@RogerB said:
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.
As a complete outsider - enjoying the speculations - I have a question as to this statement Roger:
**"A proof can only be made on a medal press. It creates a different force profile and metal flow than an toggle press....The result is always distinguishable from a medal press product."
Then why is it so difficult to distinguish Proof 5c and 3c Nickel coins from business strikes? Is it all due to the nickel alloy?
Additionally, while you all are discussing presses...
I've noticed that coins struck using a screw press (India, Great Britain, etc) generally have CURVED radial flow lines. I cannot recall ever seeing this form of metal flow on U.S. Coins. Why is that?
I've noticed that coins struck using a screw press (India, Great Britain, etc) generally have CURVED radial flow lines. I cannot recall ever seeing this form of metal flow on U.S. Coins. Why is that?
That may be a function of how the dies were basined at those mints.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
I've noticed that coins struck using a screw press (India, Great Britain, etc) generally have CURVED radial flow lines. I cannot recall ever seeing this form of metal flow on U.S. Coins. Why is that?
That may be a function of how the dies were basined at those mints.
You can prepare dies any way you please but after a while, they become worn and produce visible radial flow on the struck coins. I'm curious as to why U.S. coins struck with a screw press show different die wear - not curved.
RE:
"Then why is it so difficult to distinguish Proof 5c and 3c Nickel coins from business strikes? Is it all due to the nickel alloy?
Additionally, while you all are discussing presses...
I've noticed that coins struck using a screw press (India, Great Britain, etc) generally have CURVED radial flow lines. I cannot recall ever seeing this form of metal flow on U.S. Coins. Why is that?"
Part 1: Only a conceptual thought since I have not done detailed examinations of these in the periods usually discussed. Like many things in numismatics, past conclusions were often based on superficial examination and poor understanding of both the mechanics of coinage equipment and careful attention to metal flow under various conditions. Referring to Craig's comment, which seems widely held, "...polished dies and polished planchet, deliberately specially struck equals proof." This is similar to saying "if it's shiny and reflective, it must be a proof." Yet, that is an incomplete criteria and neglects many other characteristics, as well as established hobby definitions. I suspect that it is possible to establish which 3-cent and 5-cent pieces (and 10-cent, 25-cent) were made on a toggle press and which were made on a medal press. But this will ONLY be accomplished through objective, unbiased research -- work completely free of old presumptions.
Part 2: I'm not familiar with the examples you cite, so can;t comment directly. Proof coins made on a large screw press and those made on a hydraulic press will be similar, but also have differences dependent on press design, force regulation, die spacing and force distribution. As an example, Royal Mint proofs are very consistent over decades, in part because the medal presses in use were all analogs of a screw press, only with mechanical improvements. The Royal Mint did not use hydraulic presses until well into the 20th century. (The Boulton presses used for circulating British coinage were also emulations of a screw press. Britain did not adopt toggle presses until the 1880s (I think - have not checked date).
With screw presses, there are many variables of construction, mechanical tolerance, and maintenance that generalization is problematical.
Part 3: According to trip reports by Charles Barber and comments by the Deputy Master of the Royal Mint in the 1870s, British dies were flat - no deliberate basin/radius of curvature. (See From Mint to Mint for the citations and bibliography.)
An Aside --- Regarding coinage presses, metal flow under pressure, and related subjects. this is not the place to attempt to explain what happens - it's too complicated for this kind of venue and limited space. The best thing to do is find a good professional mechanical engineer and a metallurgist, pose questions and keep asking until individual understanding is reached.
@logger7 said:
Do the grading services have much liability if they erroneously certified proof like business strikes as proofs when it is determined they were wrong?
TPG's have previously called coins in holders labeled PR as "mechanical errors" and subsequently relabeled as MS....whether that is the actual reason why it could have been mislabeled, I do not know.
@CaptHenway said:
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.
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
For me all I have to do is push one button to activate multi-strike mode and then push a second button to specify 1, 2, 3, or 4 strikes.
The ejection phase is a normal part of each striking cycle. On my press, the ejection linkage is actuated pneumatically via a pressure valve controlled by an electrically-operated solenoid. But it would be possible for a coin press to have a purely-mechanical ejection mechanism without any solenoids or pneumatics.
So when I do a multi-strike the ejection solenoid is activated automatically, but not until after the last strike in the sequence has taken place.
Also, I do not install any feeding fingers in my coin press. So they do not interfere with my manual feeding and multi-striking.
@CaptHenway said:
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.
I agree. Polished dies and, especially, polished/burnished planchets are what make a "proof". The type of coin press does not matter, so long as it imparts sufficient tonnage.
I've noticed that coins struck using a screw press (India, Great Britain, etc) generally have CURVED radial flow lines. I cannot recall ever seeing this form of metal flow on U.S. Coins. Why is that?
That may be a function of how the dies were basined at those mints.
The curved radial flow lines are one diagnostic of a screw press. Imagine if the upper die holder was just slightly loose in the press. When the screw pushes the die into the planchet, the rotating mass could cause the die to twist a little bit. The result is radial, but slightly spiral, flow patterns.
@RogerB said:
An Aside --- Regarding coinage presses, metal flow under pressure, and related subjects. this is not the place to attempt to explain what happens - it's too complicated for this kind of venue and limited space. The best thing to do is find a good professional mechanical engineer and a metallurgist, pose questions and keep asking until individual understanding is reached.
I think this is exactly the place to discuss and explain these topics.
@RogerB said:
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.
1) If the dies and die fixtures are not loose, and if the clearance between the planchet and collar is normal, then there will be no evidence of multi-striking. I have struck many thousands of pieces (two, three, or four times each) and I have never observed any evidence of double-striking unless intentionally broad-struck or intentionally struck off-center.
2) I have personally struck small 1/10-oz gold coins on a hydraulic press and a mechanical press, using the same die pair in both. The results were indistinguishable when the tonnage applied was the same.
3) The required aspects of a "proof" manufacturing process are: specially prepared dies; and specially-prepared planchets.
@CaptHenway said:
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.
