@BillJones said:
Perhaps TDN's 1794 dollar was a "Proof" of sorts to see what the dies could do under the most ideal situation. The largest press a available could not fully strike silver dollars with all of the design details under normal conditions. Perhaps this piece was "squeezed struck" to see as much detail as possible on a finished coin.
To me the only factor that keeps this coin in the "specimen" category is the planchet. A "perfect" coin would not have been made on a planchet that required a plug to bring up the weight and adjustments to bring it down. Is there a chance that this coin was adjusted after it was struck? If so that might have done to make it "legal."
All of this is obviously speculation because no one can know what was going through the mint officials' minds almost 225 years ago.
JD and I, along with many others, certainly agree that the 1794 "Specimen" dollar was a presentation piece. The planchet was at least burnished, if not lightly polished, and the dies were certainly polished. It is the earliest die state, with only the unique copper die trial being in the same state, if I recall.
That the planchet has adjustment marks and a plug is irrelevant as that was the process at this time. Thus, comparing it to and criticizing it because it does not meet quality standards of much later pieces is invalid.
That the piece was struck using the "squeeze method" is clearly shown by the difference in detail between the strike and that on production pieces. The 1794 Rutter press was simply not capable of the pressure necessary to strike dollars when used in the reciprocating "push-pull" striking method used for production coinage (see Ackermann's Microcosm, for a good illustration).
That a screw press is far more powerful in squeeze mode as opposed to "quick strike" mode should come as no surprise. Screw presses were developed circa the first century AD specifically to squeeze oils and juices from various fruits and seeds. The push-pull quick strike method was developed to use the press for stamping. My guess is you lost on the order of 30% of the power of a press using the push-pull strike, but it sure was fast. An eyewitness account from the 1820's noted the Mint personnel said they could strike 43 half dollars a minute and Peale's report states the French struck 35 five franc pieces per minute.
What's the difference between a Speciment and a Proof? Time, as in when it was struck.
In the end I see Specimens and Proofs as functionally the same thing -- an intentionally special piece. The distinction -- proof, specimen, presentation piece centered on what technology/techniques were used at the time -- seems rather unnecessary to this collector at least.
That doesn't make the discussion in this thread any more education or interesting, and I thank those who have contributed.
Have a nice weekend...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
What's the difference between a Speciment and a Proof? Time, as in when it was struck.
In the end I see Specimens and Proofs as functionally the same thing -- an intentionally special piece. The distinction -- proof, specimen, presentation piece centered on what technology/techniques were used at the time -- seems rather unnecessary to this collector at least.
Regarding the Garrett 1795 Bust $1 (now so-called SP66 PCGS), quasi-proof, sui generis resists taxonomy. Master coin works for me.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
There's a gold dollar obverse detailed in JD's upcoming proof book that illustrates this quite well. It was first used on proofs, then circ strikes, then proofs, then circs.
Sounds like some "proof" copies of John W. Dannreuther's upcoming "proof book" have already made it into circulation.
Any suggestions as to how one might get ahold of a pre-publicaiton copy? Assuming that is too much to ask, any indication on when it will be released to the public and how to reserve a copy? Thanks.
Just came across this reference to the 1848 2 1/2 dollar gold CAL which has some relevance to the Specimen vs. Proof discussion here. I recall that when Longacre's three CAL coins went up for auction from his estate they had been described as "proofs" as that term was then being used.
"Early auction listings often described the coins as proofs, as in lot 2812 of the Sixth Semi-Annual Sale (W. Elliot Woodward, 3/1865):
"1848 Brilliant proof, having on the reverse Cal., to indicate that it was coined from the first gold of California received that year, excessively rare."
Modern research disputes these early listings. To quote Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth, "However, modern study has revealed that all were struck from the same pair of dies at the same time and that the dies had a Prooflike, not Proof, finish.""
Rittenhouse --- good post and explanations that say what I understood better than I could have.
I especially would like to thank you for stating that Breen "got fooled" or had a "misunderstanding" of the facts instead of the usual "he made stuff up" that we hear.
