Ode to the 1895 Morgan Silver Dollar (King of the Morgans)

WingedLiberty1957

There is a mystery surrounding the King of the Morgan Silver Dollar series. Few people know that according to mint records, 12,000 Morgan Dollars were struck for circulation in 1895, however, to date, no business strike 1895 Morgan has ever been certified. The only Morgans that have been certified have come out of the 880 Proof specimens struck in 1895.

Morgan experts are divided in their theories as to why the supposed 12,000 1895 business strike Morgans disappeared. The prevailing theory is that the coins were never minted in the first place, and that this notation in the accounting ledger is in error. A few believe that the coins were minted as noted, but they were melted down at some point. It's a bit disturbing to conjecture twelve 1000-coin mint sealed canvas bags (the entire business strike production of the 1895 Dollar) going to the melting pot under the provisions of the Pittman Act of 1918.

One piece of evidence against the business strikes being made is almost immediately after minting, the 1895 dollar was recognized as a Proof-only issue. In the December 1898 issue of The Curio, dealer Charles Steigerwalt noted "Dollars of 1895 from the Philadelphia Mint are only found in the Proof sets." Similarly, the June 1898 issue of The Numismatist noted: "In 1895, Proofs only, numbering less than 1,000, were struck". So the prevailing information as few as 3 years after minting, was that no business strikes of the 1895 dollar were made. Presumably, this information must have come from the Mint itself.

Shown below is the PCGS Population of the entire 1895 Morgan Dollar run (only 525 PCGS slabbed and certified examples known!). It's interesting that apparently (according to PCGS at least) approximately 103 of the 880 Proofs stuck made it into circulation (and wore down to varying degrees) -- making them look like regular business strikes. Can you imagine coming across a circulated rarity like this roll hunting in the 1950's?



Four 1895 Proof Morgans wore down as far as PROOF-8 (which shows only Very Good details) and six more wore down as far as PROOF-12 (Fine Details).
One of these PCGS certified PROOF-12 (PR12) Morgans is shown below.
Amazing this was once a proof strike!



The highest PCGS-graded 1895 Morgan is PR68. While I could not find any photos in this high grade, I did find two PR67 Morgans.

The following coin is a non-cameo example, with some nice toning.



And this coin is a nice deep cameo example, which adds a $30,000 premium to the non-cameo above.



I would be curious to hear if anyone knows why there were either none or so few business strikes planned in 1895?

There was a very low 110, 000 mintage for the 1894 Morgan and a hefty 10,000,000 mintage in 1896.

So what happened in 1895?

If anyone knows please post as I would be interested to find out.

sparky64

Thanks for the great post. Well done.
I don't have any answers to your questions at the end.

SeattleSlammer

<< <i>Thanks for the great post. Well done.
I don't have any answers to your questions at the end. >>




Me neither. ...but someone will chime in with them eventually....
I am just loving that DCAM example....wow....seems like an extra $30K over a non-CAM example would be well worth it...certainly as a type piece it would be nearly impossible to beat.

Wabbit2313

If you posted that worn 1895 coin here, as a raw coin, I wonder how many would say "fake"!?

AUandAG

The economy was to blame. See Unemployment and turmoil

bob

magikbilly

<< <i>If you posted that worn 1895 coin here, as a raw coin, I wonder how many would say "fake"!? >>



There appears evidence of a special coin in that circ '95 Proof. What do you think of the below coins? Both Proof or BS on top? This coin caused some limited controversy years back; over 200 posts. I could never see why. The scans are most all down, but the one below says it all I think. That top coin and its "slab" were never revealed here. What about it says "Proof"?


"proof" and Proof

Eric

magikbilly

Bumped. Curious to see if anyone still thinks "that coin" above, the top one, is "an obvious Proof" or whatever was said about it. I said back then "If I brought that in here saying it was a '95 Proof I'd be thrown out of here" - or some such. I bet scans of the whole coin are on someones drive.
I could never, ever understand why it was thought be a Proof.

Eric

Overdate

I doubt that 525 individual 1895 proofs were graded by PCGS. It's very likely that there were many instances of multiple submissions of individual coins.

WingedLiberty1957

<< <i>I doubt that 525 individual 1895 proofs were graded by PCGS. It's very likely that there were many instances of multiple submissions of individual coins. >>



Yes, this is a definite problem with population reports. I wonder if the TPG's would ever consider making fingerprint images of all coins it grades and checking all newly submitted coins digitally against that database to toss out duplicate/multiple submissions of the same coin in the pop reports. It would be the only way to keep the population reports accurate. Certainly the technology exists to do that, it just that right now the TPGs don't care and since they have no financial motivation to make the population reports as accurate as possible have no interest in doing so.

