Bust Proof specialists. Do you believe this to be a proof?

coinlieutenant

PCGS graded it Proof 66 and is in the upcoming ANR sale. While it looks lovely, that certainly looks very softly struck to be a proof. What are the accepted diagnostics?

netrubicon

Im by no means a specialist but the 1825 proofs have a weak strike in the same areas as your coin. The small S on the reverse in STATES is also a dead givaway. This is a rare coin with estimated 5-10 proofs minted. PCGS has graded 2 so far. A 65 & 66. Its hard to believe it can be a proof with such weak strike characteristics but the other proofs of 1825 display the same problem. Very rare and precious indeed. Is this a newly graded 66 or one of the 2 already graded?

coinguy1

John, I have seen the coin in person and do believe it to be a Proof.

coinlieutenant

What diagnostics do you look for on these puppies besides mirrors Mark? Any education would be helpful.

J

roadrunner

How odd that PCGS or NGC will usually not grade a later bust coin higher than MS65 with severe striking issues. Yet in this case they assigned a grade of 66 to a proof coin.

roadrunner

JRocco

<< <i>How odd that PCGS or NGC will usually not grade a later bust coin higher than MS65 with severe striking issues. Yet in this case they assigned a grade of 66 to a proof coin.

roadrunner >>



Spot on roadrunner.
I would venture to say that that would not go above 64 in a MS slab.

slumlord98

How odd that a coin with severe striking issues would be called a proof! This is another coin that was a proof in '53 when NN sold it, and a proof in '87 when B+M sold it, so it's a proof today. If you compare it to real proofs from the 1830s, the later coins won't show the striking weakness. What did the mint learn in the intervening 10 years about striking weakness on proof coins?

Remember, proof is a method of manufacturing special coins. Specially prepared dies, specially prepared planchets, multiple blows of the press to bring up all the detail. Which of these criteria are met with the ex-Norweb coin?

seateddime

is anyone really a proof bust specialist?

Coinosaurus

<< <i>is anyone really a proof bust specialist? >>



No. Because there is no universally accepted definition of what a proof coin is.

MikeKing

It would be interesting to hear speculation about why the strike is so poor.

MrEureka

It's not unusual for a weakly struck 1825 dime to be called proof. For example, compare this coin to the Pittman specimen. I think that coin ended up as an NGC PR 67.

BTW, I've handled more than my share of proof bust coinage and I'm far from sure where to draw the line on 1825 dimes.

roadrunner

JRocco, I have a later die state, orig toned NGC MS65 1818/15 bust quarter with striking issues very similar to the above PF66 bust dime. The obverse weaknesses are nearly identical. I bought the coin raw out of auction thinking it was clean enough and eye appealing enough to be a MS66 (submitted only once). But after that fact I could see where the TPG's might have issue with grading weakly struck bust coins MS66 to 67. Maybe I was a bit optimistic. Though I have to confess I see weakly struck examples in higher holders from time to time (like this 1825 dime) and can only surmise that standard wanders from submission to submission and from submitter to submitter (lol). This will give me further resolve not to wander from my feelings that my 1818/15 is indeed worthy of a 66 rating today or tomorrow.

While I don't believe this 1825 dime technically qualifies for proof status, I certainly have no problem believing it is 1 of only 10 or so coins struck from a special worn die that may have been intended for some sort of "special" purpose other than commerce.

roadrunner

slumlord98

As a rank amateur on the subject, if it is difficult for someone who has handled so many of these to tell a proof from a business strike, I would ask then why any of these should be called proofs? Having had the chance to examine a number of 1830s proofs that exhibit the characteristics of modern proof coinage, what is it about the present coin that might lead one to call it proof, other than the fact that it has been bought and sold as proof for a long time?

MrEureka

I would ask then why any of these should be called proofs?

There were no standards of production in any given year, much less from year to year. Some pre-1836 coins are obvious proofs. Others somewhat less so. And still others are doubtful.

