Options
1894 S Barber Dime
jesbroken
Posts: 9,329 ✭✭✭✭✭
I happened to catch a rerun(unknown when) of Pawn Stars last evening and they had this interesting clip of a man bringing in a coin that he thought to be an 1894 S Barber Dime that his wife had dug up in her garden and that NGC had said unable to verify as to its date. Don't know if I am imagining it or whether the last number does appear to be a 4. They sent the man packing and told him it was not an 1894 S Barber Dime. What do you think and are there any diagnostics that would eliminate it or confirm it from or to an 1894 S Dime? Thanks...Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
0
Comments
further left than on the 94-S; also,
it's a different shape/punch
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Connecticoin: "I forget, is the 94-S of Proof or SP Quality, or is it "just" MS?"
I have examined most of them. All those that grade above 63 are definitely Proofs. As for whether they were all struck in Proof format, it might be impossible to know. The finest known 1894-S, which recently sold for almost $2 million, was struck multiple times from well polished dies, in a manner to make it 'look different' from business strikes.
Condition Ranking of 1894-S Dimes, with Recent Histories
1894-S dimes do vary in terms of striking characteristics. Some appear more like Philadelphia Mint Proofs than others. As the resources available in SF were different, it would not make sense to require them to be like P-Mint Proofs in order to qualify as Proofs. There are 1855-S coins that are Proofs, though probably not dimes.
The only Proof S-Mint Liberty Seated Quarter
The piece does appear to me to be a genuine 1890 something S-mint Barber dime.Someone may have helped to make the last digit essentially unreadable.Looks like the piece was mashed at the rim at four o'clock vicinity.
Based on shape/position of "S,"and the position of the date, the following 90's dates can be ruled out for the piece in question:
1892,1894,1895,1896,1897,1898.See The Complete Guide to Barber Dimes by David Lawrence.
My opinion:Could be a '99-S.Or could be a '93-S.It's worth no more,or little more,than its bullion value as it's definitely not an 1894-S.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Connecticoin: "I forget, is the 94-S of Proof or SP Quality, or is it "just" MS?"
I have examined most of them. All those that grade above 63 are definitely Proofs. As for whether they were all struck in Proof format, it might be impossible to know. The finest known 1894-S, which recently sold for almost $2 million, was struck multiple times from well polished dies, in a manner to make it 'look different' from business strikes.
Condition Ranking of 1894-S Dimes, with Recent Histories
1894-S dimes do vary in terms of striking characteristics. Some appear more like Philadelphia Mint Proofs than others. As the resources available in SF were different, it would not make sense to require them to be like P-Mint Proofs in order to qualify as Proofs. There are 1855-S coins that are Proofs, though probably not dimes.
The only Proof S-Mint Liberty Seated Quarter
Thanks, I thought they were some sort of special strike. Finest known is "PR66BM" (branch mint proof)
The 1 in the date compared to the left edge of neck is the most obvious difference to quickly eliminate it as a real 1894-S.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Connecticoin: "I forget, is the 94-S of Proof or SP Quality, or is it "just" MS?"
I have examined most of them. All those that grade above 63 are definitely Proofs. As for whether they were all struck in Proof format, it might be impossible to know. The finest known 1894-S, which recently sold for almost $2 million, was struck multiple times from well polished dies, in a manner to make it 'look different' from business strikes.
Condition Ranking of 1894-S Dimes, with Recent Histories
1894-S dimes do vary in terms of striking characteristics. Some appear more like Philadelphia Mint Proofs than others. As the resources available in SF were different, it would not make sense to require them to be like P-Mint Proofs in order to qualify as Proofs. There are 1855-S coins that are Proofs, though probably not dimes.
The only Proof S-Mint Liberty Seated Quarter
The 1894-S barber dimes were not struck as proofs. They were not called proofs until an auction in 1945. They were listed as coins struck for circulation in the Director of the Mint's report and other documents referring to these coins. Five of them were officially assayed by the SF and Phila Mints. Several were released into circulation.
The 1894-S dimes were struck on new working dies, which they will look better in strike because of that. That does not make them specimen or proof coins.
The strike is as expected, the dies have several defects which I pointed out in my book on the 1894-S dimes.
Proof coins during the 19th century were not struck twice. They were struck at a slower speed with greater pressure which will bring up the design and the corners between and rims.
The British experimented with striking coins twice in the 17th century, usually resulted in sheering of the design elements already struck and other side effects. When a coin is struck through screw press or steam press, there will be bounce when the die comes up, and some shift can and will occur, which will cause problems. I have seen documentation on the proofing process, which states they were struck slowly once on new dies.
The 1894-S dimes are not proofs. They are simply the result of new dies and therefore slightly better than the average coin.
On all of the 1894-S dimes, there is no sign of polished dies or planchets.
The strike quality of the design elements and corners between the rims and edge is not even close to that of the 1894 proof coinage struck in Philadelphia.
Kevin
to declare it as such... Cheers, RickO
to declare it as such... Cheers, RickO
Curious thing to say,Ricko.You are suggesting others have the same expertise as our many experts around here?
Rick of Pawn Stars has an expert coin guy on staff to help avoid the shop making expensive mistakes.
A piece like the one pictured might fetch a few hundred thou retail if shown to be authentic.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
At least some were clearly struck as Proofs. The people striking them obviously had reasons not to list them as such. There were legal and bureaucratic issues. Throughout the 19th century, there were many Proofs that were not listed as Proofs in U.S. Mint records.
Consider all the Proofs that were minted in the 1840s. Most (or all?) of them are not listed as Proofs in any surviving records. This does not mean that such Proofs did not exist. An inspection of the coins now by someone who understands Proofs demonstrates which are Proofs and which are not, in most cases.
Dozens of silver and gold coins from the 1840s are definitely Proofs. The non-existence of Mint records does not affect their respective Proof status.
KevinJ: "The 1894-S dimes were struck on new working dies, which they will look better in strike because of that."
I have seen many uncirculated 1893-S, 1895-S and 1896-S dimes, including most of the finest known survivors. It is just wrong for Kevin to suggest that 1894-S dimes look like these, as 1894-S dimes are clearly different. The Eliasberg 1894-S, for example, resembles a Philadelphia Mint Proof to a large extent. For a Branch Mint coin to be a Proof, it does not have to look exactly like a Philadelphia Mint Proof from the same era. Also, P-Mint Proofs sometimes vary in appearance from year-to-year.
... the dies have several defects ...
There are many 19th century coins that are clearly Proofs yet were struck with dies with notable imperfections.
KevinJ: " I have seen documentation on the proofing process, which states they were struck slowly once on new dies."
Please provide links to such "documentation." Breen's book of 1977 is available here on pcgs.com.
http://www.pcgs.com/books/breen-proofs/
Breen and also R. W. Julian have extensively researched U.S. Mint records. Neither of them ever found any documents that would indicate that Proofs were struck once.
In any event, I am not firmly concluding that all Proofs were struck at least twice. I am convinced, however, that many of them were. With high magnfication, it is apparent to me that the James A. Stack 1894-S dime was struck multiple times.
Generally, regarding many other coins, whether the physical characteristics that define Proofs can be generated with one slow strike, rather than multiple strikes, is an interesting question. I have yet to read a clear answer.
KevinJ: " Five of them were officially assayed by the SF and Phila Mints."
Breen: "Proof coins were also occasionally given out in lieu of regular business strikes when the latter were unavailable."
http://www.pcgs.com/books/breen-proofs/Chapter02-001.aspx
If there were no business strike 1894-S dimes, then Proofs or Specimens would be used for assay or other purposes.
KevinJ: "On all of the 1894-S dimes, there is no sign of polished dies or planchets."
As far as I know, all the graders at PCGS and ATS are in agreement that the dies were heavily polished, much more so than they would have been for business strikes. Kevin is now telling us that David Hall, Ron Guth, Mark Salzberg and JA are all wrong!
There have been internal discussions at PCGS as to whether they should be called Proofs or Specimen ("SP") strikings. Does anyone at PCGS think that all 1894-S dimes are business strikes? I doubt it.
Also, the obverse of the Kagin-Feigenbaum piece has a considerable cameo contrast and interesting die polishing lines can be seen with high magnification.
Condition Ranking of 1894-S Dimes, with Recent Histories
Lets break this down, to many subjects to cover in one reply, want to focus the discussion on one subject.
Lets start with whether proof coins at the U.S. Mints were struck once or more than once to improve strike.
I am sure you know, that at the Philadelphia Mint, proof coins were struck using a screw press until 1893, this is why the 1894 proof coins are so much better and more consistent.
