<< <i>Gentlemen, and ladies, this borders on the realm of theology, where people of good will can disagree with each other with nobody having the final answer. Agree to disagree. >>
Messydesk has it right, you have to define the term first.
1855-S Proof Three Dollar Gold Piece Unique A Supreme Rarity, PR64 Cameo 1855 S Proof Three Dollar Gold Piece Unique A Supreme Rarity, PR64 Cameo A trio of 1855-S proof coins from the Golden Gate Collection, including the possibly unique $3 PR64 NGC. CAC., being offered by Heritage Auctions as part of the company's Aug. 11-12 Chicago Signature U.S. Coin & Platinum Night Auction, is generating serious buzz in the realm of high end collectors. Just looking at the three dollar coin from the front, it has every outward appearance of a Philadelphia Mint proof. Turn the coin over, however, and the 'S' mintmark on the reverse elevates this coin into a whole other realm. This is a supreme rarity and will be highly coveted by the top collectors in the world.
While the $3 1855-S is drawing the majority of the attention from the top echelon of numismatists, the coin is being offered along with two other important 1855-S proofs: an 1855-S 50C Arrows PR65 NGC. and an 1855-S 25C Arrows PR64 NGC.
1855-S 50C Arrows PR65 NGC 1855-S 50C Arrows PR65 NGC
The 1855-S $3 is unique as a proof and is arguably the single most important coin in the Platinum Night auction, while the 1855-S Seated Liberty Half Dollar, PR65 is one of just two known proofs and the only currently available specimen. The 1855-S Seated Liberty Quarter, PR64
NGC is equally alluring as a unique branch Mint Proof, believed to be the first-struck San Francisco Mint quarter dollar. These coins will be cornerstone pieces in whatever advanced collection they end up in. We fully expect the bidding to be spirited and the prices to reflect the extreme rarity of the coins themselves.
1855-S 25C Arrows PR64 NGC 1855-S 25C Arrows PR64 NGC
The 1848 discovery of gold in California forever changed the region and the nation. As the Western population quickly swelled with prospectors, the scarcity of coinage made life extremely difficult. Gold dust was the medium of exchange in California and the individual prospectors typically received less than half its real value. Eventually the Federal Government stepped in, opening the United States Assay Office following Congressional legislation passed on Sept. 30, 1850. The first issues appeared early in 1851. The Assay Office was a temporary measure, however, and a full-fledged branch of the U.S. Mint opened in San Francisco in 1854.
When Walter Breen penned his Proof Encyclopedia, published in 1977, the proof 1855-S $3 gold piece was unknown to him. It made its first public appearance in the 1984 Apostrophe Sale. Breen's 1989 revision to his earlier work suggests a second proof example was known to him, but he gave no further details, other than to say it was in a "private collection." Until such time as the second piece makes its appearance, this proof 1855-S three has to be considered unique.
While the three coins are being offered as individual lots, their shared history makes them prime candidates to go to a single dedicated collector.
DOES ANYONE HAVE IMAGES OF A "PROOF" 1855-S HALF DOLLAR AND/OR 1855-S QUARTER DOLLAR?
I think we put more thought into wether the branch mint coins are "proof" than the actual branch mints ever did. But back when they sold for a nickel or so over face i doubt they ever thought they would be worth the price they command today. Record keeping was pretty lax back then, they seemed more concerned that the money in and out added up to the correct figure.
We debate what coin was the first struck silver dollar based on ???? when only a percent of the entire run of coins is still around.
They should have put a serial number right across the obverse of every coin minted along with date and time. Throw in the actual name of the press operator on the reverse.
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
<< <i>I think intent of the coiner is irrelevant to a coin being a proof or not. A US proof might be defined as a coin struck twice by a basined die though some people would insist the dies, blanks, or all three are polished. I don't believe you can positively discern whether a coin is struck twice or not. Those struck twice will show all the details of the dies and single struck specimens almost never do. You also can't be certain of the degree or the degree of the intent of the polishing. >>
The Coiner, Press Foreman, or whomever operated the Coining Press is probably the most important individual in the striking of a proof coin. The adjusted the pressure used, the pressure is important in the striking characteristics. This combined with striking the coins at a slower speed was used to make sure the metal from the planchet had enough time and pressure to be squeezed into the corners of the rim edges and deepest parts of the design elements.
Up through 1836, the Mint used a screw press.
Starting in 1836, they used a Steam Powered press using a toggle joint principle.
The pressure was modified by moving the toggle joint up or down, down being used to create greater pressure.
A Medal Room was opened at the Philadelphia Mint in 1854.
Proof coins after 1836 were not struck twice. They were struck once with greater pressure, and a longer period.
The larger steam powered presses could exert up to 100 tons per square inch. Coming down with that much force, striking the planchet, do you not think that the planchet might stick, adhere to the hammer die a little, possibly falling back in a different position in the lower anvil working die? In addition, the way the coining press worked, when the hammer die raised, the anvil die pushed the planchet up through the collar to be ejected.
I have also read archive letters and other descriptions which show they were only struck once.
<< <i>Without a clear and consistent definition of what a proof coin is, which we don't have, no argument about whether a coin is proof or not makes a lot of sense. Do the grading services even have consistent definitions between them? What's the meaning of a guarantee that a grading service will consistently apply its definition of proof with respect to a given coin when other entities are free to apply their own definitions? >>
From speaking to PCGS and NGC on this, a branch mint proof requires documented evidence it was struck or intended to be struck as a proof. a branch mint specimen designates a special strike, a coin which was clearly made with extra care and has a superior finish, which might not have documentry evidence of such.
Of course, the Branch Mints might not have had to knowledge, experience, and equipment to strike proofs equal to the quality of the Philadelphia counterparts, therefore, the quality might be slightly less. But also if you consider the time from from 1818 through 1916, the manufacture of proof coins changed based upon equipment, techniques, experience, we see differences in quality based upon these factors.
A good example is the 1875-S Twent cent piece that was called a proof. There is no documented evidence that it was struck or intended to be struck as a proof. Yet, you have a die state which has superior striking characteristics in the design elements and rim edge. You have different die states of coins from the same working dies that show less. Therefore, these are distinguishable and will subsequently be called specimens.
<< <i>I think we put more thought into wether the branch mint coins are "proof" than the actual branch mints ever did. But back when they sold for a nickel or so over face i doubt they ever thought they would be worth the price they command today. Record keeping was pretty lax back then, they seemed more concerned that the money in and out added up to the correct figure. We debate what coin was the first struck silver dollar based on ???? when only a percent of the entire run of coins is still around. They should have put a serial number right across the obverse of every coin minted along with date and time. Throw in the actual name of the press operator on the reverse. >>
If a special strike was made for a friend or individual, or if done illegally, such as the 1804 dollar Type II III, many of the restrikes, I would agree, there is little documentation.
For some of these, we have documents from the Superintendents of the Branch Mints to the Director of the Mint submitting coins to show the quality of the first coins struck, some of these were put in the Cabinet Collection, that now resides in the Smithsonian.
Sometimes special strikes, proofs, patterns, were requested by the higher ups, such as the Secretary of the Treasury. For example, I just saw a request from the Secretary of the Treasury for 6 1868 Aluminum Proof Sets in 1868. Linderman was known to have many coins in his estate auction, such as a 1868 Aluminum set, 1804 Dollar, and a few other goodies.
Also, some Directors, Superintendents, and others were more about having written documentation than others.
<< <i>Sometimes special strikes, proofs, patterns, were requested by the higher ups, such as the Secretary of the Treasury. For example, I just saw a request from the Secretary of the Treasury for 6 1868 Aluminum Proof Sets in 1868. Linderman was known to have many coins in his estate auction, such as a 1868 Aluminum set, 1804 Dollar, and a few other goodies.
Also, some Directors, Superintendents, and others were more about having written documentation than others.
Kevin >>
The gov't disagreed with what Linderman called 'his'.
<< <i> The Coiner, Press Foreman, or whomever operated the Coining Press is probably the most important individual in the striking of a proof coin. The adjusted the pressure used, the pressure is important in the striking characteristics. This combined with striking the coins at a slower speed was used to make sure the metal from the planchet had enough time and pressure to be squeezed into the corners of the rim edges and deepest parts of the design elements.