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
For me all I have to do is push one button to activate multi-strike mode and then push a second button to specify 1, 2, 3, or 4 strikes.
The ejection phase is a normal part of each striking cycle. On my press, the ejection linkage is actuated pneumatically via a pressure valve controlled by an electrically-operated solenoid. But it would be possible for a coin press to have a purely-mechanical ejection mechanism without any solenoids or pneumatics.
So when I do a multi-strike the ejection solenoid is activated automatically, but not until after the last strike in the sequence has taken place.
Also, I do not install any feeding fingers in my coin press. So they do not interfere with my manual feeding and multi-striking.
Excellent! I did not know that modern presses could do that!
I wonder why Denver would have needed a Press with such a capability? And it makes me rethink my suggestion that Denver might not have struck the 1984-D $10 gold Olympic Proofs. They could have had polished planchets shipped in from San Francisco or Philadelphia and did the striking here in Colorado.
Now if only we knew what kind of press the Columbians were struck on. I know that some 19th century presses still exist, such as the one on the porch of the ANA. Has anybody published an account of tearing down and rebuilding such a press? It might reveal the mechanics of the presses of that era.
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.
@RogerB said:
An Aside --- Regarding coinage presses, metal flow under pressure, and related subjects. this is not the place to attempt to explain what happens - it's too complicated for this kind of venue and limited space. The best thing to do is find a good professional mechanical engineer and a metallurgist, pose questions and keep asking until individual understanding is reached.
I think this is exactly the place to discuss and explain these topics.
@RogerB said:
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.
1) If the dies and die fixtures are not loose, and if the clearance between the planchet and collar is normal, then there will be no evidence of multi-striking. I have struck many thousands of pieces (two, three, or four times each) and I have never observed any evidence of double-striking unless intentionally broad-struck or intentionally struck off-center.
2) I have personally struck small 1/10-oz gold coins on a hydraulic press and a mechanical press, using the same die pair in both. The results were indistinguishable when the tonnage applied was the same.
3) The required aspects of a "proof" manufacturing process are: specially prepared dies; and specially-prepared planchets.
Absolutely, Dan. In fact, as JD and I often say, "Proof" is an intention even more than a process. If I am a coiner and I polish the dies and planchets with an intention to strike special coins for collectors or presentation, then the pieces are proofs. If I have left-over polished planchets and use them with the polished dies to strike production pieces (as was likely the case with the Columbian half and Isabella quarter) then those pieces are actually P/L. Telling the difference can be difficult.
Re evidence of double-strike, that depends. Done perfectly, in small quantities, there may be scant evidence except at magnification. Medals are an excellent example. You can almost always see some evidence of the multiple strikes. However, the word "almost" is key. There are medals we know we struck several times and yet show no evidence.
And I will have to disagree with Roger, there is no difference in the force applied by a screw press and a mechanical press or a hydraulic press. Force is force regardless of how it is applied. 100 tons is 100 tons even if I used a sledge-hammer.
@RogerB said:
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.
Unless you can come up with an actual Mint record stating that they believed genuine proofs could only be struck on a screw or hydraulic press, then you are only expressing an opinion as to the criteria. Your certainly welcome to that opinion, but since JD agrees with me (or I with him), your opinion is irrelevant to establishing the criteria.
The main requirement for proof is that the coiners intended to make a proof. Since it is impossible to go back in time and watch them making these pieces, the only way we can tell proofs from normal production is to determine if they were struck with polished dies and polished planchets (at least in the case of "brilliant proofs"). Other characteristics include a typically full strike resulting in squared-off rims and letters (although that criteria is not 100%).
Do the Columbian and Isabella proofs look a bit different than screw press and hydraulic press proofs? Yeah, some of them, but so what. The intention was to make a proof, so it is a proof.
@CaptHenway said:
Excellent! I did not know that modern presses could do that!
I wonder why Denver would have needed a Press with such a capability? And it makes me rethink my suggestion that Denver might not have struck the 1984-D $10 gold Olympic Proofs. They could have had polished planchets shipped in from San Francisco or Philadelphia and did the striking here in Colorado.
Now if only we knew what kind of press the Columbians were struck on. I know that some 19th century presses still exist, such as the one on the porch of the ANA. Has anybody published an account of tearing down and rebuilding such a press? It might reveal the mechanics of the presses of that era.
Tom, all that is required to polish planchets is a tumbler and polish media. By 84 the Mint should have been using the current process of tumbling with steel balls. Give JD a shout, he and I have talked about "spalecking."
I believe it is unnecessary to write this first, nevertheless...Roger, Dan, and some of the posters in this thread know more about the minting process than I. I like the way Roger provides the historical record an I especially enjoy the written research. Dan's contributions are also very special so we have the written word combined with actual mechanical knowledge. I think we can all agree that there may never be 100% answers to many of our questions.
When I started out, I missed the chance to actually question some of the folks that were around in the fifties and still working at the mint. That's because I did not have the knowledge or curiosity to ask the "right" questions. Thankfully, the pioneers of the error hobby filled in most of the gaps for us. Research by specialists has also made it easy to ID most Proof strikings.
In the 1970's, before we graded coins for the public, many experienced dealers looked at the Early Proof question in this way: "If it looks like a Proof strike, it is one." No discussion was made about which press, how many blows, planchet prep, etc. I'm not saying if this was a good thing or not. It was just the way things had been done for decades before. Life was easy back then.
That's why (for older vintage coins) I side with the opinion that if something was done in the process to make a coin special with a mirror surface...the intention was to make what we call a "Proof."
To support the "intent" side of the argument, I firmly believe that the 1967 SMS coins and the 1968-S Proof coins were struck the same way, including double striking, but that only the 1968-S coins are Proofs because the Mint sez so.
To support the "technique" side of the argument, when I worked for Coin World in the 1970's I sat on the panel that examined "Proof" foreign coins submitted by would-be advertisers to see if they qualified as Proofs "...as that term is understood by North American collectors." CW had established that panel in the 1960's as many countries became independent all over the world and some of them tried selling Proofs sets of their new coinage to raise money, and some of them were not even close to being "Proof" even though the issuing country called them such.
