Say I have a very well struck 1839-O Half...
stinkinlincoln
Posts: 2,733 ✭
And its semi proof like. It also stands out among several other 39-O halfs, how would I be able to tell it was a proof and not a business strike? Without submitting it?
Die markers?
Thanks for any help.
Die markers?
Thanks for any help.
0
Comments
-Paul
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
True.
I was just reading the description and figured Id ask if there was anything that would make it easy to spot one.
I heard that too.
So, anyone have any ideas on what makes a very few number of these coins proofs?
Yea? NO kidding...
What if you dont have that?
Are there any die markers on the known pieces?
Or, does no one know the answer?
siliconvalleycoins.com
Do you know if the dies were the same as the business strikes? Or were dies made specifically for these strikings?
I realize with no Mint records its hard to get the right info, but I figure why not ask.
Here is the best description I could find from the Heritage archive....so you can see what you are up against. Early proof coinage, especially branch mint with no official record is shaky at best. Perhaps your best hope would be some ANA studies that may have been done, or perhaps HalfCollector, who is a specialist in RE halves. I believe that all the proofs that have been graded are JR-2's....but dont quote me on it.
When discussing the hidden jewels of the numismatic world, the subject of the 1839-O proof half dollars is sure to arise. Unfortunately, relatively little is known about this enigmatic issue. The written contributions on the subject by noted specialist Walter Breen are ambiguous and modern day researches have dedicated little time and effort to unraveling the mysteries of the 1839-O proof fifty cent pieces. However, two things are certain about this issue--they are indubitably specially struck coins and there are only four confirmed examples extant. The current auction is a landmark event in that we are offering two pieces in the same sale! Considering that only 10 or so examples have crossed the auction block in the past century, this is an amazing occurrence. Having two proof 1839-O halves available for examination concurrently, coupled with the fact that we sold yet a third specimen in our July 2008 sale, affords us the opportunity to shed more light on this mysterious issue.
Perhaps the biggest question regarding the 1839-O proofs relates to the quantity of coins minted. There are no Mint records pertaining to the issue and over the years as many as 10 different pieces have been reported, though not confirmed. Census information included in auction lot descriptions has varied from four to six examples, although the latter figure includes an erroneous duplication and an unconfirmed coin. Breen suggested the existence of five specimens in his 1988 Complete Encyclopedia, but only documents four halves in his revised Encyclopedia of Proof Coins (1989); although he makes it clear in the latter reference that he was uncertain about his census. The earliest evidence relating to the mintage of proof 1839-O halves can be found in New York Coin and Stamp Company's June 1890 description of an 1838-O proof fifty cent piece (now known as the Norweb coin). In that catalog the writer notes:
"We have seen a letter from Dr. Riddell, superintendent N.O. Mint, 1838, which accompanied a similar half dollar, in which it was stated that only four half dollars of this date and mintage were issued ..."
Dr. John Riddell was never superintendent of the New Orleans Mint. He was, however, the melter and refiner and in that position he would have been intimately involved with advanced coining operations at the new branch mint. Dr. Riddell was appointed to his position by President Martin Van Buren in 1839 (Doug Winter, 2006), although the exact date is unknown. Researcher David Lange notes that "a particularly severe outbreak of yellow fever caused the mint to suspend operations from July 1 to November 30, 1839," so we can safely assume that Dr. Riddell began work at the New Orleans Mint sometime during the first quarter of 1839. This fact is important in that the Riddell letter referenced in the June 1890 auction catalog must have been dated 1839 and, as such, was referring to 1839-O proof half dollars-not the 1838-O pieces, even though the latter pieces were also struck in the first quarter of 1839--not 1838. Carefully dissecting the 1890 catalog entry, we note that the letter "accompanied a similar half dollar." Since the cataloger associated the letter to the Norweb 1838-O proof half, the word "similar" is immensely significant. It is likely Riddell was referring to 1839-dated coins. To further substantiate this logic, consider that only four 1839-O proof halves are known, whereas 11 1838-O proof fifty cent pieces have been traced. Conveniently, as of (8/08) NGC has certified four different 1839-O proof half dollars and we have traced each piece to previously reported examples (see our census at the end of this description). That fact, together with the aforementioned Riddell letter, lends credence to the belief that only four 1839-O halves were struck in proof format.
Another bit of misinformation that has been propagated through the last several decades is the fact that 1839-O proof haves were struck in medal-turn orientation. Breen (1988) stated that the five known examples "have dies aligned 180 degrees from normal, so that date is nearest to HALF DOL." Since Breen cataloged the Krouner-Byers coin, the specimen offered here, which is also the plate coin in his Encyclopedia of Proof Coins, we are dumbfounded since this piece was unequivocally struck in coin-turn orientation. In fact, all four 1839-O proof halves that we have traced, including the three that we have handled within the past few months, have normal obverse to reverse positioning. Yet another mystery unraveled, thanks to the reemergence of all four specimens within the past year.