It is noteworthy that the U.S. Mint's own use of the term "proof" appears to have entered the nomenclature in the late 1850s as per the postings above. With that in mind it may be instructive to take a look at the discussion on Roger B's thread with regard to proof coins as related to the first $20 Double Eagle that went into circulation - The 1850.
Nicely answers my question about Judd 19 and the Neil-Carter coin.
Good. The Mint records are quite definitive on the presses. There's more solid documentation on those than virtually any other subject except the copper planchets.
Since Stewart did such a good job of quoting the salient records, you can actually piece the story together just using his book. It does help to have Boudinot's letter to Congress re Harper's demo in 1795, but that just fills in a minor point.
I do disagree with the Wikipedia entry you noted. Even the French, where we have Peale's report of then "proving" dies, did not use what we call "proofs" or Master Coins to ensure die quality. Rather, they struck what we would call a copper die trial simply to ensure the design met the requirements.
Further, it simply makes no sense to polish up some dies and planchets, and then do a special strike using the squeeze mode to prove that the dies are good. Why bother with the polishing, it serves no purpose in this sense. And striking a single piece with the squeeze method would not prove the dies would hold up in coining. If they wanted to "prove" a set of dies, just strike a few productions pieces. And since they have the dies in the press, might as well continue on with the production run. So, the "proving" of the dies was simply using them. If they broke, get another pair.
The lack of early Master Coins and proofs also shows they were not used in this "proving" manner. Had they been, we'd have a lot more early MCs and proofs. Look at the number of known die pairs in a given year. We should have dozens of MCs for each year if that's what they were doing. We should also have a fair number of PLs form the early production striking using those polished dies. We don't. Same argument for copper die trials. If they were using those to prove dies, they should be laying around like horse turds.
OTOH, we do have some documentation showing the Mint used these pieces for presentations. The documentation is rather scant, but then so are the pieces up to the late 1850's, so that fits. We also have some letters showing the Mint specially struck and sold pieces to influential collectors. Early on, that was probably used to curry favor to blunt the attacks from Congress. Later, it was certainly done for trade bait and, sadly, to personally profit certain Mint officials.
@northcoin said:
It is noteworthy that the U.S. Mint's own use of the term "proof" appears to have entered the nomenclature in the late 1850s as per the postings above. With that in mind it may be instructive to take a look at the discussion on Roger B's thread with regard to proof coins as related to the first $20 Double Eagle that went into circulation - The 1850.
I wouldn't bet the bank on that. Peale used the term "proved" in 1835. So, the basis for the word dates back quite a while. We only know that it was Snowden who first used the word in a Mint document in 1860. However, since it was used so casually and with no explanation, it is obvious that Mint officials knew and understood the term. How far back that goes is unknown.
@keets said:
Rittenhouse --- good post and explanations that say what I understood better than I could have.
I especially would like to thank you for stating that Breen "got fooled" or had a "misunderstanding" of the facts instead of the usual "he made stuff up" that we hear.
He did both. I am told that even in his early years he'd get an idea in his head and you couldn't blast it out with dynamite. I only knew him from his later years when the drugs and mental illness had taken a hard toll and his research from that period is pretty abysmal. His work goes downhill rapidly starting in the late 60's as he unfortunately got involved in the drug culture.
However, there are bright spots. As JD points out, he got it mostly right on proofs.
One problem with Breen’s early research was that he relied too much on the coins that went through the New Netherlands Auctions and inventory in particular and the New York City coin scene in general. That led him to say things like there were only seven or eight 1796 over 5 half dimes, and all of them were in high grade, or that there were only 25 to 30, 1854-D gold dollars when the numbers for both coins were several times those estimates.
One can be excused when you make population estimates for a recently discovered variety, but I think that Breen’s sample space was too small when he made some of his rarity estimates.
As a young collector I really enjoyed Breen's writing because there was not much out there to read, and he was a good writer whose prose was easy to read.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@BillJones said:
Perhaps TDN's 1794 dollar was a "Proof" of sorts to see what the dies could do under the most ideal situation. The largest press a available could not fully strike silver dollars with all of the design details under normal conditions. Perhaps this piece was "squeezed struck" to see as much detail as possible on a finished coin.