As W.C. Fields once said: "Every man needs something to believe in! I believe I will have another drink!"
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:
To support the "intent" side of the argument, I firmly believe that the 1967 SMS coins and the 1968-S Proof coins were struck the same way, including double striking, but that only the 1968-S coins are Proofs because the Mint sez so.
To support the "technique" side of the argument, when I worked for Coin World in the 1970's I sat on the panel that examined "Proof" foreign coins submitted by would-be advertisers to see if they qualified as Proofs "...as that term is understood by North American collectors." CW had established that panel in the 1960's as many countries became independent all over the world and some of them tried selling Proofs sets of their new coinage to raise money, and some of them were not even close to being "Proof" even though the issuing country called them such.
As W.C. Fields once said: "Every man needs something to believe in! I believe I will have another drink!"
Tom, good points.
As to "intent," the way JD and I use the term there has to be solid evidence that there was an intent. So, you can't just pick out an awesomely struck whatever and say the Mint obviously intended this as a proof.
Kevin Flynn sent me this excerpt from his book with permission to post it here:
"From the Chicago Tribune, November 20, 1892
Philadelphia, PA. November 19, (SPECIAL). It was a $10,000 beauty that dropped today from the coin press at the United States Mint when the work of coining the Columbian Half Dollar began. Supt. Bosbyshell was on hand to represent the Government, and James W. Ellsworth of the World’s Fair Commission represented that body. There was great interest manifested in the affair because of the big premiums that have been offered for certain of the coins. In addition to the first one, there were also coined and delivered to Mr. Ellsworth the 400th, 1492nd, and 1892nd coins of the new Half-Dollars.
Over two thousand of the souvenirs were struck today and the work will continue until all of the 5,000,000 donated by Congress are completed. With the exception of the four valuable coins already specified, the remainder will be held at the Mint until order for their disposal are received from the Treasury Department. The work of coining the souvenirs will not be finished much before the opening of the Exposition in May, next.
When the hour arrived, Supt. Bosbyshell was summoned to the pressroom by Chief Coiner William S. Steele, while Engraver Charles Barber, who designed the famous coin, Chief Clerk M.N. Cobb, and others, assembled as witnesses. Two dies, one bearing the impression to be stamped upon the obverse face, and the other the reverse, and the only pair in existence, were already in place. Foreman Albert Downing placed one of the blank planchets in the receiver and grasped the lever which raises the lower die, while Edwin Cliff, his assistant, stood at the balance wheel. Unfortunately, the first attempt was a failure – a little flaw caused the coin’s rejection.
The next attempt was made more carefully for the reputation of the coiners was at stake and they had resolved that the first approved souvenir of the Exposition should be a marvel of perfection and beauty. The planchet, before being accepted, was examined under the microscope and found without a blemish. For the second time, the two workmen turned the press by hand, while the spectators waited in suspense. Again the coin was lifted from the face of the steel die and critically examined by Coiner Steele, Engraver Barber, and Superintendent Bosbyshell. Every line was sharply defined, and the strong features of the discoverer of America, which adorn the coin, seemed to look approvingly on the work. Columbus himself could not have done better, Uncle Sam’s reputation as an artist was vindicated.
Cardboard boxes had been prepared for the reception of the coins, not like those in which pills are sold. No finger touched the first of the souvenirs, but the pliers gently clutched it by the rim and conveyed the $10,000 lump to the box which was immediately sealed and handed to the World’s Fair Commissioner (Ellsworth).
After the delivery of the first coin the foreman and his assistant continued coining by hand until they had struck 100 proof pieces, occupying about an hour in the task. Power was applied, and the actual work of making 5,000,000 half dollars went rapidly ahead.
The new half dollars bear the portrait of Columbus according to Lotto upon one side, while the other is it’s discoverer’s caravel, the Santa Maria, in full sail. Beneath the vessel is the date 1492 and the two supporting hemispheres representing the Old and the New World. The motto ‘In God We Trust’ (actually not on the coins) and the date 1892 are the remaining details.
Commissioner Ellsworth will take back with him most of the coins for which fancy prices have been offered. The entire vintage will be shipped to Chicago and disposed of from that city. The coin was designed by Morgan, an Englishman, the same who planned the dollar of the daddies. The sum of $10,000 is to be paid the Columbus Commission for the first half dollar, an it was for that reason that Mr. Ellsworth witnessed the coinage. He will make affidavit to what he saw."
The technical references are maddeningly vague. "...grasped the lever which raises the lower die." What does that mean? "...while ... his assistant stood at the balance wheel." Sounds like the flywheel of a toggle press, but is he going to turn it by hand (which sounds like it would be impossible to get any decent force behind it) or engage a pulley?
For the second attempt: "...the two workmen turned the press by hand." Are they turning the arm of the screw press used for Proofs in the 1890s, or hand turning the flywheel of a toggle press? Could you strike a single coin with a toggle press by having two strong gents yank on the flywheel? Some of those presses had fairly large flywheels, and I suppose you might get some decent torque on it, but it just seems improbable.
The journalist's competence is called into question by his attributing the design to two different engravers, without explaining that one did the obverse and the other did the reverse. He also had IN GOD WE TRUST on the coin, which Kevin correctly pointed out is NOT on the coin.
Not sure if this settles anything, but I present it here for the record. Thank you, Kevin, for forwarding it.
TD
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:
Kevin Flynn sent me this excerpt from his book with permission to post it here:
Tom,
Yes, the flywheel of a toggle-joint press could be manually turned. That's in Peale's article on the press in the Journal of the Franklin Institute. It's really not all that difficult. Simply put a hand-crank on the wheel and spin it up to a decent speed before you start feeding planchets. The flywheel stores energy. So, once you have it up to speed, not much effort is required to keep it there - just the energy expended by each strike.
