"Hands down the rarest proof Shield Nickel, the 1867 Rays is also one of the rarest of all U.S.

IGWT

That's how B&M describes the 1867 5c w/ rays proof (and there are 3 for sale in the ANA auction). But is this description true? I don't think so, and it has been known for quite some time that that the 1867 w/out rays with the reverse of J-507 is likely much rarer. Here's a thread by Sunnywood on the subject five years ago, and here's an example of the truly rare 1867 w/out rays proof. Will the market ever reflect reality?

MrEureka

Will the market ever reflect reality?

Of course not.

Edited to say that you should try to return your overpriced coin to the dealer that sold it to you.

IGWT

-- Of course not. --

I'd hazard a guess that you reached that conclusion no later than December 2005.

Edited to add: I can't believe that you got your edit in before my reply.

abitofthisabitofthat

I completely agree with Sunnywood. I am building a set of 19th century proofs, and I will ignore the 67 Rays proof. I count it as a "pattern" or more accurately an unauthorized clandestine job by mint employees. I am also ignoring the 1864 Small Motto proof 2 cent, and the 1864 with L proof IHP for the same reason. These seem to me to all be overvalued, and would be worth much less in the pattern arena where I feel that they belong.

howards

<< <i>But is this description true? >>



No.



<< <i>Will the market ever reflect reality? >>



No.

IGWT

-- I count [the 67 Rays proof] as a "pattern" or more accurately an unauthorized clandestine job by mint employees. --

What makes you say so?

abitofthisabitofthat

<< <i>-- I count [the 67 Rays proof] as a "pattern" or more accurately an unauthorized clandestine job by mint employees. --

What makes you say so? >>



Rather than reiterate what Sunnywood very clearly laid out several years ago, I would just direct you to the link that you posted in the OP. But to summarize a bit, there are three 67 Shield proof types. The Rays reverse, the prototype without Rays reverse, and the standard no Rays reverse. The obverse die state on the no rays prototype reverse predates the Rays reverse coins.

Proponents of the theory that the 67 Rays was a regular mint issue have theorized that a few Rays reverse coins were struck, then the mint shifted production to the new no rays reverse. The 25 coins documented as struck in Feb of that year were supposed to be the Rays coin. But since the prototype striking came before the with Rays coins, it would suggest that the mint had already moved away from the Rays design before any 67 proofs were struck. The 25 Feb coins most likely being the prototype reverse type. That would make the 67 Rays proof a restrike. Not uncommon in an era of midnight minting shenanigans.

Is all this absolutely positive? No. But on balance I feel that the evidence points to the the 67 Rays proof as a piece de caprice.

Do you disagree? If so, why?

IGWT

There is nothing about the 67 w/rays proof that suggests it was produced either as a "pattern" or as a "clandestine job." I agree that the Mint specially produced it for collectors, but that's true of all proofs, and there's no doubt that it's the counterpart of the w/rays struck for circulation.

wondercoin

One of my favorite pattern nickels in my collection is my 1867 Rays struck in copper in PCGS-PR66RB. Just a couple coins known in 60 or higher grade.

Wondercoin

keets

i sure am glad to see the old icon, at first ithought old-what's-his-name was back!!

Sunnywood

Five years later, my analysis of the 1867 proof shield nickels has not changed much, except to add in the balance of John Dannreuther's research on the emission sequence. Essentially, I still believe that the (25) proofs delivered early in the year were precisely those struck with the handmade prototype No Rays die (Reverse IIo) that was used on most of the (legitimate transitional) J-507 pattern nickels. I believe that the traditional estimates of (25) pieces, or sometimes stated as (35), for the With Rays proofs were based on the entirely mistaken assumption that they were the (25) pieces delivered early in the year. I believe that 1867 With Rays proofs were struck on at least four separate occasions, ranging from early 1867 (perhaps a few trial pieces) to 1868 or beyond, and that their total mintage numbered closer to (60) to (80) pieces. And I believe that all the proofs officially delivered after the first (25) were No Rays proofs struck with a proof die hubbed from the Reverse of 1867 (Reverse IIa in my parlance), numbering (500) to (600).

