Branch Mint Proof CC dime
savoyspecial
Posts: 7,292 ✭✭✭✭
savoyspecial
Posts: 7,292 ✭✭✭✭
savoyspecial
Posts: 7,292 ✭✭✭✭
Comments
-Paul
Rob
"Those guys weren't Fathers they were...Mothers."
<< <i>They have a lot of super nice and valuable coins for sale right now.Have any of you ever bought a coin from them thru e-bay? >>
Bought this piece from Superior. Save 5% by going to their website, not through eBay.
---
Quite possibly, the three finest coin collections in America belong to the Smithsonian Institution, the American Numismatic Society, and the American Numismatic Association. None of these prestigious collections has an inventory listing, photo gallery, or cataloged descriptions of their coins that are available to the general public. The Smithsonian Collection is not on display and in permanent storage. The ANA Collection can be partially viewed in Colorado Springs, but no listing or photo archive is available, the ANS Collection can be partially viewed by visiting New York with a prior appointment. Again, no usable listing, cataloging data, or photos are available. Its (sic) too bad in this age of modern technology, digital photography, and high speed computers, these multi-million dollar collections lie in recluse from most people that would benefit the most from their educational value.
---
I've long said that one of the best ways the ANA can "add value" to the masses and add value to ANA membership is to bring a little bit of Colorado Springs to the people who can't get there, and this is a perfect example of one such way.
It's funny, when I paid $9900 for the coin in 1983, most people thought I was nuts. Next week, it could bring six figures and people will just yawn.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>I would sure love to own any BM Proof coins... >>
Amen
<< <i>Yet another old friend!
It's funny, when I paid $9900 for the coin in 1983, most people thought I was nuts. Next week, it could bring six figures and people will just yawn. >>
Do you have any further information/insight about this coin? Did you buy it as an MS? When was it slabbed as a proof? It is not a very well known coin. The info in the catalogue supporting this coin as a proof is nothing more than speculation. No records have surfaced showing that proofs were made. Only one, perhaps two were struck? That's unusual. Supposedly several similar looking coins exist that are deemed specimens. Striking of specimens is documented for coins from the branch mints. Why isn't this coin a specimen? It's not in Breen, and I can find no other reference to it. It has partial wire rims and p/l surfaces, but that in itself is not conclusive, specimens have this look. The evidence is a bit lacking for me.
<< <i>Yet another old friend!
It's funny, when I paid $9900 for the coin in 1983, most people thought I was nuts. Next week, it could bring six figures and people will just yawn. >>
Was that at a Michigan State convention at Thanksgiving? I remember bidding on one there sometime in the early 80's, and thinking that it went for way too much money.
TD
The only mint that had, or ever had the equipment to strike a real proof was the Philadelphia Mint. (Except for the few weeks in 1915 when a medal press was in SF for striking the PPIE quintuple eagles.) If there is a true proof with a mintmark, then the coin could not have been made at the branch mint, but rather, at the Philadelphia Mint. Thus, we should look to the Philadelphia Mint records to better understand why any true “mintmarked proof” exists.
(The same extends to such critters as 1894-S dimes – regardless of what any coin holder says, none can be “proofs.”)
Were there some local bigwigs that payed for the benefit of a PROOF from a local source?
Was it actually one of the coins they minted to be tested back at Philly to be sure of the metal content?
Branch mints did not have the equipment necessary to strike true proofs. They might have struck “the best we can do” pieces that we now describe as “specimen” strikes. Some were evidently produced to honor the opening/reopening of a mint, or some special local event involving the mint. Others might have been made because somebody (the Superintendent ?) wanted a cheap souvenir for a visitor or a gift.
Were there some local bigwigs that payed [sic] for the benefit of a PROOF from a local source?
Proof coins were of very limited “specialness” and brought little premium at auction. Collectors bought proof coins from the Philadelphia Mint, but they were not made or sold by any other mint.
Was it actually one of the coins they minted to be tested back at Philly to be sure of the metal content?
Silver and gold Assay and Special Assay coins were sent from the branch mints to Washington for testing of alloy and weight. This was used to confirm the assays made at each of the mints by their own assayer.
The Philadelphia Mint did not normally make test strikes of dies before they were shipped to the branch mints. Also, SF Mint dies were usually shipped unhardened, and would have been ruined if test strikes were made.