That's not to say I would want to do this for hours on end as the amount of effort it takes to strike a half dollar size silver coin is about the same as bench pressing, say, 30 - 40 lbs. I hand-cranked the Mint's first steam-press when the feed mechanism went wonky during the March 2000 commemoration at the FI.
@CaptHenway said:
Kevin Flynn sent me this excerpt from his book with permission to post it here:
Tom,
Yes, the flywheel of a toggle-joint press could be manually turned. That's in Peale's article on the press in the Journal of the Franklin Institute. It's really not all that difficult. Simply put a hand-crank on the wheel and spin it up to a decent speed before you start feeding planchets. The flywheel stores energy. So, once you have it up to speed, not much effort is required to keep it there - just the energy expended by each strike.
That's not to say I would want to do this for hours on end as the amount of effort it takes to strike a half dollar size silver coin is about the same as bench pressing, say, 30 - 40 lbs. I hand-cranked the Mint's first steam-press when the feed mechanism went wonky during the March 2000 commemoration at the FI.
Fascinating.
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:
Kevin Flynn sent me this excerpt from his book with permission to post it here:
Tom,
Yes, the flywheel of a toggle-joint press could be manually turned. That's in Peale's article on the press in the Journal of the Franklin Institute. It's really not all that difficult. Simply put a hand-crank on the wheel and spin it up to a decent speed before you start feeding planchets. The flywheel stores energy. So, once you have it up to speed, not much effort is required to keep it there - just the energy expended by each strike.
That's not to say I would want to do this for hours on end as the amount of effort it takes to strike a half dollar size silver coin is about the same as bench pressing, say, 30 - 40 lbs. I hand-cranked the Mint's first steam-press when the feed mechanism went wonky during the March 2000 commemoration at the FI.
Even though the flywheel on my 1986-vintage US Mint Graebener coin press is a huge piece of cast iron (probably weighing a couple thousand pounds), I can turn it with one hand. Getting it up to full speed by hand would be difficult, but it might be possible to get it fast enough to perform a strike.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
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.
Logger7: Do the grading services have much liability if they erroneously certified proof like business strikes as proofs when it is determined they were wrong?
Although I am not a lawyer and am not giving legal advice, I have discussed the characteristics of Proofs in many articles. The subject matter is so difficult to explain that I wonder if it would be practical to educate a non-numismatic judge and/or a jury about the differences between Proofs, non-Proof Special Strikings and business strikes.
RogerB: Newspapers can be useful sources, but they are also notoriously flaccid with facts, especially when it comes to technical terms such as "proof coins.
Not just newspapers, many full-time coin people and experienced coin collectors have used such terms rather casually in published works and have not thought much about the definition of a Proof.
RogerB: 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?"
Although I maintain that Proofs could be made on presses other than medal presses, Roger's remarks in this thread are closer to the underlying truth than the illogical theory that a Proof is any coin that the maker says is a Proof. If a coin clearly does not have the characteristics of a Proof, then it is NOT a Proof, regardless of the intentions of those who produced the respective coin. Borderline cases need to be discussed in detail. Also, many Proofs were not struck on polished planchets.
RogerB: 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.)
Yes, I discussed the topic of double-striking with Breen, Richard Doty, David Akers and others. I have spent years examining Proof and purported Proof coins with 10x or higher power magnifying glasses. It is often not easy to reach a determination that a coin was double-struck. But, I contend that I have seen hundreds of coins that were clearly struck more than one once. There is just no easy way to explain the evidence. I have put forth pertinent remarks in many articles.
RogerB: 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.
While this statement is true and I am glad that Roger put it forth in this discussion, it is beside the point IMO. Some true Proof Liberty Seated quarters are dramatically different in physical characteristics than other true Proof Liberty Seated quarters. True Proofs differ, so different kinds of presses can be used to make true Proofs. Nonetheless, I agree with Roger that there are physical differences due to differences in coining presses that were used during the 19th century.
For the most part, I am referring to pre-1917 coins, which I have studied for decades. While fascinating, Dan Carr's remarks about later-presses are beside the theme here. Due to advances in technology, more variables can now be controlled than could be in 19th century.
RogerB: 3) 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.
Breen emphasized that the method of manufacture is the defining characteristic, though he listed other criteria and he criticized Newcomb's criteria as being far too stringent. IMO, the physical characteristics of a coin determine whether it is a Proof, even if we never learn exactly how it was made. There is more than one way to achieve a goal. As Roger says, different presses and different methods will result in differences that experts will notice. Even so, two coins of the same design type can both be Proofs even if they were made in different ways.
@Analyst To understand proof coinage you need to respect the time frame of the minting. Relative to modern proof coinage one could say that modern proofs are the only true proofs based upon quality. That standard cannot be applied to coins that were produced when the US Mint was barely in existence. But, can one not question that the Mint might have produced a few specially minted coins for historical purposes? I think it naeive to think that the Mint was nothing more than a government manufacturing plant. Certainly high quality first strike specimens would be produced as a measure of quality in the minting process.
Perhaps no coins minted before 1850 +/- should be considered as proof coins because the Mint really had no proof "program". Just a few specimen coins that were never meant for "public" distribution. But those coins minted before 1850 that have been specially minted were "proof" as a standard of the minting process in that era, regardless of TPG opionion today.
OldIndianNutCase: @Analyst To understand proof coinage you need to respect the time frame of the minting.
I thought I implied as much. I said above that most of my research relates to coins struck before 1917. While Dan Carr's remarks in this thread are fascinating, advances in technology in the middle of the 20th century and more recently allowed minters to control more variables, and there are thus fewer variables for us to analyze in regard to defining Proof coins. I find 19th century coins to be much more exciting than 20th century coins.
I emphasized that Liberty Seated quarters minted during different time periods may each be true Proofs even if the methods of die and press preparation, and the coining presses themselves, are not precisely the same. Indeed, there exist Proof Liberty Seated quarters from the 1830s, the 1840s, the 1850s, the 1860s, the 1870s, the 1880s and the 1890s, plus the only known 1855-S Branch Mint Proof quarter. My point above was that there is no one method or one kind of press that must have then been used for all Proof coins of the same series. There are criteria relating to the physical characteristics of the coin, which remain largely the same before some point in the 20th century.