WingedLiberty1957

<< <i>Bumped. Curious to see if anyone still thinks "that coin" above, the top one, is "an obvious Proof" or whatever was said about it. I said back then "If I brought that in here saying it was a '95 Proof I'd be thrown out of here" - or some such. I bet scans of the whole coin are on someones drive.
I could never, ever understand why it was thought be a Proof. Eric >>



In my opinion, this is simply a case of:

1. The accepted truth by PCGS is that no Business Strike 1895 Morgans exist.
2. If an 1895 Morgan is determined to be Genuine and not a fake, then it must have come out of the Proof population, no matter how low the grade.

Certainly if you put a Proof coin into circulation, and the coin gets worn enough, you will lose all characteristics of that coin ever having been a proof since so much of the coins surface and design/detail is worn away. I have my doubts there are any die characteristics left on an F12 coin (though that might depend on the specific die characteristic).

magikbilly

<< <i>

<< <i>Bumped. Curious to see if anyone still thinks "that coin" above, the top one, is "an obvious Proof" or whatever was said about it. I said back then "If I brought that in here saying it was a '95 Proof I'd be thrown out of here" - or some such. I bet scans of the whole coin are on someones drive.
I could never, ever understand why it was thought be a Proof. Eric >>



In my opinion, this is simply a case of:

1. The accepted truth by PCGS is that no Business Strike 1895 Morgans exist.
2. If an 1895 Morgan is determined to be Genuine and not a fake, then it must have come out of the Proof population, no matter how low the grade is.

Certainly if you put a Proof coin into circulation, and the coin gets worn enough, you will lose all characteristics of that coin ever having been a proof since so much of the coins surface and design/detail is worn away. I have my doubts there are any die characteristics left on an F12 coin (though that might depend on the specific die characteristic). >>



The numerals? Placement to denticles? The Reverse fonts etc.? Look at the negative spaces in the date numerals on any of these Proofs, including the F-12, and those on the other coin I posted. It was suggested it might be an whizzed/altered 1880's business strike from matching details on both Obv. and Rev., some thought 95-S The four Obverse Proof 1895 dies were shown and none matched the questioned coin, nor did any of the images at Heritage or DLRC archives. To me, the F-12 posted here still looked somewhat slammed in strike overall, and the the denticles are evenly crisp and separated compared to the coin I posted.

Best wishes,
Eric

LanceNewmanOCC

.


<< <i>Can you imagine coming across a circulated rarity like this roll hunting in the 1950's? >>



i don't know about then but in this day and age, if i come across any items like this, there are only 2 people that will know and they will be me and the person i trust to privately sell it to or maybe even just keep it to myself. (because of the goverment's tactics, as usual)

it isn't even a far stretch for me to think these days about a BS 1895 or 1964-d peace etc being out there. it is juts that the owners are smart enough to keep the info in the C.O.T. (the same applies to lost treasures, art, national treasures, crown jewels, fossils etc.
.

Overdate

<< <i>The numerals? Placement to denticles? The Reverse fonts etc.? Look at the negative spaces in the date numerals on any of these Proofs, including the F-12, and those on the other coin I posted. It was suggested it might be an whizzed/altered 1880's business strike from matching details on both Obv. and Rev., some thought 95-S The four Obverse Proof 1895 dies were shown and none matched the questioned coin, nor did any of the images at Heritage or DLRC archives. >>


Does the questioned coin match any known 1895 branch mint dollars?

magikbilly

The coin that was in question was to be a 95 Proof. It was years ago - were not the 5 (?) known NGC 95-O BMP's struck with BS dies and don't they have a slightly doubled 5?

Eric

SDSportsFan

Don't remember where I saw it (probably here), but here's a photo I saved of the PCGS PR68DCAM:




Steve

WingedLiberty1957

That's beautiful!

Amazing to think these probably sold for around $1.50 (maybe) from the Mint in 1895

Does anyone know the exact sales price of Proof coins in 1895?

Were they sold as sets only or individually?

I am surprised demand was so low for so many years on these.

It was listed in the 1947 Redbook as a $35 coin

(interesting they also listed a price for biz strike 1895's)

Wabbit2313

That pricing page is cool. WHat in the world is going on with the 1903-O price? Also, 84-S for 12 bucks, and 92-S for 15!! What a bargain.

