Morgan branch mint proofs

kranky

A dealer who has dozens of six-figure coins in his CW ad is offering an 1883-CC Morgan in NGC PR65, a 1884-CC in NGC PR66, and an 1895-O proof as well. QDB's Redbook of Morgan Dollars doesn't mention any of them. I know there are supposed to be 1883-O branch mint proofs.

How many different Morgan branch mint proofs are there?

coinguy1

<< <i>How many different Morgan branch mint proofs are there? >>

Kranky, a number of them are quite controversial/questionable and without official documentation.

NGC, which is noticeably more inclined to recognize them than PCGS is, lists the following issues in their census report:

1879-O (PF),1882-CC (SP), 1883-CC (PF),1883-O (PF), 1884-CC (PF), 1884-O (SP), 1887-O (SP), 1893-CC (PF), 1895-O (PF), 1895-O (SP), 1896-O (SP).

Meanwhile the PCGS report lists only:

1879-O(PF), 1883-O(PF), 1893-CC (PF) and 1921-S (PF).

I have seen a good number of the above over the years and felt that some of them easily stood on their own merits, but that others were quite "iffy". If memory serves me correctly (it doesn't always, I assure you), there is documentation and/or general agreement for the Proof status of the issues dated 1879-O, 1893-CC and 1921-S.

Edited to add: At least a few examples of dates other than the three mentioned in the paragraph directly above, were extremely impressive/special looking.

messydesk

Wayne Miller's Morgan & Peace Doillar Textbook lists branch mint issues alleged to be proofs at the time of publication (mid 1980s). He classifies them into five categories:

I - authorized, definite proofs
II - unauthorized, definite proofs
III - possible, but doubtful
IV - doubtful
V - definitely not

The dates that are in category I are 1879-O, 1883-O, 1893-CC, 1921-S, and in category II 1882-CC and 1887-O. The only date of those you mention even noted in the seciton on Branch Mint proofs is 1883-CC, which Miller says was originally attributed as a proof in Amon Carter, Jr's collection, but definitely isn't (category V). There may be overriding evidence to the contrary that has come to light since the book was written.

coinguy1

Of the four issues mentioned in category 1 of the Miller book in the post above, three of them were the ones I had thought there was official documentation and/or general agreement for. Now, for the fourth one, the 1883-O - if it's the one I'm thinking of, it surfaced in a public auction in the pre-certification days (early 1980's?) without much fanfare, but brought a BIG price (I think more in line with a Proof than a business strike) for that time. Apparently more than one sharp dealer/bidder recognized it as something quite special.

If I'm mistaken, hopefully someone can and will quickly and severely correct me and flame me.

dragon

I believe NGC is far more liberal on designating Morgans as branch mint proofs than PCGS is. I heard of an 1882-CC or 83-CC that was in a PCGS DMPL holder, cracked out, and later in an NGC holder designated as a branch mint proof or 'specimen' or whatever.

I think some of these CC's (with the exception of the obvious 1893-CC BMPs) that are designated as BMPs are just superb cameo DMPL business strike pieces and not really BMPs at all.

Wolf359

I think, lacking documentary evidence of Mint Production, PCGS will not slabs coins as Branch Mint Proofs no matter how special they may
appear to be. NGC is more liberal in that area, and I too have noticed these coin in their population reports. I don't think anyone else
accepts them as offical Branch Mint Proofs, so the list of buyers might be kinda short for say an 1895-O Branch Mint Proof. There are also a couple "SP" specimens listed for 1895-O and other dates.

Also kinda makes me wonder if the original submitted the coin as a business strike or a Proof.

DennisH

I've seen both a PCGS 1893-CC and 1921-S that were holdered as proofs. The '93 I agree with completely, but not so the '21.

coinguy1

Dennis, the two or three 1921-S Proofs that I think I've seen were not the equivalent of P-mint Proof Morgans, but there apparently is at least some documentation for them. This is from an auction appearance of one of them:

"It is thought that fewer than 25 of these coins were struck, and their appearance on the market is infrequent. Walter Breen, in his 1977 Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins, refers to what may be the first report of the '21-S proof Morgan: 'Wayte Raymond told me in 1951 that Farran Zerbe had those coins made at San Francisco to go with the Philadelphia proofs from the first dollar dies received at the mint.' Stuart Mosher, who was in charge of the coin collections in the Smithsonian Institution, elaborated on Zerbe's 1921-S Morgan proof involvement in an article he published in the July 1955 The Numismatist. Mosher said that Zerbe was in California in 1921 awaiting the arrival of the dies that were to be used to strike the first Peace dollars that he had designed. The dies that did arrive turned out to be those for the old Morgan design that had not been coined since 1904. The story goes that Zerbe told the chagrined Mint officials that they could mollify his disappointment 'if they would strike off a few Morgan dollars from the new 1921 dies in proof condition. They were happy to oblige and manufactured about two dozen which he bought and later handed out to his various coin collecting friends."