OldIndianNutCase: I think it naive to think that the Mint was nothing more than a government manufacturing plant.
The historical significance of particular coins and the Proof status or lack thereof of specific coins are two different topics. I have also written a great deal about coins with historical significance. Most Proofs, however, were made for collectors or to be given as gifts as curiosities. There are many business strikes that have far more historical significance: U.S. coins of 1796 and circa 1815, Higley Coppers, Massachusetts Silver, particular patterns, some pioneer gold coins, 1838-O half dimes and dimes, CC coins from the early 1870s, Capped Bust halves, British coins from the 1300s to the 1600s, etc.
OldIndianNutCase: But those coins minted before 1850 that have been specially minted were "proof" as a standard of the minting process in that era, regardless of TPG opinion today.
Proofs were made differently and not indicative of the standard minting process of each respective era.
From 1818 to the 1890s, there were made Proofs, non-Proof Specimens and business strikes. The Carter-Lustig-Cardinal-Morelan 1794 dollar is a non-Proof Specimen; it is very special, certainly not a business strike.
The distinction between a Proof and a non-Proof Specimens is a function of the physical characteristics of the coin. In some cases, a non-Proof Specimen is an unsuccessful attempt to make a Proof and, in other cases, a non-Proof Specimen is a coin that is very different from both Proofs and business strikes. Some 1839-O coins are unsuccessful attempts at producing Proofs, though still really cool pieces.
OldIndianNutCase: Perhaps no coins minted before 1850 +/- should be considered as proof coins because the Mint really had no proof "program". Just a few specimen coins that were never meant for "public" distribution.</i.
I honestly believe this statement to be wrong in a factual sense. If the physical characteristics of a coin clearly fulfill the criteria of a Proof, then it is a Proof; there is no need for historical evidence. Most of the U.S. gold coins from 1844 to 1849 that are certified as Proofs are indisputably Proofs; there is no need for documentation. They are just as Proof as analogous coins from the 1860s.
My article about the Newman 1818 quarter won an award from the NLG. The judges seemed to think that I conclusively argued that this coin is a Proof. I am, though, more than willing to address arguments. to the contrary. Does @OldIndianNutKase or anyone else here disagree with my conclusion that this Newman 1818 quarter is a Proof?
So, let's take another example -1878 8TF Proof dies were used to strike the proofs, and then tossed into regular production resulting in a few DMPL's that are very hard to distinguish from proofs. I have one that started in a proof holder and is now in an MS DMPL holder. When did this coins from these dies stop being proofs? I believe it is VAM 14.3, but for now the number escapes me. I was looking for an upgrade and stunned when it came back MS. I think I lost a little money and pride, although I still have the coin
Comments
As a complete outsider - enjoying the speculations - I have a question as to this statement Roger:
**"A proof can only be made on a medal press. It creates a different force profile and metal flow than an toggle press....The result is always distinguishable from a medal press product."
Then why is it so difficult to distinguish Proof 5c and 3c Nickel coins from business strikes? Is it all due to the nickel alloy?
Additionally, while you all are discussing presses...
I've noticed that coins struck using a screw press (India, Great Britain, etc) generally have CURVED radial flow lines. I cannot recall ever seeing this form of metal flow on U.S. Coins. Why is that?
That may be a function of how the dies were basined at those mints.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
You can prepare dies any way you please but after a while, they become worn and produce visible radial flow on the struck coins. I'm curious as to why U.S. coins struck with a screw press show different die wear - not curved.
RE:
"Then why is it so difficult to distinguish Proof 5c and 3c Nickel coins from business strikes? Is it all due to the nickel alloy?
Additionally, while you all are discussing presses...
I've noticed that coins struck using a screw press (India, Great Britain, etc) generally have CURVED radial flow lines. I cannot recall ever seeing this form of metal flow on U.S. Coins. Why is that?"
Part 1: Only a conceptual thought since I have not done detailed examinations of these in the periods usually discussed. Like many things in numismatics, past conclusions were often based on superficial examination and poor understanding of both the mechanics of coinage equipment and careful attention to metal flow under various conditions. Referring to Craig's comment, which seems widely held, "...polished dies and polished planchet, deliberately specially struck equals proof." This is similar to saying "if it's shiny and reflective, it must be a proof." Yet, that is an incomplete criteria and neglects many other characteristics, as well as established hobby definitions. I suspect that it is possible to establish which 3-cent and 5-cent pieces (and 10-cent, 25-cent) were made on a toggle press and which were made on a medal press. But this will ONLY be accomplished through objective, unbiased research -- work completely free of old presumptions.
Part 2: I'm not familiar with the examples you cite, so can;t comment directly. Proof coins made on a large screw press and those made on a hydraulic press will be similar, but also have differences dependent on press design, force regulation, die spacing and force distribution. As an example, Royal Mint proofs are very consistent over decades, in part because the medal presses in use were all analogs of a screw press, only with mechanical improvements. The Royal Mint did not use hydraulic presses until well into the 20th century. (The Boulton presses used for circulating British coinage were also emulations of a screw press. Britain did not adopt toggle presses until the 1880s (I think - have not checked date).
With screw presses, there are many variables of construction, mechanical tolerance, and maintenance that generalization is problematical.
Part 3: According to trip reports by Charles Barber and comments by the Deputy Master of the Royal Mint in the 1870s, British dies were flat - no deliberate basin/radius of curvature. (See From Mint to Mint for the citations and bibliography.)
An Aside --- Regarding coinage presses, metal flow under pressure, and related subjects. this is not the place to attempt to explain what happens - it's too complicated for this kind of venue and limited space. The best thing to do is find a good professional mechanical engineer and a metallurgist, pose questions and keep asking until individual understanding is reached.
TPG's have previously called coins in holders labeled PR as "mechanical errors" and subsequently relabeled as MS....whether that is the actual reason why it could have been mislabeled, I do not know.
