ALoco: "....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."
I am not following Loco's line of reasoning here. No one is disputing that there are multiple variables that affect the strike of a coin.
Denga said, in a post above, "If the blow was at a slower speed the design would not come up as well, necessitating a second blow."
Is Loco saying that his example of a screwpress counters Denga's point in this regard? I do not perceive an inconsistency. The energy to drive the screwpress comes from the rotation of the bar by two workers, as Denga said. While there are other variables, the energy expended by the workers to move the bar is the primary input that determines the force expended. KF was referring to a slower speed and "greater pressure," while Denga was saying that "greater pressure" would bring about a faster speed, and is thus inconsisten with the idea of a deliberately set slower speed, if I interpreted their respective remarks correctly. I am not taking a position on this particular point right now.
Mr. 1874: "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?"
I hope that it is clear enough in my article that I never saw this coin. At the moment, I recollect seeing pictures of the coin without an image of the printed label ('insert'). In the early days of NGC, sometimes both a 'words' grade abbreviation, like VF, and the word Proof would appear on the holder's label, along with a numerical grade. If the coin was reholdered in 2016, it would probably then read "Proof-03," which it may already in its 1990 era holder.
Mr. 1874: "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. ...
In my most recent post before this one, I failed to communicate a key point to Mr. 1874. NGC has referred to all submitted 1894-S dimes as Proofs, not as Specimens. PCGS has designated all as Proofs, except possibly for the recertification of one as SP-65 that was previously PCGS certified as Proof-65, though, as I said, this could just be a typo on PCGS CoinFacts. It could be true that all the PCGS certified 1894-S dimes are designated as Proofs, not as Specimens. Grading services are not designating 1894-S dimes as business strikes or as Specimens (except perhaps the one just mentioned). Please read my article:
All 1894-S dimes that grade above 60 that have been submitted to PCGS or NGC have been certified as PROOFS. The one that may possibly be in a holder, though maybe not, that reads SP-65 was earlier PCGS certified as 'PROOF-65.' Am I now being clear?
Mr. 1874: " ... the money" should be able to get special strike designation if they choose."
Whatever this statement means, it is wrong. Even if a poor person submitted a genuine, raw 1894-S dime in 2016, it would almost certainly be certified as a Proof ATS and likely to be certified as a Proof at PCGS. Indeed, what happens in this regard has nothing to do with the wealth or lack thereof of the submitter. The James A. Stack 1894-S was re-certified by PCGS as PR66BM (not SP) not long ago. It was first PCGS certified as Proof-66 in 1990.
As I am not 100% certain of PCGS policy towards 1894-S dimes, it would be best for the owner of a raw 1894-S dime to ask David Hall, Don Willis or Ron Guth whether a change of policy has been effected or is being considered.
Mr. 1874: "The "just Specimens" you are referring are special strikings,no? We need some lawyers to step in and settle this controversy."
We do not need lawyers for this purpose. We need to encourage more people to read my articles. In the following, I discuss reasons why specific coins are NOT Proofs and ARE Specimens:
All 1894-S dimes that were ever made are one of the following:
1.Business strikes.Coins struck by normal process in place at the Mint at that time.There is little to no evidence seen that coins made as business strikes (intended to circulate) are handled in the Mint with special care.
2.Proof strikes.Planchets are prepared "especially" to make proof coins (coins made especially for collectors).Striking pressures are more carefully controlled for proof coins in an attempt to bring out as much detail in the design as possible for the coins are made especially for collectors. or,
3.Special or "specimen" strikes. Planchets are carefully selected but there is no evidence that the planchets used are specially prepared for strike as is done for proof coins.For a coin like 1894-S dime where only a few (24?) were made,the coiner would pay special attention to striking pressure so that the coins show good to excellent detail with no decidedly poorly struck coins present in the small population.
I've never seen an 1894-S dime "up-close," however, by studying the pictures of the 1894-S dimes in my signed copy of The Complete Guide to Barber Dimes by David Lawrence,I have concluded that 1894-S dime quality among the population of pieces that did not circulate is definitely better than one would expect to see for business strikes.
My preference for designation of method of manufacture for 1894-S dimes is "Special Strike" rather than proof. Let us all remember that the San Francisco Mint was not authorized to make proof coins in 1894. Why the insistence in calling these coins proofs then?
If I actually owned an 1894-S, I would use the TPG that would would call my piece "Special Strike", circulated or not circulated,no matter,on the label. If neither PCGS nor NGC would comply with my request for "Special Strike," which is what I think the label should say, into a self-slab the piece would go.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
Originally posted by: mr1874 My preference for designation of method of manufacture for 1894-S dimes is "Special Strike" rather than proof. Let us all remember that the San Francisco Mint was not authorized to make proof coins in 1894. Why the insistence in calling these coins proofs then?
The San Francisco Mint did not need authorization to strike proof coins as such matters were not spelled out in the law. It was up to the superintendent of that mint as to whether special strikings were made. I will leave the designation of Proof vs. Special Strike to others, however.
My point about the screw type press, as witnessed at The Money Museum during National Coin Week, last weekend, if the handle is spun rapidly, the working pressure at the die (moment of impact), will be higher. 2015 Young Numismatist of the Year was the person spinning the handle during his EXCELLENT presentation at The Money Museum.
An item that will affect this, is the weight at the end of the handles AND the speed at which the handles are spun.
Granted, not ALL screw type presses will allow the handle to be spun rapidly, but it is possible.
Mr. 1874: "There is little to no evidence seen that coins made as business strikes (intended to circulate) are handled in the Mint with special care."
This is not true. In multiple eras, including the current era, substantial numbers of business strikes were not intended for circulation. I provide examples in an earlier post to this thread. Moreover, many business strikes were handled with care, and many collectors demand choicer business strikes that were handled more carefully. There are, in the past and present, collectors who, for whatever reasons, prefer business strikes to Proofs.
It is logical to assume that, during the 19th century, there are instances of collectors visiting Mints seeking Proof coins who ended up with business strikes because Proofs were unavailable. Undoubtedly, there were collectors who sought both business strikes and Proofs. As QDB has mentioned repeatedly, and R. W. Julian has noted as well, it was not unusual for collectors or dealers to obtain coins at the U.S. Mints for face value, both business strikes and Proofs. After around 1860, Proofs may have cost a modest premium when obtained by most 'in person' visitors. The business strikes traded to collectors, obviously, had fewer mint-caused imperfections, on average, than business strikes distributed in quantities. Even so, these were usually business strikes not Specimens.
Mr. 1874: ".Planchets are prepared "especially" to make proof coins ..."
While this point is true in many cases, Mr. 1874's definitions are misguided. There are many Proof coins that were struck on planchets that were not so prepared. Indeed, there are indisputable Proofs that were struck on planchets that had notable imperfections or even substantial problems. I am glad that Mr. 1874 raised this point. One of the flaws in Breen's encyclopedia of 1977 is that he makes too much of the notion that planchets were polished for Proofs. While many were polished, many other Proofs were not struck on polished planchets.
Mr. 1874: "3. Special or "specimen" strikes. Planchets are carefully selected but there is no evidence that the planchets used are specially prepared for strike as is done for proof coins."
This statement is misleading in a harmful way. The preparation of a planchet is not one of the top three criteria for a Proof or a Specimen. For a coin to be a Specimen, the planchet may or may not have been carefully selected. In some cases, as with the Carter-Lustig-Cardinal-Morelan 1794 dollar, the planchet was polished.
All top-level graders, as far as I know, are in agreement that 1894-S dimes are either true Proofs or are close to being Proofs. The James A. Stack, Eliasberg duplicate 1894-S was struck multiple times, in my estimation. This was a whole different kind of striking, unlike a business strike.
There are two kinds of Specimens; coins that are almost Proofs, but do not quite meet the threshold, and coins that are very different from Proofs, with important characteristics that separate them from business strikes. In many cases, a coin that has many of the characteristics of a Proof, yet does not fulfill minimum criteria to be a Proof, is a Specimen. In other cases, Specimens are really different from Proofs. In the case of 1894-S dimes, they either Proofs or 'Almost Proof' Specimens. The consensus at grading services is that they are Proofs. Copyright 2016 Greg Reynolds
Mr. 1874: "I've never seen an 1894-S dime up-close, ... "
Except for very obvious Proofs, there is a need to examine a coin with at least 10x magnification for purposes relating to Proof or Specimen designations.
Mr. 1874: "If neither PCGS nor NGC would comply with my request for "Special Strike," which is what I think the label should say, into a self-slab the piece would go. "
This would not be a productive or educational course of action. A "self-slab" would be self-indulgent and would not be helpful to fellow numismatists who wish to learn about 1894-S dimes. As I have said repeatedly in this thread, EVERY 1894-S dime that has been submitted to PCGS or NGC has, at some point, been designated by PCGS or NGC as a PROOF.
It could be intelligently argued that 1894-S dimes are Specimens not Proofs, though such an argument might very well be wrong. To make such an argument in a fair manner, one would need to inspect 1894-S dimes with a glass and have considerable knowledge of Proofs and Specimens. Please read my articles:
Mr. 1874: "If neither PCGS nor NGC would comply with my request for "Special Strike," which is what I think the label should say, into a self-slab the piece would go."
Analyst:This would not be a productive or educational course of action. A "self-slab" would be self-indulgent and would not be helpful to fellow numismatists who wish to learn about 1894-S dimes. As I have said repeatedly in this thread, EVERY 1894-S dime that has been submitted to PCGS or NGC has, at some point, been designated by PCGS or NGC as a PROOF.
Coin collecting is pretty much a self-indulgent hobby regardless of holder brands.I have found the Coin World slabs to be an excellent product at a great price (3 for $5). BTW,has it occurred to you that both NGC and PCGS could be wrong?
It could be intelligently argued that 1894-S dimes are Specimens not Proofs, though such an argument might very well be wrong. To make such an argument in a fair manner, one would need to inspect 1894-S dimes with a glass and have considerable knowledge of Proofs and Specimens. Please read my articles:
I think all 1894-S dimes are special strikes based on my analysis and that's the designation I would want from the TPG on the label. I wouldn't be afraid to crack-out my 1894-S from its holder saying its a proof and go for special strike designation from a TPG that's how strongly I feel about it.
Here's how I would want the TPG label to appear:
1894-S Special Strike-R8 mr1874 Collection
BTW,"R8" is the highest rarity rating of the BCCS.I would see a number grade on label as clutter. Number grade is not necessary for my 1894-S.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
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.
Rob,
You failed to understand Yes, with the screw press, you can increase pressure by increasing speed, which increases momentum. You can also increase pressure by rotating the arms further in the rotation, which will drive the hammer die down further into the planchet.
What you failed to understand, I stated for proofs, greater pressure at slower speed. The slower speed has nothing to do with the generation of pressure. It is the additional time required for the metal flow to fill the corners between the edge and rims and also in the greatest recesses of the design. You can strike the planchet as fast as you want, but if you do not allow time to permit the metal to flow, they will not be fully struck, which is why a slower speed is required, which on the screw press would imply to hold the bars at full pressure for a little longer.
I requested experts in the area of pressure and screw presses to comment, asking them about generating pressure, and about which would be used to generate additional pressure for proof coins in a screw press.
Roger Burdette stated: All the proofs before 1893 were made on a screw press. However, this was not an ordinary coinage press. It was very large and heavily built and was made for striking medals up to about 76mm. The arms were longer than normal and the weights were heavier and rectangular (for large coins) instead of the usual oval/spherical shape. (I have read documents suggesting that a 3-arm version was tested but was too dangerous to use.) Greater force was attained by the larger mass that was moved. The two press operators apparently tried to keep their force constant and alter the blow pressure by altering weight size and location. (I suspect they had a notebook with illustrations that showed the best location of weights on the arms and the correct weights to use for each size of coin and medal. The material from the Philadelphia Mint confirms that small notebooks were used for this kind of practical information from at least 1890 to 1950.) All of the screw presses had a rebound stop that prevented the screw from bouncing against the struck coin/medal. This press was used only for medals and proof coins - never circulation coins - and the proofs were made in the Medal Department, not by the Coiner in the Press Room. Thus, proofs and medals were closely related products ...more so than proofs and circulation coins.
Daniel Carr stated: I think both are correct, although I would generally go with the speed terminology. The screw press was a type of momentum impact striking. If the handles (with heavy weighted balls) were spun faster, that would increase their momentum. And that would result in them spinning a little but further because the die would squeeze together a little bit more than with a lighter strike. If the speed (momentum) was not important, and only leverage mattered, then you would see the old screw presses without the ball weights on them. But momentum is the important factor for developing peak torque, so you need heavy weights on long arms moving at fast speeds to get maximum impact.
Douglas Mudd stated Based on my experience with the small screw-press in our mini-mint I would say that it s a combination of both. Without using the full length of the screw (rotation) it take a LOT more force to create a decent strike - at the same time, the more force you put in (speed) at the start, the more force will be exerted on the dies. When I first started using the press I was only using a half-turn on the handle - it took all of my strength to get a good strike on a quarter-sized pewter piece (and jarred my hand and arm nicely as well). By taking two full rotations I can use much less force (just a gentle pull and not hurt my hand or arm) and get a better strike. So I would say that it is something like 60 / 40 in favor of more rotation - the screw is the key.
Craig Sholley stated: This is physics and geometry not Buddhism. If you look at the kinesthetic studies on the web, a person can reasonably sustain 225 N (newtons) of force in a push-pull motion while standing. Now add it that you have several people and they have to coordinate, and they can probably sustain about 70% of that, so about 155 N per person. There's no "pulling faster" or "pulling harder," at least over a period longer than a few strikes. Or if the men don't mind tearing muscles and ligaments. You want to increase the force of the lever, increase its mass. That's why they had weights on the swing arm. Nor is there a "greater rotation." The arc of the swing arm is governed by the length of a person's arm and the distance they can effectively move their arms. You get the following: 1. Figure the max extension of the average person's arm in a push-pull motion is about 5 feet (plus some leaning forward and back). 2. Half the length of the swing arm is then given by the equation for an isosceles right triangle: x = R sin( ?/2) , where x is 1/2 the "throw" and ? is the angle. Given the 1/4 turn from BC Wailes, 2.5 = R sin(90/2), or R = 2.5/.7071 = about 3.5 feet. So the swing arm was about 7 foot long total. One gent who visited the Mint said the arm was 10 ft., but that would have included the attached push-poles. Thus, if you want a really good strike out of a screw press, use the "squeeze strike" of the hubbing method rather than the quick impact of the coining method. BTW, that is exactly what the Uhlhorn. Thonnelier, the 1893 hydraulic proof press, and all modern coining presses use - squeeze strike.
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.
Rob
1. You implied that proof coins were struck twice, you stated: " If the blow was at a slower speed the design would not come up as well, necessitating a second blow"
2. You originally stated "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?" Your question at the end clearly implies that you are using Stickney's letter literally on the assertions made within, which are wrong when taken literally.
Originally posted by: Analyst 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.
Greg,
You seem to enjoy misquoting me. I never stated "research on 1894-S dimes is sloppy or incomplete". I stated that 1. you appear to have no personal knowledge on the national archive records from research you have done yourself, or of the Mint laws, or the communications between the Philadelphia and branch mints. 2. You appear to have no knowledge on the equipment used during the 19th century. 3. From the discussion on the 1894-S dime and 1838-O half dollar, you appear to have no knowledge on the diagnostics and what they teach us about these coins. 4. You appear to have not read any books that have been written on this subject, such as my book, or Nancy Oliver and Rick Kelly's book. 5. You appear to have no knowledge of what was published on the 1894-S dime, such as what a Mint employee stated to collectors regarding this in request to purchase a specimen, regarding whether the SF Mint struck proof coins, and what was said in a newspaper article in 1895 by a Mint employee regarding the 1894-S dime
As an example on equipment, you stated that proofs were struck twice, but starting around 1828, after a coin was struck in the screw press, the lower die pushed up the coin and a feeder pushed it forward. This was also done with the steam powered presses and other presses. Are you stating that the Coiner placed the planchet back on lower die, or disengaged the lower die so it would not come up?