Second, lets speak of the equipment used and what would happen if you did strike coins twice. You need to read the following: G. P. Dyer and P. P. Gaspar, ‘The striking of proof and pattern coins in the eighteenth century’, British Numismatic Journal, 50 (1980), 117-27, 4 pls. (available online).
Some early British coins were struck twice, you see the obvious effects of sheering, and also the Royal Mint experimented with the same.
Minting process. working dies are incused. Planchets sits on the lower working die, upper working die comes down with 50 tons of pressure (obviously this changed over time), the metal from the planchet is squeezed into the incused space of the upper and lower working dies. As pressure is relieved when the upper (hammer) working die comes up, the planchet will stick to the upper die slightly and come back down onto the lower die. The probability that the planchet will land exactly where it was is very low, it will shift some in a rotated motion, therefore being offset from where it was before. Now if the hammer die came back down, as the coin is now shifted, the images on the coin will not align with the images of the working die. What will happen is a sheering effect where now raised images of the coin is near the field of the working die.
As an example of the striking proof coins once at a slower speed, you should read The November 20, 1892 article in the Chicago Tribune, which talks from eyewitness account of the striking of the Columbian half dollar proofs, which were struck with the coining press in the manual mode, slowly, on polished planchets, before turning on the coining press to strike the non proof coins. This article is printed in my Commemorative book on page 343. Chief Engraver Charles Barber was present as well as Chief Coiner William Steele.
You state you studied 1894-S Stack's specimen and believe it was apparent that it was struck more than once.
What diagnostics did you see which convinced you it was struck multiple times, please be specific.
But before you respond, please fully read the Dyer and Gaspar paper, it covers this subject in great detail.
Kevin
You state
"As far as I know, all the graders at PCGS and ATS are in agreement that the dies were heavily polished, much more so than they would have been for business strikes. Kevin is now telling us that David Hall, Ron Guth, Mark Salzberg and JA are all wrong! There have been internal discussions at PCGS as to whether they should be called Proofs or Specimen ("SP") strikings. Does anyone at PCGS think that all 1894-S dimes are business strikes? I doubt it."
I am becoming of the opinion that you do not read research presented on books on different subjects, I covered this subject in detail in my 1894-S dime book.
I included opinions of experts such as Ken Bressett, who stated he did not believe they were proof coins, John Davenreuther, who is one of the cofounders of PCGS, basically has the final say on coins such as this, and is writing books on every die marriage on 19th century proofs, and is probably the most knowledgeable person on proofs, did not believe they were proofs. When I spoke with David Lange from NGC, Dave did not believe it was a proof. I have spoken to Ron Guth about this coin, I do not believe Ron believes it to be a proof. Please ask these individuals before you state what they believe.
Not sure if you knew, John Daggett was sick 90% of 1894, was bed ridden, Robert Barnett became acting Superintendent. In response to several letters to him, he responded that proof coins are not struck at the San Francisco Mint, that they are only struck at the Philadelphia Mint.
There were 10 obverse and 10 reverse working dies sent to the San Francisco Mint, none of them were especially prepared to strike proof coins.
I examined a specimen at the DLRC Auctions in March 2005. The coin was in an NGC PR66 holder. After carefully examining the coin thoroughly with a microscope, the following is a detailed diagnostics of the 1894-S dime:
Obverse:
Top of O of OF broken.
Broken bottom right side of T of UNITED.
Two nicks on bottom left of bust.
The top left extension of the second T of STATES broken.
Nick on bottom left ribbon.
Repunched date. Repunched 1 north seen above the top. Repunched 9 north seen above the bottom. Repunched 4 seen above the middle.
Reverse:
Class II doubling on bottom left and right leaves and branches.
Strike doubling on left side of coin seen on the outer leaves and branches.
Many thin die scratches through left side of field through E of DIME down through E of ONE.
Denticles: The denticles on the obverse and reverse were not fully struck. On most of the proofs during that era, the denticles are fully rounded or squared to base of the denticles which are level with the fields. The denticles on the 1894-S dime only go down about half way between the top of the denticles, and the level of the field.
Fields: The fields on the obverse and reverse were not mirrored or proof-like. They simply looked like normal business strike fields.
Devices: The device elements on the obverse and reverse were well struck as should be expected on coins struck early in the die usage.
Kevin
You state
"I have seen many uncirculated 1893-S, 1895-S and 1896-S dimes, including most of the finest known survivors. It is just wrong for Kevin to suggest that 1894-S dimes look like these, as 1894-S dimes are clearly different. The Eliasberg 1894-S, for example, resembles a Philadelphia Mint Proof to a large extent. For a Branch Mint coin to be a Proof, it does not have to look exactly like a Philadelphia Mint Proof from the same era. Also, P-Mint Proofs sometimes vary in appearance from year-to-year."
Please state specific diagnostics and characteristics in your claims, not generalized statements.
I compared each of the uncirculated 1894-S dimes against 1894 proof dimes of the same grade. Obviously, none of the 1894-S dimes have a mirrored finish, they are all satiny as expected. I focused on striking characteristics, especially on the corners between the rim and edge and high part of the details of the design elements. the 94S dimes were not even close to the 94 proof.
I also compared the 94S dimes against the 93S and 95S dimes in the same grade, striking characteristics were the same.
You state
"For a Branch Mint coin to be a Proof, it does not have to look exactly like a Philadelphia Mint Proof from the same era. Also, P-Mint Proofs sometimes vary in appearance from year-to-year."
Please look at the 1838-O half in the Smithsonian, stronger strike than a 1838 proof. Look at the 1855-S half and quarter that are called a proof, just as strong as a phila proof from 1855.
The Phila proofs were inconsistent before 1893 because they were struck on a screw press, after this, they are very consistent.
If they do not have full corners and full details, it is not a proof, please read my Lincoln cent matte proof book, where I give clear examples of how these corners are squared because of slow striking, which permits the corners to fill.
Kevin
You state
"Breen: "Proof coins were also occasionally given out in lieu of regular business strikes when the latter were unavailable.""
Please present actual evidence, not Breen's claims.
Why would proof coins be distributed right after they were struck?
yeah maybe at the end of the year and you had left overs. I read of one or two examples, I believe it was Linderman who did this once in 1877.
In 1865, left over proof sets from 1861 through 1864 were melted.
Plus if you were a branch mint, and especially striking proof coins, would you not save them for a purpose, sell them, send specimens to Phila.
If Philadelphia needed coins and it was late December, they are going to strike more coins and distribute as needed, not distribute proof coins into circulation.
In most years in the second half of the 19th century, we are talking about averaging 1,000 proof sets a year, do you think this will make a difference?
Kevin
You state
"If there were no business strike 1894-S dimes, then Proofs or Specimens would be used for assay or other purposes."
Please provide examples of proof coins used for assay.
Lets take the 1895 Morgan Dollar, only struck as proofs in Phila, please show me how many were assayed.
Please show me records of proof coins that were assayed
Kevin
You state:
"Consider all the Proofs that were minted in the 1840s. Most (or all?) of them are not listed as Proofs in any surviving records. This does not mean that such Proofs did not exist. An inspection of the coins now by someone who understands Proofs demonstrates which are Proofs and which are not, in most cases.
Dozens of silver and gold coins from the 1840s are definitely Proofs. The non-existence of Mint records does not affect their respective Proof status. "
In my opinion, your statements present a clear lack of knowledge on U.S. proofs
These time frames are entirely different, equipment used, techniques, who struck them, why they were struck.
In the 1840s, there is no documentation of proofs being struck at the Mint, usually no more than 25 coins of each denomination was struck in proofs.
In the 1890s, there is a break down of number of proofs, number of coins struck for circulation, working dies struck for proof coinage, working dies struck for coins for circulation.
Please read the appropriate mintage laws regarding proof coins, which included how they were sold, minted, and so on.
IMO, you really need to read books on subjects such as proofs, and you really need to get away from just reading Breen, as that is what you primarily go it.
Currently I am researching for a book on early American proofs, and how and where it was learned from. I believe the first proofs were struck around 1660s.
Kevin
Drunner
A dealer from Pittsburgh owned one but is not mentioned anywhere!
In any event, before discussing that academic article, let us discuss the article, also cited above by Kevin, that appeared in the Chicago Tribune on November 20, 1892. A very imperfect version of it can be found ">online in the archives of the Chicago Tribune, with some illegible words.
This article is also cited and excerpted in QDB's book on commemorative coins, which has been republished here on pcgs.com. QDB does not in this book interpret this article in the way that Kevin does in this thread.
The Chicago Tribune article does not specify an author, as best as I can tell, though there are words missing in the online version in the Tribune archives. It might not have even been written by an eye-witness. This article could have been pieced together from hearsay or from someone else's recounting of events. Assuming that the author was an eyewitness, the remarks about the strikings are simple and vague. This article does not demonstrate that Proof coins were struck just once.