For me all I have to do is push one button to activate multi-strike mode and then push a second button to specify 1, 2, 3, or 4 strikes.
The ejection phase is a normal part of each striking cycle. On my press, the ejection linkage is actuated pneumatically via a pressure valve controlled by an electrically-operated solenoid. But it would be possible for a coin press to have a purely-mechanical ejection mechanism without any solenoids or pneumatics.
So when I do a multi-strike the ejection solenoid is activated automatically, but not until after the last strike in the sequence has taken place.
Also, I do not install any feeding fingers in my coin press. So they do not interfere with my manual feeding and multi-striking.
I agree. Polished dies and, especially, polished/burnished planchets are what make a "proof". The type of coin press does not matter, so long as it imparts sufficient tonnage.
The curved radial flow lines are one diagnostic of a screw press. Imagine if the upper die holder was just slightly loose in the press. When the screw pushes the die into the planchet, the rotating mass could cause the die to twist a little bit. The result is radial, but slightly spiral, flow patterns.
I think this is exactly the place to discuss and explain these topics.
1) If the dies and die fixtures are not loose, and if the clearance between the planchet and collar is normal, then there will be no evidence of multi-striking. I have struck many thousands of pieces (two, three, or four times each) and I have never observed any evidence of double-striking unless intentionally broad-struck or intentionally struck off-center.
2) I have personally struck small 1/10-oz gold coins on a hydraulic press and a mechanical press, using the same die pair in both. The results were indistinguishable when the tonnage applied was the same.
3) The required aspects of a "proof" manufacturing process are: specially prepared dies; and specially-prepared planchets.
Excellent! I did not know that modern presses could do that!
I wonder why Denver would have needed a Press with such a capability? And it makes me rethink my suggestion that Denver might not have struck the 1984-D $10 gold Olympic Proofs. They could have had polished planchets shipped in from San Francisco or Philadelphia and did the striking here in Colorado.
Now if only we knew what kind of press the Columbians were struck on. I know that some 19th century presses still exist, such as the one on the porch of the ANA. Has anybody published an account of tearing down and rebuilding such a press? It might reveal the mechanics of the presses of that era.
Absolutely, Dan. In fact, as JD and I often say, "Proof" is an intention even more than a process. If I am a coiner and I polish the dies and planchets with an intention to strike special coins for collectors or presentation, then the pieces are proofs. If I have left-over polished planchets and use them with the polished dies to strike production pieces (as was likely the case with the Columbian half and Isabella quarter) then those pieces are actually P/L. Telling the difference can be difficult.
Re evidence of double-strike, that depends. Done perfectly, in small quantities, there may be scant evidence except at magnification. Medals are an excellent example. You can almost always see some evidence of the multiple strikes. However, the word "almost" is key. There are medals we know we struck several times and yet show no evidence.
And I will have to disagree with Roger, there is no difference in the force applied by a screw press and a mechanical press or a hydraulic press. Force is force regardless of how it is applied. 100 tons is 100 tons even if I used a sledge-hammer.
Unless you can come up with an actual Mint record stating that they believed genuine proofs could only be struck on a screw or hydraulic press, then you are only expressing an opinion as to the criteria. Your certainly welcome to that opinion, but since JD agrees with me (or I with him), your opinion is irrelevant to establishing the criteria.
The main requirement for proof is that the coiners intended to make a proof. Since it is impossible to go back in time and watch them making these pieces, the only way we can tell proofs from normal production is to determine if they were struck with polished dies and polished planchets (at least in the case of "brilliant proofs"). Other characteristics include a typically full strike resulting in squared-off rims and letters (although that criteria is not 100%).
Do the Columbian and Isabella proofs look a bit different than screw press and hydraulic press proofs? Yeah, some of them, but so what. The intention was to make a proof, so it is a proof.
Tom, all that is required to polish planchets is a tumbler and polish media. By 84 the Mint should have been using the current process of tumbling with steel balls. Give JD a shout, he and I have talked about "spalecking."
I believe it is unnecessary to write this first, nevertheless...Roger, Dan, and some of the posters in this thread know more about the minting process than I. I like the way Roger provides the historical record an I especially enjoy the written research. Dan's contributions are also very special so we have the written word combined with actual mechanical knowledge. I think we can all agree that there may never be 100% answers to many of our questions.
When I started out, I missed the chance to actually question some of the folks that were around in the fifties and still working at the mint. That's because I did not have the knowledge or curiosity to ask the "right" questions. Thankfully, the pioneers of the error hobby filled in most of the gaps for us. Research by specialists has also made it easy to ID most Proof strikings.
In the 1970's, before we graded coins for the public, many experienced dealers looked at the Early Proof question in this way: "If it looks like a Proof strike, it is one." No discussion was made about which press, how many blows, planchet prep, etc. I'm not saying if this was a good thing or not. It was just the way things had been done for decades before. Life was easy back then.
That's why (for older vintage coins) I side with the opinion that if something was done in the process to make a coin special with a mirror surface...the intention was to make what we call a "Proof."
To support the "intent" side of the argument, I firmly believe that the 1967 SMS coins and the 1968-S Proof coins were struck the same way, including double striking, but that only the 1968-S coins are Proofs because the Mint sez so.
To support the "technique" side of the argument, when I worked for Coin World in the 1970's I sat on the panel that examined "Proof" foreign coins submitted by would-be advertisers to see if they qualified as Proofs "...as that term is understood by North American collectors." CW had established that panel in the 1960's as many countries became independent all over the world and some of them tried selling Proofs sets of their new coinage to raise money, and some of them were not even close to being "Proof" even though the issuing country called them such.
As W.C. Fields once said: "Every man needs something to believe in! I believe I will have another drink!"
Tom, good points.
As to "intent," the way JD and I use the term there has to be solid evidence that there was an intent. So, you can't just pick out an awesomely struck whatever and say the Mint obviously intended this as a proof.
