Someone more knowledgeable , please provide more insight on these EARLY PROOFS. - Pogue Related

keyman64

2029 1818 Capped Bust Half Dollar. Overton-107. Rarity-8 as a Proof. Proof-65 (NGC). $52,500 Sold (PRE-Auction Estimate was $50K-$75K)
2036 1821 Capped Bust Half Dollar. Overton-104. Rarity-8 as a Proof. Proof-65 (NGC). $45,000 Sold (PRE-Auction Estimate was $50K-$75K)
2039 1822 Capped Bust Half Dollar. Overton-103. Rarity-8 as a Proof. Proof-65+ Cameo (PCGS). $180,000 Sold (PRE-Auction Estimate was $75K-$125K)

If you look at the 1818 and the 1821, they look like PROOFS to me and are designated as such by NGC.
Compare them to as many MS65, MS66, MS67 ...examples as you wish, these coins are special and distinctly
different without a doubt. They are sooooo different than the business strikes of the era. Everything doesn't
make perfect sense to me as to why PCGS would not bless this 1818 as a proof but does mention them
in CoinFacts. All 3 of the above coins are R8s and finest known, except in the case of the 1818 where
there is 1 noted as finer in Proof 66.

The 1821 sold for 1/4 of the 1822 and the 1818 almost the same.

For those in the know, were the 1818 and 1821 bargains at all? I paid close attention to these lots thinking I
might be posting something like this on the forums but I am still surprised. Sure the 1822 has a +, it is CAM and in a
PCGS holder but is it still worth 4 times the 1821? There are only 2 1822 Proofs known to exist. Was this the reason
it sold for 4x the 1821? Did it come down to extra rarity, little nicer and a blessed by PCGS play?
The 1821 has a remnant of a fingerprint, looks dark and there seems to be some concern
in the numismatic community that there are 1821 examples that are only PROOFLIKE. Hmmmmm. Okay, maybe I am
answering my own questions here. I guess since there is some possible doubt, people just avoided it. But what
about the 1818? Compare it to any business strike and also note that PCGS does acknowledge 1818 Proofs as
existing in CoinFacts. Was PCGS not given the opportunity to holder this coin? Because of the 1822 being a little
nicer, a little bit more rare and in a PCGS holder...does that make the 1822 almost 4x as expensive as the 1818?

Disclaimer: No, I did not see these in hand and I have not checked to see if they once were blessed by the sticker company.

Okay, I may have answered my own questions here but figured I would post to see if there was any other knowledge people
wish to share. To me, the 1818 seems to have sold for a bit of a bargain in comparison. Your thoughts?
Anyone know about the PROOFLIKE 1821s and how this 1821 compared?

Thanks!

tradedollarnut

There are proofs and there are PROOFS. The pics of the two you cite did not impress me. The 1822 was a no brainer and there was no doubt it was going to bring all the money...and it did.

Zoins

Check out the catalog. The 1822 looks like it had much more eye appeal and was in a different league.

Look at the photos and then look at TDN's avatar

1Bustcollector

TDN, I like the way you explained it - makes total sense!

keyman64

<< <i>There are proofs and there are PROOFS. The pics of the two you cite did not impress me. The 1822 was a no brainer and there was no doubt it was going to bring all the money...and it did. >>

Your feedback is appreciated. Thanks!

MrEureka

With most early proofs, nobody is really sure what should be called proof. FWIW, I've found that the more I learn, the fewer coins I believe to be true proofs.

WinLoseWin

<< <i>With most early proofs, nobody is really sure what should be called proof. FWIW, I've found that the more I learn, the fewer coins I believe to be true proofs. >>




Have you made a conclusion on the 1838-O Half Dollars? Proofs or just special or a mixture of each or...?

tradedollarnut

<< <i>

<< <i>With most early proofs, nobody is really sure what should be called proof. FWIW, I've found that the more I learn, the fewer coins I believe to be true proofs. >>




Have you made a conclusion on the 1838-O Half Dollars? Proofs or just special or a mixture of each or...? >>



Does it matter? They are what the are - specimens at worst. It's not like their value depends on their proof designation.

The thing that I have found is that the Mint certainly knew how to make no brainier proofs as early as 1820 so unless it walks and talks proof, I wouldn't buy it as such.

WinLoseWin

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>With most early proofs, nobody is really sure what should be called proof. FWIW, I've found that the more I learn, the fewer coins I believe to be true proofs. >>




Have you made a conclusion on the 1838-O Half Dollars? Proofs or just special or a mixture of each or...? >>




Does it matter? They are what the are - specimens at worst. It's not like their value depends on their proof designation.

The thing that I have found is that the Mint certainly knew how to make no brainier proofs as early as 1820 so unless it walks and talks proof, I wouldn't buy it as such. >>





In terms of value for the 1838-O it would not matter. The question is more history related. Since it was known how to make proof coins, was the 38-0 intended as a proof and therefore the first branch mint proof or is it just another numismatic myth falling by the wayside. Or is it still unsettled coming down to opinion with some considering them to be true proofs and others not.

I do recall seeing in the 1990's an 1838 Philadelphia NGC graded Proof-64 (not the Pittman coin) struck by cracked dies that looked like a real proof to me, but have not seen any of the 1838-O halves to compare it to. Thought it worth asking as I seem to recall an ad long ago where MrEureka had two different examples at the same time and no doubt has seen others.

golden

<< <i>TDN, I like the way you explained it - makes total sense! >>