>>
I have to disagree. A coin is what it is regardless of the intent of the coiner. If they intended to strike a proof but neglected to strike it twice and to basin the dies then it is not a proof even if they went ahead and attached papers to it calling it a proof. If these conditions apply to a coin that was released through normal channels then it is still a proof even when the coiner insists all proofs are sold separately or through numismatic channels.
I think we might be getting bogged down in semantics largely because of the existence of PL's. These range from barely PL at all to virtually indistinguishable from Proof. I believe the best way to deal with this is to just call anything that appears proof to be proof as well as anything with a pedigree that says it's proof (unless it obviously isn't). Perhaps we should use the term "spec- imen" more to cover most of the "tweeners" and special issues that aren't truly proof. Words are just for communication and should convey as much information as possible. Without precise mean- ing there is not much information.
<< <i>Gentlemen, and ladies, this borders on the realm of theology, where people of good will can disagree with each other with nobody having the final answer. Agree to disagree. >>
Messydesk has it right, you have to define the term first. >>
Where's the damned **sarcasm** emoticon, Lester?
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
<< <i>Sometimes special strikes, proofs, patterns, were requested by the higher ups, such as the Secretary of the Treasury. For example, I just saw a request from the Secretary of the Treasury for 6 1868 Aluminum Proof Sets in 1868. Linderman was known to have many coins in his estate auction, such as a 1868 Aluminum set, 1804 Dollar, and a few other goodies. Also, some Directors, Superintendents, and others were more about having written documentation than others. Kevin >>
The gov't disagreed with what Linderman called 'his'. >>
Thanks for that, interesting I remember reading recently that Director Kimball was entirely against patterns, we see production and sale of patterns stopping from 1886 through i believe 1889
[qI have to disagree. A coin is what it is regardless of the intent of the coiner. If they intended to strike a proof but neglected to strike it twice and to basin the dies then it is not a proof even if they went ahead and attached papers to it calling it a proof. If these conditions apply to a coin that was released through normal channels then it is still a proof even when the coiner insists all proofs are sold separately or through numismatic channels. >>
Ok, I would agree in part that the intent of the Coiner in most cases would be irrelevant in the creation of the proof coinage as that is not their job, to decide whether a coin should be struck as a proof. I was more focussed on the fact that the Coiner's actions in creating a proof coin was important.
The exception to the above was for example the 1838-O Bust Half Dollar, which the Coiner did some 20 test strikes, which were subsequently sent out to officiials and others as presentation pieces.
I believe the other exception is when for example the Coiner/Head Foreman decides to test the pressure used on a new denomination to see what is best. This, in my opinion, is what happened to the 1875-S Twenty cent pieces that exhibit strong striking characteristics.
In theory you are correct that a coin can be created of less quality than others. In practice though, normally the Coiner delivered the proof coins to the Superintendant, who inspected them, rejected those which did not meet the minimal standards and quality.
Can you show me evidence of multiple strikings in the coining press of proof coins in the 19th century please.
What if a striking ceremony was held with invited dignitaries present and some coins were engraved "One of the first ten coined April 17"? See this thread LINK
And what if a coin not so engraved (but clearly from one of the first die pairs received by the SF Mint based on its VAM designation), looks like this (see the toned coin)
We can agree to call "master coins" proofs without changing the definition of the word "proof" as it relates to US coins. I personally think this would be confusing and shouldn't be done but I have no dog in the fight and it's just a matter of con- vention.
The question at hand is what's a proof and this generally is accepted to mean a coin struck two or more times by a basined die as it applies to US coins. Experts in series are usually able to mke a pretty good guess as to whether a coin was struck twice or not. It seems the existence of branch mint proofs is certain and some are docu- mented.
It is possible some of these master coins were struck twice?
I'm not suggesting that it's easy to spot branch mint proofs from highly PL specimens, merely that there's no reason the terminology has to be a stumbling point.
<< <i>We can agree to call "master coins" proofs without changing the definition of the word "proof" as it relates to US coins. I personally think this would be confusing and shouldn't be done but I have no dog in the fight and it's just a matter of convention. >>
I agree for today's definition but in 1885, "master coins" were already being called proofs. An issue is what was designated as proof back then does not meet the definition of proof today. And it's not right to try to impose the changed definition to fit something that was made before the change occurred.
I don't know the answer to this, but when did the definition of a proof change to being a method of manufacturing?
I guess ultimately (imo) "branch mint proof/specimen" coins that possess truly extraordinary qualities should bring enormous premiums over the 'bid' price for an ordinary ch-gem BU coin of the same date and mint.
The 1906-D NGC-Specimen Barber Dime is so unlike any other 06-D Barber Dime that such enthusiasm is understandable (though I must admit $28,000 is a lot of money.)
In practice though, normally the Coiner delivered the proof coins to the Superintendant, who inspected them, rejected those which did not meet the minimal standards and quality.
Kevin
Actually the coiner made the decision on quality. It is true, however, that the proof coins after 1873 were delivered to the superintendent, who then arranged for their sale to collectors.
<< <i>I think intent of the coiner is irrelevant to a coin being a proof or not. A US proof might be defined as a coin struck twice by a basined die though some people would insist the dies, blanks, or all three are polished. I don't believe you can positively discern whether a coin is struck twice or not. Those struck twice will show all the details of the dies and single struck specimens almost never do. You also can't be certain of the degree or the degree of the intent of the polishing. >>
The Coiner, Press Foreman, or whomever operated the Coining Press is probably the most important individual in the striking of a proof coin. The adjusted the pressure used, the pressure is important in the striking characteristics. This combined with striking the coins at a slower speed was used to make sure the metal from the planchet had enough time and pressure to be squeezed into the corners of the rim edges and deepest parts of the design elements.
Up through 1836, the Mint used a screw press.
Starting in 1836, they used a Steam Powered press using a toggle joint principle.
The pressure was modified by moving the toggle joint up or down, down being used to create greater pressure.
A Medal Room was opened at the Philadelphia Mint in 1854.
Proof coins after 1836 were not struck twice. They were struck once with greater pressure, and a longer period.
The larger steam powered presses could exert up to 100 tons per square inch. Coming down with that much force, striking the planchet, do you not think that the planchet might stick, adhere to the hammer die a little, possibly falling back in a different position in the lower anvil working die? In addition, the way the coining press worked, when the hammer die raised, the anvil die pushed the planchet up through the collar to be ejected.
I have also read archive letters and other descriptions which show they were only struck once.
Kevin >>
Can you document these statements?
I believe that 19th century Proofs were struck, twice if not more, on a large screw press kept in the Mint until 1894 for that purpose and other purposes. Unfortunately, I am unable to document this belief as my library is still in boxes from my recent move.
I do know that over the years I have seen a few 19th century Proofs with close double strikes, and a few patterns. When we saw them at ANACS we did not make mention of the close double striking as it seemed to just be a slight bit of sloppiness in an otherwise normal procedure.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
For the no doubt very few of you who haven't already purchased From Mine to Mint (an astonishing masterpiece which belongs in every numismatist's library), Roger Burdette only devotes a few pages in FMTM to 19th century proof coins, most of which is presented as a summary, rather than extensively footnoted.
He says:
When the Philadelphia Mint officially started selling special coins made for coin collectors (most likely in 1859), it used the terms "special", "master", "proof" and "bright" as synonyms (much as did the British Royal Mint). By about 1863, the term "proof coin" was most commonly used to indicate a piece struck especially for collectors. The die fields and planchets were polished and coins were sold individually or in sets.
All special and master coins were struck on the large medal press. This [press] was also used for making hubs and larger working dies. Some master coins might have been struck more than once, in the style of a medal, but without annealing between strikes. Coins did not receive any special post-strike finishing that was common for medals. Regardless of the name applied or the surface appearance, all "proof" coins were made on a medal press either of the screw-type or hydraulic.
(Parts of the above text have been paraphrased or sentences moved from one paragraph to another, hopefully without damaging Roger's intent or the flow of his text.)
Regarding branch mint proofs:
Roger has a couple of substantial paragraphs, which I won't transcribe here. He says that there is virtually no documentation to support the assertion that any of them were made at a branch mint. Most of these coins, upon examination, have been determined to be proof-like examples made from polished dies or new dies and then put away as souvenirs by mint employees. (Presumably, these were coins actually struck at branch mints, although Roger doesn't say that.)
