The Mint Deliberately Struck "Semi-Proofs" in 1874

Coinosaurus

The article on semi-proofs in the current Gobrecht Journal (#128), by John Dannreuther and Craig Sholley, is one of the more startling things I've read in a while.

Proof vs. unc status on certain 19th century coinage has always been controversial, with many assuming that it is an either/or question. Now we know that the process wasn't binary.

Dannreuther / Sholley (based on a letter discovered by R. W. Julian) show that some coins were deliberately struck as "semi-proofs" and referred to by the Mint Director as such. The coins have mirrored fields but not frosted devices. Subsequent strikes from the dies do not have the same mirrors and were presumably lapped in between. These semi-proofs are distinct from "regular" proofs of the same year that were struck from different dies.

RogerB

Interesting.

ricko

I wonder how often this was done... could explain some of the confusing coins often dubbed 'proof like'.... Cheers, RickO

messydesk

Were they struck in the same manner as proofs?

Rittenhouse

@Coinosaurus said:
The article on semi-proofs in the current Gobrecht Journal (#128), by John Dannreuther and Craig Sholley, is one of the more startling things I've read in a while.>

Thanks. It was very cool how a seemingly off-hand note solved a mystery concerning the odd-ball 1874 "Brilliant Proof" TD's. JD and I had fun writing it, BTW, the 1877 Semi-Proof noted in the article was discovered by TDN and is now owed by another forum member. It is currently the only one known.

@messydesk said:
Were they struck in the same manner as proofs?

As far as we can tell, yes. They have all of the diagnostics of having been struck on the screw press in "proof/hubbing mode."