proof or business strike Morgan Dollars
kevinj
Posts: 989 ✭✭✭
What defines a proof coin?
I received a Heritage catalogue of the Platinum Night and Signature Auctions, April 24-28, 2013 in Chicago. This included the 1913 Walton Liberty Nickel.
On the 5th and 6th pages, several Morgan Dollars are listed with photographs. This included several coins that are listed as Branch Mint Proofs, including
1879-O Morgan Dollar, PCGS PR64
1883-O Morgan Dollar PCGS PR67 CAC
1884-CC Morgan Dollar NGC PR66 Cameo
1893-CC Morgan Dollar PCGS PR65
By definition, the term ‘proof’ refers to the method of manufacture, and not the condition of the coin. Proof coins are made by the Mint for presentation, souvenir, exhibition, or numismatic purpose. They normally have mirror-like fields, sharp detailed designs, and high squared rims.
In the eyes of the collector, proof coins represent the essence of beauty and the attainment of perfection in a coin. The sharp details of the design bring life to the images portrayed. The mirror surfaces create an aura around the figures, and the wire rims create the distinction between perfection and the rest. The working dies to be used for striking proofs are hand-picked for their sharp details, and the dies are then cleaned and polished to create a mirror-like surface. The planchets to be used for proof coins also are cleaned and polished to create mirror-like finishes. Coins are struck in a coining press that can exert greater pressure and the coins are struck at a slower speed to produce sharper details and a wire edge rim. The coins, once struck, are handled by hand so as not to get any contact marks.
Coins from Uncirculated Mint Sets also show sharp details in the design. One of the reasons that proof coins show such great detail in the design is that the working obverse and reverse dies are only used to strike about 2,000 to 3,000 coins per die. Normal working dies can be used to strike hundreds of thousands of coins, wearing down the design elements.
Sharply struck coins from new dies can have subtly reflective mirror-like fields, but fall short of true proof-like surfaces. Proofs are defined by the process in which the coins are made. If the obverse and reverse dies were not polished, these coins could just be sharply struck specimens from new dies.
During this time period (between 1873-1900), the mintages for the business strikes and proof coins are specifically listed in the Annual Report of the Director of this Mint. For these years, proof coins are only listed for the Philadelphia Mint, no proof coins are listed for the Branch Mints.
The working dies for the Branch Mints were normally hubbed starting in late October of the previous year they were to be used. All working dies were sent in groups, none were listed as separated out as proof or especially prepared working dies.
The Branch Mints did not offer coins for sale or distribution as proofs.
There is absolutely no National Archive or Mint records to indicate that these coins were intended to be struck as proof coinage.
There is absolutely no Mint records to indicate that proof coinage was authorized for the Branch Mints during this period.
As another example, the 24 1894-S Barber were never called proofs by the San Francisco Mint. They are listed as business strikes in the Director of the Mint Report. They do not show wired rims, or mirror-like fields, and also have flaws on several on the design elements. They were not called proofs until an auction decided to call them proofs in the 1940s. This was most likely done in the belief that it would increase their value.
There have been some instances, especially when a Branch Mint was opened, that proof coins were sometimes struck, and documented as such.
Sometimes the process used in making proofs such as polishing the working die or planchets is used for coins that are not proofs. For example, all of the 1893 Isabella Quarter Dollar commemorative coins were struck on polished planchets, these are not considered proofs.
I have seen plenty of Morgan Dollar Branch Mint coinage that have cameo design elements and mirror-like fields, especially those of the Carson City Mint. All of these I have seen to date have correctly been called proof-like.
I would challenge the grading services that certified these as proofs to provide evidence that they are proofs, that they were intended by the Mint to be struck as proofs, that they are Mint records that they are proofs, that they were sold or distributed as proofs, and that they were struck as proofs.
In my opinion, they are not proofs.
Kevin
Kevin Flynn
I received a Heritage catalogue of the Platinum Night and Signature Auctions, April 24-28, 2013 in Chicago. This included the 1913 Walton Liberty Nickel.
On the 5th and 6th pages, several Morgan Dollars are listed with photographs. This included several coins that are listed as Branch Mint Proofs, including
1879-O Morgan Dollar, PCGS PR64
1883-O Morgan Dollar PCGS PR67 CAC
1884-CC Morgan Dollar NGC PR66 Cameo
1893-CC Morgan Dollar PCGS PR65
By definition, the term ‘proof’ refers to the method of manufacture, and not the condition of the coin. Proof coins are made by the Mint for presentation, souvenir, exhibition, or numismatic purpose. They normally have mirror-like fields, sharp detailed designs, and high squared rims.