Also, there are non-Proof, prooflike or maybe SP Columbian halves. In terms of striking order and days in 1892, it is not clear now which exact coins are now PCGS certified as Proofs
It is unlikely that whoever wrote the article was knowledgeable about Proofs or even about coins. The dictionary definition of the word Proof is much different from the meanings of the same word in numismatics.
In fairness to the author of that article in 1892, there was likely to have been content in the article that was deleted before publication. Due to the fact that articles have to fit into allocated spaces in physical newspapers, it was typical for content to be deleted. Furthermore, content may have been edited out for other reasons. A sentence or paragraph regarding the double-striking of individual coins might well have been deleted by an editor at the Chicago Tribune, who could have correctly deduced that such a point was beside the theme of the story and would be confusing to readers.
Also, a recent Heritage catalogue states, "Per the Swiatek-Breen reference, 103 proof 1892 Columbian halves were struck on January 3, 1893."
In the already mentioned book, QDB also cites another contemporary newspaper article: On December 16th the following newspaper notice appeared: "The first 60,000 of the new Columbian souvenir half dollars were shipped this morning from the United States Mint in this city [Philadelphia
So, different sources say that the 'the first' Columbian halves were struck or distributed on different days.
There are more questions here than there are answers: 1)When were the first 1892 Columbian halves struck? 2) Which of these are the same coins that PCGS later certified as Proofs? 3) Exactly how were those said to be Proofs made?
At the moment, I do not precisely remember my conclusions regarding the Columbian half dollars that I have seen. I would have to find my notes. There are Columbian halves that are certified as Proofs that I do not personally regard to be Proofs. Even those who believe that all Columbian halves certified as Proofs are Proofs should admit that they are lesser Proof characteristics than most typical Proof coins of the time period.
Importantly, coins can be struck twice rather fast. The text of this Chicago Tribune article does not really say whether coins were struck once or twice. Two strkings in rapid succession could certainly have been effected in seconds and might not have been noticed or understood by the journalist who wrote this article, if he was really there.
Condition Ranking of 1894-S Dimes, with Recent Histories
The only Proof S-Mint Liberty Seated Quarter
Obviously, I know this. Kevin should know that this is not true of Branch Mint Proofs. Clearly, people striking Proofs in San Francisco in 1894 would have had a strong motive to not record such Proofs as Proofs in official records. Obviously, there were legal and bureaucratic issues. My guess is that not all Branch Mint Proof Morgan Dollars are recorded as such. There are also Proof or Specimen gold coins from 1907 that are not recorded as such in U.S. Mint records.
Kevin: " ... you really need to get away from just reading Breen, as that is what you primarily go it."
I believe I have read most all pertinent works relating to Proofs of the 19th century, of which there are few. I frequently discuss Proofs with leading experts. I have written many articles relating to the criteria that define Proofs, articles which have been read by thousands of people. CoinWeek has been receiving more than 175,000 unique visitors per month, sometimes more than 200,000.
There is no living person who has a better understanding of the subject than I do. Most importantly, I spend innumerable hours examining the coins themselves and discuss specific characteristics with other experts.
The Controversy over the Proof status of 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 1
The Controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 3, The physical characteristics of Proof coins
It is curious that I am responding to criticism from someone who says that all 1894-S dimes are business strikes, a position that any expert who I know would find to be ridiculous. It is apparent from looking at high grade 1894-S dimes that they are not business strikes.
The debate among experts is whether 1894-S dimes are Proofs or some other kind of special striking. At PCGS, it seems to have swung in the direction of 1894-S dimes being Proofs. The James A. Stack 1894-S, which is also the Eliasberg duplicate sold in 1947, is PCGS certified as PR66BM (not SP66) and is in a relatively recent PCGS Secure holder.
http://www.pcgs.com/cert/25202431
My article in which I explain that a Newman 1818 quarter is a Proof was cited by the judges when I won an award for the best series of articles about coins to be published online.
The Fabulous Eric Newman Collection, Part 4: Proof 1818 Quarter
You seem to like to create questions, which if you bought my commem book, you would not have, as I included all of the archive letters in the back of the book
Lets look at the letter and archive records.
Per the article
The first coin struck was faulty, did not count.
Second coin was perfect, going for $10,000
Then they struck 100 more proofs.
Coins numbered 400, 1492, and 1892 were also saved.
per archive records
letter to Secretary of the Treasury Foster from Higinbotham on December 8, 1892
coins 1, 400, 1492, 1892 were to be identified and separated
I have 20 more letters in my book which refer to these coins, never does it state that coins 400, 1492, or 1892 were on polished planchets or struck as proofs.
letter from Higinbotham, to Superintendent Bosbyshell dated January 19, 1893,
coins numbered 2 to 101 were struck on polished planchets.
In an archive letter dated November 18th to the Director from Higinbotham
it stated I am informed that you are about to begin minting the Columbian half dollars
In an archive letter dated November 19th from Bosbyshell it stated, that he certified coin number 1 was in box marked No 1.
Answers,
1892 Commem was first struck November 18, 1892.
First coin was no good
second coin was struck on polished planchet, went to Remington
100 more were struck on polished planchets
coins 400, 1492, 1892 were saved, but no mention as to whether they were struck on polished planchets.
A total of 101 proof coins are documented through these letters, the first going to Remington, number 2 to 101 going to Higinbotham, who split them with another individual
---------------------------------------------------
The below article matches what the letter state about how many were saved, struck as proofs, kept out, and was printed 2 days after they were struck.
The details of the facts presented sure appear to be from a first hand account 2 days after they were struck.
Greg, your driving me nuts with your statements, you really need to read the relevant archive records and research before making these statements.
Please stop trying to sound like an expert when you have not fully researched this, I really hate having to explain this stuff in this manner.
Question, do you have any understanding on how the toggle joint principal worked in a coining press? Do you understand what type of coin presses existed and how they were used?
I would suggest before going down this dark path, that you read Roger Burdette's great book, Mine to Mint, which describes all equipment used, how it was used and such.
You also need to learn how metal flows when compressed, why the corners between edge and rim are filled last as well as the extreme details, I cover this in my clashing book
Kevin
From the Chicago Tribune, November 20, 1892
Philadelphia, PA. November 19, (SPECIAL). It was a $10,000 beauty that dropped today from the coin press at the United States Mint when the work of coining the Columbian Half Dollar began. Supt. Bosbyshell was on hand to represent the Government, and James W. Ellsworth of the World’s Fair Commission represented that body. There was great interest manifested in the affair because of the big premiums that have been offered for certain of the coins. In addition to the first one, there were also coined and delivered to Mr. Ellsworth the 400th, 1492nd, and 1892nd coins of the new Half-Dollars.
Over two thousand of the souvenirs were struck today and the work will continue until all of the 5,000,000 donated by Congress are completed. With the exception of the four valuable coins already specified, the remainder will be held at the Mint until order for their disposal are received from the Treasury Department. The work of coining the souvenirs will not be finished much before the opening of the Exposition in May, next.
When the hour arrived, Supt. Bosbyshell was summoned to the pressroom by Chief Coiner William S. Steele, while Engraver Charles Barber, who designed the famous coin, Chief Clerk M.N. Cobb, and others, assembled as witnesses. Two dies, one bearing the impression to be stamped upon the obverse face, and the other the reverse, and the only pair in existence, were already in place. Foreman Albert Downing placed one of the blank planchets in the receiver and grasped the lever which raises the lower die, while Edwin Cliff, his assistant, stood at the balance wheel. Unfortunately, the first attempt was a failure – a little flaw caused the coin’s rejection.
The next attempt was made more carefully for the reputation of the coiners was at stake and they had resolved that the first approved souvenir of the Exposition should be a marvel of perfection and beauty. The planchet, before being accepted, was examined under the microscope and found without a blemish. For the second time, the two workmen turned the press by hand, while the spectators waited in suspense. Again the coin was lifted from the face of the steel die and critically examined by Coiner Steele, Engraver Barber, and Superintendent Bosbyshell. Every line was sharply defined, and the strong features of the discoverer of America, which adorn the coin, seemed to look approvingly on the work. Columbus himself could not have done better, Uncle Sam’s reputation as an artist was vindicated.
Cardboard boxes had been prepared for the reception of the coins, not like those in which pills are sold. No finger touched the first of the souvenirs, but the pliers gently clutched it by the rim and conveyed the $10,000 lump to the box which was immediately sealed and handed to the World’s Fair Commissioner (Ellsworth).