The only way to know if one of the borderline coins really is a proof is to know what the coiner was thinking when he struck the coin. Since that is unknowable, the bottom line is that determining if a coin is a proof is often nothing more than a guess. Some people are willing to make that call, others aren't. Simple as that.

MikeKing

no one has given any objective reasons for this being a proof or objective reasons why it is not a business strike. I think it's all a crock quite honestly.

JRocco

<< <i>no one has given any objective reasons for this being a proof or objective reasons why it is not a business strike. I think it's all a crock quite honestly. >>



You are a smart man Mike.

coinguy1

<< <i>

<< <i>no one has given any objective reasons for this being a proof or objective reasons why it is not a business strike. I think it's all a crock quite honestly. >>



You are a smart man Mike. >>

My non-objective reasoning is that it looks different from business strikes I have seen

slumlord98

<< <i>My non-objective reasoning is that it looks different from business strikes I have seen >>



Please elaborate, Coinguy. How does it look different, and why should those differences result in this being a proof?

Edited to add- perhaps we could trade insults, expand the discussion to include a gold bison, whatever that is, and this thread could reach 25 responses.

MrEureka

My non-objective reasoning is that it looks different from business strikes I have seen

Mark - Have you seen any PL 1825s? If so, how do they compare to this coin?

CoinResource

Looks proof to me.

coinguy1

<< <i>

<< <i>My non-objective reasoning is that it looks different from business strikes I have seen >>



Please elaborate, Coinguy. How does it look different, and why should those differences result in this being a proof? >>

I'd have a far less difficult time answering that if I had the coin in hand again. By the way, I am not saying that the coin necessarily must or should be called a proof, merely because it looks different from business strikes - that is for others to decide on their own, too.

As I recall, the coin was fully and deeply prooflike, including within the areas between the shield stripes on the eagle's shield on the reverse. I don't recall whether it was also fully PL within the letters of the word "LIBERTY" on the obverse headband - that is another area/factor I consider in trying to distinguish Proofs from business strikes. Additionally, the fabric of the surfaces and the overall apperanace hit me as very different and impressive, compared to business strikes I have viewed. As Andy mentioned, this is often simply a matter of making a guess, whether it be an educated one or not.

slumlord98

Andy and Mark,

I appreciate your forthright answers, and I'm sure John does, as well. If you're interested, I'll bring a couple halves to Denver that might disabuse you of the notion that mirrors (alone) have anything whatsoever to do with early proofs. In my most humble and inexperienced opinion, mirrors indicate only a first strike, or a strike from freshly lapped dies, nothing more.

Edit-(in quotes)

MrEureka

If you're interested, I'll bring a couple halves to Denver that might disabuse you of the notion that mirrors have anything whatsoever to do with early proofs. In my most humble and inexperienced opinion, mirrors indicate only a first strike, or a strike from freshly lapped dies, nothing more.

I'm game. Bring 'em on!

coinlieutenant

Edited to add- perhaps we could trade insults, expand the discussion to include a gold bison, whatever that is, and this thread could reach 25 responses.

Funny how that works isnt it? I'm game....Andy and Mark are dirty elitist liars that dont care a damn about their clients best interest!!!

How was that?

coinlieutenant

I am happy to have the thread be answered so candidly Mark and Andy. I tend to me more from the school of thought that Brad describes but I have seen far fewer than any of you I am sure.

Here is another test subject. It has PL fields. I cracked it out of a SEGS Proof 61 holder. I told the seller that there was no way the coin was a proof from the strike issues it has. Might I have been wrong? It has better strike than the 1825 we talked about ...albeit only half the reflectivity....

What is to say that the mirrors arent muted from original toning and this isnt a proof. This is a variety that has known "proofs"

MikeInFL

I'm not sure about the grade looking only at the photos, but what do I know?

