<< <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! >>
That's really something, Tom! Shows clearly how cash was dear at the time. Similar stories about Mehl spending Matte Proof St Gaudens', due to their fetching so relatively little over face? Would that have been about the same timeframe?
The 1795 Bust silver dollar posted by jhdfla is an interesting piece. In early March 1796 Mint Director Elias Boudinot sent several United States coins to Samuel Bayard – the American Claims Commissioner in London – as examples of the best that could be done at the Philadelphia Mint. It was understood by Boudinot, of course, that Bayard would show them to others, especially members of the upper classes. Among other coins, two silver dollars were sent and it can be readily assumed that the Flowing Hair and Draped Bust designs made up the two pieces. Boudinot would certainly have sent the best that could be done and coins struck more than once on polished planchets – and with polished dies – would have been the proper way to do so.
The link provided by jhdfla indicates that 1he illustrated piece was once part of the Hayes collection and possibly came from England. If that is the case we have perhaps one of the few times that a specimen of this caliber can be tentatively traced to a particular presentation and date.
If the above scenario is correct then it would also appear that the 1795 Draped Bust dies were still in use at the time of the Boudinot letter, March 5, 1796.
I have nothing to add, but just want to say what a great read this thread has been. Very informative!
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
<< <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>The thing has clash marks. How can a "proof" coin have clash marks? >>
Nothing that defines a proof coin precludes a die being used in the production of one from having clash marks, even though it would produce a coin of quality unbecoming of a proof coin.
<< <i>The thing has clash marks. How can a "proof" coin have clash marks? >>
Nothing that defines a proof coin precludes a die being used in the production of one from having clash marks, even though it would produce a coin of quality unbecoming of a proof coin. >>
For my recent book, Off-center and multi-denominational clashed dies, I included a 1970-S Kennedy Half Dollar, that Fred Weinberg loaned me, that had one of the deepest clashes on obv and rev that I have ever seen.
Clashing was almost seen down to the deepest parts of the design, obviously greater pressure is used for proofs, which will normally result in deeper clashing if no planchet between.
Went back through a majority of my archive records between 1836 and 1893, could not find any, except for the one included earlier regarding the Columbian Half Dollar proofs, which stated which coining press was used for proof coinage.
As I will be researching this timeline again when researching for each of the Liberty Seated books, will keep an eye out for any which might shed some light on this and update this thread.
If a screw press was used up through 1893, and a hydraulic press in 1893 or 94 for proof coins, is there any difference in quality that can be detected, either by improved striking characteristics, more consistent striking characteristics, or other?
As a screw press is a manual operation, is there any differences in the quality within coins of the same series, or coins of different denominations?
Easily one of the best threads of 2013. Thanks to all that participated. Kevin, Denga, Col Jessep. Its nice to see your passion and different perspectives on things.
I have always been a fan of really well made proof coins, but there is something special about SP coins.
I viewed a handful of BMP and SP coins at CSNS. The Morgans of 83-0 and 95-0 were clear cut proofs....and graded that way. Too bad that were dipped out white. My fav was the SP 93-CC Morgan, not a proof but a SP. Charming is the word I would use. Very nice color and surfaces. Def diff fabric than the 83-O and the 95-O, but more of a super dooper, specially made biz strike, hence the SP designation.
Went down to the ANA Library and checked out the book. Nothing earth-shattering.
On P. 65 is a section "The Medal Room." It mentions the screw press seen on P. 66 as follows:
"Off in an out-of-the-way corner is the old-fashioned hand screw press, with its long arms and heavy weights. The foreman, growing reminiscent, tells how, as a helper, he used to get those arms going round at such a gait that they would move the whole machine."
So, within his time at the Mint the screw press was used to mass produce something, but it does not say what.
Earlier in the section is the comment: "In a single room ...(location)... is the medal room, a department under the Coiner though almost an independent mint in itself. All the 'proof coins' (those given a particularly fine finish) and medals are made in this room. On one side of the room is a small furnace and melting pot where melts can be made if necessary...."
What would they need to do melts for? Medals and patterns?
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.
Proof Morgans seemingly progressively from 1890 through to 1893 more than occasionally have soft strikes over the ear and, less so, the eagle's breast. This doesn't impair their DCAM qualities in any way.
In 1894 the sharpness goes full and the DCAM runs through '98.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
Wandering through the Young book, there is a picture of the Die Room with what look like a line of lathes, I would guess for the machining of dies, but in the background is yet another large screw press with a worker seated at it. There are no workers present to swing the arms of the press.
