest business strike nickels of the 19th century, and arguably even harder to find than the overdate Buffalo.

Just Having Fun >>



I'm going to assume you mean the 1918/7 Buffalo, not the 1914/3. My (somewhat old) PCGS and NGC pop. reports show a combined pop. of over 800 in all grades for the Buff.

The same two books show a combined pop. of 50 for the 1880 shield nickel.

Nuff said! :-)

Howard

Justhavingfun

Glad to meet you, Howard.

And yes, I meant the 1918-D 8/7 Buffalo.

Your statistics on it are fascinating. Combined NGC/PCGS pop of 50 in all grades? Let's see, discounting a conservative 20% for upgrade/cross-overs, gives us a combined pop of about 40 business strikes. Even at a combined pop of 40, these coins are extraordinarily rare -- only one of them for every 20 1918-D 8/7 Buffalos.

Yet, what does a overdate Buffalo go for in MS 65? Does anybody have a price? I'll bet it's a heck of a lot more than the 1880 Shield even though the Buffalo nickel is arguably 20 times more common.

This is why I scarf up every 1880 shield nickel business strike I can afford.

Warm regards,


Just Having Fun

RYK

Terrific discussion about a coin that was previously unfamiliar to me.

billboat

Thank you all-I've learned a great deal by reading this discussion--wish there were more threads like this.

roadrunner

I actively looked for 1880 bus strike nickels from 1975-1988 and never found one. I would not have been satisfied with a PL piece or anything resembling a proof. Essentially I came to the belief that they basically did not exist or could not be separated from the proofs. Sort of the same reasoning for the low mintage business strike half dimes and dimes of the 1860's. Sure, the mint state and circ pieces are technically rare, but when you have proofs that hold down the prices of the mint state pieces, it makes the MS pieces less desireable imo. While the 1880 5c has more of a stake to rarity than those pieces, it is a similar situation.

The quarters of the 1880's all have mintages of 16,000 or less, yet it has little bearing on the rarity of those pieces or the survival rates. That is really the key issue. Those quarters are essentially "common" in unc. Obviously 1880 nickels were not saved, or essentially not minted regardless of that 16,000 recorded mintage.

roadrunner

coinbuf

Some excelent information thanks to all who shared in this thread.

Chris

roadrunner

Value is relative. Most 19th century better date coinage (gold, silver, copper, and nickel) is many times rarer than 20th century
registry rarities. While an 18/17-s Gem nickel or 1901-s Gem 25c. is highly desireable, they pale in comparison to hundreds of much tougher coins in the 1800's, that cost FAR less. One of my favorite examples is say an 1858-0 quarter in GEM. There is only one MS65 known to my knowlege, and probably only a few 63's and 64's.
Yet it could be had for less than the price of the 1880 5c or 1901-s 25c in the same grade. The 1858-0 quarter is also rarer than the
1901-s quarter in all grades (500 pieces or so to say 2500). Yet you can have a 58-0 in good for $25 vs $2500 for the 1901-s. Another way of saying there is a 100X or better demand difference in the 2 coins.

How about an 1857-0 half in MS65? There are NO gems of this date currently known to me (ignore the pops as 64 is the best currently out there). If a "real" 65 should happen to pop up, you could probably own it for $15-25K. Finest known and much cheaper that similar 20th century rarities. Demand is the driver here. Sure, the 19th coinage has great potential, if the demand for dated sets can be dramatically increased. Until then, it's business as usual.

roadrunner

howards

Couple datapoints on 1880 values, from the Heritage auction held at the just concluded ANA in San Francisco:

PCGS 64: $25,300
PCGS 65: $57,500

Both prices include the juice.

There are no previous 64s or 65s to compare against. There is a 63 from 9/2003 that went for $7187.50.

More telling of trends is a PCGS 55 that went for $5175 last June. I bought an NGC 53 near the end of 2003 for $1175. Prices of business strike 1880s have moved up quite a bit!

