About those allegedly "Proof" Columbian half dollars...
CaptHenway
Posts: 31,564 ✭✭✭✭✭
Some time back I read a published account of the striking of the allegedly Proof 1892 Columbian halves. The story told how the Remington typewriter company had arranged to buy the first one for $10,000 as a publicity stunt, and how the first one had a planchet flaw or some other defect so it was destroyed and a new "First" coin was struck for Remington. Does anybody have a link to an electronic copy of this story? If so please post it here.
The story went on to say that the next 100 coins, numbers 2 through 101, were struck as Proof and placed in numbered envelopes, at which time regular production began. However, numbers 400, 1492 and 1892 were also struck in Proof and saved a such in numbered envelopes.
There has been an ongoing thread about how Proofs are made, and that made me think about these alleged Columbian Proofs. I could see numbers 1 through 101 being struck on the old screw press used to strike regular Proof coins in 1892, but did they then walk the dies over to a regular press to begin regular coin production? If so, how did they make numbers 400, 1492 and 1892? Did they stop the press each time and walk the dies back to the Proof press to strike one coin, or what?
I have no answers, and raise these questions for the sake of a serious discussion.
TD
Comments
I believe I saw the same story in Anthony Swiatek's book on Classic Commems. Perhaps it is footnoted.
Ever hear the phrase?
Close enough for government work.
And mint employees work for who?
Anthony has that story in his book. The bibliography in the back gives sources he used for the information on all the commemoratives.
Given the effort required to move dies back and forth, I doubt it would have been done that way. Also, at the normal production rate of 80 coins per minute, it would have taken a lot of attentiveness on the part of the press operator to make sure the press was stopped at the right time three different times. I suppose the first 104 could have been struck as proofs on the medal press with numbers 102, 103 and 104 being numbered 400, 1492, and 1892, respectively. Sort of a 19th century mint version of "First Strike™." It's not like the Mint was exactly new to skulduggery.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Are any of these proofs in numbered envelopes still in existence? That would be quite interesting....Cheers, RickO
Yes, I was just hoping to have an electronic version of it I could post here. Guess I will have to keypunch it.
The only comments I've seen thus far in NARA relate to the specific numbered pieces mentioned, plus 4 on polished planchets sent to the Director for display in Europe. "Proof" coins are mentioned only in the context of not being able to make them.
Thus, the best description of shiny Columbian halves of either date is: proof-like.
The Higinbotham correspondence should have more details.
Do a internet search for a long line out of the article. you may just find it online.
The Exposition Committee also wanted the halves put in rolls of 25 pieces and shipped in boxes. The Mint said no. They did not have the staff to do that.
Making of real proofs was rejected by the Mint as impossible.
Yes they exist. A number of years ago at Rarcoa we bought several of the proofs in numbered envelopes from the Higgenbottom family. I kept 1 envelope which I sold to QDB when he bought my commem. Coin spoons at the 1991 ANA. I just recently found in a file folder the original large enelope transmitting them to Higgenbottom with the 10 numbers he got listed on the right side of the envelope. I just gave the envelope to QDB at the last Baltimore show.
I read the story in Antony's book also. A number of these reside in major TPG holders certified as proofs,
I have seen, in hand, a few of the coins certified as proof and they don't look like most other Columbians, they look special.
I know these coins have always been controversial, but is the general thought now that these are really proof like and not proof?
Did you save an image???
Related thread with photos and die markers; does not have info on the story of the original envelopes.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/989838/any-chance-im-convinced-this-1892-columbian-is-a-proof-updated-pics-w-edge-view
Lots of things are "certified" as proofs or granny's special coin or other mishmash. These numismyth-based things need to be openly and objectively examined as they are and in content with contemporary documentation. The comments above date to 1991 - before ample skepticism was applied to many items. Next, will there be a wally Breen letter of authenticity?
Not what you are looking for but still a cool story if it is true!
.
.
.