However, some of these coins conform to "authentic proofs". Since none of the branch mints had a medal press, these coins are presumed to have been made at the Philadelphia mint. Again, the lack of documentation presents difficulties. He does say that these coins might have been made as an undocumented special request from a branch mint official.
True, but the screw press continued to be used after 1836 for proof coins.
Starting in 1836, they used a Steam Powered press using a toggle joint principle.
The pressure was modified by moving the toggle joint up or down, down being used to create greater pressure.
Interesting, but this has nothing to do with proof coinage.
A Medal Room was opened at the Philadelphia Mint in 1854.
I think Medal Department is meant here and the date was 1855, not 1854. Screw presses were used for medals and proof coins through January 1894, when the hydraulic press was installed.
Proof coins after 1836 were not struck twice. They were struck once with greater pressure, and a longer period.
As proof coins through 1893 were struck on a screw press the second sentence cannot be correct. My understanding is that proofs were normally struck twice on the screw press but I have not yet found a citation to this effect.
The larger steam powered presses could exert up to 100 tons per square inch. Coming down with that much force, striking the planchet, do you not think that the planchet might stick, adhere to the hammer die a little, possibly falling back in a different position in the lower anvil working die? In addition, the way the coining press worked, when the hammer die raised, the anvil die pushed the planchet up through the collar to be ejected.
I have also read archive letters and other descriptions which show they were only struck once.
If internal Mint letters exist showing that all proofs were struck only once they need to be published.
I read Evans, page 41, did not state proof coins were struck twice, nor does it say that the screw press was used to strike all proofs between 1836 and 1893.
On page 41 it states, "master coins of the Mint, a term used to signifiy first pieces from new dies, bearing a high polish and struck with extra care. These are now more commonly called proof pieces."
On page 178 it states "Proof condition designates a coin made expressly for collectors, and other mints, to preserve our coinage in first-class condition for posterity. Proof coinss are made from dies prepared expressly for the purpose, and are polished to a great degree of brightness. The planchets are also prepared expressly for receiving proof impressions, being highly polished and otherwise prepared for sharp, even impressions. There are usually proofs of all of the annual coinage for distribution among the Numismatic Societies, collectors, and mints of the world."
On page 44 it states "is the medal striking room, where medals are struck by a screw press, worked by hand."
I do not disagree that there was a screw press in the medal room that was used to strike medals.
I read through all of the other sections including Coining Press and others.
Please show me where it states proofs were struck twice. Please show me where it states proofs were struck through 1894 on the screw press.
Sorry it took so long to get back and answer, was out at the Pittsburg coin show.
<< <i>Up through 1836, the Mint used a screw press. True, but the screw press continued to be used after 1836 for proof coins. Starting in 1836, they used a Steam Powered press using a toggle joint principle. The pressure was modified by moving the toggle joint up or down, down being used to create greater pressure. Interesting, but this has nothing to do with proof coinage. A Medal Room was opened at the Philadelphia Mint in 1854. I think Medal Department is meant here and the date was 1855, not 1854. Screw presses were used for medals and proof coins through January 1894, when the hydraulic press was installed. Proof coins after 1836 were not struck twice. They were struck once with greater pressure, and a longer period. As proof coins through 1893 were struck on a screw press the second sentence cannot be correct. My understanding is that proofs were normally struck twice on the screw press but I have not yet found a citation to this effect. The larger steam powered presses could exert up to 100 tons per square inch. Coming down with that much force, striking the planchet, do you not think that the planchet might stick, adhere to the hammer die a little, possibly falling back in a different position in the lower anvil working die? In addition, the way the coining press worked, when the hammer die raised, the anvil die pushed the planchet up through the collar to be ejected. I have also read archive letters and other descriptions which show they were only struck once. If internal Mint letters exist showing that all proofs were struck only once they need to be published. Kevin >>
On the Medal Room, it was referred to as both the Medal Department and Medal Room. The Engraver was referred to as the Medal Engraver. Snowden wrote a memo establishing of the Medal Room during early 1854 I have a letter dated March 31, 1854 from Chief Engraver James Longacre to Director Snowden regarding the Medal Room being established. I did not see subsequent letters regarding the Medal Room during that general time period, as this correspondance was near the beginning of 1854, drew a conclusion that it opened in 1854. If you have other letters showing it opened in 1855, please include.
If you look at the photo of the Medal Room from James Rankin Young's book from 1903, obviously the third Philadelphia Mint, there is a screw press in the center right Not sure what the machine on the right is. Obviously you only see part of the room. I included a photo in my lincoln cent matte proof book.
Please show me documentation that a screw press was used through 1893 to strike proofs.
I agree that for a screw press, it would not be difficult to strike a planchet twice from a pair of working dies, you could simply reverse direction slightly and then again apply pressure.
I will look for other documents that show it was not a screw press used to strike proofs between 1836 and 1893.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>Up through 1836, the Mint used a screw press. True, but the screw press continued to be used after 1836 for proof coins. Starting in 1836, they used a Steam Powered press using a toggle joint principle. The pressure was modified by moving the toggle joint up or down, down being used to create greater pressure. Interesting, but this has nothing to do with proof coinage. A Medal Room was opened at the Philadelphia Mint in 1854. I think Medal Department is meant here and the date was 1855, not 1854. Screw presses were used for medals and proof coins through January 1894, when the hydraulic press was installed. Proof coins after 1836 were not struck twice. They were struck once with greater pressure, and a longer period. As proof coins through 1893 were struck on a screw press the second sentence cannot be correct. My understanding is that proofs were normally struck twice on the screw press but I have not yet found a citation to this effect. The larger steam powered presses could exert up to 100 tons per square inch. Coming down with that much force, striking the planchet, do you not think that the planchet might stick, adhere to the hammer die a little, possibly falling back in a different position in the lower anvil working die? In addition, the way the coining press worked, when the hammer die raised, the anvil die pushed the planchet up through the collar to be ejected. I have also read archive letters and other descriptions which show they were only struck once. If internal Mint letters exist showing that all proofs were struck only once they need to be published. Kevin >>
On the Medal Room, it was referred to as both the Medal Department and Medal Room. The Engraver was referred to as the Medal Engraver. Snowden wrote a memo establishing of the Medal Room during early 1854 I have a letter dated March 31, 1854 from Chief Engraver James Longacre to Director Snowden regarding the Medal Room being established. I did not see subsequent letters regarding the Medal Room during that general time period, as this correspondance was near the beginning of 1854, drew a conclusion that it opened in 1854. If you have other letters showing it opened in 1855, please include.
If you look at the photo of the Medal Room from James Rankin Young's book from 1903, obviously the third Philadelphia Mint, there is a screw press in the center right Not sure what the machine on the right is. Obviously you only see part of the room. I included a photo in my lincoln cent matte proof book.
Please show me documentation that a screw press was used through 1893 to strike proofs.
I agree that for a screw press, it would not be difficult to strike a planchet twice from a pair of working dies, you could simply reverse direction slightly and then again apply pressure.
I will look for other documents that show it was not a screw press used to strike proofs between 1836 and 1893.
Kevin >>
1. There are several internal Mint letters in 1854 referring to the proposed establishment of a medal department but it was not organized until the following year. The Treasury granted permission to create this division on March 7, 1855, and Mint Director James Ross Snowden formally opened the books on April 1. The initial fiscal accounts submitted to the Treasury auditors in July 1855, however, used the March date because of the Treasury order.
2. To give but one example of the screw press being used for proofs, on December 26, 1874, Philadelphia Mint Superintendent A. Loudon Snowden notified an individual that his medals would be delayed because the press had broken down. In mid January 1875 he wrote a collector that the proof coins he had ordered were delayed because the press had broken down. I think that it is a safe assumption that it was the same press in both cases.
@Denga ... that second point about the medal press and the Proof coin press being down at the same time is very telling. Obviously it was the same press.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
This is one of the more important and interesting threads in a long time. Only "Dipping" is in the same league. Thought-provoking once it became a dialogue..
Nevertheless...
I will continue to live with my illusions, technically unable to defend my position with absolute certainty based on lack of documents or technical scientific examination and analysis.
Proof? Specimen? 99% of numismatists of a practical bent will continue to understand what I mean and the intention of my description, sometimes including a caveat.