You have implied in this thread that you are the leading living expert on 19th century proofs. Yet you appear not to be able to present the basic differences between a coin struck for circulation and that for a proof. You also seem to rely on the opinions of others to assert your statements, rather than your own, why would you need to do this if you are the leading expert, you should be able to present facts to back your statements.
You stated "With high magnfication, it is apparent to me that the James A. Stack 1894-S dime was struck multiple times." Obviously your observations and conclusion would have to be on diagnostics observed. Diagnostics, which are normally physical in nature normally only take a few minutes to present. Yet you refuse to present any such diagnostics. Your excuse is that it would take hours. I find it interesting that you requested my basis for stating that proof coins were not struck twice, which I supplied, I also quickly supplied the diagnostics that I have observed on these coins. I believe that you do not want to show your basis as you know they will be refuted, i.e. you are scared to show them. But you are the first to judge others IMO, as you did with David Stone and Mark Van Winkle on their 1838-O half dollar book.
Guess you missed the recent sale of a 1894-S dime in Heritage, where it stated "All well-preserved examples of the 1894-S Barber dime exhibit reflective surfaces and the issue is uniformly sharply detailed, both hallmarks of traditional proof coins. Historically, the 1894-S has always been regarded as a proof issue, and both PCGS and NGC certify these coins as proofs, or branch mint proofs. However, recent research by Kevin Flynn and Q. David Bowers has called the proof status of the 1894-S into question. Only one pair of dies was used to strike the 24-coin mintage, and Flynn points out that there is no indication that either the planchets or the dies were specially polished. Likewise, there is no indication that the coins were struck more than once. Bowers notes that the fresh dies imparted a prooflike surface to the unworn coins, but they lack the mirror-like depth of reflectivity seen on regular proof issues. The technical merits of this discussion will undoubtedly be hotly debated in the future, but no one doubts that all the coins were produced at the same time, in the same manner, so no example of the 1894-S can claim to be from a more elusive format than any other example. Since they are all either one thing or the other, the point is probably moot for collecting purposes." So I guess Dave Bowers is not a leading expert on proofs or 19th century coins or the 1894-S dime??
I love your statement: "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." So you know better than the Mint whether a coin is a proof, even though they struck the coin. This obviously goes back to your basis that the determination of a proof coin is solely based on the coin, this is because you do not seem to understand or have researched anything else, you simply just look at the coins, and therefore make your rules to fit your needs.
BTW you keep mentioning Ron Guth. I just spoke with Ron on the phone. Ron does not believe the 1894-S dimes are proofs, Ron believes they are special strikes or specimen coins. I believe that any 1894-S dime that was previously listed by PCGS as a "PR", if it is resubmitted to PCGS will be listed as "SP", which takes nothing away from the coin, it is just that PCGS has evolved as the information and research has been uncovered and presented.
Originally posted by: Connecticoin Analyst, any speculation on what happened to the 13 or 14 unknown specimens? I did not see that in your article or your posts.
24 were struck on June 9th, 1894 Two 1894-S dimes were sent to the Director of the Mint on June 9th for assay Two 1894-S dimes were listed as assayed by SF on June 25th One 1894-S dime was sent to the Superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint on June 28th as part of the annual assay.
A.G. Heaton owned one specimen in 1900 J.M. Clapp owned two specimens in 1900 Earl Parker purchased two specimens in 1949.
There are ten know specimens of the 1894-S dime, two of which are in low grade.
24 struck - 5 assayed ------------------ 19 left - 10 known ---------------- 9 unknown, believed to have been circulated
Coin collecting is pretty much a self-indulgent hobby regardless of holder brands.I have found the Coin World slabs to be an excellent product at a great price (3 for $5). BTW,has it occurred to you that both NGC and PCGS could be wrong? I think all 1894-S dimes are special strikes based on my analysis and that's the designation I would want from the TPG on the label. I wouldn't be afraid to crack-out my 1894-S from its holder saying its a proof and go for special strike designation from a TPG that's how strongly I feel about it. Here's how I would want the TPG label to appear: 1894-S Special Strike-R8 mr1874 Collection BTW,"R8" is the highest rarity rating of the BCCS.I would see a number grade on label as clutter. Number grade is not necessary for my 1894-S.
Exactly They were called proofs for the first time in 1945, since then accepted as proofs. I believe PCGS and NGC have called them proofs in the past, and they are evolving as they understand these coins better, and I believe PCGS will call them special strikes in the future. This does not in any way lower the value, demand, or importance of these coins.
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.
Greg,
You keeping missing the point, if you compare the physical characteristics of the 1894-S dimes, they are entirely different that the 1894 proof dimes. 1. The 1894 proof dimes were struck on polished planchets and therefore have a mirrored surfaces. The 1894-S dimes do not have mirrored surfaces.
2. The 1894 proof dimes have fully squared corners between the edges and rim and fully struck details of the design. The 1894-S dimes do not have squared corners and full details of the design.
The physical characteristics of these two, which you use as your basis for calling it a proof is entirely different. You state in an earlier post after I stated these characteristics that show it different from a proof, that it did not matter, in this statement, you say it does, that they should be the same........
Nope, on the 1838-O half dollar, and the 1894-S dime, you failed to list all or any of the diagnostics on these coins, which is important. Diagnostics are the die cracks, die scratches and such that are on the coin. I believe you define diagnostics as to whether coins are pretty or not, please show me otherwise
Originally posted by: mr1874 My preference for designation of method of manufacture for 1894-S dimes is "Special Strike" rather than proof. Let us all remember that the San Francisco Mint was not authorized to make proof coins in 1894. Why the insistence in calling these coins proofs then?
The San Francisco Mint did not need authorization to strike proof coins as such matters were not spelled out in the law. It was up to the superintendent of that mint as to whether special strikings were made. I will leave the designation of Proof vs. Special Strike to others, however.
So, when the acting San Francisco Mint Superintendent Robert Barnett stated several times in letters dated 1894, "Proof coins are not minted at this Mint. Please apply to the U.S. Mint Philadelphia." that this should carry significant weight.
Originally posted by: mr1874 My preference for designation of method of manufacture for 1894-S dimes is "Special Strike" rather than proof. Let us all remember that the San Francisco Mint was not authorized to make proof coins in 1894. Why the insistence in calling these coins proofs then?
The San Francisco Mint did not need authorization to strike proof coins as such matters were not spelled out in the law. It was up to the superintendent of that mint as to whether special strikings were made. I will leave the designation of Proof vs. Special Strike to others, however.
So, when the acting San Francisco Mint Superintendent Robert Barnett stated several times in letters dated 1894, "Proof coins are not minted at this Mint. Please apply to the U.S. Mint Philadelphia." that this should carry significant weight.
It doesn’t carry any weight. The San Francisco superintendent had the power to strike special pieces if he chose to do so. That he did so on certain occasions is all that counts. His statement about proof coins merely indicates that the SF Mint did not make them for sale and that collectors should apply to the Philadelphia Mint.
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.
Rob 1. You implied that proof coins were struck twice, you stated: " If the blow was at a slower speed the design would not come up as well, necessitating a second blow" 2. You originally stated "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?" Your question at the end clearly implies that you are using Stickney's letter literally on the assertions made within, which are wrong when taken literally. Kevin
I did not say proof coins were struck twice, only that kevinj’s scenario required this to be true.
As to Stickney’s letter I was merely quoting what he said. Stickney was noting that he began buying proofs in 1843. If kevinj has proof that Stickney did not first buy proofs in 1843 than he should say so instead of changing the subject and asking me if I could do a little math.
Originally posted by: mr1874 My preference for designation of method of manufacture for 1894-S dimes is "Special Strike" rather than proof. Let us all remember that the San Francisco Mint was not authorized to make proof coins in 1894. Why the insistence in calling these coins proofs then?
The San Francisco Mint did not need authorization to strike proof coins as such matters were not spelled out in the law. It was up to the superintendent of that mint as to whether special strikings were made. I will leave the designation of Proof vs. Special Strike to others, however.
So, when the acting San Francisco Mint Superintendent Robert Barnett stated several times in letters dated 1894, "Proof coins are not minted at this Mint. Please apply to the U.S. Mint Philadelphia." that this should carry significant weight.
It doesn’t carry any weight. The San Francisco superintendent had the power to strike special pieces if he chose to do so. That he did so on certain occasions is all that counts. His statement about proof coins merely indicates that the SF Mint did not make them for sale and that collectors should apply to the Philadelphia Mint.
First, Barnett does not state or imply that the SF Mint did not make proofs for sale, that is your twisting as usual. Barnett states that proof coins are not minted at the SF Mint, plain and simple. Second, if you had any clue on Barnett, you would understand that he was by the book on policy, if he did not believe it was part of permit-able rules, it was not done. Third, your original statement implies that the Superintendent of the Branch Mints could make proofs or do Special Striking without knowledge from the Director of the Mint. Please list all of the times this occurred, not of course including those that were done clandestinely and illegally such as was done for the 1870-S Three dollar gold by the Chief Coiner of the SF Mint, not the Superintendent. Fourth, these 1894-S dimes were not special strikings that were distributed to collectors or special dignitaries, or for a special occasion, some were released into circulation, half are unknown as to whereabouts, which is typical for coins released into circulation and eventually melted.
How can you say that the statements of the person who was in charge of the San Fran Mint carries no weight? It shows you complete lack of comprehension. You can't use letters from the archives just when it suits your argument. Your interpretation herein and other statements is why I do not believe anything you or Breen states without original documentation to support.
Please support your original statement that the Branch Mint Superintendents were permitted/empowered to create special strikings or proofs if they chose to do so.
I did not say proof coins were struck twice, only that kevinj’s scenario required this to be true. As to Stickney’s letter I was merely quoting what he said. Stickney was noting that he began buying proofs in 1843. If kevinj has proof that Stickney did not first buy proofs in 1843 than he should say so instead of changing the subject and asking me if I could do a little math.
First you misunderstood my original statement that proofs required greater pressure and slower speed. When you first misunderstood how I used slower speed, when you presented in the context of a screw press. I clarified that slower speed implied greater time to permit the metal flow into the corners and furthest details of the design element. You could not understand this concept and said it was not relevant. Second, you stated increasing the speed of the arm rotation was the only way to increase pressure. You were wrong on this also. You could rotate further, or increase the weight on the balls to increase pressure.
You were not quoting Stickney, your question at the end implied you were using his statement literally (that he purchased proof coins each year for the past 24 years from the Mint) to prove a historic point. Stickney could not have been correct in his statement as he could not have purchase proof coins in each year since 1843.
You enjoy holding others to literal statements and translation, but you do not hold yourself to the same level. You cannot admit your are wrong, which greatly hurts your credibility, but worse, you fail to learn IMO.
Originally posted by: mr1874 My preference for designation of method of manufacture for 1894-S dimes is "Special Strike" rather than proof. Let us all remember that the San Francisco Mint was not authorized to make proof coins in 1894. Why the insistence in calling these coins proofs then?
The San Francisco Mint did not need authorization to strike proof coins as such matters were not spelled out in the law. It was up to the superintendent of that mint as to whether special strikings were made. I will leave the designation of Proof vs. Special Strike to others, however.
So, when the acting San Francisco Mint Superintendent Robert Barnett stated several times in letters dated 1894, "Proof coins are not minted at this Mint. Please apply to the U.S. Mint Philadelphia." that this should carry significant weight.
It doesn’t carry any weight. The San Francisco superintendent had the power to strike special pieces if he chose to do so. That he did so on certain occasions is all that counts. His statement about proof coins merely indicates that the SF Mint did not make them for sale and that collectors should apply to the Philadelphia Mint.
First, Barnett does not state or imply that the SF Mint did not make proofs for sale, that is your twisting as usual. Barnett states that proof coins are not minted at the SF Mint, plain and simple. Second, if you had any clue on Barnett, you would understand that he was by the book on policy, if he did not believe it was part of permit-able rules, it was not done. Third, your original statement implies that the Superintendent of the Branch Mints could make proofs or do Special Striking without knowledge from the Director of the Mint. Please list all of the times this occurred, not of course including those that were done clandestinely and illegally such as was done for the 1870-S Three dollar gold by the Chief Coiner of the SF Mint, not the Superintendent. Fourth, these 1894-S dimes were not special strikings that were distributed to collectors or special dignitaries, or for a special occasion, some were released into circulation, half are unknown as to whereabouts, which is typical for coins released into circulation and eventually melted.
How can you say that the statements of the person who was in charge of the San Fran Mint carries no weight? It shows you complete lack of comprehension. You can't use letters from the archives just when it suits your argument. Your interpretation herein and other statements is why I do not believe anything you or Breen states without original documentation to support.
Please support your original statement that the Branch Mint Superintendents were permitted/empowered to create special strikings or proofs if they chose to do so.
My statements stand as written. Some points need to be made:
1) The 1894–S dimes were clearly a special striking. Whether this means Proof or Special Strike I will leave to others. In such a small striking there would have to have been a very select distribution. However, coins get spent, are stolen, or otherwise lost. A small coin like a dime is especially easy to lose or mislay.
2) There are a number of branch mint proofs in existence. They may be called Special Strikes if one pleases but they were clearly made for special purposes. Kevinj wants me to do his work for him (making lists of such items) but I will pass.
3) Kevinj says that some of the 1894–S dimes were released into circulation as normal coinage. I am sure he will present the relevant fiscal entries proving this claim.
4) The 1894–S dimes are sufficient proof in themselves that the superintendents could make special strikings.
I did not say proof coins were struck twice, only that kevinj’s scenario required this to be true. As to Stickney’s letter I was merely quoting what he said. Stickney was noting that he began buying proofs in 1843. If kevinj has proof that Stickney did not first buy proofs in 1843 than he should say so instead of changing the subject and asking me if I could do a little math.
First you misunderstood my original statement that proofs required greater pressure and slower speed. When you first misunderstood how I used slower speed, when you presented in the context of a screw press. I clarified that slower speed implied greater time to permit the metal flow into the corners and furthest details of the design element. You could not understand this concept and said it was not relevant. Second, you stated increasing the speed of the arm rotation was the only way to increase pressure. You were wrong on this also. You could rotate further, or increase the weight on the balls to increase pressure.
You were not quoting Stickney, your question at the end implied you were using his statement literally (that he purchased proof coins each year for the past 24 years from the Mint) to prove a historic point. Stickney could not have been correct in his statement as he could not have purchase proof coins in each year since 1843.
You enjoy holding others to literal statements and translation, but you do not hold yourself to the same level. You cannot admit your are wrong, which greatly hurts your credibility, but worse, you fail to learn IMO.
Some points that kevinj appears not to understand:
1) Stickney did not say that he had purchased proof sets every year since 1843.
2) I did not say or imply that he had purchased sets every year. I merely reported what he wrote. The point I was making originally in this thread was that information did exist in the Archives about proof coinage in the 1840s. (Kevinj had claimed that it did not.)
Some points that kevinj appears not to understand: 1) Stickney did not say that he had purchased proof sets every year since 1843. 2) I did not say or imply that he had purchased sets every year. I merely reported what he wrote. The point I was making originally in this thread was that information did exist in the Archives about proof coinage in the 1840s. (Kevinj had claimed that it did not.)
You clearly do not understand, I originally stated in the 1840s, not for the 1840s, you interpretation and quoting of Stickney is irrelevant to that point. "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."
Second, you asked the question if Stickney was incorrect. Stickney claimed he had purchased proofs for 24 years, this is impossible, therefore Stickney was incorrect.
My statements stand as written. Some points need to be made: 1) The 1894–S dimes were clearly a special striking. Whether this means Proof or Special Strike I will leave to others. In such a small striking there would have to have been a very select distribution. However, coins get spent, are stolen, or otherwise lost. A small coin like a dime is especially easy to lose or mislay. 2) There are a number of branch mint proofs in existence. They may be called Special Strikes if one pleases but they were clearly made for special purposes. Kevinj wants me to do his work for him (making lists of such items) but I will pass. 3) Kevinj says that some of the 1894–S dimes were released into circulation as normal coinage. I am sure he will present the relevant fiscal entries proving this claim. 4) The 1894–S dimes are sufficient proof in themselves that the superintendents could make special strikings. 5) There was no Chief Coiner at SF.