No Tom I did not save it. It was in bad condition, with small pieces out and brittle. But Bowers has it and I think he would share if you asked
Some discussion and links are here:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-mystery-of-the-1892-columbian-commem-halfs-1-400-1492-1892.309035/
https://www.cointalk.com/proxy.php?image=https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1662/25211656931_8cc0fdf0b4.jpg&hash=77dcd5b1ce78214fc16f20e4074926ca
From LeeG ATS:
“Over 150 issues of The Centinel from the Central States Numismatic Society have been digitized by the Newman Numismatic Portal. Many thanks to CSNS for making this publication available to researchers and collectors everywhere. Len Augsburger found this interesting article by William A. Pettit on the first struck Columbian half dollar. Thanks! This is from Volume 15, Number 3 (the April 1968 Convention issue). Here's an excerpt. -Editor
Take a chance meeting, an incomplete library index card, and a tattered newspaper, and you have the keys to unlock one of the numismatic mysteries of the decade.
One day early in March of this year, a man came to me at my work in Chicago and asked if there were any coin shows in the area in the immediate future. I told him that the next show of import in the area was the P.N.G. show to be held in October. Then I became curious and said, ‘Why do you ask?’
He said, ‘First, I should identify myself,’ and he handed me a card reading: ‘E. Leland Webber, Director, Field Museum of Natural History.’ Immediately I was interested!
‘We found something at the Museum that might be of interest to collectors, and we would like to have it exhibited at a show.’
‘Oh? What's that?’ I asked.
‘The first Columbian Half Dollar!’ was his reply.
Needless to say, this was a surprise and I became even more interested. I asked him just what it would take to have it placed on exhibit at the P.N.G. Show in the Fall.
He replied, ‘Well, mainly three things. First, that it has adequate protection while outside the Museum. Second, that the Museum get adequate recognition in the publicity concerning the exhibit. And the third is probably the most unusual and the most important; that is, that the coin is not now, nor ever will be, on- display at the Museum. The coin is not a part of our regular collections. It is a part of the ‘accumulated memorabilia’ that all museums have. We feel, however, that such an item would be of interest to collectors.’
I assured him that we could undoubtedly meet all of these requirements, and that I was going to be at the Museum in a few weeks and would like to make any additional preparation that might be necessary, and also to see the coin.
A few weeks later I made an appointment with Mr. Webber and went to the Field Museum to see the coin. When I arrived, Mr. Webber was just preparing to leave town, so he turned me over to Mr. Norman Nelson, the business manager of the Museum. I mentioned to him that I had come to see the First Columbian Half Dollar. He told me to be seated while he went down to the vault to get the coin. When he returned, he asked me to step into the next room to look at it.
As I stepped into the room, I saw a wooden box about 2 feet wide, perhaps 3 feet long, and about 8 inches thick, and it seemed to me that this was a very large package for one little coin to come in. Inside the box was a heavy brass frame that opened like a book exposing four sides. On the first page was the following document:
‘The undersigned testify that on the nineteenth day of December, 1892, we witnessed the breaking of the original sealed package from the mint, in which was enclosed the box marked ‘No. 1’, containing the First Columbian Half Dollar and the sworn certificate of the Superintendent of the Mint; and witnessed further the delivery of the said coin and certificate to Wyckoff, Seamans and Benedict, by Mr. H. N. Higinbotham, President of the Worlds’ Columbian Exposition. And we further testify that the identical coin was immediately enclosed in the accompanying glass case, and in our presence sealed up.’
‘I hereby certify that the souvenir coin in box marked No. 1 was the first piece struck from the dies adopted for the Columbian Half Dollar, and sealed up in my presence, and in the presence of the Coiner, and delivered to Mr. James W. Ellsworth, of the Columbian Exposition Directors.’
There is much more to the story - in fact, the article is continued in the July issue. –Editor
Courtesy of The E-Sylum: The Resurrection of the first Columbian Half Dollar, Volume 19, Number 09, February 28, 2016.