-------

JHF, it is a pleasure to make your acquaintance. I believe we have a mutual friend - someone who collected high grade Cherrypicker's Guide varieties of shield nickels.

Roadrunner, you said you looked for true business strike looking shield nickels for a long time and never found any. As you say, there are a lot of prooflike coins out there. But there are a few that truly do look like business strikes. They are very hard to find. In my opinion, the coins in the Heritage auction mentioned just above were true business strikes and that is why they went for big money. So you can see what I'm talking about, I put up photos of a no-questions business strike:
http://www.pacifier.com/~howards/1880_F-02_AU53/1880obv.jpg
http://www.pacifier.com/~howards/1880_F-02_AU53/1880rev.jpg

Notice the strike weakness characteristic of most business strike shield nickels.

------

Other posts have been comparing a 1918/7 Buffalo against an 1880 shield. The real comparison (IMO) to make is against shield nickel varieties. Contrast the 1916/1916 Buffalo against either of the dramatic 1866/1866 shield nickels. The shields are more dramatic, considerably rarer, but command a fraction of the price.

It's puzzling that shield nickels pack some of the most dramatic varieties available in any U.S. series, but by and large the variety collectors (except a few like me) ignore them. If anyone wants to see some of these shield nickel varieties, you can look at my Top 20 list on www.shieldnickels.net.

No, I'm not a dealer, and I'm not looking to sell my collection. But I am passionate about shield nickel varieties!

Howard

Justhavingfun

Dear Howard:

What a great website you have there at www.shieldnickels.net! Wow, it's on my favorites list already. I wish I had learned about that years ago. What fun! And so much good meat to sink my teeth into. Yummmm

We probably do have a mutual acquaintance. But it IS an acquaintance, not a friend. I never met the person; never even spoke with him. And unfortunately we never did get together on a purchase price for his variety set. Too much overlap with mine. But not the end of the world; I have a pretty good collection of the varieties already and will pick up the rest one-by-one.

Regarding the 1866/1866 shield nickels, you write: "the shields are more dramatic, considerably rarer, but command a fraction of the price." Said almost perfectly but I would amend that to read: "but command a tiny fraction of the price."

This is one of the reasons I enjoy the Shield Nickels so much. Many of the key dates are extremely difficult and rare. So the set is a hard challenge and thus, fun to put together. But despite the rarity, it's easily affordable. I doubt my entire set of shield nickel business strikes cost as much as that single 1918/7-D Buffalo that Mark Feld quoted at $287,000.

So I can have this great complete collection of fascinating old Shield nickels -- picked over for good strikes (full horizontal shield lines) -- OR one single Buffalo nickel ten times more common that the 1880, but almost three times the cost. An easy choice for me.

Again, nice meeting you and thanks for the website.

Warm regards,

Just Having Fun

jdimmick

The prices have been strong on the MS specimens as of late. I purchased an 1880 Shield in PCGS-55 the end last year for about 3750.00 but have since sold it for a small percentage more. At FUN 05, the dealer I was helping had two other in lower grades a PCGS-45 and an NGC-50. (both sold) I also believe that the Signature sale during that show had a PCGS-55 that sold for about 4k. I curently dont own an example now, but am waiting for a PCGS-64 that is being held privately. I have first shot on it when it comes available, but it will be a few years, however, I can wait. This coin is a high end PCGS-64 graded many years ago and purchased from Peters and Mohon. It is an unquestionable business strike and one of the nicest I have ever seen. As mentioned in earlier threads what makes this coin intriguing is the fact that determining business strikes from proofs is extremely difficult and questionable. I was originally taught that the diagnostics for a business strike was in the rim/edge as well as a die lump under the t in states, but this is not necessarily correct as some of the dies used struck both business strikes and proofs. I had an opportunity to sit and talk with one of the guys from Scottsman who was extremely knowledgable on three cent nickels and shield coinage, and learned quite a bit about the 1880 Shields.