In the eyes of the collector, proof coins represent the essence of beauty and the attainment of perfection in a coin. The sharp details of the design bring life to the images portrayed. The mirror surfaces create an aura around the figures, and the wire rims create the distinction between perfection and the rest. The working dies to be used for striking proofs are hand-picked for their sharp details, and the dies are then cleaned and polished to create a mirror-like surface. The planchets to be used for proof coins also are cleaned and polished to create mirror-like finishes. Coins are struck in a coining press that can exert greater pressure and the coins are struck at a slower speed to produce sharper details and a wire edge rim. The coins, once struck, are handled by hand so as not to get any contact marks.
Coins from Uncirculated Mint Sets also show sharp details in the design. One of the reasons that proof coins show such great detail in the design is that the working obverse and reverse dies are only used to strike about 2,000 to 3,000 coins per die. Normal working dies can be used to strike hundreds of thousands of coins, wearing down the design elements.
Sharply struck coins from new dies can have subtly reflective mirror-like fields, but fall short of true proof-like surfaces. Proofs are defined by the process in which the coins are made. If the obverse and reverse dies were not polished, these coins could just be sharply struck specimens from new dies.
During this time period (between 1873-1900), the mintages for the business strikes and proof coins are specifically listed in the Annual Report of the Director of this Mint. For these years, proof coins are only listed for the Philadelphia Mint, no proof coins are listed for the Branch Mints.
The working dies for the Branch Mints were normally hubbed starting in late October of the previous year they were to be used. All working dies were sent in groups, none were listed as separated out as proof or especially prepared working dies.
The Branch Mints did not offer coins for sale or distribution as proofs.
There is absolutely no National Archive or Mint records to indicate that these coins were intended to be struck as proof coinage.
There is absolutely no Mint records to indicate that proof coinage was authorized for the Branch Mints during this period.
As another example, the 24 1894-S Barber were never called proofs by the San Francisco Mint. They are listed as business strikes in the Director of the Mint Report. They do not show wired rims, or mirror-like fields, and also have flaws on several on the design elements. They were not called proofs until an auction decided to call them proofs in the 1940s. This was most likely done in the belief that it would increase their value.
There have been some instances, especially when a Branch Mint was opened, that proof coins were sometimes struck, and documented as such.
Sometimes the process used in making proofs such as polishing the working die or planchets is used for coins that are not proofs. For example, all of the 1893 Isabella Quarter Dollar commemorative coins were struck on polished planchets, these are not considered proofs.
I have seen plenty of Morgan Dollar Branch Mint coinage that have cameo design elements and mirror-like fields, especially those of the Carson City Mint. All of these I have seen to date have correctly been called proof-like.
I would challenge the grading services that certified these as proofs to provide evidence that they are proofs, that they were intended by the Mint to be struck as proofs, that they are Mint records that they are proofs, that they were sold or distributed as proofs, and that they were struck as proofs.
In my opinion, they are not proofs.
Kevin
Kevin Flynn
Kevin J Flynn
0
Comments
I will add my Two Cents in saying that when I was examining a run of "Proof" Capped Bust Half Dollars at
the Heritage FUN Lot Viewing, very few jumped out at me as being PROOF's. Most looked like the normal
MS Business Struck coins. Almost all these Proof CBH's were heavily toned, obscuring any Mint Polish on
the surfaces, but even with the toning few had the Proof "flash" that I would have expected. In addition,
the rims on many of the pieces were obscured by the plastic TPG holder. That said, several of those pieces
I examined did appear to be Proof struck coins.
So, I do think that you have a point in your evidence, but that old "traditions" from early catalog listings
have since incorrectly listed nice MS pieces as Proofs.
The lack of records does not mean something does not exist.
Was it by chance that much of your OP follows Wexler's Buffalo Nickel book (pp 64-65) word for word?
Greg
<< <i>Proof coins were originally made to "prove" the dies before full production began -- exactly like the "proofs" you got from having your picture taken by a profesional photo studio. Branch mint presentation coins were known to be made, and they look more like proofs than some of the proof shield nickels, for example. The 1894-S dimes and probably the 1913 Liberty nickels were die trials, in my opinion, but in any case, 5 or 24 coins struck from new dies with no other production made can certainly be called proofs in the original usage.