SDSportsFan

<< <i>That pricing page is cool. WHat in the world is going on with the 1903-O price? Also, 84-S for 12 bucks, and 92-S for 15!! What a bargain. >>




IIRC, the 1903-O was a great rarity until the 1960s, when the govt opened the vaults and started releasing the bags that had been stored since the coins were struck.

Nearly all the 1903-O's were stored upon striking, and not released to the public.

Edited to add:

Here's an excerpt from the Official Red Book of Morgan Silver Dollars (by Q. David Bowers):

"By 1962 the 1903-O was viewed as being the great rarity among Mint State Morgan dollars, valued at 10 times the price of an 1889-CC....Then in November 1962 a storage vault in the Philadelphia Mint, sealed since 1929, was opened to gain access to some dollars for holiday distribution. They turned out to be mint-fresh 1903-Os, and hundreds of thousands of them! The numismatic world has not been the same since."

Steve

Tibor

If my memory of U.S. history is somewhat correct, there were one or two recession/depression in the
1890's. These made the current down fall we are going thru seem like a picnic. While the current
hard times seem rough, in the 1890's there were few if any government entitlements. Maybe what
silver in un-coined form was present was used to produce smaller denominations.

dragon

I've always considered the 1895 proof Morgan to be one of the most overpriced, overrated and over hyped coins not only in the Morgan series but for all classic coins in general.

As I've always understood it, the 1895 became popular as well as very valuable soon after collectors realized there were no business strike 1895's to be had, so anyone assembling a complete set would be forced to substitute a '95 proof for the non existent '95-P business strike thus putting extreme pressure on the '95 proof coins. While that seems like a reasonable explanation and may have held true many years ago, I don't think any collectors building a complete set of Morgans today would even consider using an 1895 proof to fill the "hole" in their set where an 1895 business strike coin should be. Yet even today the 1895 is still considered the "King" of proof Morgans and is priced at multiples of all the other dates except perhaps for a few of the BMP's and one or 2 extremely rare proof varieties.

Keep in mind the 1895 proof is not a low mintage date in the proof Morgan series, not rare or even very scarce in higher grades compared with other proof dates in the series, not super rare in CAM or DCAM compared with other dates, always seems to be available in nearly any major auction, etc.

While I think ANY proof Morgan is a way cool and very desirable coin, I think the 1895 should not be priced so high and so highly regarded just because there are no '95-P business strikes available for collectors sets.


edit for typos

Wabbit2313

<< <i>
"By 1962 the 1903-O was viewed as being the great rarity among Mint State Morgan dollars, valued at 10 times the price of an 1889-CC....Then in November 1962 a storage vault in the Philadelphia Mint, sealed since 1929, was opened to gain access to some dollars for holiday distribution. They turned out to be mint-fresh 1903-Os, and hundreds of thousands of them! The numismatic world has not been the same since."

Steve >>



Thanks Steve!

If I ever invent time travel, I am taking a roll of 1903-O Morgans with me to do a little trading! First stop, sometime before November, 1962!

DaveG

A number of years ago, Roger Burdette wrote a comprehensive article regarding the 1895 Morgan dollars.

In the article, he showed the monthly summary production report of the Philadelphia mint, showing that the 12,000 circulation-strike Morgans were minted in June. He also provided details of the dies produced for that year's mintage of Morgan dollars (5 obverse dies for Proof coins, but none for circulation coins) and details from the Assay Commission report, showing that 6 circulation-strike were provided to the Commission (1 for every 2,000 coins minted, as provided for in Mint regulations) and confirmed that the 12,000 Morgan dollars were delivered to the Cashier on June 28th.

Roger's conclusion is, of course, that the 12,000 circulation-strike Morgan dollars were destroyed in the Pittman melt of 1918.

I have a copy of the article, which was published in Coin Values, the relatively short-lived glossy magazine price guide of Coin World. Unfortunately, I didn't notice that the pages I cut out of the magazine didn't state the publication date.

Perhaps Roger will chime in with the date.

Overdate

<< <i>I don't think any collectors building a complete set of Morgans today would even consider using an 1895 proof to fill the "hole" in their set where an 1895 business strike coin should be. >>


I would (if I could afford one), and I think plenty of other collectors would also. The 1895 proof is a "story" coin that has acquired quite a bit of fame and mystique over the years, especially since it's still not a settled question whether business strikes were made.