To me the only factor that keeps this coin in the "specimen" category is the planchet. A "perfect" coin would not have been made on a planchet that required a plug to bring up the weight and adjustments to bring it down. Is there a chance that this coin was adjusted after it was struck? If so that might have done to make it "legal."
All of this is obviously speculation because no one can know what was going through the mint officials' minds almost 225 years ago.
JD and I, along with many others, certainly agree that the 1794 "Specimen" dollar was a presentation piece. The planchet was at least burnished, if not lightly polished, and the dies were certainly polished. It is the earliest die state, with only the unique copper die trial being in the same state, if I recall.
That the planchet has adjustment marks and a plug is irrelevant as that was the process at this time. Thus, comparing it to and criticizing it because it does not meet quality standards of much later pieces is invalid. ...
.
.
I have wondered if using a planchet with a silver plug and adjustment marks may have been intentional in order to show that they had the techniques for dealing with overweight and underweight planchets all displayed on this single piece.
If there were multiple planchets available, it would have been easy enough to pick the best looking one if the goal was only to create the best looking coin. That's what has me thinking it's possible the "silver plug and adjustment marked" combination was chosen on purpose over a better appearing planchet in order to show it as a presentation piece.
We may be looking at it through modern eyes assuming the goal was only the best look as opposed to also proving the process of planchet correction methods in addition to showing the best striking ability.
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
@BillJones said:
Perhaps TDN's 1794 dollar was a "Proof" of sorts to see what the dies could do under the most ideal situation. The largest press a available could not fully strike silver dollars with all of the design details under normal conditions. Perhaps this piece was "squeezed struck" to see as much detail as possible on a finished coin.
To me the only factor that keeps this coin in the "specimen" category is the planchet. A "perfect" coin would not have been made on a planchet that required a plug to bring up the weight and adjustments to bring it down. Is there a chance that this coin was adjusted after it was struck? If so that might have done to make it "legal."
All of this is obviously speculation because no one can know what was going through the mint officials' minds almost 225 years ago.
JD and I, along with many others, certainly agree that the 1794 "Specimen" dollar was a presentation piece. The planchet was at least burnished, if not lightly polished, and the dies were certainly polished. It is the earliest die state, with only the unique copper die trial being in the same state, if I recall.
That the planchet has adjustment marks and a plug is irrelevant as that was the process at this time. Thus, comparing it to and criticizing it because it does not meet quality standards of much later pieces is invalid. ...
.
.
I have wondered if using a planchet with a silver plug and adjustment marks may have been intentional in order to show that they had the techniques for dealing with overweight and underweight planchets all displayed on this single piece.
If there were multiple planchets available, it would have been easy enough to pick the best looking one if the goal was only to create the best looking coin. That's what has me thinking it's possible the "silver plug and adjustment marked" combination was chosen on purpose over a better appearing planchet in order to show it as a presentation piece.
We may be looking at it through modern eyes assuming the goal was only the best look as opposed to also proving the process of planchet correction methods in addition to showing the best striking ability.
Whew!!! I think you’re waaaay overthinking this. I don’t recall an early state piece w/o adjustment marks and several have plugs, So, how ‘bout they just picked a planchet out of the basket, polished it, and struck. No tortured explanations required, the process was the process and they used what they had.
What do you mean 'discarded?' The piece was very well preserved.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@ProfHaroldHill said:
Just a bit of poor wording on my part!
I meant it wasn't kept for the mint cabinet, nor did it apparently become a part of an early, noted collection, and thus far there seems to be no record of it. (Not any I'm aware of.)
Consider it reported.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
As I have mentioned many times before, I have handled a 1799 dollar I would call a Proof. Polished fields, and struck so well, or so many times, that the obverse stars were FULLY struck with tiny raised "nipples" in their centers.
@ProfHaroldHill said:
Just a bit of poor wording on my part!
I meant it wasn't kept for the mint cabinet, nor did it apparently become a part of an early, noted collection, and thus far there seems to be no record of it. (Not any I'm aware of.)