It is possible that a branch mint Superintendent might have requested proof strikes be made in Philadelphia for use in some local event (corner stone laying, etc.), or as comparison samples for local quality control. Are there any documents concerning this???
Was that at a Michigan State convention at Thanksgiving?
No, it was at a Stacks sale in NY. The coin was raw, of course, and cataloged as a proof. I bought it at the opening bid with no competition.
As for whether or not it's a "true proof", I think so but cannot prove it. However, besides the fact that (as WB would say) "the coin carries its own credentials", the fact that 76-CC dimes were also struck in nickel and copper indicates that someone was trying to make some special coins. (Curiously, the off metal pieces do not have mirror surfaces.)
One last tidbit. I've handled a few 76-CC dimes that have been designated "SP" by NGC. These are of a completely different fabric than the "proof". The "specimens" lack the depth of mirrors and are from heavily striated dies. The "specimens" are also from the double die reverse, I believe. I suspect that the coin TD saw in Michigan was one of these.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The above reinforces the idea that the item in question was struck at the Philadelphia Mint. Carson never handled nickel/CuNi in any alloy and processed copper only as alloy for silver, not rolled or as blanks. In 1876 either Pollock (Superintendent) or Linderman (Mint Director) could have ordered the pieces made, and could easily have struck true proof examples using branch mint reverse dies.
Question: Does the obverse die match any known proof or production die for 1876 or possibly 1877? Are all the silver and off-metal pieces from the same dies?
Any Seated Liberty dime specialists awake at this hour?
Great questions! I don't know the answers.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Also, if the off-metal 1876-CC dimes die link to either of the above, then that further supports Philadelphia.
If those are true, then we have to look at Philadelphia (and Washington DC) records, not Carson, for an explanation.
The Washington faircopy books are in College Park, MD; the Philadelphia books are in NARA Center City.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
From my old copy of Ahwash – seems to be small knob, sloping date as on Philadelphia Obverse 3 (p.282); but there is no flaw in the Ahwash photo or mentioned in the description.
<< <i>Any “flawed” Seated Liberty dime folks out there today? >>
Aren't they all?
I do not recall it having the DDR, which I am familiar with.
I think it was a Bowers sale. Anybody have their Michigan State catalog(s) from the early 80's?
TD
P.S.: The more I think about it, maybe it was a copper striking. Definitely Proof, however.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
However, I have to agree with RWB, that the US branch mints never created proof coins, for any reason. We, as modern day numismatists are relying too heavily on the opinions of past researchers and sellers. The complete lack of evidence does not support any claims made about BMP's.
For instance, the 1855-S "Proofs" (quarter, half and $3 gold) all came directly from the Branch Mint at San Francisco to William W. Long, who had a museum in Philadelphia. These were reportedly the first examples struck at that facility for those denominations. There was recently an 1856-S dime discussed on these boards that may qualify for inclusion into Long's set as well. The 1854-S "Proof" Double Eagle now located in the NNC may have come from the WW Long collection as well.
Other coins, such as the Longacre estate 1850 Double Eagle recently discussed on these boards (coins with a story), are nothing more than the first examples from the regular production dies, even though they don't have the appearance of being regular production pieces because of the sharp strike and reflective die polish.
The rest of the so-called BMP's are usually re-lapped or re-polished dies. The CC- Morgans and O-Mint Barber Halves in the 1880s & 1890s being among that group.
If anyone has any evidence (other than a Breen citation) confirming that a BMP exists, then please let everyone know the details!
OK, let's start with the 1838-O half dollar...
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>If anyone has any evidence (other than a Breen citation) confirming that a BMP exists, then please let everyone know the details!
OK, let's start with the 1838-O half dollar... >>
Having owned the Pittman 1838 Philadelphia proof and the Norweb 1838-O 'proof' [in addition to examining several others], I would state that the two coins were of completely different fabric and my opinion is that the 1838-O's are prooflike first strikes and not full blown proofs.
A good place to start. When Rufus Tyler, the new melter, refiner, and coiner of the New Orleans Mint wrote to President Bache (his old college president) and enclosed a "specimen" of the 1838-O half dollar, Walter Breen interpreted the word "specimen" to be a "Proof". This was also the term used when certain pieces came up at auction. Fortunately, most of the old so-called "proofs" are not designated as such today.
My interpretation is that the word "specimen" meant an example of that mint's first coinage; nothing more.