After the delivery of the first coin the foreman and his assistant continued coining by hand until they had struck 100 proof pieces, occupying about an hour in the task. Power was applied, and the actual work of making 5,000,000 half dollars went rapidly ahead.
The new half dollars bear the portrait of Columbus according to Lotto upon one side, while the other is it’s discoverer’s caravel, the Santa Maria, in full sail. Beneath the vessel is the date 1492 and the two supporting hemispheres representing the Old and the New World. The motto ‘In God We Trust’ (actually not on the coins) and the date 1892 are the remaining details.
Commissioner Ellsworth will take back with him most of the coins for which fancy prices have been offered. The entire vintage will be shipped to Chicago and disposed of from that city. The coin was designed by Morgan, an Englishman, the same who planned the dollar of the daddies. The sum of $10,000 is to be paid the Columbus Commission for the first half dollar, an it was for that reason that Mr. Ellsworth witnessed the coinage. He will make affidavit to what he saw.
=======================================================
==============================================
To the Secretary of the Treasury Charles Foster from H.N. Higinbotham, President of the World’s Columbian Exposition dated December 8, 1892, regarding the 1st, 400th, 1492nd, and the 1892nd coins struck.
In writing you to-day relative to the first installment of coins, I neglected to mention that coins Nos. 1-400,-1492,- and 1892 each of which was to have a separate certificate from the Superintendent of the Mint, should be carefully put up, each with its own certificate, and sent by express and so marked as not to be disturbed or opened on their receipt by the Assistant Treasurer here. It is very desirable that these coins be received in such manner as to make certain to the purchasers of the same that they are the identical coins called for in their separate certificates. Number one has already been sold for $10,000, and it is very important that we be able to show the purchaser that it is the identical coin called for by the certificate. If you will, therefore, kindly issue such instructions to the Superintendent of the Mint as will insure their receipt by me, I will esteem it a favor that will be very much appreciated.
==============================================
To H.N. Higinbotham, President of the World’s Columbian Exposition from the Superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint O.C. Bosbyshell dated January 19, 1893, regarding the 100 Columbian Half Dollar proofs struck.
Replying to your favor of the 16th inst relative to the 100 Col. Half Dols. In separate boxes numbered from 2 to 101 inclusive, I beg to state that they were struck from polished planchets and placed into envelopes numbered as stated, in the presence of Mr. Ellsworth and myself. I think it was suggested by Mr. Ellsworth that it would be an interesting matter to have some coins preserved so that they could be sent to you gentlemen for such distribution as you might deem wise. As to the ownership of these coins I should think that they belong to whoever any of the other coins belong, that is, that they would be controlled by whoever has control of this special coinage. I think however that inasmuch as Mr. Ellsworth made the suggestion that it would be only polite and courteous to consult him and be guided by him and be guided by his advise on this subject.
100 more were struck on polished planchets ... coins 400, 1492, 1892 were saved, but no mention as to whether they were struck on polished planchets."
These are points made in that newspaper article and evidently in other sources, according to Kevin. They are among the minor issues that I raised above. These bits of information do not demonstrate which exact coins are now PCGS certified as Proofs. There was nothing in that Chicago Tribune article that would disprove a theory that Proofs were generally struck at least twice.
Also, there are many 1892 Columbian halves, for which their respective Proof status is controversial. These are not sound choices to illustrate a larger theory about Proof coins.
People learn about coins by examining them and being taught by experts who understand the physical characteristics of coins. Reading letters about when coins were struck does not usually help someone understand which coins are Proofs and which are not. For that matter, so far it seems that there is very little in the U.S. Mint archives that would help anyone understand which 19th century coins are Proofs. There are Proofs with faintly reflective surfaces and non-Proofs with mirror surfaces.
The criteria for Proof status put forth in my articles are widely held to be fair and logical. PCGS recently recertified the finest known James Stack, Eliasberg duplicate 1894-S dime as a Proof, not as a Specimen. 1894-S dimes are also referred to as Proofs in the NGC and CAC population reports. There are no experts who regard all 1894-S dimes as business strikes. For Kevin to say so is ridiculous, and shows a lack of understanding of 1894-S dimes.
The controversy over the Proof status of 1841 quarter eagles is particularly educational, as experts differ considerably.
The Controversy over the Proof status of 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 1
The Controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 3, The physical characteristics of Proof coins
My article in which I explain that a Newman 1818 quarter is a Proof was cited by the NLG judges when I won an award for the best series of articles about coins to be published online.
The Fabulous Eric Newman Collection, Part 4: Proof 1818 Quarter
If a mint record says that a coin is a Proof and it does not have the physical characteristics of a Proof, then it is not a Proof. If a mint record suggests that only business strikes were struck in a particular year or at a particular mint, and a genuine coin that is clearly not a business strike exists, then that mint record is wrong. The truth is in the coins. Bureaucrats and politicians have various reasons to fudge government records.
By reading my articles, people can learn about the diffences between Proofs, Specimens and business strikes.
Incredible Carter 1794 silver dollar
Million Dollar Coins in ANA Auctions, part 2, with interpretation of Specimen designations
You state
"There is no living person who has a better understanding of the subject than I do. Most importantly, I spend innumerable hours examining the coins themselves and discuss specific characteristics with other experts. "
You believe you are smarter than JD, Mark van Winkle, Dave Bowers, and many others on proof coins, how they were struck, equipment used, and everything else on proofs since proofs over the course of the entire U.S. Mint's history? WOW, back it up please.
I have read some of your articles, such as on the 1838-O half dollar, you clearly did not understand the facts on this coin.
So again I ask, what characteristics/diagnostics does the 1894-S dime have that make it a proof,
please describe 1894-S vs 1894 proof, 1894-S vs 1893-S, be absolutely specific as you stated you have already discussed this.
I presented my analysis of this previously herein.
You have no clue on proofs, as your believe on struck twice demonstrates and also in previous discussions I have had with your.
Even the person running the SF Mint in 1894 stated many times, no proofs were struck at SF, they are struck in Philadelphia.
You had no idea on the 1838-O half dollar, and why the Smithsonian coin was the only proof.
You have not read my book on the 1894-S dime, and probably not read Nancy Oliver and Rich Kelly's book on the same subject
You state
"It is curious that I am responding to criticism from someone who says that all 1894-S dimes are business strikes, a position that any expert who I know would find to be ridiculous. It is apparent from looking at high grade 1894-S dimes that they are not business strikes.
The debate among experts is whether 1894-S dimes are Proofs or some other kind of special striking. At PCGS, it seems to have swung in the direction of 1894-S dimes being Proofs. The James A. Stack 1894-S, which is also the Eliasberg duplicate sold in 1947, is PCGS certified as PR66BM (not SP66) and is in a relatively recent PCGS Secure holder."
Tell you what, you don't you put your money or reputation where your mouth/ego is
Lets make a list of experts, such as PCGS, Ron Guth, NGC, David Lange, JD, Dave Bowers, Ken Bressett, Tom Delorey, graders at PCGS and NGC, present them with arguments, and see what they say.
Anyone who has examined these knows that they were not on polished planchets, the corners are not complete, and they are the same as first coins struck on a die.
Again, your failure to state the specific diagnostics/characteristics of these coins that make them a proof, proves you have no clue and like to generalize without backing up your statements.
Please prove me wrong by stating the diagnostics you state proof this to be a proof.
Kevin
You state
"People learn about coins by examining them and being taught by experts who understand the physical characteristics of coins. Reading letters about when coins were struck does not usually help someone understand which coins are Proofs and which are not. For that matter, so far it seems that there is very little in the U.S. Mint archives that would help anyone understand which 19th century coins are Proofs. There are Proofs with faintly reflective surfaces and non-Proofs with mirror surfaces. The criteria for Proof status put forth in my articles are widely held to be fair and logical. PCGS recently recertified the finest known James Stack, Eliasberg duplicate 1894-S dime as a Proof, not as a Specimen. 1894-S dimes are also referred to as Proofs in the NGC and CAC population reports. There are no experts who regard all 1894-S dimes as business strikes. For Kevin to say so is ridiculous, and shows a lack of understanding of 1894-S dimes."
So according to you, you are right and the Red Book and everyone else is wrong.
Look at A Guide Book of United States Coins Mega Red 2017 (or most other Red books), page 1244, "The term proof refers not to the condition of the coin, but to its method of manufacture.
BTW, the term business strikes is a Breenism, normally called coins struck for circulation.
IMO, obviously you only study the coins, have no clue as to the other important facts regarding these coins and why they are called proofs
Kevin
R.W. Julian probably has the greatest understanding of the workings of the U.S. Mints during the 19th century. I often cite him.