The lack of records does not mean something does not exist.
Was it by chance that much of your OP follows Wexler's Buffalo Nickel book (pp 64-65) word for word? >>
The 1913 V nickel was illegally struck by Samuel Brown in December of 1912 from an obverse die returned from the San Fran Mint, and a reverse die from Phila.
It is not known what die he used and how he struck.
The 1894S Barber dime is my baby, I dedicated a book just to this coin.
24 were struck on June 9th, 1894
several were sent for assay
they were listed as business strikes in Mint Report
Half were released into circulation, 2 of which were found in low circulated grades
Approx 10 are not seen again, most likely used in circulation and subsequently melted.
The fields of the 94S are not mirrored, dies and planchets not polished
The dies had several flaws
Rims and design not fully struck
I found that the most probable cause for striking the 94S dimes was to round out the dollar amount from San Fran.
In 1893 and before, they were not rounded, in 1894 and after they were.
There is alot more to the story, but the 1894S barber dime is not a proof
You said "Proof coins were originally made to "prove" the dies before full production began"
where is this documented? Your saying that dies used to strike business strikes first struck proofs?
Do you know how many dies were used each year? Are you saying each was first taken to the Medal Room, polished, and used to strike proofs,
then taken to the Press Room and used to strike business strikes?
In most years, we do not see dies used for proofs, subsequently used for business strikes, we can look at the diagnostics and see no matches.
Please explain where you read this
Kevin
Of the four coins listed above, in Wayne Miller's Morgan and Peace Dollar Textbook, only the 1884-CC is not listed as a definite and authorized branch mint proof. The 79-O was authorized to commemorate the reopening of the New Orleans mint. One specimen is in the Smithsonian and provenances for three others are given. The 83-O is mentioned by the New Orleans mint superintendent in the American Journal of Numismatics in 1884. The 1893-CC was struck to commemorate the closing of the CC mint, and Miller says that "considerable documentation exists" for this coin. He continues to describe this coin as not having typical cameo proof appearance, especially on the obverse.
One cannot compare the quality of Philadelphia proofs to branch mint proofs, just as you can't compare business strikes across mints. The branch mints weren't as well versed with the proper manufacture of proof coinage and didn't have access to Philadelphia's medal room.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>Regarding the Morgan dollars you mention at the top, I'll repeat what I posted on VAMWorld.
Of the four coins listed above, in Wayne Miller's Morgan and Peace Dollar Textbook, only the 1884-CC is not listed as a definite and authorized branch mint proof. The 79-O was authorized to commemorate the reopening of the New Orleans mint. One specimen is in the Smithsonian and provenances for three others are given. The 83-O is mentioned by the New Orleans mint superintendent in the American Journal of Numismatics in 1884. The 1893-CC was struck to commemorate the closing of the CC mint, and Miller says that "considerable documentation exists" for this coin. He continues to describe this coin as not having typical cameo proof appearance, especially on the obverse.
One cannot compare the quality of Philadelphia proofs to branch mint proofs, just as you can't compare business strikes across mints. The branch mints weren't as well versed with the proper manufacture of proof coinage and didn't have access to Philadelphia's medal room. >>
Good information, thanks.
On the coins above, what physical attributes did they have, i.e. wired rims, mirrored fields, cameo design elements, fully struck design elements? After proof coins were struck, were the dies used for circulation strikes? I agree, if they were struck at the Branch Mints,
as they did not have the Coining Press that could exert more pressure, and perhaps not the skill level, the end result would most
likely be different.
Is it possible that some of these coins were struck at the Philadelphia Mint in the medal room and sent to the Branch Mints?
Question though, are the coins listed in the Heritage auction the same as above.
I have not viewed the coins, only see photos. I have seen before where coins were categorized together with others.
My goal is to prove intent, that the Mint intended to strike the coins as proofs. From what you said, it appears there was intent to
strike proofs from these Branch Mints.
Kevin
<< <i> The 83-O is mentioned by the New Orleans mint superintendent in the American Journal of Numismatics in 1884. >>
The old AJN issues are online. Can we get a link to this? (When I searched for it some years ago, I could not find it. Perhaps someone is better at these things.)
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>...[at Heritage] there is not a proof Morgan category to search. >>
Yes there is!
Heritage Morgan Proofs