1856 Flying Eagle Cent (Snow-3)......MS or PR?

lincolncentguy

According to Rick Snow's book, the Snow-3 variety of the 1856 Flying Eagle cent is a business strike but I noticed that PCGS doesn't recognize them necessarily as such and has labeled some as MS and some as PR. But if the diagnostics are the same for all Snow-3, shouldn't they all be recognized either as MS or PR only (and probably MS since Rick is the authority on this subject)?

Lakesammman

Interesting and long history on this one - part science, part politics. Check out the search function to read the numerous posts on this subject.

Many of us would like to see the S3's slabbed MS but PCGS sees it differently. There is some validity to it as some do look MS, others proof. A compromise might be to call the S3 "original" and the S9 "proof". The other 8 known varieties would be left to flounder or be labaled how they look.

Conder101

I'm not sure but I believe after PCGS caught some flak over calling some pieces Proof and some MS which shouldn't have been they changed their policy on that coin. I believe all of them are now slabbed as Proof no matter what they are.

ziggy29

I'm not sure the TPGs will slab any of these as MS any more.

goose3

<< <i>I'm not sure the TPGs will slab any of these as MS any more. >>



ANACS will but I have seen an ANACS one labelled incorrectly as well.

lincolncentguy

If they are now all essentially recognized as proofs by PCGS, shouldn't the registry sets be modified to reflect this? It would seem disadvantageous to anyone trying to complete the MS set.

Newmismatist

Actually - the correct attribution is neither - the first group that were struck were the "Original" issue - probably a high speed (for the time period) production run of intended proofs - but as they were making about a 1000 to distribute to Congress for the new small cent issue, they were sloppily made proofs due to the need to make a large quantity quickly and thus look more like coins that were struck for circulation- in other words they were supposed to be proofs but the struck them faster like a regular issue (mint state) production run.

The later coins (the S-9s) were struck specifically for the collecting fraternity and were intended to be a proof run - they were actually struck in 1858 or even later (and may have been parcelled out to favorite collectors and dealers as they were a "hot commodity" for the time) - they are restrikes, from different dies and none were intended for circulation as all were in reality Patterns - one of the most common patterns - but because they are included as the 1st small cent and there are sufficient quantities made they became part of the FE/IHC cent collection and they have been deemed "regular" issues by the collecting fraternity for almost 150 years.

The 1856 FE Cent may be the single coin that started the hobby of coin collecting for the masses. You can trace the earliest US coin dealers to this period (the late 1850s)- William Idler, Edward Coogan and several others.

Proofs are a method of production and Mint State are coins made specifically to be released to the public for commercial circulation. Even the first production run of 1856s were not intended to be released for public commercial circulation - they were presentation pieces to members of Congress to convince them that they needed to authorize the change to a small size cent as the large copper cents cost more to produce than their face value - The first 200 1856s were struck in December 1856 and distributed to Congress io February 2, 1857 and 100 more on Feb 4, 1857. The Bill authorizing the production of these new CN small cents was not passed until Feb 21, 1857. During this time period (Feb, 1857) Congress requested more of these small Novalty" coins and many of htese coins found there way into local coins dealers' hands. Somehow, calling these first "speciman" coins "Mint State" does not accurately describe what they are in relation to the then intended use. Maybe the first stikes should be called "Original Issue" or "Speciman" and the later coins, "Proof" or "Restrikes" -

But Mint state is an incorrect term from the prospective of what happened to this new Pattern issue that was given to Congress to get the bill passed that ultimately aauthorized the production of the small cent. JMHO

So what should you call a pattern coin made to be distributed to Congress that sorta looks like a proof that but wasn't yet autorized for circulation?