I wonder what the die room used a screw press for? Perhaps it was the driving force behind the dating and mintmarking of dies? (This is just speculation on my part. The text says nothing, and you cannot see what the worker is doing.)
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>
<< <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! >>
That's really something, Tom! Shows clearly how cash was dear at the time. Similar stories about Mehl spending Matte Proof St Gaudens', due to their fetching so relatively little over face? Would that have been about the same timeframe?
sent several United States coins to Samuel Bayard – the American Claims Commissioner in London – as examples
of the best that could be done at the Philadelphia Mint. It was understood by Boudinot, of course, that Bayard would
show them to others, especially members of the upper classes. Among other coins, two silver dollars were sent and
it can be readily assumed that the Flowing Hair and Draped Bust designs made up the two pieces. Boudinot would
certainly have sent the best that could be done and coins struck more than once on polished planchets – and with
polished dies – would have been the proper way to do so.
The link provided by jhdfla indicates that 1he illustrated piece was once part of the Hayes collection and possibly came
from England. If that is the case we have perhaps one of the few times that a specimen of this caliber can be tentatively
traced to a particular presentation and date.
If the above scenario is correct then it would also appear that the 1795 Draped Bust dies were still in use at the time of
the Boudinot letter, March 5, 1796.
<< <i>The James A Stack 1861-O 50c SP64 NGC sold for $97,750 CSNS HA 4/08 CSNS. >>
from
http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1104&lotIdNo=182017
<< <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? >>
ANACS PR62
from
http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1114&lotIdNo=202010
<< <i>The thing has clash marks. How can a "proof" coin have clash marks? >>
Nothing that defines a proof coin precludes a die being used in the production of one from having clash marks, even though it would produce a coin of quality unbecoming of a proof coin.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>
<< <i>The thing has clash marks. How can a "proof" coin have clash marks? >>
Nothing that defines a proof coin precludes a die being used in the production of one from having clash marks, even though it would produce a coin of quality unbecoming of a proof coin. >>
For my recent book, Off-center and multi-denominational clashed dies, I included a 1970-S Kennedy Half Dollar, that Fred Weinberg loaned me, that had one of the deepest clashes on obv and rev that I have ever seen.
Clashing was almost seen down to the deepest parts of the design, obviously greater pressure is used for proofs, which will normally result in deeper clashing if no planchet between.
Kevin
except for the one included earlier regarding the Columbian Half Dollar proofs,
which stated which coining press was used for proof coinage.
As I will be researching this timeline again when researching for each of the Liberty Seated books, will keep an eye out for any which might shed some light on this and update this thread.
If a screw press was used up through 1893, and a hydraulic press in 1893 or 94 for proof coins,
is there any difference in quality that can be detected, either by improved striking characteristics, more consistent striking characteristics, or other?
As a screw press is a manual operation, is there any differences in the quality within coins of the same series, or coins of different denominations?
Thanks
Kevin
I have always been a fan of really well made proof coins, but there is something special about SP coins.
I viewed a handful of BMP and SP coins at CSNS. The Morgans of 83-0 and 95-0 were clear cut proofs....and graded that way. Too bad that were dipped out white. My fav was the SP 93-CC Morgan, not a proof but a SP. Charming is the word I would use. Very nice color and surfaces. Def diff fabric than the 83-O and the 95-O, but more of a super dooper, specially made biz strike, hence the SP designation.
<< <i>The screw press illustrated in James Rankin Young's book:
linky >>
Went down to the ANA Library and checked out the book. Nothing earth-shattering.
On P. 65 is a section "The Medal Room." It mentions the screw press seen on P. 66 as follows:
"Off in an out-of-the-way corner is the old-fashioned hand screw press, with its long arms and heavy weights. The foreman, growing reminiscent, tells how, as a helper, he used to get those arms going round at such a gait that they would move the whole machine."
So, within his time at the Mint the screw press was used to mass produce something, but it does not say what.
Earlier in the section is the comment: "In a single room ...(location)... is the medal room, a department under the Coiner though almost an independent mint in itself. All the 'proof coins' (those given a particularly fine finish) and medals are made in this room. On one side of the room is a small furnace and melting pot where melts can be made if necessary...."
What would they need to do melts for? Medals and patterns?
In 1894 the sharpness goes full and the DCAM runs through '98.
I wonder what the die room used a screw press for? Perhaps it was the driving force behind the dating and mintmarking of dies? (This is just speculation on my part. The text says nothing, and you cannot see what the worker is doing.)
<< <i>The thing has clash marks. How can a "proof" coin have clash marks? >>
I have owned more than one proof 3CS with clash marks.
So I think seeing is believing.