Consider it reported.
Do you know if it got photographed and may even be available for viewing on the web? Sounds like a very significant piece.
@northcoin said:
It is noteworthy that the U.S. Mint's own use of the term "proof" appears to have entered the nomenclature in the late 1850s as per the postings above. With that in mind it may be instructive to take a look at the discussion on Roger B's thread with regard to proof coins as related to the first $20 Double Eagle that went into circulation - The 1850.
If the term "Proof" did not become the nomenclature or "lexicon" at the U.S. Mint until the late 1850s, how can the coins before that be called "Proof" if that is the reason for doing so? It seems like the term "Proof" comes into use by modern graders when the special coins that the First U.S. Mint made were something approaching Proof quality.
According to "Coin Facts" and the reference books going back at least to Breen, the 1817 cent was the first to qualify. Here is the "Coin Facts" pictures of one of those rare coins.
For comparison purposes, here is a high grade (MS-66) 1817 cent. We can study the differences.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@BillJones said:
If the term "Proof" did not become the nomenclature or "lexicon" at the U.S. Mint until the late 1850s, how can the coins before that be called "Proof" if that is the reason for doing so? It seems like the term "Proof" comes into use by modern graders when the special coins that the First U.S. Mint made were something approaching Proof quality.
First, we do not know if proof was or wasn’t part of Mint terminology prior to 1860. We only know that’s the first DOCUMENTED use of the term.
JD and I use Master Coin for early pieces as that is what is documented in Mint records.
WE agree that proof should be used for 1828 and later pieces as there was a technology change in Dec of 1827 that significantly changed how these piece look. I did an article for the JR Journal on this last year.
The lack of early Master Coins and proofs also shows they were not used in this "proving" manner. Had they been, we'd have a lot more early MCs and proofs. Look at the number of known die pairs in a given year. We should have dozens of MCs for each year if that's what they were doing. We should also have a fair number of PLs form the early production striking using those polished dies. We don't. Same argument for copper die trials. If they were using those to prove dies, they should be laying around... "
In the early years those 'proofing' pieces struck in the production metal would bear no resemblance to modern proofs, (they would not have polished the dies, as I clarified above, nor used specially prepped planchets,) ...and all of them that were deemed 'up to snuff' would have simply been tossed into the keg, soon to be buried by the the production run coins. There would have been no reason to keep them, so they did not.
I'm not clear on why you feel copper planchets were not part of a trial operation. Judd 19, (copper,) was struck from the same die-pair as the Neil-Carter specimen. It seems to me that would indicate a trialing prior to the striking of the silver.
If you have a “proofing process”, as you call it, that uses production palnchets and they merely throw them in the bag along with the production pieces, then how can you tell there was such a process. And, if that’s what they did, why bother at all? Just put the dies in the press. If they break, get a new set, if not, keep on striking. Otherwise, you’re apparently proposing that the Mint set up, tested, and then set up for another denom and so on just to prove the dies were good? Seriously? And, you have no evidence of this, it’s just unsupported speculation.
As far as copper die trials, they were simply test strikes to see what the finished design looked like. They are called die trials, but they really weren’t “trying” the dies.
@vosclimber said
For Liberty Seated Half Dimes, the above use of proof to check the dies as a "die trial" seems to be consistent with the surviving coins, at least from 1837-1857.
Roughly 5-20 proofs survive for each of these years, according to Breen's notes.
Often these proofs come from different die marriages within a year, as documented in Breen's Proof Encyclopedia, and by examination of recent auction photos. This further supports the "die trial" usage.
An extreme example is the 1838 V-10, ex-Pittman, ex-Gardner.
The reverse die had extensively crumbled between MERIC and the wreath.
So it's tempting to imagine the proof was made to examine or document how bad the die damage was.
The other 2 1838 proofs in recent auction photos are the V-6 die marriage.
The estimated surviving quantities suggest that many of these coins ended up with collectors, possibly sold directly to collectors. I am just saying that a few of them could have been used as "die trials".