What would make the 1867 With Rays proofs "clandestine" or "illegitimate" would be a conclusion that none of them was among the proofs officially reported, delivered and accounted for. Personally, I believe this to be the case, although the hard evidence stops somewhere just short of that conclusion. A letter discovered by R.W. Julian seems to indicate that the coiner did not want to make more proofs with the Rays design, based on the difficulty in striking (although I mist say that the 1866 Rays proofs are beautifully made). Julian's archival research did not support the traditional notion that the (25) early pieces were With Rays proofs. The discovery of the transitional reverse pieces, along with the emission sequence work proving that they pre-date all of the regular-issue reverse pieces, was the "smoking gun."

One of the obverse dies used on 1867 proofs happens to have been used on a few of the earliest strikings of With Rays proofs, as well as all of the prototype reverse proofs, plus a good number of the regular issue proofs. By studying the states of that obverse die, one can determine an emission sequence. This is John Dannreuther's specialty; he is a master at placing coins in a striking sequence based on minute details of the die. His research and mine showed that ALL of the prototype No Rays proofs were struck before ANY of the standard reverse No Rays proofs. The surviving ratio of these coins, as confirmed by Howard Spindel, supports the reported ratio of about 25:600. However, interestingly, With Rays proofs do exist with an obverse die state comparably early, or even earlier, than the transitional pieces. So they were struck in early 1867, but I do not believe they were ever officially delivered and accounted for. The Mint seems to have been running a lax retail operation, with insiders selling all sorts of delicacies to local dealers, so it is impossible to ascertain exactly what happened. However, the notion that the With Rays proofs were the early (25) has definitely been quashed.

The market will never reflect reality until the Redbook lists this as a separate rare variety, and corrects the mintage figures for the three types to reflect current research. The Redbook contains many similar omissions that skew values of other rarities, or in some cases elevate (perhaps wrongly) some backdated fantasy pieces to the status of legitimate transitionals. That is part of "practical life" in numismatics.

I made a fuss over this at the time, not only because it was very interesting, but also because I felt the market misvalued the '67 Rays vs. other proofs, partly because of mistakenly low mintage figures, and partly because of a mistaken belief that they were they early delivery of (25) pieces, hence legitimate transitional rarities made scarce by the adopted design change. Instead, it seems they were manufactured scarcities. Of course, many such "manufactured scarcities" are highly prized today, such as novodel proof Bust dollars, or 1913 Liberty nickels. Backdated fantasy pieces, such as the 1866 No Motto dollar, are sometimes elevated to higher status, while other similar issues (such as the 1865-dated With Rays shield nickel "pattern," actually produced after 1870) are omitted. The treatment of such coins has been largely arbitrary, based on the Redbook. Incidentally, a trio of 1865, 1866, and 1867 proof With Rays nickels makes a nice little set. Also, one could add such things as an 1863 two cent piece (J-316), 1858 Indian cent, 1882 Lib nickel, etc etc., all ignored in the Redbook. Some of these were backdated fantasy pieces, others were not.

Best,
Sunnywood

howards

Sunnywood has done a great job summarizing John Dannreuther's die state research. That research allows us to place the '67PR shield nickels in emission order. Quoted from my article, that order is:

"JR" ("Judd reverse") proofs is the nomenclature for the prototype reverse proofs in the article.

1. Original WR Proofs (no more than 10 to 15)
2. JR Proofs (no more than 25)
3. NR Proofs
4. Additional intermingled strikes of WR and NR Proofs (possibly JR Proofs too?)
5. WR Proofs produced post-1867

Note that while the 4th emission sequence lists the possibility of more JR proofs that that is theoretical only. All JR proofs seen so far fit in slot 2.

I think there's a case to be made that the Original WR proofs of sequence 1 are worth the astronomical '67WR-PR money.

As Sunnywood says, changing the marketplace requires changing entrenched conventional wisdom. Those holding '67WR-PR coins will not look at this favorably.

Further reading:

Sunnywood's article: article 1

My article:
article 2

Sunnywood

Howard, the marketplace can't/won't distinguish between "original" WR proofs and those produced at various later stages. The grading services aren't going to be able to identify them easily either. Some of the later coins have a different obverse, if I remember correctly, and raised lumps corresponding to die rust pitting etc. but others are less obvious. The market doesn't tend to value originals and restrikes differently, but rather looks at the total available surviving population. For example, in Gobrechts, there isn't much price differential between originals and restrikes. Ditto for a number of issues from the 1840's and 1850's that were restruck, or many patterns that were restruck with later die states.