1. You state they were clearly special strikes, please support this evidence with actual facts, not baseless statements. You are also wrong again. I believe they were struck to round out the fiscal year total to an even dollar amount. Fact $149,142,10 dimes struck in second half of 1893 quarters fiscal 1894 $774,405.50, half dollar fiscal 1894 $1,629948.00 They needed $.40 to bring round fiscal total to a dollar amount End of fiscal year was June 30th, half dollars were struck to end of month, quarters were struck to June 9th, 24 dimes were struck on June 9th. Obviously they chose to strike $2 extra in dimes.
Wow, select distribution, please show or show pedigree info on the 1894-S dime, I already did this in my book on the subject. On almost every other special striking from any mint, we see the majority of coins were saved and can trace back. You clearly do not know and making unsupported statements. Like Breen, you make unsupported statements.
Also if you are calling these special strikings, prove it, state what in the coins differentiates them from normal coins struck for circulation and are first strikes from a die. I already did this study, they are the same.
2. When you make a statement, I am requesting that you back it up.
3, Yeah we have two found in circulation, half are missing, which is normal for coins released into circulation.
4. Again, statements without supporting facts and evidence.
5. Funny, you argue the literal use of something, but cry when someone does it to you.... You missed the point that the Coiner made coins for himself illegally
Some points that kevinj appears not to understand: 1) Stickney did not say that he had purchased proof sets every year since 1843. 2) I did not say or imply that he had purchased sets every year. I merely reported what he wrote. The point I was making originally in this thread was that information did exist in the Archives about proof coinage in the 1840s. (Kevinj had claimed that it did not.)
You clearly do not understand, I originally stated in the 1840s, not for the 1840s, you [sic] interpretation and quoting of Stickney is irrelevant to that point. "In the 1840s, there is no documentation of proofs being struck at the Mint, usually no more than 25 coins of each denomination was [sic] struck in proofs."
Second, you asked the question if Stickney was incorrect. Stickney claimed he had purchased proofs for 24 years, this is impossible, therefore Stickney was incorrect.
Kevinj’s memory seems to be failing. I also pointed out earlier in this thread a letter from the 1840s mentioning a special set of proof coins sent to Europe. The Stickney letter is definitive evidence for proofs struck at the Mint in the 1840s.
I know families who have been purchasing proof sets from the Mint since 1950. That certain years (the SMS of the 1960s) were not proof does not mean that they are wrong, only that kevinj does not understand.
Another kevinism: In 1865, left over proof sets from 1861 through 1864 were melted. Unfortunately someone forgot to tell Mint officials about the melting and they were still selling 1862 sets for some years after 1865.
My statements stand as written. Some points need to be made: 1) The 1894–S dimes were clearly a special striking. Whether this means Proof or Special Strike I will leave to others. In such a small striking there would have to have been a very select distribution. However, coins get spent, are stolen, or otherwise lost. A small coin like a dime is especially easy to lose or mislay. 2) There are a number of branch mint proofs in existence. They may be called Special Strikes if one pleases but they were clearly made for special purposes. Kevinj wants me to do his work for him (making lists of such items) but I will pass. 3) Kevinj says that some of the 1894–S dimes were released into circulation as normal coinage. I am sure he will present the relevant fiscal entries proving this claim. 4) The 1894–S dimes are sufficient proof in themselves that the superintendents could make special strikings. 5) There was no Chief Coiner at SF.
1. You state they were clearly special strikes, please support this evidence with actual facts, not baseless statements. You are also wrong again. I believe they were struck to round out the fiscal year total to an even dollar amount. Fact $149,142,10 dimes struck in second half of 1893 quarters fiscal 1894 $774,405.50, half dollar fiscal 1894 $1,629948.00 They needed $.40 to bring round fiscal total to a dollar amount End of fiscal year was June 30th, half dollars were struck to end of month, quarters were struck to June 9th, 24 dimes were struck on June 9th. Obviously they chose to strike $2 extra in dimes.
Wow, select distribution, please show or show pedigree info on the 1894-S dime, I already did this in my book on the subject. On almost every other special striking from any mint, we see the majority of coins were saved and can trace back. You clearly do not know and making unsupported statements. Like Breen, you make unsupported statements.
Also if you are calling these special strikings, prove it, state what in the coins differentiates them from normal coins struck for circulation and are first strikes from a die. I already did this study, they are the same.
2. When you make a statement, I am requesting that you back it up.
3, Yeah we have two found in circulation, half are missing, which is normal for coins released into circulation.
4. Again, statements without supporting facts and evidence.
5. Funny, you argue the literal use of something, but cry when someone does it to you.... You missed the point that the Coiner made coins for himself illegally
In other words you have no documentation showing that they were released into circulation. All you have is pure speculation. If such documentation does not exist then this is sufficient proof of special distribution.
In other words you have no documentation showing that they were released into circulation. All you have is pure speculation. If such documentation does not exist then this is sufficient proof of special distribution.
Thats precious, love your logic, if no one can absolutely prove you wrong, your statements (which are purely speculative) must be correct.
As usual, the evidence is in the coins themselves, which I know you might know a little archives, but little on coins.... If you compare every other specially struck coin, they were all save in majority. These, 2 circulated, half are missing and 5 are known to have been assayed. Please show me special strikings that were assayed, actually no need, they were not.
Its funny, when I request evidence from you, you refuse, claim you do not want to do work for me or some other excuse.
As usual, this entire discussion is a waste of time, you know little, like Breen, you speculate and make statements that are not supported. Good luck, I feel pity for you.
Kevinj’s memory seems to be failing. I also pointed out earlier in this thread a letter from the 1840s mentioning a special set of proof coins sent to Europe. The Stickney letter is definitive evidence for proofs struck at the Mint in the 1840s. I know families who have been purchasing proof sets from the Mint since 1950. That certain years (the SMS of the 1960s) were not proof does not mean that they are wrong, only that kevinj does not understand. Another kevinism: In 1865, left over proof sets from 1861 through 1864 were melted. Unfortunately someone forgot to tell Mint officials about the melting and they were still selling 1862 sets for some years after 1865.
Did not challenge the first part regarding proof coins in Europe as you were correct in the context of my initial statement. I challenged your question on Stinkney as you were wrong. He could not have purchased proof coins for every year for 24 years.
You really need to read Record 15, Letters Sent regarding coins and medals, which starts in 1866. This contains correspondence between the Director and collectors. Each year many collectors requested previous year sets. One letter in 1866 stated that there were 1862 sets left over, after that every time, Director stated they were melted. Yes, I was wrong by a year, it was 1866.
Kevinj’s memory seems to be failing. I also pointed out earlier in this thread a letter from the 1840s mentioning a special set of proof coins sent to Europe. The Stickney letter is definitive evidence for proofs struck at the Mint in the 1840s. I know families who have been purchasing proof sets from the Mint since 1950. That certain years (the SMS of the 1960s) were not proof does not mean that they are wrong, only that kevinj does not understand. Another kevinism: In 1865, left over proof sets from 1861 through 1864 were melted. Unfortunately someone forgot to tell Mint officials about the melting and they were still selling 1862 sets for some years after 1865.
Did not challenge the first part regarding proof coins in Europe as you were correct in the context of my initial statement. I challenged your question on Stinkney as you were wrong. He could not have purchased proof coins for every year for 24 years.
You really need to read Record 15, Letters Sent regarding coins and medals, which starts in 1866. This contains correspondence between the Director and collectors. Each year many collectors requested previous year sets. One letter in 1866 stated that there were 1862 sets left over, after that every time, Director stated they were melted. Yes, I was wrong by a year, it was 1866.
I happen to have copies of all letters from Entry 15 of RG 104 for well beyond the starting point of 1862, not 1866 as noted. However, there are letters regarding proofs in other letter files and we find, for example, a letter from Director Linderman to a Pittsburgh collector in May 1867 offering to sell the 1862 silver sets at the usual $3 in coin.
There is also the 1875 sales of 1862 and 1864–1866 gold proof sets to consider.
A genuine 'S' reverse for 1894-S has no extra fold in the ribbon on the right side of the mintmark.A dime represented as 1894-S that has an extra fold in the right ribbon is not authentic.
Barber changed both the obverse and reverse design on 1901 and later issues,thus creating the type 2,or 'new,' obverse and reverse for Barber head silver coins.
This information can be useful in detecting counterfeits.See David Lawrence The Complete Guide to Barber Dimes (1991) for more.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
Kevin: "As an example on equipment, you stated that proofs were struck twice, ..."
This neither a fair nor accurate view of my statements on the matter. In this thread, I already said: 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?
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.
In my experience, over the last twenty-five years, there are very few other people who devote much time to carefully and thoroughly examining 19th century coins that are represented as Proofs or non-Proof Specimen Strikings.
JD has spent much time, though I do not remember him ever spelling out criteria in print or critically analyzing any one coin in print.
Kevin: "Yet you appear not to be able to present the basic differences between a coin struck for circulation and that for a proof. ... You also seem to rely on the opinions of others ..."
Quite the opposite is true. More so than any other living person, I have presented such differences. In regards to any one coin, it can take hours. It will take time to find my handwritten notes regarding specific 1894-S dimes. As it so obvious that these are not business strikes, I never thought of this as being a priority. The claimed Proof status of some Capped Bust coins tends to be far more controversial, and worthy of detailed expositions.
Every single 1894-S dime that has been submitted to PCGS or NGC has been certified as a Proof. As I indicated in a post above, I talked to John Albanese, the sharpest grader of all, and he regards them as Proofs. I am not aware of one top-level grading expert stating that 1894-S dimes are not Proofs. When I first saw the James A. Stack, Eliasberg duplicate, I determined that it was a Proof on my own, without consulting others. The fact that there seems to be unanimous agreement among top-level grading experts that it is so is significant.
Kevin: "4. You appear to have not read any books that have been written on this subject, such as my book, or Nancy Oliver and Rick Kelly's book. 5. You appear to have no knowledge of what was published on the 1894-S dime, such as what a Mint employee stated to collectors regarding this in request to purchase a specimen, regarding whether the SF Mint struck proof coins, and what was said in a newspaper article in 1895 by a Mint employee regarding the 1894-S dime"
I was familiar with said newspaper article. I am aware of the research by Oliver & Kelly. I addressed these matters already in this thread.
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 would be unsurprising if 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 the Secretary of Defense or other superiors.
Usually, if officials engage in practices that may be interpreted as disobeying orders or may lead to friction with others in the same bureaucracy, especially higher-ranking officials, then they are not going to admit to such practices in official correspondence or records. Of course, there could be mentions of Branch Mint Proofs in Mint records. But, it is understandable that, in most cases, the people involved would not want such minting of Proofs mentioned in any record, piece of correspondence, or interview. This point is so obvious that it should not require this much of an explanation. Undoubtedly, there were many important events in the 19th century that were not precisely recorded and not honestly referenced in detail in official records.
"In order to understand the scarce coins that you own or see, you must learn about coins that you cannot afford." -Me
Regarding the views of others, it is neither fair nor accurate for Kevin to say that I am relying upon others. I am pointing out that there is nearly-unanimous agreement among top-level graders that 1894-S dimes are Proofs or nearly so. Obviously, in my articles, I put forth my own views regarding Proofs, Specimens and business strikes, including my own criteria. Here are links to three articles about non-Proof Specimens:
Even so, it does make sense to consult top-level graders. I am certain that I have fairly interpreted the views of top-level graders and the material on PCGS CoinFacts. I will emphasize some points here that are pertinent to this discussion, especially since those visiting this thread for the first time are unlikely to read all of the earlier posts.
'I spoke to John Albanese [last week]. 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' ...
Kevin: BTW you keep mentioning Ron Guth. I just spoke with Ron on the phone. Ron does not believe the 1894-S dimes are proofs, Ron believes they are special strikes or specimen coins.
1. If Ron said they are Special Strikes or Specimen coins, Ron would be saying that Kevin is wrong, as Kevin refers to them as reflective "circulation strikes" from new "working dies." Specimens are made from specially prepared dies, not to be used right away (if ever) for circulation strikes. So, it seems fair for me to point out that Ron's view and Kevin's view are in conflict.
2. Ron is or was president of PCGS CoinFacts and is generally believed to be the mastermind behind the project. I just checked again the PCGS CoinFacts page for 1894-S dimes, which I saved in PDF format. The abbreviations PR for Proof and SP for Specimen both appear on the page, though the word "PROOF" is spelled out at the top! I explicitly noted in earlier posts to this thread that there have been some internal disagreements at PCGS, though all seem to agree that Kevin is wrong as all at PCGS (as far as I know) indicate that 1894-S dimes were very specially made not just ordinary first-strikes from new dies as Kevin states.
3. As both PR and SP abbreviations appear on this PCGS CoinFacts page, Ron Guth could have explicitly expressed an opinion there or not included his own name on the 1894-S dime CoinFacts page at all. Instead, Ron, explicitly using his own name, chose to re-publish a description of an 1894-S dime in a Heritage auction catalogue from the January 2005 FUN sale, which stated that "All were struck as Proofs, and all but two retain some or full mirrored Proof finish today." He could have selected a different catalogue description, if he had wanted to make different points.
Regarding QDB, he has described 1894-S dimes as Proofs during the course of his career. Bowers & Ruddy sold at least one privately and it was described as a Proof in a Rare Coin Review. IIRC, the Norweb and primary Eliasberg pieces were described as Proofs by QDB. When did QDB last examine an 1894-S dime? In 2007, Stack's, after the merger with ANR, auctioned one in NY. I covered that event. I do not remember seeing QDB there, though I am not certain as to whether he was present or not.
Kevin: "I believe that any 1894-S dime that was previously listed by PCGS as a "PR", if it is resubmitted to PCGS will be listed as "SP"
The James A. Stack, Eliasberg duplicate 1894-S dime was recertified by PCGS at some point from 2012 to 2014, and clearly called a Proof not a Specimen. Anyone can view a picture of this coin in its PCGS holder at ha.com
Originally posted by: Analyst Kevin: "As an example on equipment, you stated that proofs were struck twice, ..." This neither a fair nor accurate view of my statements on the matter. In this thread, I already said: 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? 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. In my experience, over the last twenty-five years, there are very few other people who devote much time to carefully and thoroughly examining 19th century coins that are represented as Proofs or non-Proof Specimen Strikings. JD has spent much time, though I do not remember him ever spelling out criteria in print or critically analyzing any one coin in print. Kevin: "Yet you appear not to be able to present the basic differences between a coin struck for circulation and that for a proof. ... You also seem to rely on the opinions of others ..." Quite the opposite is true. More so than any other living person, I have presented such differences. In regards to any one coin, it can take hours. It will take time to find my handwritten notes regarding specific 1894-S dimes. As it so obvious that these are not business strikes, I never thought of this as being a priority. The claimed Proof status of some Capped Bust coins tends to be far more controversial, and worthy of detailed expositions. Every single 1894-S dime that has been submitted to PCGS or NGC has been certified as a Proof. As I indicated in a post above, I talked to John Albanese, the sharpest grader of all, and he regards them as Proofs. I am not aware of one top-level grading expert stating that 1894-S dimes are not Proofs. When I first saw the James A. Stack, Eliasberg duplicate, I determined that it was a Proof on my own, without consulting others. The fact that there seems to be unanimous agreement among top-level grading experts that it is so is significant. Kevin: "4. You appear to have not read any books that have been written on this subject, such as my book, or Nancy Oliver and Rick Kelly's book. 5. You appear to have no knowledge of what was published on the 1894-S dime, such as what a Mint employee stated to collectors regarding this in request to purchase a specimen, regarding whether the SF Mint struck proof coins, and what was said in a newspaper article in 1895 by a Mint employee regarding the 1894-S dime" I was familiar with said newspaper article. I am aware of the research by Oliver & Kelly. I addressed these matters already in this thread. 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 would be unsurprising if 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 the Secretary of Defense or other superiors. Usually, if officials engage in practices that may be interpreted as disobeying orders or may lead to friction with others in the same bureaucracy, especially higher-ranking officials, then they are not going to admit to such practices in official correspondence or records. Of course, there could be mentions of Branch Mint Proofs in Mint records. But, it is understandable that, in most cases, the people involved would not want such minting of Proofs mentioned in any record, piece of correspondence, or interview. This point is so obvious that it should not require this much of an explanation. Undoubtedly, there were many important events in the 19th century that were not precisely recorded and not honestly referenced in detail in official records.