From Heritage Lot: 5176 at 1995 Atlanta ANA

NGC 1825 PR 63. JR-2. Most of the proof dimes known from 1825 are from the JR-2 dies. At least seven are believed extant today. This piece is surely one of the finest known, rivaling the Choice Proof Bareford specimen (Stack's, 10/81). This coin and the Bareford proof share one commonality: both show grease stains. On this piece they are small and concentrated in one area, on the portrait of Liberty. These stains are mint-made, and while they may be seen as defects, a more positive way to regard them would be as identifiers for pedigree purposes.
The fields of this coin are bright and reflective, although somewhat subdued by the depth of the charcoal-gray and blue toning that surrounds the outer portions of each side. Light hairlines are noted in the fields, but their effect is greatly diminished by the wide peripheral color. The striking details are consistent with other JR-2 dimes. That is, there is significant softness of strike on the hair curls as well as on the eagle. While this softness of strike may not impress those who are more accustomed to viewing mass produced modern proofs, one must bear in mind that this coin was the best product the mint was capable of producing in 1825 with this pair of dies and using a screw press that was powered either by human or animal muscle.
Early proofs, such as this piece, are extremely rare and are of the greatest importance to advanced numismatic studies, giving us a standard by which we can measure other coins of the period. Of the utmost desirability to the collector of 19th century proofs.

Breen doesn't say anything specific about the striking characteristics in his book, although he does mention the same issue with the quarter of this year.

I am not nearly wise enough to have anything more than a guess -- it is a proof. If PCGS, Mark and Andy all agree, it must be so.

Take care...Mike

mozin

Very interesting discussion. Personally, I have no problem calling this a proof, or not calling it a proof. This type of coin is way far out of my league.

coinlieutenant

Kept alive...

joecheck

This is a classic, informative thread. This kind of thread is the reason why I come here. Of course, the sharing of collecting interests is nice, also!

coinlieutenant

Anything else?

kranky

I appreciate the insights offered in this thread.

BillJones

<< <i>What diagnostics do you look for on these puppies besides mirrors Mark? Any education would be helpful.

J >>



According to Breen a coin had to receive two blows from specially prepared dies to qualify as a Proof. It's hard to believe that this piece was struck twice and is still so weak in the centers. If the die was so worn that it could impart no better image than this, the best one could say is that it is a carelessly made Proof.

Some you fellows can go ahead and believe the grading services that this coin is a Proof. I won’t go near it for the kind money it’s going to bring at auction now that the powers at be have labeled it as a “Proof.”

Here is an AU example that is in my type set. I've enhanced the obverse photo a bit to show the sharpness better. Market value asside, I think I'd rather have my coin, given the added detail, for an example of the type.

JRocco

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>no one has given any objective reasons for this being a proof or objective reasons why it is not a business strike. I think it's all a crock quite honestly. >>



You are a smart man Mike. >>

My non-objective reasoning is that it looks different from business strikes I have seen >>



Hey Mark,
While I value your opinion greatly, your non-objective reasoning is just not good enough. This looks to me like it just as well might be an early strike from freshly lapped dies. I defer to the fact that you have seen this coin in hand, but if after having seen it in hand the only judgement is that it looks different is not enough to warrant the title of calling this piece a proof.

MrEureka

According to Breen a coin had to receive two blows from specially prepared dies to qualify as a Proof.

That was one man's opinion. However, I have seen a fair number of (what I consider to be) very obvious early proofs that appear to have been struck only once. These coins typically were struck on burnished planchets with polished dies, often with additional pressure and/or in an atypically close collar. Clearly, the coiner intended a "special" coin. You can debate whether or not we should call such a coin "proof". Frankly, I don't see the point. The coin is what it is.

Edited to say that one of the most important factors in determining if a pre-1836 coin is proof is knowing what other coins of the date look like. For example, if you know that there are many PL 1825 dimes from the JR-2 dies, and if those also have somewhat weak strikes, it becomes less likely that a similar but slightly more mirrored example is a proof. On the other hand, if the edge of the coin in question is noticeably sharper than the PLs, a stronger argument can be made to call it a "proof".