Jim d

mgoodm3

Interesting stuff.

Sunnywood

JHF, I have never been referred to as "it" or "the person" before. I think you could brush up on your etiquette !! However, no harm done, I'd say my variety set ended up in pretty good hands, and the buyer thought my price quite reasonable.

Dimmick, the reverse die with the lump under the T in STATES has been dubbed the "island reverse," and is thought to occur only on business strikes paired with the Breen-2516 ("dropped 8") obverse. However, we are fairly certain that these are not the only business strikes. There has recently been a remarkable exchange of information between John Dannreuther, Q. David Bowers, Howard Spindel and myself on the subject of 1880 nickels. We are slowly edging closer to the truth.

Best,
Sunnywood

Barry

As a further complication, it is my belief that the proof collar was left on during some or all of the business strike coining.

What exactly is a proof collar and how does it differ from a business strike collar, assuming there is such a thing?

Sunnywood

Barry, the collar is a tool steel ring around the planchet during striking. The presence of a collar prevents the planchet from "squishing outward" to a larger diameter during striking. The proof collar was designed specifically to impart a polished square edge to the coins struck as proofs. The collar used for business strike would be neither polished nor square. Further, there are ways of striking business strikes without a collar (by having a more complex die design, so that the die itself performs the restraining function, rather than a separate collar). I'm not exactly sure how business strike nickels were done during ther 1870's - 1880's, but it is certain that a proof collar was used on the proofs. The proof collar imparts distinctive edge characteristics to the coins. However, some of the indeterminate 1880's (called "PRUNCs" by professional graders), appear to have some of the edge characteristics of proofs.

Best,
Sunnywood

Barry

Thanks Sunnywood. I'm familiar with what the collar does. I just didn't know there were different ones for PF and Busn strikes. Polished I can understand, but not being square? Wouldn't that result in a coin being trapezoidal in cross-section, with non-parallel rims?

roadrunner

It seems odd to me that with still some doubts as to what constitutes business strikes vs proofs that one would pay $4000 for a circ 1880 nickel while a gem proof is a $600 coin. I guess this is one circumstance that I cannot quite get a grip on. It completely goes against what I learned on the low mintage dimes and half dimes of the 1860's where circ prices are somewhat capped by the price of proofs.

roadrunner

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

I met Q David Bowers at the ANA in San Francisco.He is presently doing a book on Shield Nickels.I know for certain he has been doing research on all the 1880 nickels he has had the ability to see.Perhaps we can get Q to comment on his research on 1880 Shield nickels.

The die lump under the T in States is on some certified mint state examples but there are also some pieces certified as mint state without the die lump.
Intrigue has always increased collector curiosity and value for that matter.This is why 1856 Flying Eagle cents called mint state are worth so much money.The same can be said about 1831 half cents even though there has never been a certified uncirculated 1831 half cent.

stewart

Stewart

Sunnywood

Stewart, as I mentioned a few posts above, I am one of those who have been in constant communication with QDB about the 1880 nickels, as well as all kinds of other issues in the series, from the 1865-dated patterns to the 1867 Rays proofs, the existence of handmade prototype dies, the hub sequence, production methods, the legitimacy of various overdates, and more.

The exchange of e-mails among a group of respondents is a remarkable by-product of e-mail technology. A lot of theories and information got thrown around with the help of QDB, John Dannreuther, Bob Julian, Saul Teichman, and two amateur specialists in the shield series: myself and Howard Spindel (both of whom were thrilled to be participating in a dialogue with this group of top professional numismatists). Of course the purpose of this exchange was to help Dave accumulate information on the series for his latest effort: a Whitman "Red Book of Nickels." The book will be out later in the year, and it will give shield nickels a deeper treatment than they received heretofore.