For 1858-1873, these have official proof mintage quantities of 80-1000 for each year, mostly made for collectors.
These later year proofs sometimes still exist for multiple die marriages within a year as well,
so it is possible the "die trial" usage was ongoing.
Sorry, I don’t buy any of these arguments as there is simply no evidence whatsoever. You certainly welcome to believe in whatever you wish, but there’s no requirement that I go along.
If you have a “proofing process”, as you call it, that uses production palnchets and they merely throw them in the bag along with the production pieces, then how can you tell there was such a process. And, if that’s what they did, why bother at all? Just put the dies in the press. If they break, get a new set, if not, keep on striking. Otherwise, you’re apparently proposing that the Mint set up, tested, and then set up for another denom and so on just to prove the dies were good? Seriously? And, you have no evidence of this, it’s just unsupported speculation.
As far as copper die trials, they were simply test strikes to see what the finished design looked like. They are called die trials, but they really weren’t “trying” the dies.
Sorry, I don’t buy any of these arguments as there is simply no evidence whatsoever. You certainly welcome to believe in whatever you wish, but there’s no requirement that I go along.
Mine is not belief, it is knowledge that comes from decades of the study of world and US history.
We can tell there was such a process, because it had been going on for hundreds of years before the US Mint ever struck their first coin. It is not at all surprising that the mint records would have little mention of so routine a process. Die trialing is indeed a proving of the die, by any name.
We're not referring to proving the strength of the die, but, similar as with the 'proofing' of the printed word, the desire is to check what the die will produce before committing the die to production. (I gave a detailed explanation in my lengthy reply to RogerB above.)
A "test strike" as you call it, IS a 'proofing strike', but simply by a different term. In other languages, the term of course will be the equivalent in that tongue.
The initial trials are always in different media, including at the old US Mint, hence Judd 19 (in copper,) for the pattern of 1794
It has been common practice in the manufacture of like-objects from molds, dies, presses, et cetera, for hundreds of years, and the terminology has descended with the practice.
To those who still doubt, let me pose a simple question:
When in the 1850's the US Mint began production of specially prepared blanks and dies, in order to produce collector coins that then and today we call "proof" coins...
...Why did they choose to call them proofs?
We'll have to disagree. You have not presented one shred of evidence that these pieces were struck to "prove" the dies.
As far as terminology, it changed at least three times over the course of 40 to 50 years. Why, because language evolves.
Comments
JD and I, along with many others, certainly agree that the 1794 "Specimen" dollar was a presentation piece. The planchet was at least burnished, if not lightly polished, and the dies were certainly polished. It is the earliest die state, with only the unique copper die trial being in the same state, if I recall.
That the planchet has adjustment marks and a plug is irrelevant as that was the process at this time. Thus, comparing it to and criticizing it because it does not meet quality standards of much later pieces is invalid.
That the piece was struck using the "squeeze method" is clearly shown by the difference in detail between the strike and that on production pieces. The 1794 Rutter press was simply not capable of the pressure necessary to strike dollars when used in the reciprocating "push-pull" striking method used for production coinage (see Ackermann's Microcosm, for a good illustration).
That a screw press is far more powerful in squeeze mode as opposed to "quick strike" mode should come as no surprise. Screw presses were developed circa the first century AD specifically to squeeze oils and juices from various fruits and seeds. The push-pull quick strike method was developed to use the press for stamping. My guess is you lost on the order of 30% of the power of a press using the push-pull strike, but it sure was fast. An eyewitness account from the 1820's noted the Mint personnel said they could strike 43 half dollars a minute and Peale's report states the French struck 35 five franc pieces per minute.
What's the difference between a Speciment and a Proof? Time, as in when it was struck.
In the end I see Specimens and Proofs as functionally the same thing -- an intentionally special piece. The distinction -- proof, specimen, presentation piece centered on what technology/techniques were used at the time -- seems rather unnecessary to this collector at least.
That doesn't make the discussion in this thread any more education or interesting, and I thank those who have contributed.