Greg,
IMO, you are worse than Breen, you have no clue, but you make statements that are unsupported, for example with what you stated with Carson City. Worse, you do not learn. You believe you know everything when you clearly know little. You have stated for example, the Stack's 1894-S dime was struck multiple times, that you saw evidence of it; you did not say theory.
Again, you refuse to support any of your argument with evidence, especially on the 1894-S dime.
There is a wonderfully written story about the 1894-S dime in Heritage Archives.
I looked for squared rims on the 1894-S piece I saw pictured.The rims are not squared yet the piece is being called a proof...
There is a wonderfully written story about the 1894-S dime in Heritage Archives.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
Originally posted by: Analyst Regarding the views of others, it is neither fair nor accurate for Kevin to say that I am relying upon others. I am pointing out that there is nearly-unanimous agreement among top-level graders that 1894-S dimes are Proofs or nearly so. Obviously, in my articles, I put forth my own views regarding Proofs, Specimens and business strikes, including my own criteria. Here are links to three articles about non-Proof Specimens: Even so, it does make sense to consult top-level graders. I am certain that I have fairly interpreted the views of top-level graders and the material on PCGS CoinFacts. I will emphasize some points here that are pertinent to this discussion, especially since those visiting this thread for the first time are unlikely to read all of the earlier posts. 'I spoke to John Albanese [last week]. 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' ... Kevin: BTW you keep mentioning Ron Guth. I just spoke with Ron on the phone. Ron does not believe the 1894-S dimes are proofs, Ron believes they are special strikes or specimen coins. 1. If Ron said they are Special Strikes or Specimen coins, Ron would be saying that Kevin is wrong, as Kevin refers to them as reflective "circulation strikes" from new "working dies." Specimens are made from specially prepared dies, not to be used right away (if ever) for circulation strikes. So, it seems fair for me to point out that Ron's view and Kevin's view are in conflict. 2. Ron is or was president of PCGS CoinFacts and is generally believed to be the mastermind behind the project. I just checked again the PCGS CoinFacts page for 1894-S dimes, which I saved in PDF format. The abbreviations PR for Proof and SP for Specimen both appear on the page, though the word "PROOF" is spelled out at the top! I explicitly noted in earlier posts to this thread that there have been some internal disagreements at PCGS, though all seem to agree that Kevin is wrong as all at PCGS (as far as I know) indicate that 1894-S dimes were very specially made not just ordinary first-strikes from new dies as Kevin states. 3. As both PR and SP abbreviations appear on this PCGS CoinFacts page, Ron Guth could have explicitly expressed an opinion there or not included his own name on the 1894-S dime CoinFacts page at all. Instead, Ron, explicitly using his own name, chose to re-publish a description of an 1894-S dime in a Heritage auction catalogue from the January 2005 FUN sale, which stated that "All were struck as Proofs, and all but two retain some or full mirrored Proof finish today." He could have selected a different catalogue description, if he had wanted to make different points. Regarding QDB, he has described 1894-S dimes as Proofs during the course of his career. Bowers & Ruddy sold at least one privately and it was described as a Proof in a Rare Coin Review. IIRC, the Norweb and primary Eliasberg pieces were described as Proofs by QDB. When did QDB last examine an 1894-S dime? In 2007, Stack's, after the merger with ANR, auctioned one in NY. I covered that event. I do not remember seeing QDB there, though I am not certain as to whether he was present or not. Kevin: "I believe that any 1894-S dime that was previously listed by PCGS as a "PR", if it is resubmitted to PCGS will be listed as "SP" The James A. Stack, Eliasberg duplicate 1894-S dime was recertified by PCGS at some point from 2012 to 2014, and clearly called a Proof not a Specimen. Anyone can view a picture of this coin in its PCGS holder at ha.com
Wrong again Greg,
Specimen or special strike does not absolutely state the dies were especially prepared. Let me give you an example 10 1838-O half dollars struck in January 1839, the Coiner, Tyler wanted to impress Director Patterson, and especially struck them. On the coins, the design elements are fully struck, and the coins have a sequence of die cracks. The surfaces are reflective, such as would be expected for a fresh die. There are no signs of polishing of the dies. This implies that Tyler cranked up the pressure to have a better strike. These coins will now be called specimen or special strikes. On the single specimen struck in March 1839, the reverse of the planchet was polished and has a mirrored finish. This specimen is a proof. Again, you fail to understand what a special strike or specimen implies or how to differentiate. The 1894-S dime was not especially prepared, there are many defects in the design elements, and also there are no polishing lines on the die. Reflective surfaces, as what I, JD, QDB, and many others have stated means the reflective surfaces normally seen on coins struck with fresh dies.
Please list all of the experts who you claimed to have spoke to who state the 1894-S dime is a proof.
Funny, now your better than QDB and what Ron Guth actually says is irrelevant.
Facts and evidence speak for themselves and can be viewed and judged for their accuracy. Speculation and guessing are like clouds, they change shape, can't be nailed down as their is nothing to support them.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
Kevin: "Please list all of the experts who you claimed to have spoke to who state the 1894-S dime is a proof."
I have cited John Albanese at least twice in this thread. I have already made it clear that every single 1894-S dime, except perhaps the '03' grade one, that has been submitted to PCGS or NGC has been certified as a Proof. There is one that PCGS earlier certified as a Proof that PCGS may possibly have later certified as "SP," though I never saw an "SP designation on a holder housing an 1894-S dime. I have examined six of the nine known.
The James A. Stack, Eliasberg duplicate that HA just auctioned in January 2015 is PCGS certified as a Proof: PR66, not SP66. It is in a holder that dates from 2012 to 2014. Before March 2005, it was NGC certified as a Proof.
Kevin: "Reflective surfaces, as what I, JD, QDB, and many others have stated means the reflective surfaces normally seen on coins struck with fresh dies."
I never heard JD say that 1894-S dimes are prooflike business strikes. As far as I know, every single top-level grader is in agreement that these were very specially struck, Proofs or nearly so. I am certain that I fairly represented the PCGS CoinFacts page and the explicit citation there by Ron Guth of a Heritage catalogue. Please read for yourselves:
The following words are taken from the catalogue for the Eliasberg ’96 sale in New York, which was conducted by "Auctions by Bowers & Merena" of New Hampshire. Q. David Bowers catalogued the 1894-S Dime that Louis Eliasberg kept until he died.
"[Lot #]1250 1894-S Proof fields somewhat resembling a Philadelphia Mint Proof ..." (p. 326)
Later in the same description (on p. 328), QDB says that "All were made with Proof finish, ..,"
Near the end, QDB states, "That nine specimens are known today and that seven of these have Proof surfaces as struck, would seem to indicate that these were made as souvenirs or cabinet pieces." The other two are well worn.
No one is asserting that Branch Mint Proofs are exactly like Philadelphia Mint Proofs. It seems clear, though, that QDB was saying that 1894-S dimes have mirror surfaces. If he did not think 1894-S dimes had mirror finishes and could fairly be called Proofs, or if he wished to suggest alternate designations for them, he would have said so. In addition to being chief cataloguer and the founder, QDB was clearly the chairman and probably the largest shareholder of B&M at the time. There was no one stopping him from revealing his own views in the Eliasberg '96 catalogue. Also, QDB must have had the Eliasberg 1894-S in front of him while he was cataloguing.
Originally posted by: Analyst Kevin: "Please list all of the experts who you claimed to have spoke to who state the 1894-S dime is a proof." I have cited John Albanese at least twice in this thread. I have already made it clear that every single 1894-S dime, except perhaps the '03' grade one, that has been submitted to PCGS or NGC has been certified as a Proof. There is one that PCGS earlier certified as a Proof that PCGS may possibly have later certified as "SP," though I never saw an "SP designation on a holder housing an 1894-S dime. I have examined six of the nine known. The James A. Stack, Eliasberg duplicate that HA just auctioned in January 2015 is PCGS certified as a Proof: PR66, not SP66. It is in a holder that dates from 2012 to 2014. Before March 2005, it was NGC certified as a Proof. Kevin: "Reflective surfaces, as what I, JD, QDB, and many others have stated means the reflective surfaces normally seen on coins struck with fresh dies." I never heard JD say that 1894-S dimes are prooflike business strikes. As far as I know, every single top-level grader is in agreement that these were very specially struck, Proofs or nearly so. I am certain that I fairly represented the PCGS CoinFacts page and the explicit citation there by Ron Guth of a Heritage catalogue. Please read for yourselves: The following words are taken from the catalogue for the Eliasberg ’96 sale in New York, which was conducted by "Auctions by Bowers & Merena" of New Hampshire. Q. David Bowers catalogued the 1894-S Dime that Louis Eliasberg kept until he died. Later in the same description (on p. 328), QDB says that "All were made with Proof finish, ..," Near the end, QDB states, "That nine specimens are known today and that seven of these have Proof surfaces as struck, would seem to indicate that these were made as souvenirs or cabinet pieces." The other two are well worn. No one is asserting that Branch Mint Proofs are exactly like Philadelphia Mint Proofs. It seems clear, though, that QDB was saying that 1894-S dimes have mirror surfaces. If he did not think 1894-S dimes had mirror finishes and could fairly be called Proofs, or if he wished to suggest alternate designations for them, he would have said so. In addition to being chief cataloguer and the founder, QDB was clearly the chairman and probably the largest shareholder of B&M at the time. There was no one stopping him from revealing his own views in the Eliasberg '96 catalogue. Also, QDB must have had the Eliasberg 1894-S in front of him while he was cataloguing. Condition Ranking of 1894-S Dimes, with Recent Histories
So you state you spoke to many graders and people, but you only actually spoke to JA. Everyone else you guess and speculate. I spoke to JD, Ron Guth, QDB, and many others. All say not a proof, surfaces are not mirrored, they are what you would expect from fresh dies. I will speak to JA. Problem is that the 1894-S dimes were first called proofs in 1945. Since, many has adopted this claim, which had no basis. Once said, it is difficult to change, as that might be seen as not knowing or having made a mistake. Today, experts, and the grading services are armed with more knowledge, archive records to reflect the history and of those who struck the coins, their intentions and such are now known. Kevin
I found the write-up seen below in the catalog for The Allen F. Lovejoy reference collection of United States Dimes 1792-1945.Yes,Mr. Lovejoy had an 1894-S and a lovely piece it was and hopefully,still is.Lovejoy apparently acquired it from Bowers & Merena from the Norweb collection.Allen Lovejoy'a '94-S is lot #504 in Stack's 55th Anniversary Sale,October 16,1990:
504 1894'S' Condition: Described in our Empire Sale as:"This specimen is a beautiful Proof with light lilac and gray overtoning on a lustrous golden surface. Lightly struck on the lower right leaf of the left branch of wreath.The entire coin otherwise is boldly struck." There is a thin holder slide mark on the cheek that has been on the coin since 1957. NGC PF-62.
Faint vertical planchet striations on the reverse as made,a characteristic of this issue,visible on most well-preserved specimens. In our opinion,these striations indicate hasty planchet preparation,certainly in keeping with the extremely limited mintage. Presumably all were struck on the medal press rather than readjusting the regular press for so few coins, (SEE COLOR PLATE)
Provenance: Empire Sale (Stack's,November 12,1957,lot 881);James Ruddy;Q, David Bowers;Norweb Collection (Bowers & Merena,October 12,1987,lot 584).
Hammer price:$85,000.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
Originally posted by: tradedollarnut Amazing how what should be an interesting discussion becomes so completely unappealing.
This
Yeah. But hopefully anyone reading this will ignore everything and next time they see a specimen will figure it out themselves rather then assuming one way or another kevin
Kevin: "So you state you spoke to many graders and people, but you only actually spoke to JA. Everyone else you guess and speculate."
I am neither guessing nor speculating. I have spoken to many people. The fact that I frequently speak to leading experts has been evident in my articles, as many experts are quoted from conversations with me. For obvious reasons, I would rather quote people in my own articles than on message boards. Every single 1894-S dime that has been submitted to PCGS or NGC has been certified as a Proof by the respective service.
*Kevin's book on 1894-S dimes was published in 2005, according to Amazon.com. Collectors can order it now.
*The Kagin-Feigenbaum 1894-S was PCGS certified as "Proof-64" (not Specimen) shortly before it was auctioned by Stack's in October 2007. In 2013, PCGS re-graded it as 'Proof-64+' (not SP).
*The James A. Stack, Eliasberg duplicate 1894-S dime was PCGS "Proof-66" (not SP) in 1990, NGC Proof-66 before March 2005, and put back in a PCGS holder between 2012 and 2014 with the same PR (not SP) designation.
*All 1894-S dimes that have been NGC graded are listed as PROOFS in the NGC census. At NGC, the SP designation has never been used for an 1894-S dime, though the "SP" designation is used much more often at NGC for 19th century coins in general than it is at PCGS. It seems clear that Mark Salzberg is unhesitatingly calling all 1894-S dimes Proofs.
Other than one guarded remark in a recent Whitman edited book by QDB, which was probably published many years after QDB actually saw an 1894-S dime, I am not aware of anyone finding Kevin's argument that 1894-S dimes were struck from regular dies to be convincing. In 2015, one of many Heritage cataloguers confuses QDB's view with Kevin's view, without noting that QDB was citing Kevin not providing an independent conclusion, and that cataloguer does not seem to be drawing a conclusion himself. Who was this cataloguer?
It is indisputable that QDB found in the past that multiple 1894-S dimes have mirror surfaces as this is how QDB generally referred to Proofs, as coins with mirror surfaces. In the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s, QDB referred to different 1894-S dimes as Proofs. Even if he had his doubts about whether they are full Proofs, QDB was clearly implying that all three have mirror surfaces. He kept using the words, "Proof finish," his words not mine. I contend multiple criteria must be taken into consideration, not just mirror surfaces.
Plan to take this discussion up with the leaders in the hobby. Many are experts in their respective fields. Will post the conclusion of our discussion also working on a pre1840 proof book with Mark sportack including British and French proofs
"Faint vertical planchet striations on the reverse as made,a characteristic of this issue,visible on most well-preserved specimens. In our opinion,these striations indicate hasty planchet preparation,certainly in keeping with the extremely limited mintage. Presumably all were struck on the medal press rather than readjusting the regular press for so few coins."
Does "hasty planchet preparation" belong in the same sentence as "proof?"
Mr. Reynolds,did you see vertical planchet striations on the six pieces (over half the known population) you examined?
What would be the differences in the coin as struck if struck on a medal press rather than a regular press?
Was an impression made by medal press more of a squeeze than a blow?
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
Faint lines of striation would indicate that the planchet wasn't quite as smooth from polishing as it could have been,or should have been,for a true proof striking? Maybe a fine polish of the planchet step was left out of the process?
Of course,evidence of these lines is not going to be the first thing one looks for when one flips the coin over to inspect the reverse.
Interesting that striation is a geological term,2.in geology,the grooving or channeling of rock surfaces by the passing over them of masses of ice having stones frozen into their under surfaces.
Striations on a coin then would be seen as faint hairline scratches,all running parallel with each other.The direction of the striations,or on which side,would be of no importance.At the least,however,the faint striations seen on the ex Norweb '94-S dime are a nice diagnostic to help identify this specific coin (Lawrence #7).
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
It occurs to me that no way can one,with a straight face, call 1894-S dimes business strikes especially if they were struck on a press used normally for medals.
"Specially struck" when talking about 1894-S dimes has many dimensions it seems.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
It appears that Burdette's Mine to Mint has some useful information about the planchet preparation for striking process in place at the mints in the 1890's.
I can see just by thumbing to parts of Burdette's book that the planchet preparation process has a number of tedius steps any number of which the hasty-minded Mint employee might be tempted to leave out.
I'm thinking the idea of striking some dimes at the SF mint in 1894 was represented by Mint officials as being for "test purposes." The pieces were assayed.Two must have been destroyed by assay?