In terms of technical grade, the current offering is now ranked as the third finest of the four 1839-O proof half dollars thus traced, although the eye appeal of this piece arguably places it higher within the census. Variegated russet coloration is suitably complemented by electric-blue and sea-green toning at the peripheries on both the obverse and reverse. Unsurprisingly for a proof issue, the strike is bold and the fields are delightfully reflective. Scattered hairlines in the delicate fields are observed through close scrutiny, yet the aesthetically pleasing patina does well to conceal them. A minuscule dark spot above the eagle's head shall serve as a pedigree marker for the sake of posterity.
Census of Proof 1839-O Half Dollars
New information has come to light since our July 2008 offering of the PR64 piece, so we have revised our roster slightly from that catalog. We list four distinctly different pieces, along with two additional appearances that may be duplicates of the four individual specimens.
1. PR65 NGC. Robison Collection (Stack's, 2/1982), lot 1607; Queller Family Collection (Stack's, 10/2002), lot 448; Goldberg Coins (2/2008), lot 2177.
2. PR64 NGC. Bowers and Merena (9/1994), lot 1214; Heritage (7/2008), lot 1690.
3. PR63 NGC. The present specimen and the Breen Proof Encyclopedia Plate Coin. Krouner Collection (Lester Merkin, 2/1971), lot 736; Stack's (9/1992), lot 358; George Byers Collection (Stack's, 10/2006), lot 1098; Heritage (9/2008).
4. PR62 NGC. Heritage (9/2008).
A. Proof. F.C.C. Boyd; World's Greatest Collection (Numismatic Gallery, 5/1945), lot 411; Christian Allenburger (B. Max Mehl, 3/1948); R.E. Cox (Stack's, 4/1962), lot 1875. The Boyd-Cox piece may be the same as one of the above coins.
B. Proof. An unverified example that Breen reported in the Philip G. Straus Collection, circa 1951. The coin remains unseen since that time and is likely one of the four listed above. (#6227)
siliconvalleycoins.com
I'll see what I can see on the reverse now.
The image of the NGC Pr 63 is a good start. The fields are pl, and the strike is deep. The denticles are fully defined, and the stars are full.( stars are not the determing factor).
I own a fully proof-like 1838 in PCGS 65. I have tried for a proof cross, and have been denied. You can see it on my Registry set.
I also own an 1829 in Pr 62. Just one look at the 1829 tells you it is a proof. Both NGC and PCGS have designated it as such.
But look at the 1820 half in NGC 65 PL in the upcoming ANA sale( can't remember whuich auction). It was designated proof in the Eliasberg sale, but only PL today.
JD is the resident expert at PCGS, and they will let him decide, most likely. NGC has designated many more CBH proofs than PCGS, and some will not grade at PC. But they also have seen many examples, and do a good job, IMO.
Good luck
All of the 1839-O designated proofs that I have seen are JR-1 variety. This variety shares the same reverse as the 1838-O half. It is logical to assume ( although this can lead to wrong conclusions with the early mints, because for many reasons, things were not always done logically) 1839 Jr-1 would follow 1838-O by replacing the obverse die and leaving the reverse in place therefore making Jr-1 the first striking in emission order for 1839-O, followed by JR-4, then JR-2 and finally JR-3, the latter 3 of which share a reverse or obverse die that can be ordered by die progression. Breen in his encyclopedia states the proofs he has seen have a 180 degree rotation to reverse die. This is a characteristic of early die strikings of JR-2 which appears to have been detected by the mint and corrected as later die states of JR-2 show the correct coin orientation of the reverse dies. I have seen prime JR-2's with no die cracks at all but nothing approaching a proof or PL condition.
Could New Orleans Mint struck presentation pieces at the start of production of the 1839 halves, most possibly. If you had a reverse die that struck only 20 coin married with a new polishes obverse die would they be above average coins, most likely.
I studied the 2 proofs sold by Heritage in September of 2008 and I did not get a chance to see the coins in person since the auction was in California but I did talk to the cataloger of the PF-63 piece and unfortunitely, the PF-62 piece was cataloged by a different person so he could not compare them side by side. But Heritage has excellent large blow up photos that can show die progression very well. One of the proofs shows the reverse crack thru ERIC as very thin which matches the state of the 1838-O coins and has no discernable cracks on the obverse which would lead me to conclude that it was struck shortly after start up. The other coin has cracks that are much more advanced on both the obverse and reverse which leads me to believe that it was struck many, many coins down the road from the first one. Hence can they both be proofs? Could they have stopped the press and polished the die for addition presentation pieces, or just polished to try and remove the cracks that had progressed? who knows! or is it a miss attributed proof. As one of the previous threads stated, NGC gives more proof designations that the others, are they possibly slightly more liberal on this designation? Since there is no Mint packaging on these coins, it is someones opinion only as to what is and is not a "proof".
I too have as Tahoedale said many fully prooflike Reeded Halves, some of which are almost cameo in appearance but one must convince someone that these are or are not proofs or just enjoy them for what they are.
I cataloged the 1839-O Byers' proof half when it came to Heritage last year, and I remember communicating with HalfCollector during the process. The description posted by coinlieutenant is the one I wrote last year, and it looks like it was carried forward to the current sale.
You want to hear something shocking? I don't believe that the NGC PR63 is a proof coin. My original description refuted NGC's attribution, but such a write-up would not fly, for obvious reasons. The coin is certified as a proof, and I had to find as much evidence as possible to support the attribution.
siliconvalleycoins.com