Have a nice weekend...Mike
.> @MikeInFL said:
Regarding the Garrett 1795 Bust $1 (now so-called SP66 PCGS), quasi-proof, sui generis resists taxonomy. Master coin works for me.
There's a gold dollar obverse detailed in JD's upcoming proof book that illustrates this quite well. It was first used on proofs, then circ strikes, then proofs, then circs.
Sounds like some "proof" copies of John W. Dannreuther's upcoming "proof book" have already made it into circulation.
Any suggestions as to how one might get ahold of a pre-publicaiton copy? Assuming that is too much to ask, any indication on when it will be released to the public and how to reserve a copy? Thanks.
Just came across this reference to the 1848 2 1/2 dollar gold CAL which has some relevance to the Specimen vs. Proof discussion here. I recall that when Longacre's three CAL coins went up for auction from his estate they had been described as "proofs" as that term was then being used.
"Early auction listings often described the coins as proofs, as in lot 2812 of the Sixth Semi-Annual Sale (W. Elliot Woodward, 3/1865):
"1848 Brilliant proof, having on the reverse Cal., to indicate that it was coined from the first gold of California received that year, excessively rare."
Modern research disputes these early listings. To quote Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth, "However, modern study has revealed that all were struck from the same pair of dies at the same time and that the dies had a Prooflike, not Proof, finish.""
https://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-quarter-eagles/1848-2-1-2-cal-ms61-ngc/a/1144-5202.s
Rittenhouse --- good post and explanations that say what I understood better than I could have.
I especially would like to thank you for stating that Breen "got fooled" or had a "misunderstanding" of the facts instead of the usual "he made stuff up" that we hear.
It is noteworthy that the U.S. Mint's own use of the term "proof" appears to have entered the nomenclature in the late 1850s as per the postings above. With that in mind it may be instructive to take a look at the discussion on Roger B's thread with regard to proof coins as related to the first $20 Double Eagle that went into circulation - The 1850.
For those who have missed it, here is a link:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/993882/1850-proof-double-eagle-inquiry/p1
Good. The Mint records are quite definitive on the presses. There's more solid documentation on those than virtually any other subject except the copper planchets.
Since Stewart did such a good job of quoting the salient records, you can actually piece the story together just using his book. It does help to have Boudinot's letter to Congress re Harper's demo in 1795, but that just fills in a minor point.
I do disagree with the Wikipedia entry you noted. Even the French, where we have Peale's report of then "proving" dies, did not use what we call "proofs" or Master Coins to ensure die quality. Rather, they struck what we would call a copper die trial simply to ensure the design met the requirements.
Further, it simply makes no sense to polish up some dies and planchets, and then do a special strike using the squeeze mode to prove that the dies are good. Why bother with the polishing, it serves no purpose in this sense. And striking a single piece with the squeeze method would not prove the dies would hold up in coining. If they wanted to "prove" a set of dies, just strike a few productions pieces. And since they have the dies in the press, might as well continue on with the production run. So, the "proving" of the dies was simply using them. If they broke, get another pair.
The lack of early Master Coins and proofs also shows they were not used in this "proving" manner. Had they been, we'd have a lot more early MCs and proofs. Look at the number of known die pairs in a given year. We should have dozens of MCs for each year if that's what they were doing. We should also have a fair number of PLs form the early production striking using those polished dies. We don't. Same argument for copper die trials. If they were using those to prove dies, they should be laying around like horse turds.
OTOH, we do have some documentation showing the Mint used these pieces for presentations. The documentation is rather scant, but then so are the pieces up to the late 1850's, so that fits. We also have some letters showing the Mint specially struck and sold pieces to influential collectors. Early on, that was probably used to curry favor to blunt the attacks from Congress. Later, it was certainly done for trade bait and, sadly, to personally profit certain Mint officials.
I wouldn't bet the bank on that. Peale used the term "proved" in 1835. So, the basis for the word dates back quite a while. We only know that it was Snowden who first used the word in a Mint document in 1860. However, since it was used so casually and with no explanation, it is obvious that Mint officials knew and understood the term. How far back that goes is unknown.