24-original mintage 2-destroyed by assay _________________ 22-most number of 1894-S dimes that could exist
It's not clear to this writer how many different 1894-S dimes are known exist since the experts appear to disagree about this.It's safe to say about half of the 1894-S dimes ever made are "lost," however.
David Lawrence claimed (in 1990) that ten pieces are known to exist but IIRC an authentic '94-S dime surfaced a few years ago.That would make the new total eleven.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
Amazing how what should be an interesting discussion becomes so completely unappealing.
Here is what Heritage stated in their 1-2016 auction in the "Proofs or Business Strikes" section, "...The technical merits of this discussion will undoubtedly be hotly debated in the future". A very accurate prediction to which the words "and sometimes ugly" could have been added.
I used to own a raw strongly PL 1894-S quarter that I joked was a branch mint proof. Seems there are a number of PL Barber coins in various years and denominations that used to be called Proof or Specimen in the past. Not sure if any are slabbed as such currently.
Since I have never examined a high grade 1894-S dime, I can't draw a final conclusion on what my opinion would be about them.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Anyone here,not just Mr. Reynolds lest he think i'm picking on him, who has examined 1894-S dimes up close is free to respond to my question,re-worded to be more clear:
"Did you obverse any mint-made parallel lines of striation on the 1894-S dime(s) you examined?"
I would bet that Q. David Bowers has viewed/inspected his share of 1894-S dimes.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
Comments
I am not following Loco's line of reasoning here. No one is disputing that there are multiple variables that affect the strike of a coin.
Denga said, in a post above, "If the blow was at a slower speed the design would not come up as well, necessitating a second blow."
Is Loco saying that his example of a screwpress counters Denga's point in this regard? I do not perceive an inconsistency. The energy to drive the screwpress comes from the rotation of the bar by two workers, as Denga said. While there are other variables, the energy expended by the workers to move the bar is the primary input that determines the force expended. KF was referring to a slower speed and "greater pressure," while Denga was saying that "greater pressure" would bring about a faster speed, and is thus inconsisten with the idea of a deliberately set slower speed, if I interpreted their respective remarks correctly. I am not taking a position on this particular point right now.
Mr. 1874: "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?"
I hope that it is clear enough in my article that I never saw this coin. At the moment, I recollect seeing pictures of the coin without an image of the printed label ('insert'). In the early days of NGC, sometimes both a 'words' grade abbreviation, like VF, and the word Proof would appear on the holder's label, along with a numerical grade. If the coin was reholdered in 2016, it would probably then read "Proof-03," which it may already in its 1990 era holder.
Mr. 1874: "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. ...
In my most recent post before this one, I failed to communicate a key point to Mr. 1874. NGC has referred to all submitted 1894-S dimes as Proofs, not as Specimens. PCGS has designated all as Proofs, except possibly for the recertification of one as SP-65 that was previously PCGS certified as Proof-65, though, as I said, this could just be a typo on PCGS CoinFacts. It could be true that all the PCGS certified 1894-S dimes are designated as Proofs, not as Specimens. Grading services are not designating 1894-S dimes as business strikes or as Specimens (except perhaps the one just mentioned). Please read my article:
All 1894-S dimes that grade above 60 that have been submitted to PCGS or NGC have been certified as PROOFS. The one that may possibly be in a holder, though maybe not, that reads SP-65 was earlier PCGS certified as 'PROOF-65.' Am I now being clear?
Mr. 1874: " ... the money" should be able to get special strike designation if they choose."
Whatever this statement means, it is wrong. Even if a poor person submitted a genuine, raw 1894-S dime in 2016, it would almost certainly be certified as a Proof ATS and likely to be certified as a Proof at PCGS. Indeed, what happens in this regard has nothing to do with the wealth or lack thereof of the submitter. The James A. Stack 1894-S was re-certified by PCGS as PR66BM (not SP) not long ago. It was first PCGS certified as Proof-66 in 1990.
As I am not 100% certain of PCGS policy towards 1894-S dimes, it would be best for the owner of a raw 1894-S dime to ask David Hall, Don Willis or Ron Guth whether a change of policy has been effected or is being considered.
Mr. 1874: "The "just Specimens" you are referring are special strikings,no? We need some lawyers to step in and settle this controversy."
We do not need lawyers for this purpose. We need to encourage more people to read my articles. In the following, I discuss reasons why specific coins are NOT Proofs and ARE Specimens:
The Most Valuable Three Cent Silver Coin
Incredible Carter 1794 silver dollar
Special 1839-O Liberty Seated Dime
insightful10@gmail.com
1.Business strikes.Coins struck by normal process in place at the Mint at that time.There is little to no evidence seen that coins made as business strikes (intended to circulate) are handled in the Mint with special care.
2.Proof strikes.Planchets are prepared "especially" to make proof coins (coins made especially for collectors).Striking pressures are more carefully controlled for proof coins in an attempt to bring out as much detail in the design as possible for the coins are made especially for collectors.
or,
3.Special or "specimen" strikes. Planchets are carefully selected but there is no evidence that the planchets used are specially prepared for strike as is done for proof coins.For a coin like 1894-S dime where only a few (24?) were made,the coiner would pay special attention to striking pressure so that the coins show good to excellent detail with no decidedly poorly struck coins present in the small population.
I've never seen an 1894-S dime "up-close," however, by studying the pictures of the 1894-S dimes in my signed copy of The Complete Guide to Barber Dimes by David Lawrence,I have concluded that 1894-S dime quality among the population of pieces that did not circulate is definitely better than one would expect to see for business strikes.
My preference for designation of method of manufacture for 1894-S dimes is "Special Strike" rather than proof. Let us all remember that the San Francisco Mint was not authorized to make proof coins in 1894. Why the insistence in calling these coins proofs then?
If I actually owned an 1894-S, I would use the TPG that would would call my piece "Special Strike", circulated or not circulated,no matter,on the label. If neither PCGS nor NGC would comply with my request for "Special Strike," which is what I think the label should say, into a self-slab the piece would go.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
1894-S dimes is "Special Strike" rather than proof. Let us all remember that the San Francisco Mint was
not authorized to make proof coins in 1894. Why the insistence in calling these coins proofs then?
The San Francisco Mint did not need authorization to strike proof coins as such matters were not spelled
out in the law. It was up to the superintendent of that mint as to whether special strikings were made. I
will leave the designation of Proof vs. Special Strike to others, however.
An item that will affect this, is the weight at the end of the handles AND the speed at which the handles are spun.
Granted, not ALL screw type presses will allow the handle to be spun rapidly, but it is possible.
This is not true. In multiple eras, including the current era, substantial numbers of business strikes were not intended for circulation. I provide examples in an earlier post to this thread. Moreover, many business strikes were handled with care, and many collectors demand choicer business strikes that were handled more carefully. There are, in the past and present, collectors who, for whatever reasons, prefer business strikes to Proofs.
It is logical to assume that, during the 19th century, there are instances of collectors visiting Mints seeking Proof coins who ended up with business strikes because Proofs were unavailable. Undoubtedly, there were collectors who sought both business strikes and Proofs. As QDB has mentioned repeatedly, and R. W. Julian has noted as well, it was not unusual for collectors or dealers to obtain coins at the U.S. Mints for face value, both business strikes and Proofs. After around 1860, Proofs may have cost a modest premium when obtained by most 'in person' visitors. The business strikes traded to collectors, obviously, had fewer mint-caused imperfections, on average, than business strikes distributed in quantities. Even so, these were usually business strikes not Specimens.
Mr. 1874: ".Planchets are prepared "especially" to make proof coins ..."
While this point is true in many cases, Mr. 1874's definitions are misguided. There are many Proof coins that were struck on planchets that were not so prepared. Indeed, there are indisputable Proofs that were struck on planchets that had notable imperfections or even substantial problems. I am glad that Mr. 1874 raised this point. One of the flaws in Breen's encyclopedia of 1977 is that he makes too much of the notion that planchets were polished for Proofs. While many were polished, many other Proofs were not struck on polished planchets.
Mr. 1874: "3. Special or "specimen" strikes. Planchets are carefully selected but there is no evidence that the planchets used are specially prepared for strike as is done for proof coins."
This statement is misleading in a harmful way. The preparation of a planchet is not one of the top three criteria for a Proof or a Specimen. For a coin to be a Specimen, the planchet may or may not have been carefully selected. In some cases, as with the Carter-Lustig-Cardinal-Morelan 1794 dollar, the planchet was polished.
All top-level graders, as far as I know, are in agreement that 1894-S dimes are either true Proofs or are close to being Proofs. The James A. Stack, Eliasberg duplicate 1894-S was struck multiple times, in my estimation. This was a whole different kind of striking, unlike a business strike.
There are two kinds of Specimens; coins that are almost Proofs, but do not quite meet the threshold, and coins that are very different from Proofs, with important characteristics that separate them from business strikes. In many cases, a coin that has many of the characteristics of a Proof, yet does not fulfill minimum criteria to be a Proof, is a Specimen. In other cases, Specimens are really different from Proofs. In the case of 1894-S dimes, they either Proofs or 'Almost Proof' Specimens. The consensus at grading services is that they are Proofs. Copyright 2016 Greg Reynolds
Mr. 1874: "I've never seen an 1894-S dime up-close, ... "
Except for very obvious Proofs, there is a need to examine a coin with at least 10x magnification for purposes relating to Proof or Specimen designations.
Mr. 1874: "If neither PCGS nor NGC would comply with my request for "Special Strike," which is what I think the label should say, into a self-slab the piece would go. "
This would not be a productive or educational course of action. A "self-slab" would be self-indulgent and would not be helpful to fellow numismatists who wish to learn about 1894-S dimes. As I have said repeatedly in this thread, EVERY 1894-S dime that has been submitted to PCGS or NGC has, at some point, been designated by PCGS or NGC as a PROOF.
It could be intelligently argued that 1894-S dimes are Specimens not Proofs, though such an argument might very well be wrong. To make such an argument in a fair manner, one would need to inspect 1894-S dimes with a glass and have considerable knowledge of Proofs and Specimens. Please read my articles:
The Most Valuable Three Cent Silver Coin
Incredible Carter 1794 silver dollar
Special 1839-O Liberty Seated Dime
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
Also, on a Proof, the relationships of some devices to the fields are usually much different from such relationships on business strikes.
Analyst:This would not be a productive or educational course of action. A "self-slab" would be self-indulgent and would not be helpful to fellow numismatists who wish to learn about 1894-S dimes. As I have said repeatedly in this thread, EVERY 1894-S dime that has been submitted to PCGS or NGC has, at some point, been designated by PCGS or NGC as a PROOF.
Coin collecting is pretty much a self-indulgent hobby regardless of holder brands.I have found the Coin World slabs to be an excellent product at a great price (3 for $5). BTW,has it occurred to you that both NGC and PCGS could be wrong?
It could be intelligently argued that 1894-S dimes are Specimens not Proofs, though such an argument might very well be wrong. To make such an argument in a fair manner, one would need to inspect 1894-S dimes with a glass and have considerable knowledge of Proofs and Specimens. Please read my articles:
I think all 1894-S dimes are special strikes based on my analysis and that's the designation I would want from the TPG on the label. I wouldn't be afraid to crack-out my 1894-S from its holder saying its a proof and go for special strike designation from a TPG that's how strongly I feel about it.
Here's how I would want the TPG label to appear:
1894-S
Special Strike-R8
mr1874 Collection
BTW,"R8" is the highest rarity rating of the BCCS.I would see a number grade on label as clutter. Number grade is not necessary for my 1894-S.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
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.
Rob,
You failed to understand
Yes, with the screw press, you can increase pressure by increasing speed, which increases momentum.
You can also increase pressure by rotating the arms further in the rotation, which will drive the hammer die down further into the planchet.
What you failed to understand, I stated for proofs, greater pressure at slower speed. The slower speed has nothing to do with the generation of pressure. It is the additional time required for the metal flow to fill the corners between the edge and rims and also in the greatest recesses of the design. You can strike the planchet as fast as you want, but if you do not allow time to permit the metal to flow, they will not be fully struck, which is why a slower speed is required, which on the screw press would imply to hold the bars at full pressure for a little longer.
I requested experts in the area of pressure and screw presses to comment, asking them about generating pressure, and about which would be used to generate additional pressure for proof coins in a screw press.
Roger Burdette stated:
All the proofs before 1893 were made on a screw press. However, this was not an ordinary coinage press. It was very large and heavily built and was made for striking medals up to about 76mm. The arms were longer than normal and the weights were heavier and rectangular (for large coins) instead of the usual oval/spherical shape. (I have read documents suggesting that a 3-arm version was tested but was too dangerous to use.)
Greater force was attained by the larger mass that was moved. The two press operators apparently tried to keep their force constant and alter the blow pressure by altering weight size and location. (I suspect they had a notebook with illustrations that showed the best location of weights on the arms and the correct weights to use for each size of coin and medal. The material from the Philadelphia Mint confirms that small notebooks were used for this kind of practical information from at least 1890 to 1950.)
All of the screw presses had a rebound stop that prevented the screw from bouncing against the struck coin/medal.
This press was used only for medals and proof coins - never circulation coins - and the proofs were made in the Medal Department, not by the Coiner in the Press Room. Thus, proofs and medals were closely related products ...more so than proofs and circulation coins.
Daniel Carr stated:
I think both are correct, although I would generally go with the speed terminology.
The screw press was a type of momentum impact striking.
If the handles (with heavy weighted balls) were spun faster, that would increase their momentum. And that would result in them spinning a little but further because the die would squeeze together a little bit more than with a lighter strike.
If the speed (momentum) was not important, and only leverage mattered, then you would see the old screw presses without the ball weights on them.
But momentum is the important factor for developing peak torque, so you need heavy weights on long arms moving at fast speeds to get maximum impact.
Douglas Mudd stated
Based on my experience with the small screw-press in our mini-mint I would say that it s a combination of both. Without using the full length of the screw (rotation) it take a LOT more force to create a decent strike - at the same time, the more force you put in (speed) at the start, the more force will be exerted on the dies. When I first started using the press I was only using a half-turn on the handle - it took all of my strength to get a good strike on a quarter-sized pewter piece (and jarred my hand and arm nicely as well). By taking two full rotations I can use much less force (just a gentle pull and not hurt my hand or arm) and get a better strike. So I would say that it is something like 60 / 40 in favor of more rotation - the screw is the key.
Craig Sholley stated:
This is physics and geometry not Buddhism.
If you look at the kinesthetic studies on the web, a person can reasonably sustain 225 N (newtons) of force in a push-pull motion while standing.
Now add it that you have several people and they have to coordinate, and they can probably sustain about 70% of that, so about 155 N per person.
There's no "pulling faster" or "pulling harder," at least over a period longer than a few strikes. Or if the men don't mind tearing muscles and ligaments. You want to increase the force of the lever, increase its mass. That's why they had weights on the swing arm.
Nor is there a "greater rotation." The arc of the swing arm is governed by the length of a person's arm and the distance they can effectively move their arms. You get the following:
1. Figure the max extension of the average person's arm in a push-pull motion is about 5 feet (plus some leaning forward and back).
2. Half the length of the swing arm is then given by the equation for an isosceles right triangle:
x = R sin( ?/2) , where x is 1/2 the "throw" and ? is the angle.
Given the 1/4 turn from BC Wailes, 2.5 = R sin(90/2), or R = 2.5/.7071 = about 3.5 feet. So the swing arm was about 7 foot long total. One gent who visited the Mint said the arm was 10 ft., but that would have included the attached push-poles.
Thus, if you want a really good strike out of a screw press, use the "squeeze strike" of the hubbing method rather than the quick impact of the coining method. BTW, that is exactly what the Uhlhorn. Thonnelier, the 1893 hydraulic proof press, and all modern coining presses use - squeeze strike.
Kevin
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.
Rob
1. You implied that proof coins were struck twice, you stated: " If the blow was at a slower speed the design would not come up as well, necessitating a second blow"
2. You originally stated "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?"
Your question at the end clearly implies that you are using Stickney's letter literally on the assertions made within, which are wrong when taken literally.
Kevin
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.
Greg,
You seem to enjoy misquoting me.
I never stated "research on 1894-S dimes is sloppy or incomplete". I stated that
1. you appear to have no personal knowledge on the national archive records from research you have done yourself, or of the Mint laws, or the communications between the Philadelphia and branch mints.