I have spent more than 25 years carefully examining 19th century Proofs, Specimens, and candidates for such designations. When I go to lot viewing sessions, I am often the only one interested in such matters and usually the only one who is viewing coins with more than 5x magnification. The crackout artists and coin doctors glance at coins, usually without a glass, and think about how they can game the system. Collectors at lot viewing sessions tend to be more interested in aesthetics or die varieties, rather than in the differences between Proofs and business strikes.
By default, I seem to be the one who has examined the most coins pertinent to this discussion, taken the most notes, and thought the most about the differences between Proofs and business strikes. No one else seems to be interested enough and have the time to do the work involved.
No one can bat 1.000. This is one reason, among other reasons, why I consult other experts regarding the Proof or non-Proof status of specific coins.
Kevin: "The term Proof refers not to the condition of the coin, but to its method of manufacture."
Different methods result in different physical characteristics. There is a need to examine a coin to determine whether it is a Proof. The physical aspects of a coin that is clearly a Proof are much different from those of a relevant business strike.
Kevin: "BTW, the term business strikes is a Breenism, normally called coins struck for circulation."
'Business strike' is a much more logical and accurate term than circulation strike. Coins struck by typical methods may be made for a variety of reasons, not just for circulation. Sometimes, employees of a mint made business strikes for their own personal collections or for distribution to politicians, not for circulation. Consider the non-Proof commemoratives that are clearly not made for circulation. They are business strikes, not circulation strikes. Also, many thousands of Morgan Dollars were made with the idea that they would sit in vaults as Treasury reserves and not circulate. Copyright 2016 Greg Reynolds
Kevin: "You had no idea on the 1838-O half dollar, and why the Smithsonian coin was the only Proof."
In my article on the origins of 1838-O halves, I did not claim to have access to all historical details and all of the historical points mentioned need not be entirely accurate for my overall theme to be accurate and true. The main point was to demonstrate that these were minted in New Orleans, not in Philadelphia as MVW & DS said.
In that article, I said, "It is not practical to analyze the details of the physical characteristics of 1838-O halves here. There is widescale agreement that 1838-O halves are not business strikes. It is also true that there are a few 1839-O halves that are not business strikes.The fabric of the special 1839-O halves is similar to that of 1838-O halves, though 1838-O halves fulfill Proof criteria to a greater extent."
I really do not see this as a controversial point, as 1838-O halves and most the 1839-O halves that are certified as Proofs are clearly not business strikes. I would need to review my notes regarding the Proof or Specimen status of each, before commenting further. Certainly, it would be fair to refer to the Norweb 1838-O as Proof. At least, the Norweb 1838-O is an exceptional Specimen Striking.
Kevin: "Even the person running the SF Mint in 1894 stated many times, no Proofs were struck at SF, they are struck in Philadelphia."
Branch Mint Proofs tended to be 'off the books.' Were any Carson City Proofs mentioned in mint records? Did Carson City Mint officials admit to making them? It should be unsurprising that there were no such admissions. When U.S. military generals stationed abroad engage in unauthorized practices or clearly disobey orders, they are not going to admit to doing so in official correspondence sent to to the Secretary of Defense or other superiors.
Kevin: "Anyone who has examined [1894-S dimes] knows that they were not on polished planchets, the corners are not complete, and they are the same as first coins struck on a die."
PCGS, NGC and CAC all regard at least some of them as Proofs. PCGS and NGC have been certifying 1894-S dimes as Proofs since at least 1990, though PCGS has used the Specimen designation on a couple 1894-S dimes in the interim. Clearly, David Hall, Mark Salzberg and JA have all examined them and determined that they are not business strikes.
There are many Proof coins that do not have squared edges. A coin does not have to fulfill all the criteria of a Proof coin to be a Proof. I have listed criteria in my articles, in regard to specific coins. Such a task takes hours. I cannot do this for all 1894-S dimes right now. I list specific diagnostics and characteristics for many coins in various articles. I have been listing some such articles in my posts to this thread.
My criteria is open and has been published at least since 2008. My ability to articulate such criteria has improved over time, but will never be crystal clear. There are some aspects of coins that are not fully explainable.
The controversy over the Proof status of 1841 quarter eagles is particularly educational, as experts differ considerably.
The Controversy over the Proof status of 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 1
The Controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 3, The physical characteristics of Proof coins
My article in which I explain that a Newman 1818 quarter is a Proof was cited by the NLG judges when I won an award for the best series of articles about coins to be published online.
The Fabulous Eric Newman Collection, Part 4: Proof 1818 Quarter
insightful10@gmail.com
You keep avoiding this, lets get into a detailed discussion not generalized which you like to state your the best, please prove it and help us all learn from your wisdom.
Again, are you ready to put your money/reputation where your mouth is, I will write through email all of the experts, including the ones listed above, and Craig Sholley, Roger Burdette, and a few others that will be important to this discussion.
I will state your opinion and supporting evidence, if any, and the same for me on the critical questions of whether
if proof coins at the U.S. mint during the 19th century were struck twice
whether the 1894-S dime is a proof coin
Of course, I already have knowledge, as I have already discussed these two subjects with many of these experts, and also people connected to the primary grading services asked the graders what they think.
Ready to play?
Talk is cheap, lets go
You state that you are an expert at studying the details of the coins, and you stated you have studied most of the 1838-O half dollars,
yet in your article or our conversation you had no clue that the diagnostics showed us the sequence they were struck.
You still have no clue why the 1838-O half at the Smithsonian is the only true proof 1838-O half dollar.
that is why that analysis is important, refutes your claims of being detailed and understand the proofing process or how to differentiate proof coins.
Kevin
Lol.
Wondercoin.
Wondercoin.
Hey guys, before the prize fight starts on the finest 94-S dime (which I really enjoyed buying and selling for my customer less than ten years ago by the way), perhaps we can all try to settle the more difficult and perplexing question of why collectors love the PCGS "First Strike" labeled product so much (the subject of the threads directly above and below this interesting thread).
Lol.
Wondercoin.
Sorry, I deleted my comment about the Mercury first strike, just read the front of the PCGS forum on these, thought it meant they were doing first strike on the Mercury dimes created from 1916 to 1945
Kevin
Wondercoin.
Kevin... I was JHF's agent in buying the coin from the JF auction for roughly $1.35 and then selling it back to JF directly for roughly $1.9 less than two years later. I highly respect your research on the subject and would defer to you on that particular subject. I will not profess to be an expert on this subject by any means. The timing of that purchase felt right to JHF and myself and it was a coin we both dreamed of owning as a kid. I got to hold it in my safe box for about half a year before closing the sale and loved it for what it was - Mint state or proof notwithstanding.
Wondercoin.
Well said, I am always on cloud 9 when viewing this great part of our history and lure.
One note though, as a proof, it would not be the lowest pop.
As a coin struck for circulation, it stands alone as the lower pop for a regular issue coin struck by a U.S. Mint, that was not done secretly, and which became part of the Mint report.
If in my safe, I would have looked at it each night, a coin high.
Kevin
No worries Kevin. Although, if you want to write a book on PCGS "First Strike" coins... We should talk!
Wondercoin.
LOL, no problem, would take about a week.
Its funny, for the past 30 years I have been employed almost non stop in the computer field, have written 51 books in my spare time. Just laid off a month ago, I find it difficult to be motivated in writing on coins.
No worries Kevin. Although, if you want to write a book on PCGS "First Strike" coins... We should talk!
Wondercoin.
so which should we write about, the Mint striking these coins, or calling these coins first strikes?
So, the Mint is striking 125,000 of these in gold
So how many is the Mint striking in a day
How many dies are created
Is there a limit on the number of coins per die
Are they being struck like proofs with polished planchets
assume they will be handled after being struck and not dumped into a bin
what is the time frame of striking, assume the first run will be struck
within 30 days of starting, or are they delaying over time depending on sales,
are they leaving the number of struck open based on sales.....
Most likely like proofs, they will max strike 2,000 coins per die.
How can the coins that were struck early in the life of the die be differentiated from those struck later in the dies life?
Obviously in the 1960s and before, those that are cameo are usually earlier in the dies life, what criteria can be used here?
I thought ngc used the first strike before and was sued because of it.
Kevin
Wondercoin.
PCGS, NGC and CAC all regard at least some of them as Proofs. PCGS and NGC have been certifying 1894-S dimes as Proofs since at least 1990, though PCGS has used the Specimen designation on a couple 1894-S dimes in the interim. Clearly, David Hall, Mark Salzberg and JA have all examined them and determined that they are not business strikes. Multiple finalizers at PCGS and NGC must have as well.
There are many Proof coins that do not have squared edges. A coin does not have to fulfill all the criteria of a Proof coin to be a Proof.