It is also useful to know what proofs of the same year but of other denominations look like. If they are all modestly mirrored and imperfectly struck, it supports a claim that the coin in question is proof. And it's also useful to know if any of the coins of any of the denominations are from proof-only dies, as those coins were most likely intended to be something special and can therefore be used to set a standard for that year's proofs. Granted, all of this is circumstantial evidence, but sometimes that's all we have to go on.

coinguy1

<<Hey Mark,
While I value your opinion greatly, your non-objective reasoning is just not good enough. This looks to me like it just as well might be an early strike from freshly lapped dies. I defer to the fact that you have seen this coin in hand, but if after having seen it in hand the only judgement is that it looks different is not enough to warrant the title of calling this piece a proof.>>

I can live with that and don't blame you.

BillJones

<< <i>Frankly, I don't see the point. The coin is what it is. >>



Except the point is when "god" says that it is a Proof, the lemmings come running down to the cliff to pay big bucks because because "god" said so.

I've seen enough mistakes in slabs to show me that these guys are not perfect. Yet a large number of collectors think so. My position is that I would not let my money get close to a Proof price for a coin like this. I'd rather have an imparied piece that is a "no question" Proof than something like this.

As for the definition of "what is a Proof," it's what the issuing government says is a Proof. Collectors might not accord poorly made coins Proof price status, but "Proof" is defined by a process, not the end result. And from what I've read through the years, double struck is essential for a U.S. Proof coin.

JRocco

<< <i>

<< <i>Frankly, I don't see the point. The coin is what it is. >>



Except the point is when "god" says that it is a Proof, the lemmings come running down to the cliff to pay big bucks because because "god" said so.

I've seen enough mistakes in slabs to show me that these guys are not perfect. Yet a large number of collectors think so. My position is that I would not let my money get close to a Proof price for a coin like this. I'd rather have an imparied piece that is a "no question" Proof than something like this.

As for the definition of "what is a Proof," it's what the issuing government says is a Proof. Collectors might not accord poorly made coins Proof price status, but is "Proof" is defined by a process, not the end result. And from what I've read through the years, double struck is essential to for a U.S. Proof coin. >>

Nysoto

I am skeptical of claims of proofs on early US coins, unless they are a proof only die marriage, such as 1832 O.123 with 5 known, all proofs. Many die marriages have early strike examples that are proof-like, some of them one-sided. The Queller 1807 O.109 was called a proof by Stack's - why would the US Mint strike a proof with a worn reverse die used in 1806, when they were fabricating many new reverse dies in 1807? The hype paid off for Stack's as the coin realized $20,700.

An interesting article in the first John Reich Journal issue (1/86) by Allen Lovejoy, one of the co-authors of the Early US Dimes book, describes the Hayes 1796 dime as being the only known JR-1 without the small obverse cud (two now known), proving the coin is one of the first strikes of the first dime in the 1796 emission order. The coin is fully struck, unlike later JR-1's, with mirrored surfaces. Well struck examples of 1796 dimes were given as souvenirs to dignitaries who toured the Mint. The article describes some 1796 dimes that have evidence of doubling. Breen describes some 1796 dimes as having brilliantly polished blanks. Could these "polished blanks" have been caused by highly polished dies on regular planchets? My experience with a silversmithing hobby/business is that highly polished hammers with impart mirrored surfaces on rough sterling that has been annealed before the final planishing.

The thread example appears to be just on early strike, or a strike soon after lapping. A proof would have a better strike. Some of the 1796 dimes could be proofs - but the debate will go on.

mozin

I like what Nysoto said. Makes sense to me.

slumlord98

All this is why so many people are convinced that the overwhelming majority of "early proofs" are part of numismatic myth.