Here again, we find these were the first coins produced, and yes, there are a few extant with reflective surfaces. There are also several known of the 1838-O without reflective surfaces. With a reported mintage of just 20 pcs. or less, how can any be properly classified as being struck as a "Proof"? The available documents simply don't validate this classification.
TDN - I could argue the 38-O either way, but not with confidence. I'll just make a few observations. First, the 38-O's that don't have the mirrors seen on the Norweb specimen are simply impaired. I'm confident they all looked pretty much the same the day they were struck. Second, the Pittman 1838 Philly "proof" is nowhere near as convincing as another I've owned. (I'll bring a photo to FUN to show you. Hope you're there.) Third, the 38-O's may or may not be proofs, but they're more convincing than the certified 39-O proofs. All of which is interesting, I suppose, but I wonder if it should really matter all that much. A cool, special looking coin deserves to be appreciated and valued, regardless of the designation on the slab.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Having owned the Pittman 1838 Philadelphia proof and the Norweb 1838-O 'proof' [in addition to examining several others], I would state that the two coins were of completely different fabric and my opinion is that the 1838-O's are prooflike first strikes and not full blown proofs.
A cool, special looking coin deserves to be appreciated and valued, regardless of the designation on the slab. >>
Andy, I wish I could believe that sentiment applies to another coin which we have discussed. Obviously that is an arbitrary statement.
Added - I'll reserve judgement until I see the coin in hand.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
Agreed - having seen two of the certified coins, I don't believe they are 'proofs' either. Your point about the Pittman 1838 just reinforces my point - the Mint knew how to make PROOFS back then. Too many coins are certified proof that just don't have the proper fabric. As far as recognizing them, IMO that's what the Specimen designation should do.
Most of the 1838-O's have contact marks from other coins on them - they weren't carefully handled one at a time. IMO, they ejected onto one another.
Actually, my 38 half was so mirrored that I have to wonder if it was really made in 1838.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
roadrunner
It's not the same coin. The Superior coin came out of a Stacks sale in 1983 and has no striations.
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
<< <i>I find it quite coincidental that a very similar coin sold in November.Specimen NGC-65 Of course, the green tag in the PCGS holder makes it certain that it is not the same coin. Maybe the hammer price on lot 441 had some impact on the appearance of the PCGS holdered coin at Superior, eh? >>
Can somebody link this picture? This Specimen also seems to have the same die flaw as the Proof.
<< <i>However, I have to agree with RWB, that the US branch mints never created proof coins, for any reason. We, as modern day numismatists are relying too heavily on the opinions of past researchers and sellers. The complete lack of evidence does not support any claims made about BMP's. >>
With all due respect to the wonderful scholarly works of Messrs. Burdette and Moulton, are they not defining “proof” based upon the equipment and methodology used by the Philadelphia mint? If you go down that path of logic, where does it stop? The Mint upgraded machinery and methodology as time went by. But certainly we would not say, for example, that P mint Seated proofs should no longer be called proofs because the machinery was different than the equipment used at a later date. The Philadelphia Mint used the technology available to it at the time. So did the branch Mints.
CG
As you say, many of these arguments are semantic. There are two ends of the spectrum as far as defining what constitutes a proof. At one end we have a very strict definition such as this:
* Minting authority must announce and publish intention to strike proofs.
* Minting authority must produce extremely high quality product using polished dies and planchets, multiple strikes, etc.
* Minting authority must then distribute and document the proofs as such.
At the end other end we have this definition:
* Any polished planchet struck with a polished die, regardless of the intention of the minting authority.
In some ways it is like the AT/NT debate. If a coin is "accidentally toned", does that count as AT? Or is the intention of the perpetrator relavant? If a minting authority creates a proof product, does it count even if they didn't intend to do it?
In any event, between the two ends of the spectrum above, there are a zillion shades of gray, just to complicate things further.
In the meantime, the market has spoken - 1876-CC dimes come in proof, end of story.
Edited to add, for all those who insist that 1876-CC dimes don't come in proof, you are welcome to sell me your highly P-L examples at greysheet
Personally, I'd avoid any such coin that couldn't stand on its own if it were cracked out of the plastic.
[edited to fix sequence of 1855-S holdering]
TD
<< <i>
In the meantime, the market has spoken - 1876-CC dimes come in proof, end of story.