One might say that objective reality is sometimes superseded by a semantically-induced hallucination.
It is, of course, based on the underlying semiotics involved. Try Chomsky and Bakhtin on this.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
As I have mentioned before in other threads, I have seen a 1799 dollar that was fully struck, I believe from multiple strikes, from a crisp and polished die. I would have no problem calling that coin a Proof, but if TPTB wanted to call it a Specimen I would not lose sleep over it.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>As I have mentioned before in other threads, I have seen a 1799 dollar that was fully struck, I believe from multiple strikes, from a crisp and polished die. I would have no problem calling that coin a Proof, but if TPTB wanted to call it a Specimen I would not lose sleep over it. >>
MrE and I have a dispute about the Garrett-Hayes 1795 Bust $1. Its image is on a website MrE has pointed us to, Photos are by Jay Miller.
It is what it is. Which is much more conclusively a Specimen that the TDN '94. . I gasp. If anyone can post a link we'd all enjoy it. Some other ungodly Hayes coins there, but for now just receive the 1795 $1 coin.
You can classify it later.
Edited to add: Compared both photos.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
Edited to add: Considering the lighting's effects on both coins I was unfair to the SP66. I've never seen them side by side before. Both Illustrate a point. Hammered detail, hard smooth fields, very small variations. Special is as Special does. Some are very very Special what-cha ma-call-its, and they do whatever they want to.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
Just want to send a huge "thank you" to all who have participated in this thread. With so much argumentative garbage easily found on the internet, to find a group of knowledgeable folks, seriously talking numismatic history, must make one appreciative.
I've learned quite a bit about branch proofs here. May actually give me something special to try to collect.
That 1795 dollar above is the stuff that dreams are made of.
<< <i>Just want to send a huge "thank you" to all who have participated in this thread. With so much argumentative garbage easily found on the internet, to find a group of knowledgeable folks, seriously talking numismatic history, must make one appreciative. I've learned quite a bit about branch proofs here. May actually give me something special to try to collect. That 1795 dollar above is the stuff that dreams are made of. Where to begin? >>
I agree, it was definitely interesting and a good learning/sharing knowledge experience.
I believe in using the "method of manufacture" in part of the definition is towards the objective of showing intent of making coins with special care. In including the objective of coins struck for collectors, special occasion, ..., goes towards the distribution of the coins, not intended for circulation, but to be saved.
One of the primary arguments I have regarding some of these alleged branch mint proofs is why would coins be struck with special care, then released into circulation.
In my opinion, having this criteria in establishing a coin struck as a proof, prevents in part, coins being declared as proofs a 100 years after they were struck without evidence of intent. As an example is the 1894-S that was called a proof in 1940 in an auction, most likely to increase the profit.
One of the challenges with archive records is that the Mint did not normally document their process, I believe this was in part done because the Mint was also paranoid regarding counterfeiting.
<< <i>Just want to send a huge "thank you" to all who have participated in this thread. With so much argumentative garbage easily found on the internet, to find a group of knowledgeable folks, seriously talking numismatic history, must make one appreciative. I've learned quite a bit about branch proofs here. May actually give me something special to try to collect. That 1795 dollar above is the stuff that dreams are made of. Where to begin? >>
I agree, it was definitely interesting and a good learning/sharing knowledge experience.
I believe in using the "method of manufacture" in part of the definition is towards the objective of showing intent of making coins with special care. In including the objective of coins struck for collectors, special occasion, ..., goes towards the distribution of the coins, not intended for circulation, but to be saved.
One of the primary arguments I have regarding some of these alleged branch mint proofs is why would coins be struck with special care, then released into circulation.
In my opinion, having this criteria in establishing a coin struck as a proof, prevents in part, coins being declared as proofs a 100 years after they were struck without evidence of intent. As an example is the 1894-S that was called a proof in 1940 in an auction, most likely to increase the profit.
One of the challenges with archive records is that the Mint did not normally document their process, I believe this was in part done because the Mint was also paranoid regarding counterfeiting.
Kevin >>
Many collector coins have been released into circulation when the collector
a. dies b. gets robbed (look at the 1916 silver patterns) c. needs money
I once had a long chat with Abe Kosoff about the coin business during the Great Depression. He told me about a time when a serious collector came into the shop he was at with a collection of 19th century Proofs, including many gold proof sets through the $20.
They bought everything up through the $5 for a small premium over face value, but told the collector to spend the Proof $10's and $20's because the dealer did not want to tie up that much cash in them!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>One of the challenges with archive records is that the Mint did not normally document their process, I believe this was in part done because the Mint was also paranoid regarding counterfeiting. >>
Do you have documentation to support this alleged paranoia?
There is an 1891-O 25c out there in an ANACS PR holder. It has traded at the value of an equivalently graded MS piece. Actually a decent coin, at that level.
The thing has clash marks. How can a "proof" coin have clash marks?
<< <i>Just want to send a huge "thank you" to all who have participated in this thread. With so much argumentative garbage easily found on the internet, to find a group of knowledgeable folks, seriously talking numismatic history, must make one appreciative. I've learned quite a bit about branch proofs here. May actually give me something special to try to collect. That 1795 dollar above is the stuff that dreams are made of. Where to begin? >>
I agree, it was definitely interesting and a good learning/sharing knowledge experience. I believe in using the "method of manufacture" in part of the definition is towards the objective of showing intent of making coins with special care. In including the objective of coins struck for collectors, special occasion, ..., goes towards the distribution of the coins, not intended for circulation, but to be saved. One of the primary arguments I have regarding some of these alleged branch mint proofs is why would coins be struck with special care, then released into circulation. In my opinion, having this criteria in establishing a coin struck as a proof, prevents in part, coins being declared as proofs a 100 years after they were struck without evidence of intent. As an example is the 1894-S that was called a proof in 1940 in an auction, most likely to increase the profit. One of the challenges with archive records is that the Mint did not normally document their process, I believe this was in part done because the Mint was also paranoid regarding counterfeiting. Kevin >>
Many collector coins have been released into circulation when the collector a. dies b. gets robbed (look at the 1916 silver patterns) c. needs money I once had a long chat with Abe Kosoff about the coin business during the Great Depression. He told me about a time when a serious collector came into the shop he was at with a collection of 19th century Proofs, including many gold proof sets through the $20. They bought everything up through the $5 for a small premium over face value, but told the collector to spend the Proof $10's and $20's because the dealer did not want to tie up that much cash in them! >>
Tom,
Some good points, and I agree that in times of need, you spend what you have to survive. I believe lower denoms, such as the Linc and Buff matte proofs were sold during the depression, especially given that for 6 cents face value cost 8 cents for the proofs.
What is the probability that the Mint only struck one coin with special care. Why would they do the same, unless a pattern, or 1 struck specifically for a purpose, such as a sample for the Director of the Mint, which is what I believe was the 1851 Three cent silver proof, which there is only a single specimen.
What is the probability that if more than one struck and given to different people, that each was dumped into circulation.
If only 1 specimen is struck for a friend/family should that be a proof, as it was not for the purpose of collectors.....
<< <i>One of the challenges with archive records is that the Mint did not normally document their process, I believe this was in part done because the Mint was also paranoid regarding counterfeiting. >>
Do you have documentation to support this alleged paranoia? >>
No, quite the opposite, almost no records at all regarding proofing process. For most other processes, there are letters and descriptions from the individuals who was responsible for this.
<< <i>There is an 1891-O 25c out there in an ANACS PR holder. It has traded at the value of an equivalently graded MS piece. Actually a decent coin, at that level.
The thing has clash marks. How can a "proof" coin have clash marks? >>
I had a discussion about clash marks on supposed proof coins with a friend this weekend. Here's one to look at in the Heritage archives, although not a branch mint proof, it exhibits clash marks nonetheless. Heritage gives their own take on this:
I believe that there is a Proof gold dollar with clash marks, though I cannot remember the year.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
<< <i>Gentlemen, and ladies, this borders on the realm of theology, where people of good will can disagree with each other with nobody having the final answer. Agree to disagree. >>
Messydesk has it right, you have to define the term first.