On the subject of 1880 nickels, it was decided (among other things), that a complete study needs to be done of ALL 1880 nickels to map out all of the die marriages and die states. Then we can locate on this "map" all of the "no-questions" mirrored proofs ... and this may help us to decipher the striking sequences (e.g., on how many different occasions were proofs struck?) We had extensive discussion about the two known obverses (Breen-2515 and Breen-2516), and their various pairings with different reverses, including the "island reverse" with the lump (a raised blob corresponding to a rust pit in that particular reverse die at that stage in its life).

Best,
Sunnywood

stephunter

I just picked up an 1880 myself at the ANA show in San Francisco.

howards

<< <i>It seems odd to me that with still some doubts as to what constitutes business strikes vs proofs that one would pay $4000 for a circ 1880 nickel while a gem proof is a $600 coin. I guess this is one circumstance that I cannot quite get a grip on. It completely goes against what I learned on the low mintage dimes and half dimes of the 1860's where circ prices are somewhat capped by the price of proofs.

roadrunner >>



I completely agree with in regard to those nickels for which there is some doubt.

However, there are some 1880 shield nickels that leave no doubt at all as to their proper classification as business strikes. Those are the ones that should get the big $.

If anyone is contemplating purchase of an 1880 and it isn't obvious whether it is a business strike, then of course one shouldn't pay more than the prevailing prices for proofs as a simple matter of self-protection.

Howard

howards

<< <i>Dear Howard:

What a great website you have there at www.shieldnickels.net!

Regarding the 1866/1866 shield nickels, you write: "the shields are more dramatic, considerably rarer, but command a fraction of the price." Said almost perfectly but I would amend that to read: "but command a tiny fraction of the price."

This is one of the reasons I enjoy the Shield Nickels so much. Many of the key dates are extremely difficult and rare. So the set is a hard challenge and thus, fun to put together. But despite the rarity, it's easily affordable. I doubt my entire set of shield nickel business strikes cost as much as that single 1918/7-D Buffalo that Mark Feld quoted at $287,000.

So I can have this great complete collection of fascinating old Shield nickels -- picked over for good strikes (full horizontal shield lines) -- OR one single Buffalo nickel ten times more common that the 1880, but almost three times the cost. An easy choice for me.

Again, nice meeting you and thanks for the website.

Warm regards,

Just Having Fun >>



JHF, nice meeting you too. I'm always happy to meet shield nickel enthusiasts. You might want to consider joining the Yahoo Shield Nickel discussion group I co-moderate. I'll be happy to send you an invite if you wish - private email me.

Yes, I agree with your insertion of "tiny" fraction of the price. Not only that, in my opinion the 1866/1866 are not even the most visually impressive of the shield nickel varieties. There are some giant doubled dies that can be had in nice AU for a few hundred dollars. For most of these varieties, there are only a handful known.

I wouldn't buy that buffalo either - for that kind of money there are a lot of nifty shield nickels to own.

Thank you for your kind words about my website.

Regards,
Howard

howards

<< <i>I met Q David Bowers at the ANA in San Francisco.He is presently doing a book on Shield Nickels.I know for certain he has been doing research on all the 1880 nickels he has had the ability to see.Perhaps we can get Q to comment on his research on 1880 Shield nickels.

The die lump under the T in States is on some certified mint state examples but there are also some pieces certified as mint state without the die lump.

stewart

Stewart >>



Stewart,

Sunnywood has covered the situation pretty well so I'll try not to be too repetitious. As far as the "experts" (being the group that Sunnywood mentioned) know, the die lump under T has not been seen on proof strikes. But we haven't made an exhaustive analysis of 1880 proofs. Also, as far as I know the die lump reverse only occurs in conjunction with the obverse that has a repunched second 8 (Breen 2516). That leaves us with no diagnostics for obverse Breen 2515. It also doesn't mean that coins without the lump are not business strikes.