The plain truth is, there are more 1867 With Rays proofs than everyone was led to believe for years. Call them originals or restrikes, they're still probably overvalued to some degree, while the Rev IIo are still undervalued to some degree. We also need to remember though that With Rays is a "type" whereas the IIo/JR is a hub variety ... and the rays are pretty ... so the WR coins will always have an edge in values regardless.

Sunnywood

abitofthisabitofthat

Thank you, Sunnywood, for spelling this out better than I ever could. One of the fun things about this hobby is some of the intrigue and ambiguity surrounding certain issues. Also, every collector gets to define their own goals and their own sets. For me, my proof collection is based upon coins that were made available from the mint directly to collectors. So, I start my set in 1858 and do not include any earlier coins. I also would pass on any coin that is not part of the official record of the mint, like the 67 Rays. This is my personal choice of how to define my set. Others may reach different conclusions.

Many areas of numismatics have similar choices. If you collect colonials, do you include Machin's Mill pieces, or just official issues? If you do collect patterns, will you restrict yourself to true patterns and ignore pieces de caprice and restrikes? If you collect Morgans, do you need a 1895 Proof, or will your set be limited to circulation strikes? These are personal choices for every collector.

Happy collecting to all.

IGWT

-- For me, my proof collection is based upon coins that were made available from the mint directly to collectors. So, I start my set in 1858 and do not include any earlier coins. I also would pass on any coin that is not part of the official record of the mint, like the 67 Rays. --

By that standard, I take it that you'll include the '67 Judd Reverse.

CoinRaritiesOnline

What a great thread! Thanks to all who contributed to it.

abitofthisabitofthat

<< <i>-- For me, my proof collection is based upon coins that were made available from the mint directly to collectors. So, I start my set in 1858 and do not include any earlier coins. I also would pass on any coin that is not part of the official record of the mint, like the 67 Rays. --

By that standard, I take it that you'll include the '67 Judd Reverse. >>



Good question. For me, the answer is no. I do not count this variation as enough of a variety to warrant needing two examples of the 67 no rays proof. There are many different proof issues which were struck from multiple dies, and I do not include die varieties in my set. I view the Judd Reverse as a die variety, not a separate Type. Certainly valuable as such, but not necessary for my collection.

abitofthisabitofthat

<< <i>What a great thread! Thanks to all who contributed to it. >>



Dave - out of curiosity, as someone who deals with many, many colonial collectors, what are your thoughts on including Machin's Mill pieces along with official issues? How many collectors include them? How many do not?

Sunnywood

<< <i>

<< <i>-- For me, my proof collection is based upon coins that were made available from the mint directly to collectors. So, I start my set in 1858 and do not include any earlier coins. I also would pass on any coin that is not part of the official record of the mint, like the 67 Rays. --

By that standard, I take it that you'll include the '67 Judd Reverse. >>



Good question. For me, the answer is no. I do not count this variation as enough of a variety to warrant needing two examples of the 67 no rays proof. There are many different proof issues which were struck from multiple dies, and I do not include die varieties in my set. I view the Judd Reverse as a die variety, not a separate Type. Certainly valuable as such, but not necessary for my collection. >>



Well this is a bit more than a die variety, but less than a "type." It is a hub variety, which means a design change or re-execution within a type. It is always a question just how "complete" one wants a set to be. Most "complete" sets of proof shield nickels lack the 1867 With Rays, and are content to be date sets. A wonderful set would include the 1865 With Rays backdated fantasy piece (J-416), the 1866 Rays proof, and the 1867 Rays proof (legitimate or not). It would also include the 1865 No Rays backdated fantasy piece (J-418) which was made with an 1870-era reverse; the 1866 No Rays proof (J-507, a true transitional pattern); and both 1867 No Rays proofs, one with the same reverse as J-507, and one with the production reverse. So you could have With Rays proofs dated 1865 to 1867, and No Rays proofs dated 1865 to 1883, with two from 1867. That was the set I had !! I also collected both white cameo and rainbow-toned proofs, giving me two examples for many of the dates.

Interestingly, in earlier coinage, such as the Bust era, dies were handcrafted with the result that no two were alike. Thus, for example, we can have a whole collecting discipline out of 1793 and 1794 large cents, with many dozens of inidividual die pairings. In these early cases, each die was quite distinct in many respects, and so the variations between dies are substantial and attract many collectors.