Link
Trio of 1855-S Proofs offered in Chicago
1855-S Proof Three Dollar Gold Piece Unique A Supreme Rarity, PR64 Cameo 1855 S Proof Three Dollar Gold Piece Unique A Supreme Rarity, PR64 Cameo
A trio of 1855-S proof coins from the Golden Gate Collection, including the possibly unique $3 PR64 NGC. CAC., being offered by Heritage Auctions as part of the company's Aug. 11-12 Chicago Signature U.S. Coin & Platinum Night Auction, is generating serious buzz in the realm of high end collectors. Just looking at the three dollar coin from the front, it has every outward appearance of a Philadelphia Mint proof. Turn the coin over, however, and the 'S' mintmark on the reverse elevates this coin into a whole other realm. This is a supreme rarity and will be highly coveted by the top collectors in the world.
While the $3 1855-S is drawing the majority of the attention from the top echelon of numismatists, the coin is being offered along with two other important 1855-S proofs: an 1855-S 50C Arrows PR65 NGC. and an 1855-S 25C Arrows PR64 NGC.
1855-S 50C Arrows PR65 NGC 1855-S 50C Arrows PR65 NGC
The 1855-S $3 is unique as a proof and is arguably the single most important coin in the Platinum Night auction, while the 1855-S Seated Liberty Half Dollar, PR65 is one of just two known proofs and the only currently available specimen. The 1855-S Seated Liberty Quarter, PR64
NGC is equally alluring as a unique branch Mint Proof, believed to be the first-struck San Francisco Mint quarter dollar.
These coins will be cornerstone pieces in whatever advanced collection they end up in. We fully expect the bidding to be spirited and the prices to reflect the extreme rarity of the coins themselves.
1855-S 25C Arrows PR64 NGC
1855-S 25C Arrows PR64 NGC
The 1848 discovery of gold in California forever changed the region and the nation. As the Western population quickly swelled with prospectors, the scarcity of coinage made life extremely difficult. Gold dust was the medium of exchange in California and the individual prospectors typically received less than half its real value. Eventually the Federal Government stepped in, opening the United States Assay Office following Congressional legislation passed on Sept. 30, 1850. The first issues appeared early in 1851. The Assay Office was a temporary measure, however, and a full-fledged branch of the U.S. Mint opened in San Francisco in 1854.
When Walter Breen penned his Proof Encyclopedia, published in 1977, the proof 1855-S $3 gold piece was unknown to him. It made its first public appearance in the 1984 Apostrophe Sale. Breen's 1989 revision to his earlier work suggests a second proof example was known to him, but he gave no further details, other than to say it was in a "private collection." Until such time as the second piece makes its appearance, this proof 1855-S three has to be considered unique.
While the three coins are being offered as individual lots, their shared history makes them prime candidates to go to a single dedicated collector.
DOES ANYONE HAVE IMAGES OF A "PROOF" 1855-S HALF DOLLAR AND/OR 1855-S QUARTER DOLLAR?
We debate what coin was the first struck silver dollar based on ???? when only a percent of the entire run of coins is still around.
They should have put a serial number right across the obverse of every coin minted along with date and time.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
from the Heritage link you posted
<< <i>I think intent of the coiner is irrelevant to a coin being a proof or not. A US proof might
be defined as a coin struck twice by a basined die though some people would insist the dies,
blanks, or all three are polished. I don't believe you can positively discern whether a coin is
struck twice or not. Those struck twice will show all the details of the dies and single struck
specimens almost never do. You also can't be certain of the degree or the degree of the intent
of the polishing. >>
The Coiner, Press Foreman, or whomever operated the Coining Press is probably the most important individual in the striking of
a proof coin. The adjusted the pressure used, the pressure is important in the striking characteristics. This combined with
striking the coins at a slower speed was used to make sure the metal from the planchet had enough time and pressure to
be squeezed into the corners of the rim edges and deepest parts of the design elements.
Up through 1836, the Mint used a screw press.
Starting in 1836, they used a Steam Powered press using a toggle joint principle.
The pressure was modified by moving the toggle joint up or down, down being used to create greater pressure.
A Medal Room was opened at the Philadelphia Mint in 1854.
Proof coins after 1836 were not struck twice. They were struck once with greater pressure, and a longer period.
The larger steam powered presses could exert up to 100 tons per square inch. Coming down with that much force, striking the planchet,
do you not think that the planchet might stick, adhere to the hammer die a little, possibly falling back in a different position in the lower
anvil working die? In addition, the way the coining press worked, when the hammer die raised, the anvil die pushed the planchet
up through the collar to be ejected.
I have also read archive letters and other descriptions which show they were only struck once.
Kevin
<< <i>Without a clear and consistent definition of what a proof coin is, which we don't have, no argument about whether a coin is proof or not makes a lot of sense. Do the grading services even have consistent definitions between them? What's the meaning of a guarantee that a grading service will consistently apply its definition of proof with respect to a given coin when other entities are free to apply their own definitions? >>
From speaking to PCGS and NGC on this,
a branch mint proof requires documented evidence it was struck or intended to be struck as a proof.
a branch mint specimen designates a special strike, a coin which was clearly made with extra care and has a superior finish, which might not have documentry evidence of such.
Of course, the Branch Mints might not have had to knowledge, experience, and equipment to strike proofs equal to the quality of the Philadelphia counterparts, therefore, the quality might be slightly less. But also if you consider the time from from 1818 through 1916, the manufacture of proof coins changed based upon equipment, techniques, experience, we see differences in quality based upon these factors.
A good example is the 1875-S Twent cent piece that was called a proof. There is no documented evidence that it was struck or intended to be struck as a proof. Yet, you have a die state which has superior striking characteristics in the design elements and rim edge. You have different die states of coins from the same working dies that show less. Therefore, these are distinguishable and will subsequently be called specimens.
Kevin
<< <i>I think we put more thought into wether the branch mint coins are "proof" than the actual branch mints ever did. But back when they sold for a nickel or so over face i doubt they ever thought they would be worth the price they command today. Record keeping was pretty lax back then, they seemed more concerned that the money in and out added up to the correct figure.
We debate what coin was the first struck silver dollar based on ???? when only a percent of the entire run of coins is still around.
They should have put a serial number right across the obverse of every coin minted along with date and time.
If a special strike was made for a friend or individual, or if done illegally, such as the 1804 dollar Type II III, many of the restrikes, I would agree, there is little documentation.
For some of these, we have documents from the Superintendents of the Branch Mints to the Director of the Mint submitting coins
to show the quality of the first coins struck, some of these were put in the Cabinet Collection, that now resides in the Smithsonian.
Sometimes special strikes, proofs, patterns, were requested by the higher ups, such as the Secretary of the Treasury. For example, I just saw a request from the Secretary of the Treasury for 6 1868 Aluminum Proof Sets in 1868. Linderman was known to have many coins in his estate auction, such as a 1868 Aluminum set, 1804 Dollar, and a few other goodies.
Also, some Directors, Superintendents, and others were more about having written documentation than others.
Kevin
<< <i>Sometimes special strikes, proofs, patterns, were requested by the higher ups, such as the Secretary of the Treasury. For example, I just saw a request from the Secretary of the Treasury for 6 1868 Aluminum Proof Sets in 1868. Linderman was known to have many coins in his estate auction, such as a 1868 Aluminum set, 1804 Dollar, and a few other goodies.
Also, some Directors, Superintendents, and others were more about having written documentation than others.
Kevin >>
The gov't disagreed with what Linderman called 'his'.
<< <i>
The Coiner, Press Foreman, or whomever operated the Coining Press is probably the most important individual in the striking of
a proof coin. The adjusted the pressure used, the pressure is important in the striking characteristics. This combined with
striking the coins at a slower speed was used to make sure the metal from the planchet had enough time and pressure to
be squeezed into the corners of the rim edges and deepest parts of the design elements.
>>
I have to disagree. A coin is what it is regardless of the intent of the coiner. If they intended
to strike a proof but neglected to strike it twice and to basin the dies then it is not a proof even
if they went ahead and attached papers to it calling it a proof. If these conditions apply to a
coin that was released through normal channels then it is still a proof even when the coiner
insists all proofs are sold separately or through numismatic channels.
I think we might be getting bogged down in semantics largely because of the existence of PL's.