Kevin now: "Again, you state several time about the detail diagnostics you did on these coins, please state them, and compare against the 1894 proof dime and 1893-S dime, one which is from a fresh die. You keep avoiding this, lets get into a detailed discussion not generalized which you like to state your the best, please prove it and help us all learn from your wisdom."
I said that I have seen many uncirculated 1893-S, 1895-S and 1896-S dimes, including most of the finest known survivors. It is just wrong for Kevin to suggest that 1894-S dimes look like these, as 1894-S dimes are clearly different. The Eliasberg 1894-S, for example, resembles a Philadelphia Mint Proof to a large extent. For a Branch Mint coin to be a Proof, it does not have to look exactly like a Philadelphia Mint Proof from the same era. Also, P-Mint Proofs sometimes vary in appearance from year-to-year.
It can take hours to explain why any one coin is a Proof, a Specimen Striking or a business strike. I have done this for quite a few coins. I cannot do this for any 1894-S dimes right now. I spell out criteria in the following articles, among others. Has anyone else publicly spelled out criteria?
The Fabulous Eric Newman Collection, Part 4: Proof 1818 Quarter
The only Proof S-Mint Liberty Seated Quarter
The Only Known Proof 1839 Quarter
Special 1839-O Liberty Seated Dime
Kevin: " have already discussed these two subjects with many of these experts, and also people connected to the primary grading services asked the graders what they think."
I responded to this point. One more time, there have been internal discussions at PCGS about whether 1894-S dimes should receive Proof or Specimen designations. As far as I know, no one at PCGS regards all 1894-S dimes as business strikes, as Kevin does. The recently re-certified, finest known, James A. Stack, Eliasberg duplicate, 1894-S dimes remained PCGS certified as "PR66BM." It is in a fairly recent PCGS Secure holder.
CAC has approved two 1894-S dimes as Proofs. I would imagine that, in addition, to JA, Bill Shamhart graded them and agreed. Bill is an expert on dimes. He is also a primary instructor of the advanced grading course at ANA summer seminars.
On PCGS CoinFacts, the 1894-S dime is listed as a Proof, although at least one is in SP holder. Ron Guth cites the Heritage auction catalogue for the Platinum Night of Jan. 12, 2005, which I attended. In the Heritage passage cited by Ron is the following statement, "All were struck as Proofs, and all but two retain some or full mirrored proof finish today"
http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/4805
Kevin: "You still have no clue why the 1838-O half at the Smithsonian is the only true proof 1838-O half dollar"
I have not seen the one in the Smithsonian. I will discuss it after I see it.
In my article on the Eliasberg 1838-O, John Albanese is quoted as saying that 1838-O halves are Proofs. Most experts regard them as Proofs, though, PCGS has waffled some over the years. PCGS now refers to 1838-O halves as Specimens rather than as Proofs. There seems to be unanimous agreement that the surviving high grade 1838-O halves are not business strikes. On PCGS CoinFacts, Ron Guth refers to all 1838-O halves as having been "made as Proofs"!
The theory that most all 19th century Proof silver and gold coins were struck at least twice is a working hypothesis. I did not claim to ever be certain of it. It is a theory that fits the physical characteristics of the coins, as they appear to be different in a way that cannot be entirely explained with more pressure or a bigger press. On Proofs, I also see subtle signs of doubling or tripling, especially on dentils or numerals. When Proof dies are used to make business strikes, the business strikes are much different, especially in terms of how the design elements meet the fields.
Nonetheless, I have always been willing to consider the one-slow-strike theory, as I said in my series on the controversy over 1841 quarter eagles. Is there evidence for the one-slow-strike theory beyond one article by Dyer & Gasper?
The Controversy over the Proof status of 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 1
The Controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 3, The physical characteristics of Proof coins
Kevin... Let's talk on some PM's this weekend. I hate to interfere with a great discussion on the 94-S dime with a talk about 2016 Mercury Dimes! Lol.
Wondercoin.
Its all good
I am done with Greg on the 1894-S dime, he refused to provide an analysis as I have done to differentiate on why he believes it is a proof, he likes to generalize and use the grading services to validate his claim, and wasting my time. I have been in touch with JD, David Lange, Ron Guth, Bowers, Bressett, and many others regarding these subjects over the years.
I plan to have another discussion on these two subjects with the experts in the hobby.
Whether they believe the 1894-S dime is a proof, and whether proofs are struck twice.
I did this recently on the 1942-S Silver nickel with the Type 1 reverse and it was an incredible discussion resulting with Bill Gibbs from CW doing an article on it.
I already contacted some individuals on this subject, will report back with the group consensus.
I am not including Greg on this discussion, will include a link to this thread so that people know his perspective.
Kevin
Over the years I have heard the 1894-S dime was frequently counterfeited and often encountered by individuals visiting China and other parts of Asia.
It was usually the same story, my grandfather found it.....
Remember the 1804 Dollar Type III, struck around 1868, Dealer Haseltine possessed most of these specimens, except of course the one kept by Director Linderman that was part of his estate. Haseltine kept most of these coins for a few years first before distributing, he came up with stories of where he bought them, I believe one was claimed to have come from a family in Ireland.
Kevin
Proof coins during the 19th century were not struck twice. They were struck
at a slower speed with greater pressure which will bring up the design and
the corners between and rims.
In the 1840s, there is no documentation of proofs being struck at the Mint,
usually no more than 25 coins of each denomination was struck in proofs.
Kevin
kevinj states that “they [the proofs] were struck at a slower speed with greater
pressure which will bring up the design and the corners...” As proofs
struck prior to 1894 were done on a screw press the statement is meaningless.
Pressure on a screw press was defined by how fast the bars were rotated. If the
blow was at a slower speed the design would not come up as well, necessitating
a second blow.
kevinj says no documentation exists for proofs in the 1840s. I suppose then that
the documented set (including the half cent) sent by the director to Germany in the
1840s does not count?
In addition there exist written statements from collectors that they had purchased
proof coins at the Mint during the 1840s. In 1867, for example, Matthew Stickney
wrote Director Linderman inquiring about the current proof set and noting that he
had been buying them from the Mint for 24 years. Is kevinj saying that Stickney
was wrong on his dates?
Proof coins during the 19th century were not struck twice. They were struck
at a slower speed with greater pressure which will bring up the design and
the corners between and rims.
In the 1840s, there is no documentation of proofs being struck at the Mint,
usually no more than 25 coins of each denomination was struck in proofs.
Kevin
kevinj states that “they [the proofs] were struck at a slower speed with greater pressure which will bring up the design and the corners...” As proofs struck prior to 1894 were done on a screw press the statement is meaningless. Pressure on a screw press was defined by how fast the bars were rotated. If the blow was at a slower speed the design would not come up as well, necessitating a second blow.
kevinj says no documentation exists for proofs in the 1840s. I suppose then that the documented set (including the half cent) sent by the director to Germany in the 1840s does not count? In addition there exist written statements from collectors that they had purchased proof coins at the Mint during the 1840s. In 1867, for example, Matthew Stickney
wrote Director Linderman inquiring about the current proof set and noting that he had been buying them from the Mint for 24 years. Is kevinj saying that Stickneywas wrong on his dates?
Hi Bob,
Glad you joined the party.
1. On whether proofs were struck twice or struck at a slower speed or greater pressure. Your right, before 1894, the majority of proofs were struck on the screw press. We have some proofs documented from the branch mints, and the 1892 Columbian that are the a few of the exceptions.
Before 1836, all U.S. coins were struck on a screw press, actually some up through 1837. So you are saying that when when coins for circulation and coins for proofs were struck, the proofs were struck twice? Please prove it, please show me the characteristics on the coins, such as sheering, that show the proof coins were struck twice to bring up the corners and detailed diagnostics.
I am saying it is a matter of metal flow, that when the hammer die comes down, the pressing motion downward, will force the metal of the planchet up into the recesses of the die, the force will also push the metal outward, filling the edge, and then pushed upward filling the rims. The primary force is in the center and goes outward. that the corners between the edge and rim is filled last and is some of the extreme details of the design.
In a screw press, you would apply greater pressure for a longer period to fully fill the designs and corners.
This should be easily tested as there are operations out there that still have screw presses, I will have to contact them and will get back on this.
If you are stating that proof coins were struck twice, please support this with documentation, some type of physical evidence from the coins.
2. Your right, there is external communication known on proof coins struck during the 1840s. There is no internal communication as to who struck them (coiner or engraver), techniques used, when they struck, who ordered them struck, how often they struck and so on. I believe either all of the letters from the 1840s on proofs was not derived from the National Archives, but was from the person/group who received them. If you have internal records from the archives on proofs from the 1840s, please share.