Kevin Flynn sent me this excerpt from his book with permission to post it here:
"From the Chicago Tribune, November 20, 1892
Philadelphia, PA. November 19, (SPECIAL). It was a $10,000 beauty that dropped today from the coin press at the United States Mint when the work of coining the Columbian Half Dollar began. Supt. Bosbyshell was on hand to represent the Government, and James W. Ellsworth of the World’s Fair Commission represented that body. There was great interest manifested in the affair because of the big premiums that have been offered for certain of the coins. In addition to the first one, there were also coined and delivered to Mr. Ellsworth the 400th, 1492nd, and 1892nd coins of the new Half-Dollars.
Over two thousand of the souvenirs were struck today and the work will continue until all of the 5,000,000 donated by Congress are completed. With the exception of the four valuable coins already specified, the remainder will be held at the Mint until order for their disposal are received from the Treasury Department. The work of coining the souvenirs will not be finished much before the opening of the Exposition in May, next.
When the hour arrived, Supt. Bosbyshell was summoned to the pressroom by Chief Coiner William S. Steele, while Engraver Charles Barber, who designed the famous coin, Chief Clerk M.N. Cobb, and others, assembled as witnesses. Two dies, one bearing the impression to be stamped upon the obverse face, and the other the reverse, and the only pair in existence, were already in place. Foreman Albert Downing placed one of the blank planchets in the receiver and grasped the lever which raises the lower die, while Edwin Cliff, his assistant, stood at the balance wheel. Unfortunately, the first attempt was a failure – a little flaw caused the coin’s rejection.
The next attempt was made more carefully for the reputation of the coiners was at stake and they had resolved that the first approved souvenir of the Exposition should be a marvel of perfection and beauty. The planchet, before being accepted, was examined under the microscope and found without a blemish. For the second time, the two workmen turned the press by hand, while the spectators waited in suspense. Again the coin was lifted from the face of the steel die and critically examined by Coiner Steele, Engraver Barber, and Superintendent Bosbyshell. Every line was sharply defined, and the strong features of the discoverer of America, which adorn the coin, seemed to look approvingly on the work. Columbus himself could not have done better, Uncle Sam’s reputation as an artist was vindicated.
Cardboard boxes had been prepared for the reception of the coins, not like those in which pills are sold. No finger touched the first of the souvenirs, but the pliers gently clutched it by the rim and conveyed the $10,000 lump to the box which was immediately sealed and handed to the World’s Fair Commissioner (Ellsworth).
After the delivery of the first coin the foreman and his assistant continued coining by hand until they had struck 100 proof pieces, occupying about an hour in the task. Power was applied, and the actual work of making 5,000,000 half dollars went rapidly ahead.
The new half dollars bear the portrait of Columbus according to Lotto upon one side, while the other is it’s discoverer’s caravel, the Santa Maria, in full sail. Beneath the vessel is the date 1492 and the two supporting hemispheres representing the Old and the New World. The motto ‘In God We Trust’ (actually not on the coins) and the date 1892 are the remaining details.
Commissioner Ellsworth will take back with him most of the coins for which fancy prices have been offered. The entire vintage will be shipped to Chicago and disposed of from that city. The coin was designed by Morgan, an Englishman, the same who planned the dollar of the daddies. The sum of $10,000 is to be paid the Columbus Commission for the first half dollar, an it was for that reason that Mr. Ellsworth witnessed the coinage. He will make affidavit to what he saw."
The technical references are maddeningly vague. "...grasped the lever which raises the lower die." What does that mean? "...while ... his assistant stood at the balance wheel." Sounds like the flywheel of a toggle press, but is he going to turn it by hand (which sounds like it would be impossible to get any decent force behind it) or engage a pulley?
For the second attempt: "...the two workmen turned the press by hand." Are they turning the arm of the screw press used for Proofs in the 1890s, or hand turning the flywheel of a toggle press? Could you strike a single coin with a toggle press by having two strong gents yank on the flywheel? Some of those presses had fairly large flywheels, and I suppose you might get some decent torque on it, but it just seems improbable.
The journalist's competence is called into question by his attributing the design to two different engravers, without explaining that one did the obverse and the other did the reverse. He also had IN GOD WE TRUST on the coin, which Kevin correctly pointed out is NOT on the coin.
Not sure if this settles anything, but I present it here for the record. Thank you, Kevin, for forwarding it.
TD
Tom,
Yes, the flywheel of a toggle-joint press could be manually turned. That's in Peale's article on the press in the Journal of the Franklin Institute. It's really not all that difficult. Simply put a hand-crank on the wheel and spin it up to a decent speed before you start feeding planchets. The flywheel stores energy. So, once you have it up to speed, not much effort is required to keep it there - just the energy expended by each strike.
That's not to say I would want to do this for hours on end as the amount of effort it takes to strike a half dollar size silver coin is about the same as bench pressing, say, 30 - 40 lbs. I hand-cranked the Mint's first steam-press when the feed mechanism went wonky during the March 2000 commemoration at the FI.
Fascinating.
Even though the flywheel on my 1986-vintage US Mint Graebener coin press is a huge piece of cast iron (probably weighing a couple thousand pounds), I can turn it with one hand. Getting it up to full speed by hand would be difficult, but it might be possible to get it fast enough to perform a strike.
Great thread.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Somebody who has been following the thread suggested that I post this link for discussion:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1892-PROOF-COLUMBIAN-COMMEMORATIVE-HALF-DOLLAR-PCGS-PR-63/263551326423?hash=item3d5ce218d7:g:Iu0AAOSw2CJaqpJd
Logger7:
Although I am not a lawyer and am not giving legal advice, I have discussed the characteristics of Proofs in many articles. The subject matter is so difficult to explain that I wonder if it would be practical to educate a non-numismatic judge and/or a jury about the differences between Proofs, non-Proof Special Strikings and business strikes.
RogerB: Newspapers can be useful sources, but they are also notoriously flaccid with facts, especially when it comes to technical terms such as "proof coins.
Not just newspapers, many full-time coin people and experienced coin collectors have used such terms rather casually in published works and have not thought much about the definition of a Proof.