These range from barely PL at all to virtually indistinguishable from Proof. I believe the best way
to deal with this is to just call anything that appears proof to be proof as well as anything with
a pedigree that says it's proof (unless it obviously isn't). Perhaps we should use the term "spec-
imen" more to cover most of the "tweeners" and special issues that aren't truly proof. Words are
just for communication and should convey as much information as possible. Without precise mean-
ing there is not much information.
<< <i>
<< <i>Gentlemen, and ladies, this borders on the realm of theology, where people of good will can disagree with each other with nobody having the final answer. Agree to disagree. >>
Messydesk has it right, you have to define the term first. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>Sometimes special strikes, proofs, patterns, were requested by the higher ups, such as the Secretary of the Treasury. For example, I just saw a request from the Secretary of the Treasury for 6 1868 Aluminum Proof Sets in 1868. Linderman was known to have many coins in his estate auction, such as a 1868 Aluminum set, 1804 Dollar, and a few other goodies.
Also, some Directors, Superintendents, and others were more about having written documentation than others.
Kevin >>
The gov't disagreed with what Linderman called 'his'.
Thanks for that, interesting
I remember reading recently that Director Kimball was entirely against patterns, we see production and sale of patterns stopping
from 1886 through i believe 1889
to strike a proof but neglected to strike it twice and to basin the dies then it is not a proof even
if they went ahead and attached papers to it calling it a proof. If these conditions apply to a
coin that was released through normal channels then it is still a proof even when the coiner
insists all proofs are sold separately or through numismatic channels.
>>
Ok, I would agree in part that the intent of the Coiner in most cases would be irrelevant in the creation of the proof coinage
as that is not their job, to decide whether a coin should be struck as a proof. I was more focussed on the fact that the Coiner's
actions in creating a proof coin was important.
The exception to the above was for example the 1838-O Bust Half Dollar, which the Coiner did some 20 test strikes, which were
subsequently sent out to officiials and others as presentation pieces.
I believe the other exception is when for example the Coiner/Head Foreman decides to test the pressure used on a new denomination
to see what is best. This, in my opinion, is what happened to the 1875-S Twenty cent pieces that exhibit strong striking characteristics.
In theory you are correct that a coin can be created of less quality than others. In practice though, normally the Coiner delivered the proof coins to the Superintendant, who inspected them, rejected those which did not meet the minimal standards and quality.
Can you show me evidence of multiple strikings in the coining press of proof coins in the 19th century please.
Kevin
<< <i>
from the Heritage link you posted >>
Thanks for posting.
If nothing else, those two are certainly "great specimens!"
And what if a coin not so engraved (but clearly from one of the first die pairs received by the SF Mint based on its VAM designation), looks like this (see the toned coin)
http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/CoinImages.aspx?s=7083
and an "real" proof looks like this (see the toned coin)?
http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/CoinImages.aspx?s=87312
<< <i>
Can you show me evidence of multiple strikings in the coining press of proof coins in the 19th century please.
>>
No.
I had believed, perhaps mistakingly, that all US proofs including those of the 19th century were struck twice.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Can you show me evidence of multiple strikings in the coining press of proof coins in the 19th century please.
>>
No.
I had believed, perhaps mistakingly, that all US proofs including those of the 19th century were struck twice. >>
Read page 41 of Evans - Mint History
<< <i>
Read page 41 of Evans - Mint History >>
We can agree to call "master coins" proofs without changing the definition of the
word "proof" as it relates to US coins. I personally think this would be confusing
and shouldn't be done but I have no dog in the fight and it's just a matter of con-
vention.
The question at hand is what's a proof and this generally is accepted to mean a coin
struck two or more times by a basined die as it applies to US coins. Experts in series
are usually able to mke a pretty good guess as to whether a coin was struck twice
or not. It seems the existence of branch mint proofs is certain and some are docu-
mented.
It is possible some of these master coins were struck twice?
I'm not suggesting that it's easy to spot branch mint proofs from highly PL specimens,
merely that there's no reason the terminology has to be a stumbling point.
Thanks for the link.
<< <i>We can agree to call "master coins" proofs without changing the definition of the word "proof" as it relates to US coins. I personally think this would be confusing and shouldn't be done but I have no dog in the fight and it's just a matter of convention. >>
I agree for today's definition but in 1885, "master coins" were already being called proofs. An issue is what was designated as proof back then does not meet the definition of proof today. And it's not right to try to impose the changed definition to fit something that was made before the change occurred.
I don't know the answer to this, but when did the definition of a proof change to being a method of manufacturing?
The 1906-D NGC-Specimen Barber Dime is so unlike any other 06-D Barber Dime that such enthusiasm is understandable (though I must admit $28,000 is a lot of money.)
Kevin
Actually the coiner made the decision on quality. It is true, however, that the proof coins after
1873 were delivered to the superintendent, who then arranged for their sale to collectors.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think intent of the coiner is irrelevant to a coin being a proof or not. A US proof might
be defined as a coin struck twice by a basined die though some people would insist the dies,
blanks, or all three are polished. I don't believe you can positively discern whether a coin is
struck twice or not. Those struck twice will show all the details of the dies and single struck
specimens almost never do. You also can't be certain of the degree or the degree of the intent
of the polishing. >>
The Coiner, Press Foreman, or whomever operated the Coining Press is probably the most important individual in the striking of
a proof coin. The adjusted the pressure used, the pressure is important in the striking characteristics. This combined with
striking the coins at a slower speed was used to make sure the metal from the planchet had enough time and pressure to
be squeezed into the corners of the rim edges and deepest parts of the design elements.
Up through 1836, the Mint used a screw press.
Starting in 1836, they used a Steam Powered press using a toggle joint principle.
The pressure was modified by moving the toggle joint up or down, down being used to create greater pressure.
A Medal Room was opened at the Philadelphia Mint in 1854.
Proof coins after 1836 were not struck twice. They were struck once with greater pressure, and a longer period.
The larger steam powered presses could exert up to 100 tons per square inch. Coming down with that much force, striking the planchet,
do you not think that the planchet might stick, adhere to the hammer die a little, possibly falling back in a different position in the lower
anvil working die? In addition, the way the coining press worked, when the hammer die raised, the anvil die pushed the planchet
up through the collar to be ejected.
I have also read archive letters and other descriptions which show they were only struck once.
Kevin >>
Can you document these statements?
I believe that 19th century Proofs were struck, twice if not more, on a large screw press kept in the Mint until 1894 for that purpose and other purposes. Unfortunately, I am unable to document this belief as my library is still in boxes from my recent move.
I do know that over the years I have seen a few 19th century Proofs with close double strikes, and a few patterns. When we saw them at ANACS we did not make mention of the close double striking as it seemed to just be a slight bit of sloppiness in an otherwise normal procedure.
TD
He says:
When the Philadelphia Mint officially started selling special coins made for coin collectors (most likely in 1859), it used the terms "special", "master", "proof" and "bright" as synonyms (much as did the British Royal Mint). By about 1863, the term "proof coin" was most commonly used to indicate a piece struck especially for collectors. The die fields and planchets were polished and coins were sold individually or in sets.
All special and master coins were struck on the large medal press. This [press] was also used for making hubs and larger working dies. Some master coins might have been struck more than once, in the style of a medal, but without annealing between strikes. Coins did not receive any special post-strike finishing that was common for medals. Regardless of the name applied or the surface appearance, all "proof" coins were made on a medal press either of the screw-type or hydraulic.
(Parts of the above text have been paraphrased or sentences moved from one paragraph to another, hopefully without damaging Roger's intent or the flow of his text.)
Regarding branch mint proofs:
Roger has a couple of substantial paragraphs, which I won't transcribe here. He says that there is virtually no documentation to support the assertion that any of them were made at a branch mint. Most of these coins, upon examination, have been determined to be proof-like examples made from polished dies or new dies and then put away as souvenirs by mint employees. (Presumably, these were coins actually struck at branch mints, although Roger doesn't say that.)
However, some of these coins conform to "authentic proofs". Since none of the branch mints had a medal press, these coins are presumed to have been made at the Philadelphia mint. Again, the lack of documentation presents difficulties. He does say that these coins might have been made as an undocumented special request from a branch mint official.
Check out the Southern Gold Society
Up through 1836, the Mint used a screw press.
True, but the screw press continued to be used after 1836 for proof coins.
Starting in 1836, they used a Steam Powered press using a toggle joint principle.
The pressure was modified by moving the toggle joint up or down, down being used to create greater pressure.
