Philadelphia vs Branch Mint Proof Morgans
RWB
Posts: 8,082 ✭
In your opinion and experience, what are the similarities and differences between Morgan dollar proofs made at Philadelphia versus so-called “branch mint proofs” made at one of the other mints? Should the definition of “proof” be the same under all conditions for Morgan dollars?
Thanks!
Thanks!
0
Comments
The definition should be the same, but the fabric may differ.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
First, consider the Philly proofs. The fabric of the coins differs from date to date, and from coin to coin. Some dates tend to have better mirrors, some tend to be cameos, some have rims that are more squared, some have slightly concave fields, etc.
As for the Branch Mint proofs, their fabric also differs from date to date. Given the situation with Philly proofs, this should be no surprise. Only the 1879-0 and 1893-CC proofs are no-brainer proofs. The Eliasberg 83-O is also reasonably compelling, but not a slam dunk. Other dates for which some pieces could be called proof, but probably more appropriately should be considered "specimens", are 1878-S, 1891-CC, 1895-O, 1896-O, 1921 "Zerbe" (the Chapmans are fully "proof"), and 1921-S. I've also seen 1883-S, 1892-S, and 1895-S dollars that might qualify as "specimens".
The 83-CC and 84-CC dollars that have been called proofs may be something special, or not. There are too many business strikes so close in fabric to the so-called proofs that I am unsure what the coiner had in mind when the first coins from the dies were struck.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Does contemporary evidence exist to support specimen status of any of the so-called BMPRs? Or do we just have the coins themselves?
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
These were all proofs, IMHO, and I just knew it when I saw it. Numismatic intuition. The fabric was not noticably different and that is why I knew it.
There are others that have been called proofs that I am not so certain of, but I am certain of these.
Others may have different opinions and that is just fine. No one is perfect, myself obviously included.
Brandon's picture of the 79-O is obviously that of a proof and a simply spectacular coin.
Does Adrian know that he pilfered it from inventory?
To this post today, 7/2/09, I will add the 1892-O proof dollar. It is very interesting to me that nearly three years after the initial post, that I said almost the exact same thing when this 92-O was the subject of another post last week.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
Does Adrian know that he pilfered it from inventory?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I'd love to see some...
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
~Wayne