Later, dies might still have been individually crafted, but with major design elements impressed from a master. Thus the possibility for variation between dies was lessened. In shield nickels, for example, the obverses had the central motif hubbed, but the date were individually punched. This raises the possibility of hub varieties (for the various different obverse & reverse hubs), as well as doubling and tripling that occurred during the impression of the central design motifs into the dies, plus the possibility of repunched dates. So there are still dramatic die varieties, but they involve hub changes, doubling and tripling, and repunching. By the 1860's, it was a different world from the 1790's.

Moving further forward, hub and die production gets better and better, to the point where most modern die "varieties" are nothing more than microscopic and unintended aberrations. Of course we do still get some exciting varieties, like the Cheerios Sac dollars, which were a major find.

Interestingly, the shield nickel series demonstrates a transition from single handcrafted dies (such as the prototype reverse die IIo used on the J-507 and the 25 original No Rays proofs of 1867), to dies that were made from a hub (whose devices were raised just as they are on the coins, such as the Reverse IIa die that was used on the remainder of the 1867 proofs). In 1868 a new reverse hub IIb failed, giving us a sequence of dies with broken letters. Note it was not the dies that failed, but the hub, whose letters were raised, and gradually broke off due to improper heat treament and embrittlement. That taught the Mint a lesson, and when they made a new hub (Reverse IIc, aka Reverse of 1870), they instituted a four-tiered system:

Master hub (raised devices) - Working hub (incuse devices) - Master die (raised devices) - Working die (incuse devices)

So a study of shield nickels, including the handcrafted prototype dies, the broken letters coins of 1868 (showing the failure of the new Reverse IIb hub), and the broken letters coins of 1870 (showing a master die failure, but not a hub failure, as the Mint came back with dies the next year from the same master hub, but with no broken letters), demonstrates very clearly the advancement of production techniques from a single die system to a two-tiered system, and then to a four-tiered system.

I believe that it was the hub failure of 1868 that first caused the Mint to insitute a four-tiered system like this, necessitated by the difficult copper-nickel alloy, which was still relatively new to the coinage (having been introduced in 1865 with the three-cent nickel). Truly, it is fascinating what one can discover by studying hubs, dies, etc.

But I can also understand the reluctance; in Morgans for example, I just can NOT deal with VAM die varities !!!! My idea of a "basic" Morgan set is the PCGS Registry set of (97) issues, plus the three major hub varieties (1878 Rev. of 1879, 1879-S Rev. of 1878, 1880/79-CC Rev. of 1878). That gives a neat even (100) coins. Others would include overdates, over-mintmarks, doubled dies, major die varieties, top 50 or 100 VAM's, or all VAM's. Yikes !!!

To each his own. Simple sets are easier, less costly, and less time-consuming. But true numismatic research always leads one deeper into varieties, with ever larger and more complex sets.

Best,
Sunnywood

abitofthisabitofthat

Sunnywood,

Again - thank you for such an informative, insightful reply. It seems my use of the phrase die variety was not correct, and I should have used hub variety. It is a good distinction. For the 67 no rays prototype reverse, I guess an analogous situation would be the two reverse types seen on 1892 Barber quarters. Also from a different hub. For me, this is another issue that a single 1892 quarter will suffice.

As I have not yet picked up a 67 Shield for my collection, it would be nice to have an example from the prototype hub. Perhaps I will be able to cherrypick one some day. (hey, you never know).

As for die varieties in general, I love colonials (NJ coppers in particular) because of all of the wonderful variations on the design them that are readily discernible to the naked eye. For much later issues I cannot get excited about them. VAMs? Later date large cents by Newcomb variety? I will leave those for someone else.

It sounds like your shield set, with patterns, was quite something, and you obviously enjoyed building and owning it. For me, I just can't go there. If I did that for shields, I would need all of the flying eagle patterns (which I love) and two cent patterns (another great group), but I would never finish the set that I have set out for myself.

Regards,

Chris

Sunnywood

Chris, that's why I end up doing one set at a time, and unfortunately sell them in the end ... and yes, my Barber quarter set (which was sold intact last year to one buyer) had examples of both Type I and Type II reverses for all three of the 1892 issues. How many sets have two 1892-S quarters, both PCGS MS66, one of each reverse? I was even chasing the 1900 issues with both Type II and Type III reverses. It was fun !!! I hated to sell them, but that's how it goes. Now my efforts are focused on further upgrades to my toned Morgan set. Maybe someday, that set will be sold and then who knows what's next ... colonials? half cents? patterns? type? early gold? or perhaps the poorhouse ...

Sunnywood

kranky

Great thread!