2. You appear to have no knowledge on the equipment used during the 19th century.
3. From the discussion on the 1894-S dime and 1838-O half dollar, you appear to have no knowledge on the diagnostics and what they teach us about these coins.
4. You appear to have not read any books that have been written on this subject, such as my book, or Nancy Oliver and Rick Kelly's book.
5. You appear to have no knowledge of what was published on the 1894-S dime, such as what a Mint employee stated to collectors regarding this in request to purchase a specimen, regarding whether the SF Mint struck proof coins, and what was said in a newspaper article in 1895 by a Mint employee regarding the 1894-S dime
As an example on equipment, you stated that proofs were struck twice, but starting around 1828, after a coin was struck in the screw press, the lower die pushed up the coin and a feeder pushed it forward. This was also done with the steam powered presses and other presses. Are you stating that the Coiner placed the planchet back on lower die, or disengaged the lower die so it would not come up?
You have implied in this thread that you are the leading living expert on 19th century proofs.
Yet you appear not to be able to present the basic differences between a coin struck for circulation and that for a proof.
You also seem to rely on the opinions of others to assert your statements, rather than your own, why would you need to do this if you are the leading expert, you should be able to present facts to back your statements.
You stated "With high magnfication, it is apparent to me that the James A. Stack 1894-S dime was struck multiple times."
Obviously your observations and conclusion would have to be on diagnostics observed.
Diagnostics, which are normally physical in nature normally only take a few minutes to present. Yet you refuse to present any such diagnostics. Your excuse is that it would take hours.
I find it interesting that you requested my basis for stating that proof coins were not struck twice, which I supplied, I also quickly supplied the diagnostics that I have observed on these coins. I believe that you do not want to show your basis as you know they will be refuted, i.e. you are scared to show them. But you are the first to judge others IMO, as you did with David Stone and Mark Van Winkle on their 1838-O half dollar book.
Guess you missed the recent sale of a 1894-S dime in Heritage, where it stated
"All well-preserved examples of the 1894-S Barber dime exhibit reflective surfaces and the issue is uniformly sharply detailed, both hallmarks of traditional proof coins. Historically, the 1894-S has always been regarded as a proof issue, and both PCGS and NGC certify these coins as proofs, or branch mint proofs. However, recent research by Kevin Flynn and Q. David Bowers has called the proof status of the 1894-S into question. Only one pair of dies was used to strike the 24-coin mintage, and Flynn points out that there is no indication that either the planchets or the dies were specially polished. Likewise, there is no indication that the coins were struck more than once. Bowers notes that the fresh dies imparted a prooflike surface to the unworn coins, but they lack the mirror-like depth of reflectivity seen on regular proof issues. The technical merits of this discussion will undoubtedly be hotly debated in the future, but no one doubts that all the coins were produced at the same time, in the same manner, so no example of the 1894-S can claim to be from a more elusive format than any other example. Since they are all either one thing or the other, the point is probably moot for collecting purposes."
So I guess Dave Bowers is not a leading expert on proofs or 19th century coins or the 1894-S dime??
I love your statement:
"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."
So you know better than the Mint whether a coin is a proof, even though they struck the coin. This obviously goes back to your basis that the determination of a proof coin is solely based on the coin, this is because you do not seem to understand or have researched anything else, you simply just look at the coins, and therefore make your rules to fit your needs.
BTW you keep mentioning Ron Guth. I just spoke with Ron on the phone. Ron does not believe the 1894-S dimes are proofs, Ron believes they are special strikes or specimen coins.
I believe that any 1894-S dime that was previously listed by PCGS as a "PR", if it is resubmitted to PCGS will be listed as "SP", which takes nothing away from the coin,
it is just that PCGS has evolved as the information and research has been uncovered and presented.
Kevin
Analyst, any speculation on what happened to the 13 or 14 unknown specimens? I did not see that in your article or your posts.
24 were struck on June 9th, 1894
Two 1894-S dimes were sent to the Director of the Mint on June 9th for assay
Two 1894-S dimes were listed as assayed by SF on June 25th
One 1894-S dime was sent to the Superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint on June 28th as part of the annual assay.
A.G. Heaton owned one specimen in 1900
J.M. Clapp owned two specimens in 1900
Earl Parker purchased two specimens in 1949.
There are ten know specimens of the 1894-S dime, two of which are in low grade.
24 struck
- 5 assayed
------------------
19 left
- 10 known
----------------
9 unknown, believed to have been circulated
Kevin
I think all 1894-S dimes are special strikes based on my analysis and that's the designation I would want from the TPG on the label. I wouldn't be afraid to crack-out my 1894-S from its holder saying its a proof and go for special strike designation from a TPG that's how strongly I feel about it.
Here's how I would want the TPG label to appear:
1894-S
Special Strike-R8
mr1874 Collection
BTW,"R8" is the highest rarity rating of the BCCS.I would see a number grade on label as clutter. Number grade is not necessary for my 1894-S.
Exactly
They were called proofs for the first time in 1945, since then accepted as proofs.
I believe PCGS and NGC have called them proofs in the past, and they are evolving as they understand these coins better, and I believe PCGS will call them special strikes in the future.
This does not in any way lower the value, demand, or importance of these coins.
Kevin
Greg,
You keeping missing the point, if you compare the physical characteristics of the 1894-S dimes, they are entirely different that the 1894 proof dimes.
1. The 1894 proof dimes were struck on polished planchets and therefore have a mirrored surfaces.
The 1894-S dimes do not have mirrored surfaces.
2. The 1894 proof dimes have fully squared corners between the edges and rim and fully struck details of the design.
The 1894-S dimes do not have squared corners and full details of the design.
The physical characteristics of these two, which you use as your basis for calling it a proof is entirely different.
You state in an earlier post after I stated these characteristics that show it different from a proof, that it did not matter, in this statement, you say it does, that they should be the same........
Nope, on the 1838-O half dollar, and the 1894-S dime, you failed to list all or any of the diagnostics on these coins, which is important.
Diagnostics are the die cracks, die scratches and such that are on the coin.
I believe you define diagnostics as to whether coins are pretty or not, please show me otherwise
Kevin
The San Francisco Mint did not need authorization to strike proof coins as such matters were not spelled out in the law. It was up to the superintendent of that mint as to whether special strikings were made. I will leave the designation of Proof vs. Special Strike to others, however.
So, when the acting San Francisco Mint Superintendent Robert Barnett stated several times in letters dated 1894, "Proof coins are not minted at this Mint. Please apply to the U.S. Mint Philadelphia." that this should carry significant weight.
The San Francisco Mint did not need authorization to strike proof coins as such matters were not spelled out in the law. It was up to the superintendent of that mint as to whether special strikings were made. I will leave the designation of Proof vs. Special Strike to others, however.
So, when the acting San Francisco Mint Superintendent Robert Barnett stated several times in letters dated 1894, "Proof coins are not minted at this Mint. Please apply to the U.S. Mint Philadelphia." that this should carry significant weight.
It doesn’t carry any weight. The San Francisco superintendent had the
power to strike special pieces if he chose to do so. That he did so on
certain occasions is all that counts. His statement about proof coins
merely indicates that the SF Mint did not make them for sale and that
collectors should apply to the Philadelphia Mint.
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.
Rob
1. You implied that proof coins were struck twice, you stated: " If the blow was at a slower speed the design would not come up as well, necessitating a second blow"
2. You originally stated "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?"
Your question at the end clearly implies that you are using Stickney's letter literally on the assertions made within, which are wrong when taken literally.
Kevin
I did not say proof coins were struck twice, only that kevinj’s scenario required this to be true.
As to Stickney’s letter I was merely quoting what he said. Stickney was noting that he began
buying proofs in 1843. If kevinj has proof that Stickney did not first buy proofs in 1843 than he
should say so instead of changing the subject and asking me if I could do a little math.
The San Francisco Mint did not need authorization to strike proof coins as such matters were not spelled out in the law. It was up to the superintendent of that mint as to whether special strikings were made. I will leave the designation of Proof vs. Special Strike to others, however.
So, when the acting San Francisco Mint Superintendent Robert Barnett stated several times in letters dated 1894, "Proof coins are not minted at this Mint. Please apply to the U.S. Mint Philadelphia." that this should carry significant weight.
It doesn’t carry any weight. The San Francisco superintendent had the power to strike special pieces if he chose to do so. That he did so on certain occasions is all that counts. His statement about proof coins merely indicates that the SF Mint did not make them for sale and that collectors should apply to the Philadelphia Mint.
First, Barnett does not state or imply that the SF Mint did not make proofs for sale, that is your twisting as usual.
Barnett states that proof coins are not minted at the SF Mint, plain and simple.
Second, if you had any clue on Barnett, you would understand that he was by the book on policy, if he did not believe it was part of permit-able rules, it was not done.
Third, your original statement implies that the Superintendent of the Branch Mints could make proofs or do Special Striking without knowledge from the Director of the Mint. Please list all of the times this occurred, not of course including those that were done clandestinely and illegally such as was done for the 1870-S Three dollar gold by the Chief Coiner of the SF Mint, not the Superintendent.
Fourth, these 1894-S dimes were not special strikings that were distributed to collectors or special dignitaries, or for a special occasion, some were released into circulation, half are unknown as to whereabouts, which is typical for coins released into circulation and eventually melted.
How can you say that the statements of the person who was in charge of the San Fran Mint carries no weight? It shows you complete lack of comprehension. You can't use letters from the archives just when it suits your argument. Your interpretation herein and other statements is why I do not believe anything you or Breen states without original documentation to support.
Please support your original statement that the Branch Mint Superintendents were permitted/empowered to create special strikings or proofs if they chose to do so.
As to Stickney’s letter I was merely quoting what he said. Stickney was noting that he began
buying proofs in 1843. If kevinj has proof that Stickney did not first buy proofs in 1843 than he
should say so instead of changing the subject and asking me if I could do a little math.
First you misunderstood my original statement that proofs required greater pressure and slower speed. When you first misunderstood how I used slower speed, when you presented in the context of a screw press. I clarified that slower speed implied greater time to permit the metal flow into the corners and furthest details of the design element. You could not understand this concept and said it was not relevant.
Second, you stated increasing the speed of the arm rotation was the only way to increase pressure. You were wrong on this also. You could rotate further, or increase the weight on the balls to increase pressure.
You were not quoting Stickney, your question at the end implied you were using his statement literally (that he purchased proof coins each year for the past 24 years from the Mint) to prove a historic point. Stickney could not have been correct in his statement as he could not have purchase proof coins in each year since 1843.
You enjoy holding others to literal statements and translation, but you do not hold yourself to the same level. You cannot admit your are wrong, which greatly hurts your credibility, but worse, you fail to learn IMO.
The San Francisco Mint did not need authorization to strike proof coins as such matters were not spelled out in the law. It was up to the superintendent of that mint as to whether special strikings were made. I will leave the designation of Proof vs. Special Strike to others, however.
So, when the acting San Francisco Mint Superintendent Robert Barnett stated several times in letters dated 1894, "Proof coins are not minted at this Mint. Please apply to the U.S. Mint Philadelphia." that this should carry significant weight.
It doesn’t carry any weight. The San Francisco superintendent had the power to strike special pieces if he chose to do so. That he did so on certain occasions is all that counts. His statement about proof coins merely indicates that the SF Mint did not make them for sale and that collectors should apply to the Philadelphia Mint.
First, Barnett does not state or imply that the SF Mint did not make proofs for sale, that is your twisting as usual.
Barnett states that proof coins are not minted at the SF Mint, plain and simple.
Second, if you had any clue on Barnett, you would understand that he was by the book on policy, if he did not believe it was part of permit-able rules, it was not done.
Third, your original statement implies that the Superintendent of the Branch Mints could make proofs or do Special Striking without knowledge from the Director of the Mint. Please list all of the times this occurred, not of course including those that were done clandestinely and illegally such as was done for the 1870-S Three dollar gold by the Chief Coiner of the SF Mint, not the Superintendent.
Fourth, these 1894-S dimes were not special strikings that were distributed to collectors or special dignitaries, or for a special occasion, some were released into circulation, half are unknown as to whereabouts, which is typical for coins released into circulation and eventually melted.
How can you say that the statements of the person who was in charge of the San Fran Mint carries no weight? It shows you complete lack of comprehension. You can't use letters from the archives just when it suits your argument. Your interpretation herein and other statements is why I do not believe anything you or Breen states without original documentation to support.
Please support your original statement that the Branch Mint Superintendents were permitted/empowered to create special strikings or proofs if they chose to do so.
My statements stand as written. Some points need to be made:
1) The 1894–S dimes were clearly a special striking. Whether this means Proof
or Special Strike I will leave to others. In such a small striking there would have
to have been a very select distribution. However, coins get spent, are stolen, or
otherwise lost. A small coin like a dime is especially easy to lose or mislay.
2) There are a number of branch mint proofs in existence. They may be called
Special Strikes if one pleases but they were clearly made for special purposes.
Kevinj wants me to do his work for him (making lists of such items) but I will pass.
3) Kevinj says that some of the 1894–S dimes were released into circulation as
normal coinage. I am sure he will present the relevant fiscal entries proving this
claim.
4) The 1894–S dimes are sufficient proof in themselves that the superintendents
could make special strikings.
5) There was no Chief Coiner at SF.
As to Stickney’s letter I was merely quoting what he said. Stickney was noting that he began
buying proofs in 1843. If kevinj has proof that Stickney did not first buy proofs in 1843 than he
should say so instead of changing the subject and asking me if I could do a little math.
First you misunderstood my original statement that proofs required greater pressure and slower speed. When you first misunderstood how I used slower speed, when you presented in the context of a screw press. I clarified that slower speed implied greater time to permit the metal flow into the corners and furthest details of the design element. You could not understand this concept and said it was not relevant.
Second, you stated increasing the speed of the arm rotation was the only way to increase pressure. You were wrong on this also. You could rotate further, or increase the weight on the balls to increase pressure.
You were not quoting Stickney, your question at the end implied you were using his statement literally (that he purchased proof coins each year for the past 24 years from the Mint) to prove a historic point. Stickney could not have been correct in his statement as he could not have purchase proof coins in each year since 1843.
You enjoy holding others to literal statements and translation, but you do not hold yourself to the same level. You cannot admit your are wrong, which greatly hurts your credibility, but worse, you fail to learn IMO.
Some points that kevinj appears not to understand:
1) Stickney did not say that he had purchased proof sets every
year since 1843.
2) I did not say or imply that he had purchased sets every year.
I merely reported what he wrote. The point I was making originally
in this thread was that information did exist in the Archives about
proof coinage in the 1840s. (Kevinj had claimed that it did not.)
1) Stickney did not say that he had purchased proof sets every year since 1843.
2) I did not say or imply that he had purchased sets every year. I merely reported what he wrote. The point I was making originally in this thread was that information did exist in the Archives about proof coinage in the 1840s. (Kevinj had claimed that it did not.)
You clearly do not understand, I originally stated in the 1840s, not for the 1840s, you interpretation and quoting of Stickney is irrelevant to that point.
"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."
Second, you asked the question if Stickney was incorrect. Stickney claimed he had purchased proofs for 24 years, this is impossible, therefore Stickney was incorrect.
1) The 1894–S dimes were clearly a special striking. Whether this means Proof or Special Strike I will leave to others. In such a small striking there would have to have been a very select distribution. However, coins get spent, are stolen, or otherwise lost. A small coin like a dime is especially easy to lose or mislay.
2) There are a number of branch mint proofs in existence. They may be called Special Strikes if one pleases but they were clearly made for special purposes. Kevinj wants me to do his work for him (making lists of such items) but I will pass.
3) Kevinj says that some of the 1894–S dimes were released into circulation as normal coinage. I am sure he will present the relevant fiscal entries proving this claim.
4) The 1894–S dimes are sufficient proof in themselves that the superintendents
could make special strikings.
5) There was no Chief Coiner at SF.
1. You state they were clearly special strikes, please support this evidence with actual facts, not baseless statements.
You are also wrong again. I believe they were struck to round out the fiscal year total to an even dollar amount.