>>
The market has spoken??? Based on what's been disclosed here about the price history of the proof coin, compared to the prices derived by the Specimen coins, the market is saying that 1876-CC coins don't come in proof. There seems to be no meaningful gap in pricing. If this coin fetches the pre-sale estimate of $100k - $150k in the upcoming auction, then an least one or two folks apparently believe the coin is proof. And the fact that a TPG put "Proof" on one slab isn't conclusive evidence that it is.
However, and I believe this is a key point in the discussion about BMP's, the Philadelphia Mint did not upgrade as time went on. In fact, the Philly Mint used the very large screw press located in the Medal department when they created "Proof" coins until 1894, which covers the most of the timeframe regarding the so-called BMP's.
The Branch mints did not have or use any screw presses. This is not conclusive evidence by any means, but it should clarify the question about the machinery that was used in making proofs during the 19th century. It is virtually impossible to strike a coin (or medal) in the same position twice using a knuckle-joint steam press.
George Eckfeldt, who, as the foreman of the coining room, worked for many years in the Medal Dept. at the Philly Mint, had mixing formulas on how to create different effects on the dies (frosting - aka cameo, etc.).
Since we know that the Philadelphia Mint made real "Proof" coinage, then that would be the benchmark for any comparison.
<< <i>Yet another old friend!
It's funny, when I paid $9900 for the coin in 1983, most people thought I was nuts. Next week, it could bring six figures and people will just yawn. >>
Reminds me of a statement a retired coin dealer once made, "I would have been better off financially if I had kept all the coins I have sold during my career".
This first sentence above is correct. “Proof” (or “master coin”) was defined by the Philadelphia Mint, and by equipment used only by the Philadelphia Mint. The subsequent sentences imply a conclusion that is a non sequitur.
My opinion, built on examining quite a few original mint documents and many coins claiming to be “proof” or non-proof, is that the mechanical process of producing the coin defines the basic nature of the coin. That is where the logic takes one.
Since at least 1858 through 1964, coins described as “proof” by the Mint Bureau were:
A. struck on a high-tonnage medal press;
B. struck using new dies;
C. struck on selected planchets; and
D. defined as “proof” by mint officials (the engraver and/or coiner)
The first is a purely mechanical option that creates coins with specific characteristics unlike those produced by any other equipment.
The second and third are production materials used in the mechanical operation.
The fourth is an operational definition developed and used by the persons and organizations responsible for performing the mechanical operation.
In considering whether or not a coin is a true proof, regardless of its mintmark, A (above) is the most important because we can look at known proof coins, list their physical characteristics and compare them to specimens in question. D (above) is the second most important because that specifies official intent (but this is often unknown for any specific coin).
Comments by Mint Curator T. Louis Comparette in 1921 and 1922 support the above. In 1921 Comparette described obtaining Morgan dollars struck with new dies on a production press. He called them “semi-proofs” – what we now call “proof-like.” (This fits B, above.) A year later he described another group of 1921 Morgan dollars calling them “proofs” and specifically stating they were struck on a medal press, although also stating they were inferior to the older proof dollars. (This fits A, C and possibly B, above.)
Technology certainly changed with time, as noted in the quote. However, at no time was a medal press part of the usual equipment of any mint except the Philadelphia Mint. Production presses cannot duplicate a coin struck on a medal press – both the pressure and application of force are different and one cannot “slow down” a production press and expect it to strike coins that look like those from a medal press.
The logical conclusions are:
1) if it has all the characteristics of a “proof” (if it looks and sounds like a duck) then it is a proof (duck), and
2) if it is a proof (duck), it must have been made by the Philadelphia Mint (hatched from a duck egg).
Should a coin have some of the characteristics of a proof (duck) but be lacking others (has a long neck, lives on golf courses, doesn’t quack), then one has to do the best one can to determine with it is. (Is it a “branch mint” goose, or Tiger Woods, or ??)
1) if it has all the characteristics of a “proof” (if it looks and sounds like a duck) then it is a proof (duck), and
2) if it is a proof (duck), it must have been made by the Philadelphia Mint (hatched from a duck egg).
Should a coin have some of the characteristics of a proof (duck) but be lacking others (has a long neck, lives on golf courses, doesn’t quack), then one has to do the best one can to determine with it is. (Is it a “branch mint” goose, or Tiger Woods, or ??)
Roger - Are we enjoying a bit of an extended new year's eve???
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.