Here are links to the MS65 and MS64 that just sold at Heritage:

http://www.heritagecoins.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=382&Lot_No=10130&src=pr

http://www.heritagecoins.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=382&Lot_No=10129&src=pr

The former has the island reverse. Both coins were, in my opinion, unquestioned business strikes.

Howard

howards

<< <i>Thanks Sunnywood. I'm familiar with what the collar does. I just didn't know there were different ones for PF and Busn strikes. Polished I can understand, but not being square? Wouldn't that result in a coin being trapezoidal in cross-section, with non-parallel rims? >>



I don't know if we know exactly what the collar dies looked like, so perhaps saying "square" confuses things.

All we can do is examine coins.

For a typical shield proof, the edge is very flat, very wide, and has a proof surface. The edge on a proof will extend the full width of the coin.

For a typical business strike, the edge is not nearly as wide and there is a beveled transition to the surface of the coin. Also, the edge does not have a proof surface.

Now I don't think we know if the proof collar was physically different from the business strike collar or if it was simply a polished version. The appearance of the bevel makes me think that they were physically different.

In 1880 Sunnywood and I believe that regardless of how the proof collar was different from the business strike collar, that the proof collar was left in place when striking coins that were intended as business strikes. This is because we see coins that we believe are business strikes but they have wide flat rims.

Howard

howards

<< <i>I just picked up an 1880 myself at the ANA show in San Francisco.

>>



When we get a worn coin like this, the problem of proper determination can be even more difficult in my opinion. Some of the business strike markers, like mint frost or proof surfaces, have been worn away. How do we tell a worn business strike from a worn proof?

The only diagnostic that we are pretty sure works is the island reverse. But lack of the island reverse signifies nothing.

It looks like your coin is encapsulated, so we don't get to look at the edge! Then we have to trust the slabbers. And they are in the dark sometimes on 1880s too.

Howard

P.S. I'm not making a judgment one way or the other on your coin. I don't have enough information.

Conder101

<< <i>For a typical shield proof, the edge is very flat, very wide, and has a proof surface. The edge on a proof will extend the full width of the coin.

For a typical business strike, the edge is not nearly as wide and there is a beveled transition to the surface of the coin. Also, the edge does not have a proof surface.

Now I don't think we know if the proof collar was physically different from the business strike collar or if it was simply a polished version. The appearance of the bevel makes me think that they were physically different. >>


The squareness of the edge on proofs is a function of the strength. The only real difference between the proof and business strike collars should be whether the surfaces of the collar are polished or not.

Blanks after they are punched from the strip have a roughly vertical edge. After the planchet is upset, the edge is normally rounded or a truncated V. For this reason, when the planchet is struck and expands, it makes contact with the collar withthe center of the planchet edge first. As the pressure increases the flat portion of the edge gets wider. On proofs, with their higher pressure and double striking, the edge eventually spreads far enough to completey fill the space between the collar and the die resulting in the sharp square edge. A business strike does not fill the space completely leaving the "bevel" between the edge and the rim.

If a proof coin is not fully struck up the edge can still show this bevel. (Since the rims of a coin are the highest relief areas of a coin, and the die faces are convex, the junction of the rim and edge wil be the last point to completely strike up.) If the collar is a proof collar the flat portion of the edge a non-fully struck proof will still have a polished surface. Unfortunately if the proof collar is used on a business strike, the edge will also show a polished surface.

howards

<< <i>
Blanks after they are punched from the strip have a roughly vertical edge. After the planchet is upset, the edge is normally rounded or a truncated V. For this reason, when the planchet is struck and expands, it makes contact with the collar withthe center of the planchet edge first. As the pressure increases the flat portion of the edge gets wider. On proofs, with their higher pressure and double striking, the edge eventually spreads far enough to completey fill the space between the collar and the die resulting in the sharp square edge. A business strike does not fill the space completely leaving the "bevel" between the edge and the rim.
>>



Excellent! Thank you very much for a cogent explanation of the reason we do or do not see beveled edges.

Howard