Fact $149,142,10 dimes struck in second half of 1893
quarters fiscal 1894 $774,405.50,
half dollar fiscal 1894 $1,629948.00
They needed $.40 to bring round fiscal total to a dollar amount
End of fiscal year was June 30th, half dollars were struck to end of month, quarters were struck to June 9th, 24 dimes were struck on June 9th. Obviously they chose to strike $2 extra in dimes.
Wow, select distribution, please show or show pedigree info on the 1894-S dime, I already did this in my book on the subject. On almost every other special striking from any mint, we see the majority of coins were saved and can trace back.
You clearly do not know and making unsupported statements.
Like Breen, you make unsupported statements.
Also if you are calling these special strikings, prove it, state what in the coins differentiates them from normal coins struck for circulation and are first strikes from a die.
I already did this study, they are the same.
2. When you make a statement, I am requesting that you back it up.
3, Yeah we have two found in circulation, half are missing, which is normal for coins released into circulation.
4. Again, statements without supporting facts and evidence.
5. Funny, you argue the literal use of something, but cry when someone does it to you....
You missed the point that the Coiner made coins for himself illegally
1) Stickney did not say that he had purchased proof sets every year since 1843.
2) I did not say or imply that he had purchased sets every year. I merely reported what he wrote. The point I was making originally in this thread was that information did exist in the Archives about proof coinage in the 1840s. (Kevinj had claimed that it did not.)
You clearly do not understand, I originally stated in the 1840s, not for the 1840s, you [sic] interpretation and quoting of Stickney is irrelevant to that point.
"In the 1840s, there is no documentation of proofs being struck at the Mint, usually no more than 25 coins of each denomination was [sic] struck in proofs."
Second, you asked the question if Stickney was incorrect. Stickney claimed he had purchased proofs for 24 years, this is impossible, therefore Stickney was incorrect.
Kevinj’s memory seems to be failing. I also pointed out earlier in this thread
a letter from the 1840s mentioning a special set of proof coins sent to Europe.
The Stickney letter is definitive evidence for proofs struck at the Mint in the 1840s.
I know families who have been purchasing proof sets from the Mint since 1950.
That certain years (the SMS of the 1960s) were not proof does not mean that
they are wrong, only that kevinj does not understand.
Another kevinism: In 1865, left over proof sets from 1861 through 1864 were melted.
Unfortunately someone forgot to tell Mint officials about the melting and they were
still selling 1862 sets for some years after 1865.
1) The 1894–S dimes were clearly a special striking. Whether this means Proof or Special Strike I will leave to others. In such a small striking there would have to have been a very select distribution. However, coins get spent, are stolen, or otherwise lost. A small coin like a dime is especially easy to lose or mislay.
2) There are a number of branch mint proofs in existence. They may be called Special Strikes if one pleases but they were clearly made for special purposes. Kevinj wants me to do his work for him (making lists of such items) but I will pass.
3) Kevinj says that some of the 1894–S dimes were released into circulation as normal coinage. I am sure he will present the relevant fiscal entries proving this claim.
4) The 1894–S dimes are sufficient proof in themselves that the superintendents
could make special strikings.
5) There was no Chief Coiner at SF.
1. You state they were clearly special strikes, please support this evidence with actual facts, not baseless statements.
You are also wrong again. I believe they were struck to round out the fiscal year total to an even dollar amount.
Fact $149,142,10 dimes struck in second half of 1893
quarters fiscal 1894 $774,405.50,
half dollar fiscal 1894 $1,629948.00
They needed $.40 to bring round fiscal total to a dollar amount
End of fiscal year was June 30th, half dollars were struck to end of month, quarters were struck to June 9th, 24 dimes were struck on June 9th. Obviously they chose to strike $2 extra in dimes.
Wow, select distribution, please show or show pedigree info on the 1894-S dime, I already did this in my book on the subject. On almost every other special striking from any mint, we see the majority of coins were saved and can trace back.
You clearly do not know and making unsupported statements.
Like Breen, you make unsupported statements.
Also if you are calling these special strikings, prove it, state what in the coins differentiates them from normal coins struck for circulation and are first strikes from a die.
I already did this study, they are the same.
2. When you make a statement, I am requesting that you back it up.
3, Yeah we have two found in circulation, half are missing, which is normal for coins released into circulation.
4. Again, statements without supporting facts and evidence.
5. Funny, you argue the literal use of something, but cry when someone does it to you....
You missed the point that the Coiner made coins for himself illegally
In other words you have no documentation showing that they were released
into circulation. All you have is pure speculation. If such documentation does not exist
then this is sufficient proof of special distribution.
into circulation. All you have is pure speculation. If such documentation does not exist
then this is sufficient proof of special distribution.
Thats precious, love your logic, if no one can absolutely prove you wrong, your statements (which are purely speculative) must be correct.
As usual, the evidence is in the coins themselves, which I know you might know a little archives, but little on coins.... If you compare every other specially struck coin, they were all save in majority. These, 2 circulated, half are missing and 5 are known to have been assayed. Please show me special strikings that were assayed, actually no need, they were not.
Its funny, when I request evidence from you, you refuse, claim you do not want to do work for me or some other excuse.
As usual, this entire discussion is a waste of time, you know little, like Breen, you speculate and make statements that are not supported. Good luck, I feel pity for you.
Kevinj’s memory seems to be failing. I also pointed out earlier in this thread
a letter from the 1840s mentioning a special set of proof coins sent to Europe.
The Stickney letter is definitive evidence for proofs struck at the Mint in the 1840s.
I know families who have been purchasing proof sets from the Mint since 1950.
That certain years (the SMS of the 1960s) were not proof does not mean that
they are wrong, only that kevinj does not understand.
Another kevinism: In 1865, left over proof sets from 1861 through 1864 were melted.
Unfortunately someone forgot to tell Mint officials about the melting and they were
still selling 1862 sets for some years after 1865.
Did not challenge the first part regarding proof coins in Europe as you were correct in the context of my initial statement.
I challenged your question on Stinkney as you were wrong. He could not have purchased proof coins for every year for 24 years.
You really need to read Record 15, Letters Sent regarding coins and medals, which starts in 1866. This contains correspondence between the Director and collectors. Each year many collectors requested previous year sets. One letter in 1866 stated that there were 1862 sets left over, after that every time, Director stated they were melted. Yes, I was wrong by a year, it was 1866.
Kevinj’s memory seems to be failing. I also pointed out earlier in this thread
a letter from the 1840s mentioning a special set of proof coins sent to Europe.
The Stickney letter is definitive evidence for proofs struck at the Mint in the 1840s.
I know families who have been purchasing proof sets from the Mint since 1950.
That certain years (the SMS of the 1960s) were not proof does not mean that
they are wrong, only that kevinj does not understand.
Another kevinism: In 1865, left over proof sets from 1861 through 1864 were melted.
Unfortunately someone forgot to tell Mint officials about the melting and they were
still selling 1862 sets for some years after 1865.
Did not challenge the first part regarding proof coins in Europe as you were correct in the context of my initial statement.
I challenged your question on Stinkney as you were wrong. He could not have purchased proof coins for every year for 24 years.
You really need to read Record 15, Letters Sent regarding coins and medals, which starts in 1866. This contains correspondence between the Director and collectors. Each year many collectors requested previous year sets. One letter in 1866 stated that there were 1862 sets left over, after that every time, Director stated they were melted. Yes, I was wrong by a year, it was 1866.
I happen to have copies of all letters from Entry 15 of RG 104 for well beyond the
starting point of 1862, not 1866 as noted. However, there are letters regarding proofs
in other letter files and we find, for example, a letter from Director Linderman to a
Pittsburgh collector in May 1867 offering to sell the 1862 silver sets at the usual $3
in coin.
There is also the 1875 sales of 1862 and 1864–1866 gold proof sets to consider.
A genuine 'S' reverse for 1894-S has no extra fold in the ribbon on the right side of the mintmark.A dime represented as 1894-S that has an extra fold in the right ribbon is not authentic.
Barber changed both the obverse and reverse design on 1901 and later issues,thus creating the type 2,or 'new,' obverse and reverse for Barber head silver coins.
This information can be useful in detecting counterfeits.See David Lawrence The Complete Guide to Barber Dimes (1991) for more.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
This neither a fair nor accurate view of my statements on the matter. In this thread, I already said:
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?
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.
In my experience, over the last twenty-five years, there are very few other people who devote much time to carefully and thoroughly examining 19th century coins that are represented as Proofs or non-Proof Specimen Strikings.
JD has spent much time, though I do not remember him ever spelling out criteria in print or critically analyzing any one coin in print.
Kevin: "Yet you appear not to be able to present the basic differences between a coin struck for circulation and that for a proof. ... You also seem to rely on the opinions of others ..."
Quite the opposite is true. More so than any other living person, I have presented such differences. In regards to any one coin, it can take hours. It will take time to find my handwritten notes regarding specific 1894-S dimes. As it so obvious that these are not business strikes, I never thought of this as being a priority. The claimed Proof status of some Capped Bust coins tends to be far more controversial, and worthy of detailed expositions.
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
Every single 1894-S dime that has been submitted to PCGS or NGC has been certified as a Proof. As I indicated in a post above, I talked to John Albanese, the sharpest grader of all, and he regards them as Proofs. I am not aware of one top-level grading expert stating that 1894-S dimes are not Proofs. When I first saw the James A. Stack, Eliasberg duplicate, I determined that it was a Proof on my own, without consulting others. The fact that there seems to be unanimous agreement among top-level grading experts that it is so is significant.
Kevin: "4. You appear to have not read any books that have been written on this subject, such as my book, or Nancy Oliver and Rick Kelly's book. 5. You appear to have no knowledge of what was published on the 1894-S dime, such as what a Mint employee stated to collectors regarding this in request to purchase a specimen, regarding whether the SF Mint struck proof coins, and what was said in a newspaper article in 1895 by a Mint employee regarding the 1894-S dime"
I was familiar with said newspaper article. I am aware of the research by Oliver & Kelly. I addressed these matters already in this thread.
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 would be unsurprising if 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 the Secretary of Defense or other superiors.
Usually, if officials engage in practices that may be interpreted as disobeying orders or may lead to friction with others in the same bureaucracy, especially higher-ranking officials, then they are not going to admit to such practices in official correspondence or records. Of course, there could be mentions of Branch Mint Proofs in Mint records. But, it is understandable that, in most cases, the people involved would not want such minting of Proofs mentioned in any record, piece of correspondence, or interview. This point is so obvious that it should not require this much of an explanation. Undoubtedly, there were many important events in the 19th century that were not precisely recorded and not honestly referenced in detail in official records.
The Most Valuable Three Cent Silver Coin
Incredible Carter 1794 silver dollar
Special 1839-O Liberty Seated Dime
Even so, it does make sense to consult top-level graders. I am certain that I have fairly interpreted the views of top-level graders and the material on PCGS CoinFacts. I will emphasize some points here that are pertinent to this discussion, especially since those visiting this thread for the first time are unlikely to read all of the earlier posts.
'I spoke to John Albanese [last week]. 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' ...
Kevin: BTW you keep mentioning Ron Guth. I just spoke with Ron on the phone. Ron does not believe the 1894-S dimes are proofs, Ron believes they are special strikes or specimen coins.
1. If Ron said they are Special Strikes or Specimen coins, Ron would be saying that Kevin is wrong, as Kevin refers to them as reflective "circulation strikes" from new "working dies." Specimens are made from specially prepared dies, not to be used right away (if ever) for circulation strikes. So, it seems fair for me to point out that Ron's view and Kevin's view are in conflict.
2. Ron is or was president of PCGS CoinFacts and is generally believed to be the mastermind behind the project. I just checked again the PCGS CoinFacts page for 1894-S dimes, which I saved in PDF format. The abbreviations PR for Proof and SP for Specimen both appear on the page, though the word "PROOF" is spelled out at the top! I explicitly noted in earlier posts to this thread that there have been some internal disagreements at PCGS, though all seem to agree that Kevin is wrong as all at PCGS (as far as I know) indicate that 1894-S dimes were very specially made not just ordinary first-strikes from new dies as Kevin states.
3. As both PR and SP abbreviations appear on this PCGS CoinFacts page, Ron Guth could have explicitly expressed an opinion there or not included his own name on the 1894-S dime CoinFacts page at all. Instead, Ron, explicitly using his own name, chose to re-publish a description of an 1894-S dime in a Heritage auction catalogue from the January 2005 FUN sale, which stated that "All were struck as Proofs, and all but two retain some or full mirrored Proof finish today." He could have selected a different catalogue description, if he had wanted to make different points.
Regarding QDB, he has described 1894-S dimes as Proofs during the course of his career. Bowers & Ruddy sold at least one privately and it was described as a Proof in a Rare Coin Review. IIRC, the Norweb and primary Eliasberg pieces were described as Proofs by QDB. When did QDB last examine an 1894-S dime? In 2007, Stack's, after the merger with ANR, auctioned one in NY. I covered that event. I do not remember seeing QDB there, though I am not certain as to whether he was present or not.
Kevin: "I believe that any 1894-S dime that was previously listed by PCGS as a "PR", if it is resubmitted to PCGS will be listed as "SP"
The James A. Stack, Eliasberg duplicate 1894-S dime was recertified by PCGS at some point from 2012 to 2014, and clearly called a Proof not a Specimen. Anyone can view a picture of this coin in its PCGS holder at ha.com
The Fabulous Eric Newman Collection, Part 4: Proof 1818 Quarter
The Controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 3, The physical characteristics of Proof coins
insightful10@gmail.com
Kevin: "As an example on equipment, you stated that proofs were struck twice, ..."
This neither a fair nor accurate view of my statements on the matter. In this thread, I already said:
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?
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.
In my experience, over the last twenty-five years, there are very few other people who devote much time to carefully and thoroughly examining 19th century coins that are represented as Proofs or non-Proof Specimen Strikings.
JD has spent much time, though I do not remember him ever spelling out criteria in print or critically analyzing any one coin in print.
Kevin: "Yet you appear not to be able to present the basic differences between a coin struck for circulation and that for a proof. ... You also seem to rely on the opinions of others ..."
Quite the opposite is true. More so than any other living person, I have presented such differences. In regards to any one coin, it can take hours. It will take time to find my handwritten notes regarding specific 1894-S dimes. As it so obvious that these are not business strikes, I never thought of this as being a priority. The claimed Proof status of some Capped Bust coins tends to be far more controversial, and worthy of detailed expositions.
Every single 1894-S dime that has been submitted to PCGS or NGC has been certified as a Proof. As I indicated in a post above, I talked to John Albanese, the sharpest grader of all, and he regards them as Proofs. I am not aware of one top-level grading expert stating that 1894-S dimes are not Proofs. When I first saw the James A. Stack, Eliasberg duplicate, I determined that it was a Proof on my own, without consulting others. The fact that there seems to be unanimous agreement among top-level grading experts that it is so is significant.
Kevin: "4. You appear to have not read any books that have been written on this subject, such as my book, or Nancy Oliver and Rick Kelly's book. 5. You appear to have no knowledge of what was published on the 1894-S dime, such as what a Mint employee stated to collectors regarding this in request to purchase a specimen, regarding whether the SF Mint struck proof coins, and what was said in a newspaper article in 1895 by a Mint employee regarding the 1894-S dime"
I was familiar with said newspaper article. I am aware of the research by Oliver & Kelly. I addressed these matters already in this thread.
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 would be unsurprising if 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 the Secretary of Defense or other superiors.
Usually, if officials engage in practices that may be interpreted as disobeying orders or may lead to friction with others in the same bureaucracy, especially higher-ranking officials, then they are not going to admit to such practices in official correspondence or records. Of course, there could be mentions of Branch Mint Proofs in Mint records. But, it is understandable that, in most cases, the people involved would not want such minting of Proofs mentioned in any record, piece of correspondence, or interview. This point is so obvious that it should not require this much of an explanation. Undoubtedly, there were many important events in the 19th century that were not precisely recorded and not honestly referenced in detail in official records.
Greg,
IMO, you are worse than Breen, you have no clue, but you make statements that are unsupported, for example with what you stated with Carson City. Worse, you do not learn. You believe you know everything when you clearly know little. You have stated for example, the Stack's 1894-S dime was struck multiple times, that you saw evidence of it; you did not say theory.