Edited to add:

More on the 1883-O I'd mentioned in another post to this thread. - from an auction listing I just found:

"The 1883-O is one of only four issues in the Morgan dollar series that can be considered a Class I branch mint proof--an issue that was authorized and subsequently struck in proof format. Little is known about the origins of the twelve proofs struck of this issue. Wayne Miller speculates that the coins may have been struck for presentation to officials in New Orleans, 'probably relating to some event in the cotton industry or with the establishment of Tulane University as the State University of Louisiana.' He goes on to state that these special strikings have been known since first mentioned in the American Journal of Numismatics in 1884 by the New Orleans mint superintendent.
"This coin is pictured in color on page 222 of Wayne Miller's definitive The Morgan and Peace Dollar Textbook. On page 223 he makes a detailed analysis of the coin, which we reproduce here in part. 'Light brown toning around the periphery. Fields are deeply mirrored but gray brilliant. There are a very few light hairline cuts on Liberty's chin and cheek, and a deeper cut above the eagle's head, which may be a rim nick. Otherwise there are no discernible bagmarks. The strike is very bold, with partial square rims on the reverse. The coin presents an overall proof appearance." This piece was formerly sold as part of the Herbert Bergen Collection (Coin Galleries, 1979). In that sale it was described as a gem prooflike rather than a gem proof. However, this had no effect on the price realized in that sale, as Julian Leidman bought the coin for $6,500 with Jim Halperin as the underbidder.

Whew, my memory was close enough so as to avoid embarrassment.

cladking

These exist throughout US coinage probably but especially in the 20th century issues. They've
been reported fron standing liberty quarters to the states issues. Indeed there's a bison quarter
pictured in the registry forum right now which has all the attributes of a proof. I've seen three
SMS coins which appear to be proof and heard of three others. I've seen an '88-D cent and a
'75 dime which appear to be struck multiple times on a polished planchet.

It was recently reported that the mint will strike some coins more than once intentionally for mint
sets.

It is likely that many of these branch mint proofs are struck intentionally for presentation or to
check a new design. And, of course, one can find many highly PL morgans of the Carson City
and San Francisco mints.

kranky

For those who have seen any of these, what distinguishes them from DMPL-looking Morgans?

dragon

<< <i>For those who have seen any of these, what distinguishes them from DMPL-looking Morgans? >>




From the couple I've seen in NGC holders.......nothing.

They were clean and well struck with deep mirrors but did not have an overall proof finish or appearance to me, nor did they have squared off rims and lettering. They just flat out did not look like proof coins to me, unlike the obvious ones such as the 79-0 or 93-CC BMPs which are obvious proof coins at first glance. I think NGC made mistakes on these coins holdering them as 'specimens'.

Coxe

I discussed this with someone a little over a month ago. The person had done some research at the National Archives and had found some documentation apparently where the San Francisco and Carson City mints regularly (annually?) for a period struck assay specimens that were sent out. It is possible that they were selectively well-struck on well-prepared planchets and may very well have exhibited proof qualities. I have not verified this myself and it involves speculation with regard to the state of these pieces and their survival.

That's the key too, the survival of any branch mint proofs, after all of the melts and normal attrition. There could have been an acceptable proof struck at each mint each year for all we know. If they made their way into responsible collections and retained by collectors, we probably still have them. If not, the odds of having been melt or significantly impaired are against them.

morgannut2

Another thing to consider is the Zerbe "proofs" and "Chapman" Proofs (the Chapman's actually look like true 1921-P proofs) - are all the same VAM (die state) as 100% documented examples sold by these dealers. So it's not just some random group of VAM's all with DMPL surfaces, being called "Br. Mint Proofs". The 1887O came out of the Carter collection and does have all proof charcteristics ie. no bag marks, square rims, deep reflective fields, clean fulsome strike (compared to common weak New Orleans examples, even when DMPL). Anacs avoids the 1921-P issue by calling them "Zerbe dies". The 1921-D Morgans are supposed the be prooflike, and true "presentation pieces"--like the 1804 Silver Dollar, first issue. The first 12 or so '21's were engraved as the first stikes, given in presentations, an one is said to be in the Colorado Historical Society collections somewhere.