Options
Found some mirrors at Long Beach!
blu62vette
Posts: 11,968 ✭✭✭✭✭
I was able to buy about 18 DMPL/PL coins at Long Beach and these are a couple of the nicer ones.
This replaces the one currently in my set. A much better look than my prior example and matches the set better. I would say better than average contrast for the year.
I have wanted a PL commem:
I could never pass on a cheap DMPL with mirrors like this:
And a few others:
This replaces the one currently in my set. A much better look than my prior example and matches the set better. I would say better than average contrast for the year.
I have wanted a PL commem:
I could never pass on a cheap DMPL with mirrors like this:
And a few others:
http://www.bluccphotos.com" target="new">BluCC Photos Shows for onsite imaging: Nov Baltimore, FUN, Long Beach http://www.facebook.com/bluccphotos" target="new">BluCC on Facebook
0
Comments
It is my understanding that 100 proofs were struck, at which time, the dies were put right into service making business strikes.
Then the 400th, the 1492nd, and the 1892nd were also struck as proofs.
So, the question is, how can one really tell the first few BS coins from the proofs? Polished planchets? What's the tell?
edited to change 50 to 100, and add the other three
Empty Nest Collection
bob
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Free Trial
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Mike
100% Positive BST transactions
<< <i>There were quite a few posts on the proof, vs. PL Columbians when an ebay seller claimed that his example @ $20K or so was a likely proof though the grading services did not see things that way. NGC had an article on this a while back: Text >>
Wasn't that Julian Liedman's coin? If so, you'd have to lend some weight to the claim. The graders do tend to be conservative when proofiness is called into question.
Empty Nest Collection
This one sold on the bay a few months back:
63PL
BG that ebay one looks pretty dang nice!
<< <i>Are there proofs of the 1893?
BG that ebay one looks pretty dang nice! >>
From Stacks/Bowers in 2012:
1893 Columbian Exposition. Proof-63 (NGC).
The Proof World's Columbian Exposition commemorative half dollar is rare as a type, the original mintage for both the 1892 and 1893 combined amounting to only about 105-110 coins. The vast majority of Proofs struck are of the first year 1892; the only officially minted Proof of the second year 1893 is the first coin, which was struck January 3 that year and presented to president of the Exposition Harlow N. Higinbotham. That coin was eventually turned over to the Chicago Historical Society, where it still resided as of the date of publication of the book The Encyclopedia of United States Silver & Gold Commemorative Coins: 1892-1989 by Anthony Swiatek and Walter Breen.
As of this writing, PCGS and NGC combined have certified just two examples of the 1893 Columbian Exposition half dollar in Proof format (PCGS Proof-64 and the present NGC Proof-63). Since neither of those coins represent the Higinbotham-Chicago Historical Society specimen, it is obvious that a few other Proof 1893 Columbian halves were struck at some point in time during production of that issue. The Proof attributes of this coin are impressive, and we note a well mirrored finish, broad and crisply denticulated borders as well as a full strike that is particularly noteworthy on the ship's rigging in the center of the reverse. Delicate reddish-gold peripheral iridescence further enhances the eye appeal, and there are only wispy handling marks to define the grade. A rare and important bidding opportunity for the advanced collector of classic commemorative coins.
Numismatic Reflections by Q. David Bowers
The “Proof” Columbian half dollars are, to quote Winston Churchill, a mystery wrapped up in an enigma. As a long time student of commemorative coins, I have never seen any information relating to an official coinage in Proof format. Years ago it was common practice among students of the commemorative series to say that no Proofs existed at all, and those called Proofs were simply highly prooflike. That changed, as things often do in numismatics, and today the mintage of Proofs is often regarded as a “fact.” But, is it? Such situations exist elsewhere in numismatics, including the MCMVII High Relief double eagle. To this day PCGS will not certify any of them as “Proof,” but NGC will. As a student of other series, including gold coinage, I have never found any official mention of any Proof MCMVII gold coins being distributed. It would seem to me that had they been struck they would have been acknowledged around the time of issue, there would be documentation, and so on. I cannot find any record of any numismatic offering of “Proofs” before the middle of the 20th century. Then along came Walter Breen, whose opinions were often freely given, and many of which were later proved to be completely false.
Many facts in numismatics today really are houses built on sand, and upon examination are not facts at all. There may have been Proof half dollars struck in 1892 and 1893 for the Columbian Exposition, but as there is no record of them, it seems to me that it would be difficult to estimate original mintages. In fact, any suggestion pre-Breen would have been immediately discarded. All of this said, the present coin is certified as a Proof and indeed is a lovely and elegant example.
Combined PCGS and NGC Population: just 2 in all grades.
Nice pickups.
Nice BS half. Look where that mast is pointing - was that not a '92 diagnostic? Can't remember. I just mention it and link to this thread brought up earlier. However, both examples in this thread are 1893, not '92, and thats an obvious big difference.
The Proof 1892 Columbian Half Mystery: Updated 6/14/06
Best,
Eric
<< <i>The 80S appears to be a 3 IMO. Bet dem mirrors are deeeeep!
Nice pickups. >>
The 1880-S is very deep. No way I could pass it up even overpriced.