Again, you refuse to support any of your argument with evidence, especially on the 1894-S dime.
Kevin
I looked for squared rims on the 1894-S piece I saw pictured.The rims are not squared yet the piece is being called a proof...
There is a wonderfully written story about the 1894-S dime in Heritage Archives.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
Regarding the views of others, it is neither fair nor accurate for Kevin to say that I am relying upon others. I am pointing out that there is nearly-unanimous agreement among top-level graders that 1894-S dimes are Proofs or nearly so. Obviously, in my articles, I put forth my own views regarding Proofs, Specimens and business strikes, including my own criteria. Here are links to three articles about non-Proof Specimens:
Even so, it does make sense to consult top-level graders. I am certain that I have fairly interpreted the views of top-level graders and the material on PCGS CoinFacts. I will emphasize some points here that are pertinent to this discussion, especially since those visiting this thread for the first time are unlikely to read all of the earlier posts.
'I spoke to John Albanese [last week]. 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' ...
Kevin: BTW you keep mentioning Ron Guth. I just spoke with Ron on the phone. Ron does not believe the 1894-S dimes are proofs, Ron believes they are special strikes or specimen coins.
1. If Ron said they are Special Strikes or Specimen coins, Ron would be saying that Kevin is wrong, as Kevin refers to them as reflective "circulation strikes" from new "working dies." Specimens are made from specially prepared dies, not to be used right away (if ever) for circulation strikes. So, it seems fair for me to point out that Ron's view and Kevin's view are in conflict.
2. Ron is or was president of PCGS CoinFacts and is generally believed to be the mastermind behind the project. I just checked again the PCGS CoinFacts page for 1894-S dimes, which I saved in PDF format. The abbreviations PR for Proof and SP for Specimen both appear on the page, though the word "PROOF" is spelled out at the top! I explicitly noted in earlier posts to this thread that there have been some internal disagreements at PCGS, though all seem to agree that Kevin is wrong as all at PCGS (as far as I know) indicate that 1894-S dimes were very specially made not just ordinary first-strikes from new dies as Kevin states.
3. As both PR and SP abbreviations appear on this PCGS CoinFacts page, Ron Guth could have explicitly expressed an opinion there or not included his own name on the 1894-S dime CoinFacts page at all. Instead, Ron, explicitly using his own name, chose to re-publish a description of an 1894-S dime in a Heritage auction catalogue from the January 2005 FUN sale, which stated that "All were struck as Proofs, and all but two retain some or full mirrored Proof finish today." He could have selected a different catalogue description, if he had wanted to make different points.
Regarding QDB, he has described 1894-S dimes as Proofs during the course of his career. Bowers & Ruddy sold at least one privately and it was described as a Proof in a Rare Coin Review. IIRC, the Norweb and primary Eliasberg pieces were described as Proofs by QDB. When did QDB last examine an 1894-S dime? In 2007, Stack's, after the merger with ANR, auctioned one in NY. I covered that event. I do not remember seeing QDB there, though I am not certain as to whether he was present or not.
Kevin: "I believe that any 1894-S dime that was previously listed by PCGS as a "PR", if it is resubmitted to PCGS will be listed as "SP"
The James A. Stack, Eliasberg duplicate 1894-S dime was recertified by PCGS at some point from 2012 to 2014, and clearly called a Proof not a Specimen. Anyone can view a picture of this coin in its PCGS holder at ha.com
Wrong again Greg,
Specimen or special strike does not absolutely state the dies were especially prepared.
Let me give you an example
10 1838-O half dollars struck in January 1839, the Coiner, Tyler wanted to impress Director Patterson, and especially struck them. On the coins, the design elements are fully struck, and the coins have a sequence of die cracks. The surfaces are reflective, such as would be expected for a fresh die. There are no signs of polishing of the dies. This implies that Tyler cranked up the pressure to have a better strike. These coins will now be called specimen or special strikes.
On the single specimen struck in March 1839, the reverse of the planchet was polished and has a mirrored finish. This specimen is a proof.
Again, you fail to understand what a special strike or specimen implies or how to differentiate. The 1894-S dime was not especially prepared, there are many defects in the design elements, and also there are no polishing lines on the die.
Reflective surfaces, as what I, JD, QDB, and many others have stated means the reflective surfaces normally seen on coins struck with fresh dies.
Please list all of the experts who you claimed to have spoke to who state the 1894-S dime is a proof.
Funny, now your better than QDB and what Ron Guth actually says is irrelevant.
Facts and evidence speak for themselves and can be viewed and judged for their accuracy.
Speculation and guessing are like clouds, they change shape, can't be nailed down as their is nothing to support them.
Good luck
Kevin
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
I have cited John Albanese at least twice in this thread. I have already made it clear that every single 1894-S dime, except perhaps the '03' grade one, that has been submitted to PCGS or NGC has been certified as a Proof. There is one that PCGS earlier certified as a Proof that PCGS may possibly have later certified as "SP," though I never saw an "SP designation on a holder housing an 1894-S dime. I have examined six of the nine known.
The James A. Stack, Eliasberg duplicate that HA just auctioned in January 2015 is PCGS certified as a Proof: PR66, not SP66. It is in a holder that dates from 2012 to 2014. Before March 2005, it was NGC certified as a Proof.
Kevin: "Reflective surfaces, as what I, JD, QDB, and many others have stated means the reflective surfaces normally seen on coins struck with fresh dies."
I never heard JD say that 1894-S dimes are prooflike business strikes. As far as I know, every single top-level grader is in agreement that these were very specially struck, Proofs or nearly so. I am certain that I fairly represented the PCGS CoinFacts page and the explicit citation there by Ron Guth of a Heritage catalogue. Please read for yourselves:
1894-S dime, PCGS CoinFacts page
The Heritage Description of an 1894-S in the catalogue for the January 2005 FUN Auction
The following words are taken from the catalogue for the Eliasberg ’96 sale in New York, which was conducted by "Auctions by Bowers & Merena" of New Hampshire. Q. David Bowers catalogued the 1894-S Dime that Louis Eliasberg kept until he died.
"[Lot #]1250 1894-S Proof fields somewhat resembling a Philadelphia Mint Proof ..." (p. 326)
Later in the same description (on p. 328), QDB says that "All were made with Proof finish, ..,"
Near the end, QDB states, "That nine specimens are known today and that seven of these have Proof surfaces as struck, would seem to indicate that these were made as souvenirs or cabinet pieces." The other two are well worn.
No one is asserting that Branch Mint Proofs are exactly like Philadelphia Mint Proofs. It seems clear, though, that QDB was saying that 1894-S dimes have mirror surfaces. If he did not think 1894-S dimes had mirror finishes and could fairly be called Proofs, or if he wished to suggest alternate designations for them, he would have said so. In addition to being chief cataloguer and the founder, QDB was clearly the chairman and probably the largest shareholder of B&M at the time. There was no one stopping him from revealing his own views in the Eliasberg '96 catalogue. Also, QDB must have had the Eliasberg 1894-S in front of him while he was cataloguing.
Condition Ranking of 1894-S Dimes, with Recent Histories
insightful10@gmail.com
Kevin: "Please list all of the experts who you claimed to have spoke to who state the 1894-S dime is a proof."
I have cited John Albanese at least twice in this thread. I have already made it clear that every single 1894-S dime, except perhaps the '03' grade one, that has been submitted to PCGS or NGC has been certified as a Proof. There is one that PCGS earlier certified as a Proof that PCGS may possibly have later certified as "SP," though I never saw an "SP designation on a holder housing an 1894-S dime. I have examined six of the nine known.
The James A. Stack, Eliasberg duplicate that HA just auctioned in January 2015 is PCGS certified as a Proof: PR66, not SP66. It is in a holder that dates from 2012 to 2014. Before March 2005, it was NGC certified as a Proof.
Kevin: "Reflective surfaces, as what I, JD, QDB, and many others have stated means the reflective surfaces normally seen on coins struck with fresh dies."
I never heard JD say that 1894-S dimes are prooflike business strikes. As far as I know, every single top-level grader is in agreement that these were very specially struck, Proofs or nearly so. I am certain that I fairly represented the PCGS CoinFacts page and the explicit citation there by Ron Guth of a Heritage catalogue. Please read for yourselves:
The following words are taken from the catalogue for the Eliasberg ’96 sale in New York, which was conducted by "Auctions by Bowers & Merena" of New Hampshire. Q. David Bowers catalogued the 1894-S Dime that Louis Eliasberg kept until he died.
Later in the same description (on p. 328), QDB says that "All were made with Proof finish, ..,"
Near the end, QDB states, "That nine specimens are known today and that seven of these have Proof surfaces as struck, would seem to indicate that these were made as souvenirs or cabinet pieces." The other two are well worn.
No one is asserting that Branch Mint Proofs are exactly like Philadelphia Mint Proofs. It seems clear, though, that QDB was saying that 1894-S dimes have mirror surfaces. If he did not think 1894-S dimes had mirror finishes and could fairly be called Proofs, or if he wished to suggest alternate designations for them, he would have said so. In addition to being chief cataloguer and the founder, QDB was clearly the chairman and probably the largest shareholder of B&M at the time. There was no one stopping him from revealing his own views in the Eliasberg '96 catalogue. Also, QDB must have had the Eliasberg 1894-S in front of him while he was cataloguing.
Condition Ranking of 1894-S Dimes, with Recent Histories
So you state you spoke to many graders and people, but you only actually spoke to JA. Everyone else you guess and speculate.
I spoke to JD, Ron Guth, QDB, and many others. All say not a proof, surfaces are not mirrored, they are what you would expect from fresh dies. I will speak to JA.
Problem is that the 1894-S dimes were first called proofs in 1945. Since, many has adopted this claim, which had no basis. Once said, it is difficult to change, as that might be seen as not knowing or having made a mistake. Today, experts, and the grading services are armed with more knowledge, archive records to reflect the history and of those who struck the coins, their intentions and such are now known.
Kevin
Amazing how what should be an interesting discussion becomes so completely unappealing.
This
504 1894'S'
Condition: Described in our Empire Sale as:"This specimen is a beautiful Proof with light lilac and gray overtoning on a lustrous golden surface. Lightly struck on the lower right leaf of the left branch of wreath.The entire coin otherwise is boldly struck." There is a thin holder slide mark on the cheek that has been on the coin since 1957. NGC PF-62.
Faint vertical planchet striations on the reverse as made,a characteristic of this issue,visible on most well-preserved specimens. In our opinion,these striations indicate hasty planchet preparation,certainly in keeping with the extremely limited mintage. Presumably all were struck on the medal press rather than readjusting the regular press for so few coins, (SEE COLOR PLATE)
Provenance: Empire Sale (Stack's,November 12,1957,lot 881);James Ruddy;Q, David Bowers;Norweb Collection (Bowers & Merena,October 12,1987,lot 584).
Hammer price:$85,000.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
Amazing how what should be an interesting discussion becomes so completely unappealing.
This
Yeah. But hopefully anyone reading this will ignore everything and next time they see a specimen will figure it out themselves rather then assuming one way or another kevin
I am neither guessing nor speculating. I have spoken to many people. The fact that I frequently speak to leading experts has been evident in my articles, as many experts are quoted from conversations with me. For obvious reasons, I would rather quote people in my own articles than on message boards. Every single 1894-S dime that has been submitted to PCGS or NGC has been certified as a Proof by the respective service.
*Kevin's book on 1894-S dimes was published in 2005, according to Amazon.com. Collectors can order it now.
http://www.amazon.com/1894-S-Dime-Mystery-Unraveled/dp/B000J47OWY">http://www.amazon.com/1894-S-D...nraveled/dp/B000J47OWY
*The Kagin-Feigenbaum 1894-S was PCGS certified as "Proof-64" (not Specimen) shortly before it was auctioned by Stack's in October 2007. In 2013, PCGS re-graded it as 'Proof-64+' (not SP).
http://www.coinlink.com/News/us-coins/1894-s-dime/
*The James A. Stack, Eliasberg duplicate 1894-S dime was PCGS "Proof-66" (not SP) in 1990, NGC Proof-66 before March 2005, and put back in a PCGS holder between 2012 and 2014 with the same PR (not SP) designation.
Condition Ranking of 1894-S Dimes, with Recent Histories
*All 1894-S dimes that have been NGC graded are listed as PROOFS in the NGC census. At NGC, the SP designation has never been used for an 1894-S dime, though the "SP" designation is used much more often at NGC for 19th century coins in general than it is at PCGS. It seems clear that Mark Salzberg is unhesitatingly calling all 1894-S dimes Proofs.
Other than one guarded remark in a recent Whitman edited book by QDB, which was probably published many years after QDB actually saw an 1894-S dime, I am not aware of anyone finding Kevin's argument that 1894-S dimes were struck from regular dies to be convincing. In 2015, one of many Heritage cataloguers confuses QDB's view with Kevin's view, without noting that QDB was citing Kevin not providing an independent conclusion, and that cataloguer does not seem to be drawing a conclusion himself. Who was this cataloguer?
It is indisputable that QDB found in the past that multiple 1894-S dimes have mirror surfaces as this is how QDB generally referred to Proofs, as coins with mirror surfaces. In the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s, QDB referred to different 1894-S dimes as Proofs. Even if he had his doubts about whether they are full Proofs, QDB was clearly implying that all three have mirror surfaces. He kept using the words, "Proof finish," his words not mine. I contend multiple criteria must be taken into consideration, not just mirror surfaces.
The Fabulous Eric Newman Collection, Part 4: Proof 1818 Quarter
insightful10@gmail.com
When you are actually ready to present evidence, facts, diagnostics, observations to back up your claims let me know. Till then.....
Kevin
Does "hasty planchet preparation" belong in the same sentence as "proof?"
Mr. Reynolds,did you see vertical planchet striations on the six pieces (over half the known population) you examined?
What would be the differences in the coin as struck if struck on a medal press rather than a regular press?
Was an impression made by medal press more of a squeeze than a blow?
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
Of course,evidence of these lines is not going to be the first thing one looks for when one flips the coin over to inspect the reverse.
Interesting that striation is a geological term,2.in geology,the grooving or channeling of rock surfaces by the passing over them of masses of ice having stones frozen into their under surfaces.
Striations on a coin then would be seen as faint hairline scratches,all running parallel with each other.The direction of the striations,or on which side,would be of no importance.At the least,however,the faint striations seen on the ex Norweb '94-S dime are a nice diagnostic to help identify this specific coin (Lawrence #7).
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
"Specially struck" when talking about 1894-S dimes has many dimensions it seems.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
I can see just by thumbing to parts of Burdette's book that the planchet preparation process has a number of tedius steps any number of which the hasty-minded Mint employee might be tempted to leave out.
I'm thinking the idea of striking some dimes at the SF mint in 1894 was represented by Mint officials as being for "test purposes." The pieces were assayed.Two must have been destroyed by assay?
24-original mintage
2-destroyed by assay
_________________
22-most number of 1894-S dimes that could exist
It's not clear to this writer how many different 1894-S dimes are known exist since the experts appear to disagree about this.It's safe to say about half of the 1894-S dimes ever made are "lost," however.
David Lawrence claimed (in 1990) that ten pieces are known to exist but IIRC an authentic '94-S dime surfaced a few years ago.That would make the new total eleven.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
Amazing how what should be an interesting discussion becomes so completely unappealing.
Here is what Heritage stated in their 1-2016 auction in the "Proofs or Business Strikes" section, "...The technical merits of this discussion will undoubtedly be hotly debated in the future". A very accurate prediction to which the words "and sometimes ugly" could have been added.
I used to own a raw strongly PL 1894-S quarter that I joked was a branch mint proof. Seems there are a number of PL Barber coins in various years and denominations that used to be called Proof or Specimen in the past. Not sure if any are slabbed as such currently.
Since I have never examined a high grade 1894-S dime, I can't draw a final conclusion on what my opinion would be about them.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
"Did you obverse any mint-made parallel lines of striation on the 1894-S dime(s) you examined?"
I would bet that Q. David Bowers has viewed/inspected his share of 1894-S dimes.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)