He did both. I am told that even in his early years he'd get an idea in his head and you couldn't blast it out with dynamite. I only knew him from his later years when the drugs and mental illness had taken a hard toll and his research from that period is pretty abysmal. His work goes downhill rapidly starting in the late 60's as he unfortunately got involved in the drug culture.
However, there are bright spots. As JD points out, he got it mostly right on proofs.
One problem with Breen’s early research was that he relied too much on the coins that went through the New Netherlands Auctions and inventory in particular and the New York City coin scene in general. That led him to say things like there were only seven or eight 1796 over 5 half dimes, and all of them were in high grade, or that there were only 25 to 30, 1854-D gold dollars when the numbers for both coins were several times those estimates.
One can be excused when you make population estimates for a recently discovered variety, but I think that Breen’s sample space was too small when he made some of his rarity estimates.
As a young collector I really enjoyed Breen's writing because there was not much out there to read, and he was a good writer whose prose was easy to read.
.
.
.
.
.
I have wondered if using a planchet with a silver plug and adjustment marks may have been intentional in order to show that they had the techniques for dealing with overweight and underweight planchets all displayed on this single piece.
If there were multiple planchets available, it would have been easy enough to pick the best looking one if the goal was only to create the best looking coin. That's what has me thinking it's possible the "silver plug and adjustment marked" combination was chosen on purpose over a better appearing planchet in order to show it as a presentation piece.
We may be looking at it through modern eyes assuming the goal was only the best look as opposed to also proving the process of planchet correction methods in addition to showing the best striking ability.
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Whew!!! I think you’re waaaay overthinking this. I don’t recall an early state piece w/o adjustment marks and several have plugs, So, how ‘bout they just picked a planchet out of the basket, polished it, and struck. No tortured explanations required, the process was the process and they used what they had.
What do you mean 'discarded?' The piece was very well preserved.
Consider it reported.
@CaptHenway said:
As I have mentioned many times before, I have handled a 1799 dollar I would call a Proof. Polished fields, and struck so well, or so many times, that the obverse stars were FULLY struck with tiny raised "nipples" in their centers.
Do you know if it got photographed and may even be available for viewing on the web? Sounds like a very significant piece.
OK, since to some extent this thread is one of semantics, perhaps I should have used the term "lexicon" rather than "nomenclature?"
If the term "Proof" did not become the nomenclature or "lexicon" at the U.S. Mint until the late 1850s, how can the coins before that be called "Proof" if that is the reason for doing so? It seems like the term "Proof" comes into use by modern graders when the special coins that the First U.S. Mint made were something approaching Proof quality.
According to "Coin Facts" and the reference books going back at least to Breen, the 1817 cent was the first to qualify. Here is the "Coin Facts" pictures of one of those rare coins.
For comparison purposes, here is a high grade (MS-66) 1817 cent. We can study the differences.
First, we do not know if proof was or wasn’t part of Mint terminology prior to 1860. We only know that’s the first DOCUMENTED use of the term.
JD and I use Master Coin for early pieces as that is what is documented in Mint records.
WE agree that proof should be used for 1828 and later pieces as there was a technology change in Dec of 1827 that significantly changed how these piece look. I did an article for the JR Journal on this last year.
If you have a “proofing process”, as you call it, that uses production palnchets and they merely throw them in the bag along with the production pieces, then how can you tell there was such a process. And, if that’s what they did, why bother at all? Just put the dies in the press. If they break, get a new set, if not, keep on striking. Otherwise, you’re apparently proposing that the Mint set up, tested, and then set up for another denom and so on just to prove the dies were good? Seriously? And, you have no evidence of this, it’s just unsupported speculation.
As far as copper die trials, they were simply test strikes to see what the finished design looked like. They are called die trials, but they really weren’t “trying” the dies.
Sorry, I don’t buy any of these arguments as there is simply no evidence whatsoever. You certainly welcome to believe in whatever you wish, but there’s no requirement that I go along.
We'll have to disagree. You have not presented one shred of evidence that these pieces were struck to "prove" the dies.
As far as terminology, it changed at least three times over the course of 40 to 50 years. Why, because language evolves.