Interesting, but this has nothing to do with proof coinage.
A Medal Room was opened at the Philadelphia Mint in 1854.
I think Medal Department is meant here and the date was 1855, not 1854. Screw presses were
used for medals and proof coins through January 1894, when the hydraulic press was installed.
Proof coins after 1836 were not struck twice. They were struck once with greater pressure, and a longer period.
As proof coins through 1893 were struck on a screw press the second sentence cannot be correct.
My understanding is that proofs were normally struck twice on the screw press but I have not yet
found a citation to this effect.
The larger steam powered presses could exert up to 100 tons per square inch. Coming down with that much force, striking the planchet,
do you not think that the planchet might stick, adhere to the hammer die a little, possibly falling back in a different position in the lower
anvil working die? In addition, the way the coining press worked, when the hammer die raised, the anvil die pushed the planchet
up through the collar to be ejected.
I have also read archive letters and other descriptions which show they were only struck once.
If internal Mint letters exist showing that all proofs were struck only once they need to be published.
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Can you show me evidence of multiple strikings in the coining press of proof coins in the 19th century please.
>>
No.
I had believed, perhaps mistakingly, that all US proofs including those of the 19th century were struck twice. >>
Read page 41 of Evans - Mint History >>
I read Evans, page 41, did not state proof coins were struck twice, nor does it say that the screw press was used to strike all proofs between 1836 and 1893.
On page 41 it states, "master coins of the Mint, a term used to signifiy first pieces from new dies, bearing a high polish and struck with extra care. These are now more commonly called proof pieces."
On page 178 it states "Proof condition designates a coin made expressly for collectors, and other mints, to preserve our coinage in first-class condition for posterity. Proof coinss are made from dies prepared expressly for the purpose, and are polished to a great degree of brightness. The planchets are also prepared expressly for receiving proof impressions, being highly polished and otherwise prepared for sharp, even impressions. There are usually proofs of all of the annual coinage for distribution among the Numismatic Societies, collectors, and mints of the world."
On page 44 it states "is the medal striking room, where medals are struck by a screw press, worked by hand."
I do not disagree that there was a screw press in the medal room that was used to strike medals.
I read through all of the other sections including Coining Press and others.
Please show me where it states proofs were struck twice.
Please show me where it states proofs were struck through 1894 on the screw press.
Sorry it took so long to get back and answer, was out at the Pittsburg coin show.
Thanks
Kevin
<< <i>Up through 1836, the Mint used a screw press.
True, but the screw press continued to be used after 1836 for proof coins.
Starting in 1836, they used a Steam Powered press using a toggle joint principle.
The pressure was modified by moving the toggle joint up or down, down being used to create greater pressure.
Interesting, but this has nothing to do with proof coinage.
A Medal Room was opened at the Philadelphia Mint in 1854.
I think Medal Department is meant here and the date was 1855, not 1854. Screw presses were
used for medals and proof coins through January 1894, when the hydraulic press was installed.
Proof coins after 1836 were not struck twice. They were struck once with greater pressure, and a longer period.
As proof coins through 1893 were struck on a screw press the second sentence cannot be correct.
My understanding is that proofs were normally struck twice on the screw press but I have not yet
found a citation to this effect.
The larger steam powered presses could exert up to 100 tons per square inch. Coming down with that much force, striking the planchet,
do you not think that the planchet might stick, adhere to the hammer die a little, possibly falling back in a different position in the lower
anvil working die? In addition, the way the coining press worked, when the hammer die raised, the anvil die pushed the planchet
up through the collar to be ejected.
I have also read archive letters and other descriptions which show they were only struck once.
If internal Mint letters exist showing that all proofs were struck only once they need to be published.
Kevin >>
On the Medal Room, it was referred to as both the Medal Department and Medal Room. The Engraver was referred to as the Medal Engraver.
Snowden wrote a memo establishing of the Medal Room during early 1854
I have a letter dated March 31, 1854 from Chief Engraver James Longacre to Director Snowden regarding the Medal Room being established.
I did not see subsequent letters regarding the Medal Room during that general time period, as this correspondance was near the beginning of 1854, drew a conclusion that it opened in 1854.
If you have other letters showing it opened in 1855, please include.
If you look at the photo of the Medal Room from James Rankin Young's book from 1903, obviously the third Philadelphia Mint, there is a screw press in the center right
Not sure what the machine on the right is. Obviously you only see part of the room. I included a photo in my lincoln cent matte proof book.
Please show me documentation that a screw press was used through 1893 to strike proofs.
I agree that for a screw press, it would not be difficult to strike a planchet twice from a pair of working dies, you could simply reverse direction slightly and then again apply pressure.
I will look for other documents that show it was not a screw press used to strike proofs between 1836 and 1893.
Kevin
linky
<< <i>
<< <i>Up through 1836, the Mint used a screw press.
True, but the screw press continued to be used after 1836 for proof coins.
Starting in 1836, they used a Steam Powered press using a toggle joint principle.
The pressure was modified by moving the toggle joint up or down, down being used to create greater pressure.
Interesting, but this has nothing to do with proof coinage.
A Medal Room was opened at the Philadelphia Mint in 1854.
I think Medal Department is meant here and the date was 1855, not 1854. Screw presses were
used for medals and proof coins through January 1894, when the hydraulic press was installed.
Proof coins after 1836 were not struck twice. They were struck once with greater pressure, and a longer period.
As proof coins through 1893 were struck on a screw press the second sentence cannot be correct.
My understanding is that proofs were normally struck twice on the screw press but I have not yet
found a citation to this effect.
The larger steam powered presses could exert up to 100 tons per square inch. Coming down with that much force, striking the planchet,
do you not think that the planchet might stick, adhere to the hammer die a little, possibly falling back in a different position in the lower
anvil working die? In addition, the way the coining press worked, when the hammer die raised, the anvil die pushed the planchet
up through the collar to be ejected.
I have also read archive letters and other descriptions which show they were only struck once.
If internal Mint letters exist showing that all proofs were struck only once they need to be published.
Kevin >>
On the Medal Room, it was referred to as both the Medal Department and Medal Room. The Engraver was referred to as the Medal Engraver.
Snowden wrote a memo establishing of the Medal Room during early 1854
I have a letter dated March 31, 1854 from Chief Engraver James Longacre to Director Snowden regarding the Medal Room being established.
I did not see subsequent letters regarding the Medal Room during that general time period, as this correspondance was near the beginning of 1854, drew a conclusion that it opened in 1854.
If you have other letters showing it opened in 1855, please include.
If you look at the photo of the Medal Room from James Rankin Young's book from 1903, obviously the third Philadelphia Mint, there is a screw press in the center right
Not sure what the machine on the right is. Obviously you only see part of the room. I included a photo in my lincoln cent matte proof book.
Please show me documentation that a screw press was used through 1893 to strike proofs.
I agree that for a screw press, it would not be difficult to strike a planchet twice from a pair of working dies, you could simply reverse direction slightly and then again apply pressure.
I will look for other documents that show it was not a screw press used to strike proofs between 1836 and 1893.
Kevin >>
1. There are several internal Mint letters in 1854 referring to the proposed establishment of a medal department but it was not
organized until the following year. The Treasury granted permission to create this division on March 7, 1855, and Mint Director
James Ross Snowden formally opened the books on April 1. The initial fiscal accounts submitted to the Treasury auditors in
July 1855, however, used the March date because of the Treasury order.
2. To give but one example of the screw press being used for proofs, on December 26, 1874, Philadelphia Mint Superintendent
A. Loudon Snowden notified an individual that his medals would be delayed because the press had broken down. In mid January
1875 he wrote a collector that the proof coins he had ordered were delayed because the press had broken down. I think that it is a
safe assumption that it was the same press in both cases.
Nevertheless...
I will continue to live with my illusions, technically unable to defend my position with absolute certainty based on lack of documents or technical scientific examination and analysis.
Proof? Specimen? 99% of numismatists of a practical bent will continue to understand what I mean and the intention of my description, sometimes including a caveat.
One might say that objective reality is sometimes superseded by a semantically-induced hallucination.
It is, of course, based on the underlying semiotics involved. Try Chomsky and Bakhtin on this.