Could Stickney have been wrong stating in 1867 that he had been buying proof sets from the Mint for 24 years. I suggest you do a little math next time before you make statements, 1867 - 24 years - 1843 (depending whether he was including 1867). Given that they did not strike proof sets in 1851, and no silver proof coins in 1851 except the three cent silver, and extremely limited number of proofs in 1852 with many of the silver proof coins not being struck, therefore I would probably question the accuracy of Stickney's generalized statement. I would state that he was generally correct, but not 100% accurate. So yes, Stickney was wrong as he could not have purchased a proof set in 1851 in the time frame he stated.
I am sure you know of George Jones, how in 1860 stated in the Coin Collector's Journal that "The Proof sets, so called, contained the silver dollar, half dollar, quarter dollar, dime, half-dime, three-cent piece, and cent, and have been issued regularly since 1840, with the exception of the year 1853, in which no Proofs were coined." I guess Mr Jones, since he put it in writing must not have been wrong either?
You state that on the screw press, greater pressure was achieved by increasing the speed of rotation of the bars. You are incorrect on this. If you pick two points of rotation of the bars, point A and point B with point A being where the bar is when the hammer die first touches the coin. If you do two coins, with increased speed on one between point A and B, does not generate more force on the coin than the one at a slower speed. In a second scenario if you do one coin with a fast rotation between A and B, and a second coin with a slow rotation between A and B plus additional rotation, that will generate greater force.
When you rotate the bars, the working die moves downward. If you rotate the bars from point A to B, the working die will move down distance X, whether you move from A to B fast or slow, it will still move distance X, with perhaps a slight variation depending up the metal in the planchet and the resistance to metal flow by that metal. Now if you move the bar past point B, then the working die will travel a greater distance downward, generating greater pressure on the planchet.
Now if you back off the bar slightly, keeping the upper working die in contact with the planchet, you should be able to go downward with the die a second time. It is the same principal with the modern hubbing technique in which the working hub is left in place over the working die, and the ram above the working hub can come up and back down on the working hub, without a realignment of the image already hubbed and the image impressed if the working hub is again pressed into the working die.
But if you turn the bars to far and move the upper working die off the planchet, then there is a probability that the planchet will stick slightly to the upper die and bounce back down on the lower die in a slightly rotated position, thereafter if you come down again then there will be sheering on the coin of the design elements, as described in the paper I spoke of earlier. We do not see this sheering or other diagnostics which would point to double striking between 1817 and 1893, which we should see examples as this was a manual operation and there is definitely a probability if struck twice that the die came of the planchet and there was movement.
Kevin
PS, If you respond to this tomorrow or for the next few days, I will most likely not be able to respond as I will be on the road.
Also before asserting proof coins were struck twice, suggest you read the G. P. Dyer and P. P. Gaspar, ‘The striking of proof and pattern coins in the eighteenth century’, British Numismatic Journal, 50 (1980), 117-27, 4 pls. (available online), which covers this topic, and also shows what we should see on the coins if they were struck twice. After you read, please show me proof coins which exhibit these characteristics.
Proof coins during the 19th century were not struck twice. They were struck
at a slower speed with greater pressure which will bring up the design and
the corners between and rims.
In the 1840s, there is no documentation of proofs being struck at the Mint,
usually no more than 25 coins of each denomination was struck in proofs.
Kevin
kevinj states that “they [the proofs] were struck at a slower speed with greater pressure which will bring up the design and the corners...” As proofs struck prior to 1894 were done on a screw press the statement is meaningless. Pressure on a screw press was defined by how fast the bars were rotated. If the blow was at a slower speed the design would not come up as well, necessitating a second blow.
kevinj says no documentation exists for proofs in the 1840s. I suppose then that the documented set (including the half cent) sent by the director to Germany in the 1840s does not count? In addition there exist written statements from collectors that they had purchased proof coins at the Mint during the 1840s. In 1867, for example, Matthew Stickney
wrote Director Linderman inquiring about the current proof set and noting that he had been buying them from the Mint for 24 years. Is kevinj saying that Stickneywas wrong on his dates?
Hi Bob,
Glad you joined the party.
1. On whether proofs were struck twice or struck at a slower speed or greater pressure. Your right, before 1894, the majority of proofs were struck on the screw press. We have some proofs documented from the branch mints, and the 1892 Columbian that are the a few of the exceptions.
Before 1836, all U.S. coins were struck on a screw press, actually some up through 1837. So you are saying that when when coins for circulation and coins for proofs were struck, the proofs were struck twice? Please prove it, please show me the characteristics on the coins, such as sheering, that show the proof coins were struck twice to bring up the corners and detailed diagnostics.
I am saying it is a matter of metal flow, that when the hammer die comes down, the pressing motion downward, will force the metal of the planchet up into the recesses of the die, the force will also push the metal outward, filling the edge, and then pushed upward filling the rims. The primary force is in the center and goes outward. that the corners between the edge and rim is filled last and is some of the extreme details of the design.
In a screw press, you would apply greater pressure for a longer period to fully fill the designs and corners.
This should be easily tested as there are operations out there that still have screw presses, I will have to contact them and will get back on this.
If you are stating that proof coins were struck twice, please support this with documentation, some type of physical evidence from the coins.
2. Your right, there is external communication known on proof coins struck during the 1840s. There is no internal communication as to who struck them (coiner or engraver), techniques used, when they struck, who ordered them struck, how often they struck and so on. I believe either all of the letters from the 1840s on proofs was not derived from the National Archives, but was from the person/group who received them. If you have internal records from the archives on proofs from the 1840s, please share.
Could Stickney have been wrong stating in 1867 that he had been buying proof sets from the Mint for 24 years. I suggest you do a little math next time before you make statements, 1867 - 24 years - 1843 (depending whether he was including 1867). Given that they did not strike proof sets in 1851, and no silver proof coins in 1851 except the three cent silver, and extremely limited number of proofs in 1852 with many of the silver proof coins not being struck, therefore I would probably question the accuracy of Stickney's generalized statement. I would state that he was generally correct, but not 100% accurate. So yes, Stickney was wrong as he could not have purchased a proof set in 1851 in the time frame he stated.
I am sure you know of George Jones, how in 1860 stated in the Coin Collector's Journal that "The Proof sets, so called, contained the silver dollar, half dollar, quarter dollar, dime, half-dime, three-cent piece, and cent, and have been issued regularly since 1840, with the exception of the year 1853, in which no Proofs were coined." I guess Mr Jones, since he put it in writing must not have been wrong either?
You state that on the screw press, greater pressure was achieved by increasing the speed of rotation of the bars. You are incorrect on this. If you pick two points of rotation of the bars, point A and point B with point A being where the bar is when the hammer die first touches the coin. If you do two coins, with increased speed on one between point A and B, does not generate more force on the coin than the one at a slower speed. In a second scenario if you do one coin with a fast rotation between A and B, and a second coin with a slow rotation between A and B plus additional rotation, that will generate greater force.
When you rotate the bars, the working die moves downward. If you rotate the bars from point A to B, the working die will move down distance X, whether you move from A to B fast or slow, it will still move distance X, with perhaps a slight variation depending up the metal in the planchet and the resistance to metal flow by that metal. Now if you move the bar past point B, then the working die will travel a greater distance downward, generating greater pressure on the planchet.
Now if you back off the bar slightly, keeping the upper working die in contact with the planchet, you should be able to go downward with the die a second time. It is the same principal with the modern hubbing technique in which the working hub is left in place over the working die, and the ram above the working hub can come up and back down on the working hub, without a realignment of the image already hubbed and the image impressed if the working hub is again pressed into the working die.
But if you turn the bars to far and move the upper working die off the planchet, then there is a probability that the planchet will stick slightly to the upper die and bounce back down on the lower die in a slightly rotated position, thereafter if you come down again then there will be sheering on the coin of the design elements, as described in the paper I spoke of earlier. We do not see this sheering or other diagnostics which would point to double striking between 1817 and 1893, which we should see examples as this was a manual operation and there is definitely a probability if struck twice that the die came of the planchet and there was movement.
Kevin
PS, If you respond to this tomorrow or for the next few days, I will most likely not be able to respond as I will be on the road.
Also before asserting proof coins were struck twice, suggest you read the G. P. Dyer and P. P. Gaspar, ‘The striking of proof and pattern coins in the eighteenth century’, British Numismatic Journal, 50 (1980), 117-27, 4 pls. (available online), which covers this topic, and also shows what we should see on the coins if they were struck twice. After you read, please show me proof coins which exhibit these characteristics.
It is difficult to respond to a posting of this kind since much of it is meaningless.