RogerB:
Although I maintain that Proofs could be made on presses other than medal presses, Roger's remarks in this thread are closer to the underlying truth than the illogical theory that a Proof is any coin that the maker says is a Proof. If a coin clearly does not have the characteristics of a Proof, then it is NOT a Proof, regardless of the intentions of those who produced the respective coin. Borderline cases need to be discussed in detail. Also, many Proofs were not struck on polished planchets.
RogerB:
Yes, I discussed the topic of double-striking with Breen, Richard Doty, David Akers and others. I have spent years examining Proof and purported Proof coins with 10x or higher power magnifying glasses. It is often not easy to reach a determination that a coin was double-struck. But, I contend that I have seen hundreds of coins that were clearly struck more than one once. There is just no easy way to explain the evidence. I have put forth pertinent remarks in many articles.
RogerB:
While this statement is true and I am glad that Roger put it forth in this discussion, it is beside the point IMO. Some true Proof Liberty Seated quarters are dramatically different in physical characteristics than other true Proof Liberty Seated quarters. True Proofs differ, so different kinds of presses can be used to make true Proofs. Nonetheless, I agree with Roger that there are physical differences due to differences in coining presses that were used during the 19th century.
For the most part, I am referring to pre-1917 coins, which I have studied for decades. While fascinating, Dan Carr's remarks about later-presses are beside the theme here. Due to advances in technology, more variables can now be controlled than could be in 19th century.
RogerB:
Breen emphasized that the method of manufacture is the defining characteristic, though he listed other criteria and he criticized Newcomb's criteria as being far too stringent. IMO, the physical characteristics of a coin determine whether it is a Proof, even if we never learn exactly how it was made. There is more than one way to achieve a goal. As Roger says, different presses and different methods will result in differences that experts will notice. Even so, two coins of the same design type can both be Proofs even if they were made in different ways.
The only Proof S-Mint Liberty Seated Quarter
The Only Known Proof 1839 Quarter
The Controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 3, The physical characteristics of Proof coins
@Analyst To understand proof coinage you need to respect the time frame of the minting. Relative to modern proof coinage one could say that modern proofs are the only true proofs based upon quality. That standard cannot be applied to coins that were produced when the US Mint was barely in existence. But, can one not question that the Mint might have produced a few specially minted coins for historical purposes? I think it naeive to think that the Mint was nothing more than a government manufacturing plant. Certainly high quality first strike specimens would be produced as a measure of quality in the minting process.
Perhaps no coins minted before 1850 +/- should be considered as proof coins because the Mint really had no proof "program". Just a few specimen coins that were never meant for "public" distribution. But those coins minted before 1850 that have been specially minted were "proof" as a standard of the minting process in that era, regardless of TPG opionion today.
OINK
The strike on that one is not really any different than the normal "business" strike.
OldIndianNutCase:
I thought I implied as much. I said above that most of my research relates to coins struck before 1917. While Dan Carr's remarks in this thread are fascinating, advances in technology in the middle of the 20th century and more recently allowed minters to control more variables, and there are thus fewer variables for us to analyze in regard to defining Proof coins. I find 19th century coins to be much more exciting than 20th century coins.
I emphasized that Liberty Seated quarters minted during different time periods may each be true Proofs even if the methods of die and press preparation, and the coining presses themselves, are not precisely the same. Indeed, there exist Proof Liberty Seated quarters from the 1830s, the 1840s, the 1850s, the 1860s, the 1870s, the 1880s and the 1890s, plus the only known 1855-S Branch Mint Proof quarter. My point above was that there is no one method or one kind of press that must have then been used for all Proof coins of the same series. There are criteria relating to the physical characteristics of the coin, which remain largely the same before some point in the 20th century.
OldIndianNutCase:
The historical significance of particular coins and the Proof status or lack thereof of specific coins are two different topics. I have also written a great deal about coins with historical significance. Most Proofs, however, were made for collectors or to be given as gifts as curiosities. There are many business strikes that have far more historical significance: U.S. coins of 1796 and circa 1815, Higley Coppers, Massachusetts Silver, particular patterns, some pioneer gold coins, 1838-O half dimes and dimes, CC coins from the early 1870s, Capped Bust halves, British coins from the 1300s to the 1600s, etc.
OldIndianNutCase:
Proofs were made differently and not indicative of the standard minting process of each respective era.
From 1818 to the 1890s, there were made Proofs, non-Proof Specimens and business strikes. The Carter-Lustig-Cardinal-Morelan 1794 dollar is a non-Proof Specimen; it is very special, certainly not a business strike.
The distinction between a Proof and a non-Proof Specimens is a function of the physical characteristics of the coin. In some cases, a non-Proof Specimen is an unsuccessful attempt to make a Proof and, in other cases, a non-Proof Specimen is a coin that is very different from both Proofs and business strikes. Some 1839-O coins are unsuccessful attempts at producing Proofs, though still really cool pieces.
OldIndianNutCase: </i.
I honestly believe this statement to be wrong in a factual sense. If the physical characteristics of a coin clearly fulfill the criteria of a Proof, then it is a Proof; there is no need for historical evidence. Most of the U.S. gold coins from 1844 to 1849 that are certified as Proofs are indisputably Proofs; there is no need for documentation. They are just as Proof as analogous coins from the 1860s.
My article about the Newman 1818 quarter won an award from the NLG. The judges seemed to think that I conclusively argued that this coin is a Proof. I am, though, more than willing to address arguments. to the contrary. Does @OldIndianNutKase or anyone else here disagree with my conclusion that this Newman 1818 quarter is a Proof?
The Fabulous Eric Newman Collection, Part 4: Proof 1818 Quarter
So, let's take another example -1878 8TF Proof dies were used to strike the proofs, and then tossed into regular production resulting in a few DMPL's that are very hard to distinguish from proofs. I have one that started in a proof holder and is now in an MS DMPL holder. When did this coins from these dies stop being proofs? I believe it is VAM 14.3, but for now the number escapes me. I was looking for an upgrade and stunned when it came back MS. I think I lost a little money and pride, although I still have the coin
ttt.