To read the complete article on the Newman Portal's Internet Archive collection, see: The Resurrection of the First Columbian Half Dollar (https://archive.org/stream/centinel15n3cent#page/16/mode/2up)
Curious if that promise to never have the coin displayed at the Field Museum has been upheld? For those of us who get to Chicago on occasion it would be interesting to get a look at this most unusual exhibit.
I recall getting to see the King Tut items that were displayed there years ago when on loan from Egypt. Seems the Field Museum has expanded its areas of interest over the years and its present mission statement likely deviates from that of the last century.
Breen letter of authenticity ... no. But, for a fee (of course!), I'll write a letter of authenticity to certify that Breen would have wrote a letter of authenticity to certify the coin as authentically certifiable.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Perhaps some TPG should offer to slab those "400," "1492" and "1892" coins for free just to get them looked at for the record, as well as the "#1" coin.
Do the grading services have much liability if they erroneously certified proof like business strikes as proofs when it is determined they were wrong?
Well, that should be good enough for everyone! Thanks!
They will, as one might expect, argue that they are correct. Then, they would fall back on "well, it's only our 'opinion' and that's not binding." If you following the situation with "proof" MCMVII $20 you'll see this gradual progression -- also known as "wheedling out" - as they attempt to come up with ways to explain a failure to do proper research before printing labels.
I wonder about this net graded one from across the street… For $20,000!
https://m.ebay.com/itm/1893-Proof-Columbian-Commemorative-Half-Dollar-NGC-Details-Polished/182372419517?hash=item2a763e47bd:g:qecAAMXQ8odRGpUY
Terminology was a little different then. From LeeG ATS:
December 5, 1892
A.F. Seeberger, Esq.,
Treasurer World’s Columbian Exposition
Chicago, Illinois
Sir:
In reply to your letter of the 2nd instant, you are informed that a proof coin is one in which the planchet is highly polished before being placed under the dies, and that it would be impossible for the Mint to undertake to make proof coins of all the Columbian souvenir half-dollars. Therefore, they will simply be like the ordinary silver coins when first turned out from the Mint.
Respectfully yours,
R.E. Preston
Acting Director
NARA-CP, RG 104, entry 235, vol. 65, p. 283.
PM Sent
Looking at the account of production from the Chicago Tribune as cited in Bowers' Commemorative Encyclopedia details special handling of the first 100 coins, and says, "After the delivery of the first coin the foreman and his assistant continued coining by hand until they had struck 100 Proof pieces, occupying about an hour in the task. Power was then applied, and the actual work of making 5,000,000 half dollars went rapidly ahead."
Assuming this is accurate, this tells me a few things:
1. The proof coins were ceremonial strikes on the production press
2. This was not a new practice, as it pretty much matches the account of the first Morgans produced 14 1/2 years earlier.
3. Coins 400, 1492, and 1892 were assigned these numbers after three coins were withdrawn from the business strikes being produced after the power was applied.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
RE: "1. The proof coins were ceremonial strikes on the production press."
Ergo, they could not have been "proof" coins. ALL proofs were made on a medal press. Hence, there are no proofs , only proof-like pieces among the first 100.
This does not eliminate from consideration the 4 pieces made "on polished planchets" for the Director's use in Europe - the documents do not say what type of press was used.
(Wat was Bowers' source.)
Right. I should have put quotes astound my use of the word or called them so-called proofs.
Bowers uses a lengthy quote from the Trib, possibly the entire article, which additionally names several witnesses to the ceremonies.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Newspapers can be useful sources, but they are also notoriously flaccid with facts, especially when it comes to technical terms such as "proof coin." The long article about the 1915 PPIE $50 striking is filled with similar confusion.
The terminology they play fast and loose with, but the sequence of events would be way different had these been actual proofs and not ceremonial strikes. The same goes for the 1878 VAM 9 first few strikes.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
That one is not even called a Proof by the TPG. It is labeled as a net graded business strike.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
@RogerB said: "Lots of things are "certified" as proofs or granny's special coin or other mishmash. These numismyth-based things need to be openly and objectively examined as they are and in content with contemporary documentation."
My favorite TPGS term applied to vintage coins is: "Specimen."
What if the first 100 coins mentioned above were struck twice on a "normal" press using polished planchets?
Would we call them PL's or Proofs?
RE: "What if the first 100 coins mentioned above were struck twice on a "normal" press using polished planchets?
Would we call them PL's or Proofs?"
1) There would be evidence of double striking on a significant proportion of the pieces. (There are multiple technical reasons for this even if the dies and coin were in perfect alignment.)
2) A manually operating toggle press cannot mechanically produce a product identical to a medal press regardless of the number of blows. Physical results differ in part because the forces applied during striking differs.
2) We would have to call them proof-like. "Proof" is a manufacturing process and absolutely requires a medal press for the single blow. Too many collector confuse "proof" with the condition or appearance, and not the complete process.
That article left me wanting to read more!
Nothing to add on proof theories but here is a pair of toned Proof like half’s in a PCGS double holder to share! The 92 is almost cameo DMPL the 93 has shallow mirrors
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
I could be wrong but I think it is in the Collection at the Chicago Historical Society not the Field Museum. If anyone knows for sure I would like to know. Wherever it is it should be on display, it is an amazing piece of Chicago History.
The Remington Typewriter coin is in fact at the Field Museum.
I'm guessing it's probably not with the bird collection, otherwise I might be able to get someone to show it to me.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
And is it on display or hidden in the archives?
Specimen would also work.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
It works for me, and is probably the cleanest way to describe the ceremonial coins made before power was applied. Proof-like is ambiguous in that there are normal business strikes that are proof-like. The problem becomes one of differentiating them from the "powered" strikes.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
I believe they keep it hidden in Collections.
Cool topic. Didn't realize there were proofs of this issue until I read this. This coin is listed as Proof 66 Cameo in the CoinFacts database:
And this is Proof 64:
Those are the only two imaged examples. CoinFacts lists two 66 Cameos and 53 other proofs, ranging from PR55 to PR67.
The question remains, are the pieces certified as Proofs over the years actually Proofs?
Some are, some aren't. Kevin Flynn found the Mint records.
Contrary to Roger's assertion, proofs could be struck on the production press. Those presses could be operated in a single-strike, manual mode. So, polished dies and polished planchet, deliberately specially struck equals proof. The type of press used is irrelevant.
Some are, some aren't. Kevin Flynn found the Mint records.
Contrary to Roger's assertion, proofs could be struck on the production press. Those presses could be operated in a single-strike, manual mode. So, polished dies and polished planchet, deliberately specially struck equals proof. The type of press used is irrelevant.
Could you please share your documentation as to the single-strike capabilities of a production press? I am curious as to how they kept the lower die from automatically pushing the struck coin up and out of the collar after the first strike. Likewise, how did they keep the feed fingers from automatically ejecting said coin and dropping in another planchet.
I realize that his coin press is a much later model than what they were using in 1892, but perhaps Daniel Carr
can enlighten us as to how hard it is to switch these geared operations off and on.
TD
Get in touch with Flynn. He has the documents. IIRC, he said he published the docs in the back of his commem book, so you can also try there.
RE: "Contrary to Roger's assertion, proofs could be struck on the production press. Those presses could be operated in a single-strike, manual mode. So, polished dies and polished planchet, deliberately specially struck equals proof. The type of press used is irrelevant."
This is a false statement. Totally and completely false.
A proof can only be made on a medal press. It creates a different force profile and metal flow than an toggle press. It does not matter how many times one bangs a toggle press onto a planchet or how you set the pressure wedge. The result is always distinguishable from a medal press product. Those subtle but constant differences are part of how a real proof can be distinguished from a proof-like or something made on a production press.