<< <i>As I have mentioned before in other threads, I have seen a 1799 dollar that was fully struck, I believe from multiple strikes, from a crisp and polished die. I would have no problem calling that coin a Proof, but if TPTB wanted to call it a Specimen I would not lose sleep over it. >>
MrE and I have a dispute about the Garrett-Hayes 1795 Bust $1. Its image is on a website MrE has pointed us to, Photos are by Jay Miller.
It is what it is. Which is much more conclusively a Specimen that the TDN '94. . I gasp. If anyone can post a link we'd all enjoy it. Some other ungodly Hayes coins there, but for now just receive the 1795 $1 coin.
You can classify it later.
Edited to add: Compared both photos.
Edited to add:
Considering the lighting's effects on both coins I was unfair to the SP66. I've never seen them side by side before. Both Illustrate a point. Hammered detail, hard smooth fields, very small variations. Special is as Special does. Some are very very Special what-cha ma-call-its, and they do whatever they want to.
<< <i>1795 bust dollar
I'm hardly an expert on this series and perhaps no one can tell from a picture
but that certainly appears to have been struck multiple times.
out
of
some
stinkin'
ersatz
novodel
<< <i>
<< <i>1795 bust dollar
I'm hardly an expert on this series and perhaps no one can tell from a picture
but that certainly appears to have been struck at the Gallery Mint >>
Fixed it for you.
to find a group of knowledgeable folks, seriously talking numismatic history, must make one appreciative.
I've learned quite a bit about branch proofs here. May actually give me something special to try to collect.
That 1795 dollar above is the stuff that dreams are made of.
Where to begin?
<< <i>Just want to send a huge "thank you" to all who have participated in this thread. With so much argumentative garbage easily found on the internet,
to find a group of knowledgeable folks, seriously talking numismatic history, must make one appreciative.
I've learned quite a bit about branch proofs here. May actually give me something special to try to collect.
That 1795 dollar above is the stuff that dreams are made of.
Where to begin? >>
I agree, it was definitely interesting and a good learning/sharing knowledge experience.
I believe in using the "method of manufacture" in part of the definition is towards the objective of showing intent of making coins with special care.
In including the objective of coins struck for collectors, special occasion, ..., goes towards the distribution of the coins, not intended for circulation, but to be saved.
One of the primary arguments I have regarding some of these alleged branch mint proofs is why would coins be struck with special care, then released into circulation.
In my opinion, having this criteria in establishing a coin struck as a proof, prevents in part, coins being declared as proofs a 100 years after they were struck without evidence of intent.
As an example is the 1894-S that was called a proof in 1940 in an auction, most likely to increase the profit.
One of the challenges with archive records is that the Mint did not normally document their process, I believe this was in part done because the Mint was also paranoid regarding counterfeiting.
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>Just want to send a huge "thank you" to all who have participated in this thread. With so much argumentative garbage easily found on the internet,
to find a group of knowledgeable folks, seriously talking numismatic history, must make one appreciative.
I've learned quite a bit about branch proofs here. May actually give me something special to try to collect.
That 1795 dollar above is the stuff that dreams are made of.
Where to begin? >>
I agree, it was definitely interesting and a good learning/sharing knowledge experience.
I believe in using the "method of manufacture" in part of the definition is towards the objective of showing intent of making coins with special care.
In including the objective of coins struck for collectors, special occasion, ..., goes towards the distribution of the coins, not intended for circulation, but to be saved.
One of the primary arguments I have regarding some of these alleged branch mint proofs is why would coins be struck with special care, then released into circulation.
In my opinion, having this criteria in establishing a coin struck as a proof, prevents in part, coins being declared as proofs a 100 years after they were struck without evidence of intent.
As an example is the 1894-S that was called a proof in 1940 in an auction, most likely to increase the profit.
One of the challenges with archive records is that the Mint did not normally document their process, I believe this was in part done because the Mint was also paranoid regarding counterfeiting.
Kevin >>
Many collector coins have been released into circulation when the collector
a. dies
b. gets robbed (look at the 1916 silver patterns)
c. needs money
I once had a long chat with Abe Kosoff about the coin business during the Great Depression. He told me about a time when a serious collector came into the shop he was at with a collection of 19th century Proofs, including many gold proof sets through the $20.
They bought everything up through the $5 for a small premium over face value, but told the collector to spend the Proof $10's and $20's because the dealer did not want to tie up that much cash in them!
<< <i>One of the challenges with archive records is that the Mint did not normally document their process, I believe this was in part done because the Mint was also paranoid regarding counterfeiting. >>
Do you have documentation to support this alleged paranoia?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>At the lower end of the spectrum, can any branch mint proofs be had for less than $2,000? >>
The James A Stack 1861-O 50c SP64 NGC sold for $97,750 CSNS HA 4/08 CSNS.
There's been an ANACS Specimen Seated O-Mint 50c in an auction more than once over the years.
Not the Buddy Byers Stacks 2006 coin.
Also I'd love to hear some people make fools of themselves showing other MM proofs. I've already been chastised about the pesky 94-S
Three pattern Pan-Pac 50c were at auction recently. One missing an "S"
At what mint were they produced?
The thing has clash marks. How can a "proof" coin have clash marks?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Just want to send a huge "thank you" to all who have participated in this thread. With so much argumentative garbage easily found on the internet,
to find a group of knowledgeable folks, seriously talking numismatic history, must make one appreciative.
I've learned quite a bit about branch proofs here. May actually give me something special to try to collect.
That 1795 dollar above is the stuff that dreams are made of.
Where to begin? >>
I agree, it was definitely interesting and a good learning/sharing knowledge experience.
I believe in using the "method of manufacture" in part of the definition is towards the objective of showing intent of making coins with special care.
In including the objective of coins struck for collectors, special occasion, ..., goes towards the distribution of the coins, not intended for circulation, but to be saved.
One of the primary arguments I have regarding some of these alleged branch mint proofs is why would coins be struck with special care, then released into circulation.
In my opinion, having this criteria in establishing a coin struck as a proof, prevents in part, coins being declared as proofs a 100 years after they were struck without evidence of intent.
As an example is the 1894-S that was called a proof in 1940 in an auction, most likely to increase the profit.
One of the challenges with archive records is that the Mint did not normally document their process, I believe this was in part done because the Mint was also paranoid regarding counterfeiting.
Kevin >>
Many collector coins have been released into circulation when the collector
a. dies
b. gets robbed (look at the 1916 silver patterns)
c. needs money
I once had a long chat with Abe Kosoff about the coin business during the Great Depression. He told me about a time when a serious collector came into the shop he was at with a collection of 19th century Proofs, including many gold proof sets through the $20.
They bought everything up through the $5 for a small premium over face value, but told the collector to spend the Proof $10's and $20's because the dealer did not want to tie up that much cash in them! >>
Tom,
Some good points, and I agree that in times of need, you spend what you have to survive.
I believe lower denoms, such as the Linc and Buff matte proofs were sold during the depression, especially given that for 6 cents face value cost 8 cents for the proofs.
What is the probability that the Mint only struck one coin with special care. Why would they do the same, unless a pattern, or 1 struck specifically for a purpose, such as a sample for the Director of the Mint,
which is what I believe was the 1851 Three cent silver proof, which there is only a single specimen.
What is the probability that if more than one struck and given to different people, that each was dumped into circulation.
If only 1 specimen is struck for a friend/family should that be a proof, as it was not for the purpose of collectors.....
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>One of the challenges with archive records is that the Mint did not normally document their process, I believe this was in part done because the Mint was also paranoid regarding counterfeiting. >>
Do you have documentation to support this alleged paranoia?
No, quite the opposite, almost no records at all regarding proofing process. For most other processes, there are letters and descriptions from the individuals who was responsible for this.
This is why I believe this to be true.
<< <i>There is an 1891-O 25c out there in an ANACS PR holder. It has traded at the value of an equivalently graded MS piece. Actually a decent coin, at that level.
The thing has clash marks. How can a "proof" coin have clash marks? >>
I had a discussion about clash marks on supposed proof coins with a friend this weekend. Here's one to look at in the Heritage archives, although not a branch mint proof, it exhibits clash marks nonetheless. Heritage gives their own take on this:
1853 proof dime
<< <i>I believe that there is a Proof gold dollar with clash marks, though I cannot remember the year. >>
There's a die cap 68 proof half dollar.
100