1) I did not say that proof coins were struck twice; kevinj is misquoting me as usual. I have no proof coins of the
19th century but I do have several large 19th century copper-bronzed medals which were struck multiple times
on the screw press. I found no evidence of doubling and these were struck in collars. Kevinj’s discussion
about screw presses makes no sense as one cannot vary the pressure by time periods. The force of the strike
in a screw press is determined solely by how strongly the lever arm is rotated.
2) The documents mentioned are from Record Group 104 in the National Archives. The remark about me doing
a little math is pure nonsense as all I was doing was quoting Stickney, He had clearly been buying proofs since
1843 although some years or individual pieces might not have been available. As to the Jones book I have a
copy and it has been discussed on this forum from time to time.
I am well aware of the 1980 BNS Journal as I have been a member since 1974. I had the distinct pleasure of
Graham Dyer showing me around the Royal Mint at Llantrisant on June 30, 1983. We not only discussed this
particular article but he also showed me a number of the dies and punches from the 18th century.
It is terrible for Kevin to make it sound like my research on 1894-S dimes is sloppy or incomplete. I have spent a lot of time examining them and I have discussed 1894-S dimes with top-level graders. I do not need to know about the employees at the SF Mint in 1894 to determine that 1894-S dimes are Proofs.
Condition Ranking of 1894-S Dimes, with Recent Histories
No, ConectiCoin, Michelle Johnson sold the Buss 1894-S not long after she acquired it, unfortunately. Please read my ranking.
Kevin, in an earlier post: "Anyone who has examined [1894-S dimes] knows that ... they are the same as first coins struck on a die."
Kevin: Greg "likes to generalize and use the grading services to validate his claim, and wasting my time."
It is not a waste of time to point out that, apparently, there is unanimous opinion among experts at grading services who have certified 1894-S dimes that Kevin's viewpoint is wrong. No top-level grading expert regards the surviving high quality 1894-s dimes as business strikes or as "circulation strikes." It is evident that David Hall, various PCGS finalizers, Mark Salzberg and John Albanese have all referred to 1894-S dimes as Proofs.
As I said already, there have been internal discussions at PCGS as to whether 1894-S dimes are full Proofs or Specimens. If either is true, Kevin's view that 1894-S dimes are business strikes or "circulation strikes" would be wrong, in terms of the perspectives of experts at PCGS, NGC and CAC.
I cited Ron Guth above. On PCGS CoinFacts, Ron quoted a passage from a Heritage catalogue description of an 1894-S dime, which stated that "All were struck as Proofs, and all but two retain some or full mirrored proof finish today."
I spoke to John Albanese today. I am paraphrasing him here and will quote him in a future article. Albanese says, although 1894-S dimes do appear different from P-Mint Proofs, they are clearly specially made with very reflective surfaces. They are not ordinary strikes, not for circulation. They were meant to be Proofs. I have no problem calling 1894-S dimes Proofs, John said a few hours ago.
Kevin: Greg "... refused to provide an analysis"
While true, this is an unfair statement. An analysis of the reasons as to why a specific coin is a Proof, a Specimen, or a business strike can take hours, and would be long. My posts in this forum are long enough already. Moreover, I am the only living person who actually spells out criteria for a coin being a Proof or a Specimen. I have done so in more detail than anyone else, ever. There is no simple formula, and I try to keep improving my approach. Here is a list of some articles in which I employ specific criteria.
The Fabulous Eric Newman Collection, Part 4: Proof 1818 Quarter
The only Proof S-Mint Liberty Seated Quarter
The Only Known Proof 1839 Quarter
Special 1839-O Liberty Seated Dime
The Controversy over the Proof status of 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 1
The Controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 3, The physical characteristics of Proof coins
No, ConectiCoin, Michelle Johnson sold the Buss 1894-S not long after she acquired it, unfortunately. Please read my ranking.
Oops I did read it and glossed over that she had consigned it shortly after purchase. Looks like it has not seen the light of day since the last auction appearance in 1988.
"...although 1894-S dimes do appear different from P-Mint Proofs, they are clearly specially made with very reflective surfaces. They are not ordinary strikes, not for circulation. They were meant to be Proofs. I have no problem calling 1894-S dimes Proofs."
A "Special Strike" designation works better for me though.Clearly,1894-S dimes were struck to appear different from business or circulation strikes,even though the San Francisco Mint was "not supposed to be (wink-wink)" making proof or special strike coins for collectors in the 1890's.
My opinion is that anyone with enough money to buy an authentic 1894-S dime should be able to get EITHER a proof designation or a special strike label on the TPG holder.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Where are the other 14 or 15 coins? Were they destroyed, or did they just get lost in circulation?
Connecticoin: "Oops I did read it and glossed over that she had consigned it shortly after purchase. Looks like it has not seen the light of day since the last auction appearance in 1988."
I would sure like to see it. I have seen eight of the nine known 1870-S silver dollars. I would like to view at least as many 1894-S dimes. Do any forum members know the whereabouts of this piece, the Newcomer-Neil-Hinman coin or the 1894-S that is NGC graded "03"?
Mr. 1974: "Clearly, 1894-S dimes were struck to appear different from business or circulation strikes,even though the San Francisco Mint was "not supposed to be (wink-wink)" making Proof or special strike coins for collectors in the 1890's."
This is not a logical point. If a coin clearly has the requisite physical characteristics of a Proof, then it is a Proof, regardless of whether the people who made it had the authority to do so. As for the precise characteristics of 1894-S dimes, as I indicated in a response above, these would take hours to analyze. My discussions of the unique Proof 1855-S quarter and the Newman Collection Proof 1818 quarter are relevant. Regarding Proofs and Specimens, I have discussed diagnostic criteria in published writing to a greater extent than any other living numismatist.
The Fabulous Eric Newman Collection, Part 4: Proof 1818 Quarter
The only Proof S-Mint Liberty Seated Quarter
The Controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 3, The physical characteristics of Proof coins
Mr. 1874: "My opinion is that anyone with enough money to buy an authentic 1894-S dime should be able to get EITHER a proof designation or a special strike label on the TPG holder."
This statement is puzzling. As far as I know, a leading grading service has never designated an 1894-S dime as a business strike, and graders who I know never even considered doing so. The wealth of the submitter is not relevant at all. All submitted 1894-S dimes that grade above 60 have been certified as Proofs, not just Specimens, either here or ATS, at some point.
There are two heavily circulated 1894-S dimes. I saw the coin that I grade as Good-06 and there is one that is NGC graded "03." Regarding circulated coins, there are conceptual issues as to how a circulated Proof should be labeled, "Proof-03" or "AG-03"? In some cases, it is really impossible to tell whether a heavily circulated coin is a Proof, a Specimen or a business strike.
Over the years, in more than one location here on the PCGS web site, there have been indications or hints of referring to them as 'SP' rather than Proof. I am aware of internal discussions at PCGS regarding this point.
The current 1894-S dime PCGS CoinFacts page refers to the Chicago-Simpson 1894-S as "SP65BM" rather than as "PR65BM." This could just be a data entry error. When I saw this coin in 2005, it was in a PCGS holder that referred to it as a Proof ("PR65") not 'SP'! It was later certified as Proof-66 ATS. I have not seen its current PCGS holder.
The recently re-certified, finest known, James A. Stack, Eliasberg duplicate, 1894-S dime remains PCGS certified as "PR66BM." PCGS first certified it as Proof-66 in 1990! It is now in a fairly recent PCGS Secure holder.
There is more information on 1894-S dimes in my article. I rank them. I put forth pedigrees, with emphasis upon owners during the last forty years. I explain how many are known. I discuss auction appearances, five of which I witnessed 'in person.'
Condition Ranking of 1894-S Dimes, with Recent Histories
insightful10@gmail.com
....speed of the press will matter, in terms of strike. Would have to argue with Newton, because of the knobs on the ends of the upper handle, spun at different speeds, will have a direct effect on the strike of the coin.
Does NGC indicate on the label then that the piece graded "03" is an "impaired" proof,which technically it is to those who have no problem calling 1894-S dimes proofs?
Short of the proper designation as an impaired (by having circulated) proof,a straight grade of AG-03 indicates that NGC thinks it's a business strike?
Anyone with enough money to buy a circulated 1894-S dime,should not have to put up with having impaired proof designation on the holder's label. Other than the number grade,which we all know is an absolute,no matter the grading service,"the money" should be able to get special strike designation if they choose.
Analyst:All submitted 1894-S dimes that grade above 60 have been certified as Proofs, not just Specimens, either here or ATS, at some point.
The "just Specimens" you are referring are special strikings,no? We need some lawyers to step in and settle this controversy.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein