Branch Mint Proofs
kevinj
Posts: 989 ✭✭✭
I am just finishing up a book on the Liberty Seated Twenty cent series,
part of which is the hot topics for the series.
One of which was the 1875-S Twenty cent that was called a proof by Breen and a few others.
It is aboslutely not a proof.
Looking at Breen's proof book, there are a bunch of coins that Breen claimed were branch mint proofs.
For example, a 1906-D Barber Dime that Breen claimed in 1976 he verified as a proof. NGC certifies a 1906-D Barber Dime
as a specimen MS64. In Heritiage, this specimen realizes 28K.
During the early 1990s, I heard from several coin dealers that the going rate for a Breen authentication was $300
Of course, Breen is deceased, and cannot defend himself. And of course, this is hearsay.
I once examined a 1917 Lincoln cent that was claimed by Breen to be a matte proof and had a letter from Breen with it.
Under microscope, there were tooling marks on the inside of the rim to square it off.
Question is what other genuine branch mint proofs are there?
Kevin
kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com
part of which is the hot topics for the series.
One of which was the 1875-S Twenty cent that was called a proof by Breen and a few others.
It is aboslutely not a proof.
Looking at Breen's proof book, there are a bunch of coins that Breen claimed were branch mint proofs.
For example, a 1906-D Barber Dime that Breen claimed in 1976 he verified as a proof. NGC certifies a 1906-D Barber Dime
as a specimen MS64. In Heritiage, this specimen realizes 28K.
During the early 1990s, I heard from several coin dealers that the going rate for a Breen authentication was $300
Of course, Breen is deceased, and cannot defend himself. And of course, this is hearsay.
I once examined a 1917 Lincoln cent that was claimed by Breen to be a matte proof and had a letter from Breen with it.
Under microscope, there were tooling marks on the inside of the rim to square it off.
Question is what other genuine branch mint proofs are there?
Kevin
kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com
Kevin J Flynn
0
Comments
Plenty of others. Some were called specimens like 76-CC 10c, which MrE thought was a specimen/proof in the 80's. 15 years later it was in a PCGS SP65 or SP66 holder.
BMPR like 93-CC S$1, 94-S 10c are probably not what you're looking for. 79-O $1 just sold CSNS, 84-CC $1 (more controversial or maybe I just don't recall what class PR Wayne Miller called it). A review of PCGS pop-report (proof section for each denom)) would get you pretty quick results.
I smoked weed with WB in 1985 and I swear he called something a proof when I didn't even ask him to. Maybe a New Rochelle. Quien sabe? A lot over lavender-purple ink out there.
I've seen a 1906-D Barber Dime that looked like a branch mint proof (maybe this is the same coin that brought the $28,000 in a Heritage auction.) I also have seen a 1906-D Barber Half Dollar with the same characteristics squirreled away by a local dealer. Who's to say? 1906 is the opening year of the Denver Mint. So what if no official documentation exists?
<< <i>IMO, many of the coins called branch mint proof are not really. The 38-O halves, the 94-S barber dimes to name a few. However, there are some no brainer branch mint proofs - Morgan dollars and a few early gold coins come to mind. >>
I will quibble a bit (Hey, it's me and TDN,) and then (seemingly) agree and say a case could be made for SP status on 38-O 50c. So what. NGC will call 39-O 50c PR, PCGS will not, to my knowledge, call them SP. I like the 39-O's but can only vote with my wallet. PCGS and CAC both like the 94-S BMPR64 10c just offered by DLRC. TDN's '94 $1 is called SP based purely on fabric. No mint records to document this status
PCGS founder John Dannreuther owned the 1855-S $3 NGC PR64CAM when it was raw (Auction '85?). Sold FUN Platinum Night 2012 perhaps 2011. He's convinced it's a proof, Don't know if PCGS ever saw it.
Per David Akers, true titan of this hobby and walking encyclopedia, "fabric" is the defining characteristic. Intention was another criterion for him. He called the 1831 QE in Pittman "possible proof" Same dies used for both. MrE. owned an 1831 that was a stone proof in maybe 1988 (PCGS PR66, would DCAM today) My old 1831 QE (I think from Eliasberg, I was broke in 1982, didn't see it there, bought it later) is on the wall at ANA as part of the Bass Sylloge. JD says PR66DCAM. I haven't seen it in hand since 1984. I'll take JD's word. I sure would have put my $$$$$ in it if I wasn't convinced. The Pitttman coin is in an NGC PF64 slab (now conserved
Branch mints. 1844-O $5 and $10 from Parmelee. The late Bob Lecce showed me the $10 over a decade ago. NGC PR65 and convinced me. Really convinced me. Never heard of the $5 showing up.
Proof, Specimen, fabric, intent, sometimes the quibble is all you've got.
<< <i>
<< <i>IMO, many of the coins called branch mint proof are not really. The 38-O halves, the 94-S barber dimes to name a few. However, there are some no brainer branch mint proofs - Morgan dollars and a few early gold coins come to mind. >>
I will quibble a bit (Hey, it's me and TDN,) and then (seemingly) agree and say a case could be made for SP status on 38-O 50c. So what. NGC will call 39-O 50c PR, PCGS will not, to my knowledge, call them SP. I like the 39-O's but can only vote with my wallet. PCGS and CAC both like the 94-S BMPR64 10c just offered by DLRC. TDN's '94 $1 is called SP based purely on fabric. No mint records to document this status
<< <i>
PCGS did call a 1838-O Bust Half a proof, see Heritage auction sale http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=460&lotNo=600
I would agree that the 1838-O, which sounds initially was 'test strikes' subsequently transitioned to the state of proof, as they were
struck, and distributed to the Cabinet Collection, mint employees and others as presentation pieces, which in my opinion, is the
objective and nature of proof coins. Also, proofs have to take into account the time period they were struck, how they were normally
distributed during that period.
The 1894-S Barber dime was struck for circulation, several were released into circulation, it was called a normal mintage for the San
Fran Mint for that year, it was not called a proof until the 1940s, this is definitely not a proof, or even a specimen strike. In the
PCGS web site, they now list the 1894-S dimes under Specimen, which sometimes means special strikes.
Kevin
<< <i>I guess the term "specimen" is more appropriate (compromise?) since said coins are SO OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT from ordinary circulation strikes that they warrant recognition of some kind of superlative.
I've seen a 1906-D Barber Dime that looked like a branch mint proof (maybe this is the same coin that brought the $28,000 in a Heritage auction.) I also have seen a 1906-D Barber Half Dollar with the same characteristics squirreled away by a local dealer. Who's to say? 1906 is the opening year of the Denver Mint. So what if no official documentation exists? >>
The definition of proof refers to the intent and the method of manufacture, and not the condition of the coin. Proof coins are made by the Mint for presentation, souvenir, exhibition, numismatic purposes, and to encourage coin collecting. They normally have mirror-like fields, sharp detailed designs, and high squared edges, rims, and corners.
In addition, during the 19th century, if in the first year of issue, and of the same design and alloy, patterns could be distributed as proofs in the sets or outside the sets. If distributed as a proof, it must be defined as a proof.
For example, a friend of mine, 5th genration back, ordered a 1864 proof set, did not like the 2, returned, and received a 1864 Small Motto proof in its place.
In 1906, Denver Mint opens, they strike several special double eagles for presentation to commemerate this. There are no documents
for any other series being struck as presentation, specimen, proofs, or other. There were no coins submitted to the Cabinet collection, there are no coins traced back to the Denver mint employee or guest who received or bought one. There are no national archive documents, newpaper articles, or any other type of evidence or source who witnessed this to confirm these were struck.
If specimens were struck as proofs, why did they release them into circulation to the public?
That is where the documents made the difference, it shows intent.
Kevin
<< <i> So what if no official documentation exists? >>
<< <i>That is where the documents made the difference, it shows intent.
Kevin >>
Maybe some coins have been grandfathered-in. There are no mint records for 1913 V nickels. Nor for many novodels that are considered kosher.
If you want to argue this point, so be it.
If you want more input, you would be more likely to get "possibles" from this Forum process that you might later winnow down, rather than were you to squelch contributions by your insistence upon your perhaps overly stringent criteria at the outset.
Sorry for wasting your time
Sorry I wasted mine, but perhaps a few others will benefit from my egregiously inadequate input.
<< <i>[q. So what if no official documentation exists? >>
<< <i>That is where the documents made the difference, it shows intent.
Kevin >>
Maybe some coins have been grandfathered-in. There are no mint records for 1913 V nickels. >>
Whole different ballgame on inside jobs such as the 1804 Class II and III Dollar, 1913 V Nickel, that were struck and taken from the Mint illegally and distributed for personal gain. Its a good point though, whether inside jobs taken illegally can or should be be classified as proofs. I am not sure of the answer.
Kevin
<< <i>
The definition of proof refers to the intent and the method of manufacture, and not the condition of the coin. Proof coins are made by the Mint for presentation, souvenir, exhibition, numismatic purposes, and to encourage coin collecting. They normally have mirror-like fields, sharp detailed designs, and high squared edges, rims, and corners.
>>
That sounds an awful lot like the Redbook definition.
I kinda like CJ's definition better - grade 'em by price realized.
<< <i>During the early 1990s, I heard from several coin dealers that the going rate for a Breen authentication was $300 >>
Are you implying that Walter Breen would supply an authentication letter for **anything** as long as you paid $300?
I don't think that would even make business sense.
I don''t think it was about the money for him - he was an unconventional person, to say the least.
His standards for proofs are there in print in his books.
The $ argument is bogus, in my view. He didn't want to be swamped in authentication requests, so he charged a fee.
PCGS charges to grade and conditionally slab coins. Same thing.
<< <i>
<< <i> So what if no official documentation exists? >>
<< <i>That is where the documents made the difference, it shows intent.
Kevin >>
Maybe some coins have been grandfathered-in. There are no mint records for 1913 V nickels. Nor for many novodels that are considered kosher. If you want to argue this point, so be it. If you want more input, you would be more likely to get "possibles" from this Forum process that you might later winnow down, rather than were you to squelch contributions by your insistence upon your perhaps overly stringent criteria at the outset. Sorry for wasting your time
I apoligize, my intent was not to squelch input and contributions by others.
I have been researching for the past 25 years, part of which trying to solve what is the best answer to this question.
As you pointed out in your example, there are always going to be exceptions to an absolute rule.
On one side of the coin, if the coins can be used as the only criteria, then you have people like Breen, who in my opinion was arogant and who I believe would sell an opinion to anyone willing to pay. The result of this in my opinion, is coins like the 1906-D Barber dime, being labeled as a specimen, realizing $28K to someone who did not know the entire story.
If there are other ways we can verify the existance of a coin being a proof, I am all ears.
On the 1894-S Barber dime, most specialist knew it is not a proof, but it stayed that way for years in the grading services because it became accepted. The question then becomes, do you call it what is accepted, or what it truly is? I believe the truth speaks for itself. This is why I believe the grading services are transitioning to calling branch mint proofs to specimen coins rather than proofs, unless there is documented evidence of it being a proof.
I did not argue your point on the 1913 V nick, actually I said I did not know the answer to a coin that had be struck and removed from the mint illegally and sold for individual profit.
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>During the early 1990s, I heard from several coin dealers that the going rate for a Breen authentication was $300 >>
Are you implying that Walter Breen would supply an authentication letter for **anything** as long as you paid $300?
I don't think that would even make business sense.
I don''t think it was about the money for him - he was an unconventional person, to say the least.
His standards for proofs are there in print in his books.
The $ argument is bogus, in my view. He didn't want to be swamped in authentication requests, so he charged a fee.
PCGS charges to grade and conditionally slab coins. Same thing. >>
As I said, I was told by several dealers, one of which stated that he paid $300 to Breen for an authentication.
I inspected the 1917 Lincoln cent that Breen called a matte proof, it was an altered coin, that had the inside rim tooled.
You know how many of alleged facts, proof counts and other stuff I found to be incorrect in Breen's proof book and also his
encyclopedia?
Lets talk about standards and knowledge of proofs from Breen's proof book,
Breen states on page 155 that 1260 Twenty cent proofs were struck. He states "1876 - [1260] - 590 left over from 1875. 360 struck in first quarter, 900 in the second quarter for a total of 1260 struck. Delivered 700 in first quarter and 700 in fourth quarter. Plus 590 left over from 1875 for a total of 1850 proofs, minus 1400 delivered makes 450 left over for 1877."
Now, anybody who has studied proofs during this era knows that proofs were only sold in sets, the exception being the first year of issue. In addition, proofs were not sold in the year after issue. Breen states that 590 were left over from 1875 and also 450 were carried into 1877, both of which are absolutely untrue. In addition, he has the number delivered incorrect. The correct number is 1,150, which is the number of dimes, quarters, half dollars, and trade dollar proof silver sets which were delivered. I can prove all of what I state regarding this through national archive records.
The one statement I agree with Breen on is on page 235, under the 1856-O Half Dime listed as a proof. He states. "I saw the piece and thought it very remarkable at the time, but Wayte and I preferred not to list it then in the Standard Catalogue as our policy then was to confine such listing to coins either documented or made for known occasions."
Kevin
<< <i>
I kinda like CJ's definition better - grade 'em by price realized. >>
I said that? Well, I kinda agree. But could argue against this point also, as have different TPGs by their classifications and designations. Though their designations ARE backed by putting their money where their mouth is.
No paperwork on Jesus? Where is Donald Trump when you need him? WTF?
Sorry, gotta go find a 70-S half dime to melt.
<< <i>I owned the Benson 1875-S proof twenty cent piece. IMO, it was right on the cusp of being a no brainer BMP. Very flashy prooflike fields that more likely than not had special preparation. An early business strike or one produced right after the dies being polished? Maybe - but the coin certainly had the look of a full blown proof. >>
I absolutely believe the 75S is not a proof.
But invite your perspective in the book to show opposing views.
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>
I kinda like CJ's definition better - grade 'em by price realized. >>
I said that? Well, I kinda agree. But could argue against this point also, as have different TPGs by their classifications and designations. Though their designations ARE backed by putting their money where their mouth is.No paperwork on Jesus? Where is Donald Trump when you need him? WTF?
Sorry, gotta go find a 70-S half dime to melt.
Actually I believe PCGS backs grades, not sure if PCGS does designations. Perhaps this is why they are calling undocumented so called proofs as specimens now.
I am not sure, but do not believe NGC does
Several of the 1875-S sold through Heritage were certified by NCS and PCI. I do not know, but doubt they would put their money where their mouth is.
If Jesus is not here to determine if these coins are proofs, what criteria do you suggest.
One person or enity? Who? And what criteria should they use?
I have purchased coins certified as MS by one of the two major grading services, knew it was a Phila proof, sent to the other major, certified as proof. Like everyone else, graders are human, they normally have
more experience than most, but they can still make mistakes.
I am not saying I am absolutely right, but am saying that the records from the Mint and National Archives, from the individuals who made our history are correct.
As an example, the Mint clearly stated that the 1894-S dimes were struck for circulation and listed as such in the Director of the Mint Report.
Kevin
<< <i>I owned the Benson 1875-S proof twenty cent piece. IMO, it was right on the cusp of being a no brainer BMP. Very flashy prooflike fields that more likely than not had special preparation. An early business strike or one produced right after the dies being polished? Maybe - but the coin certainly had the look of a full blown proof. >>
Are you saying Laurie lied to me?
Perhaps instead of declaring proof or not proof, starting with Miller's classification system and fitting coins like the 06-D Barber dime into it would be a more useful exercise.
In the end, all coins are graded in terms of market price. Coins that are possible proofs tend not to have to be called proof to bring the huge money that comes with having the look that would lead someone to think it could be a proof.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>
<< <i>I owned the Benson 1875-S proof twenty cent piece. IMO, it was right on the cusp of being a no brainer BMP. Very flashy prooflike fields that more likely than not had special preparation. An early business strike or one produced right after the dies being polished? Maybe - but the coin certainly had the look of a full blown proof. >>
Are you saying Laurie lied to me?
I buy all my coins through Laura - so I fail to see how my statement could be construed that she lied.
<< <i>The listing of the branch mint proofs in Wayne Miller's Morgan & Peace Dollar Textbook includes a useful categorization for trying to figure out what is and isn't a branch mint proof. The top category is authorized proof coinage, including 79-O, 83-O, 93-CC, 21-S. An 83-O and a 93-CC sold at CSNS, and upon inspection, they were Very Special Coins™. (The 79-O sells at pre-ANA, Col. J). The next category down is unauthorized coins, or coins for which no authorization has been found, but are still called proofs based on their appearance.
Perhaps instead of declaring proof or not proof, starting with Miller's classification system and fitting coins like the 06-D Barber dime into it would be a more useful exercise.
In the end, all coins are graded in terms of market price. Coins that are possible proofs tend not to have to be called proof to bring the huge money that comes with having the look that would lead someone to think it could be a proof. >>
good idea, will have to read through all of Miller
I might respectfully disagree on possible proofs realizing the same as if called a proof.
On the 1906-D Barber dime, I would doubt it would have brought 28K or anything close to that if it was not certified as a specimen by NGC
Proof Coins – 19th Century
A “proof coin” was deliberately manufactured through the application of specific processes, materials and machinery.
The only U.S. mint that possessed all of the materials, equipment and processes to do this was at Philadelphia, PA.
Ergo: all proof coins for this era were manufactured at the Philadelphia Mint.
This conclusion does not require that proof dies necessarily conform to all conventional criteria for a regular issue Philadelphia Mint coin. Thus, a die possessing a mintmark could have been used at the Philadelphia Mint to make one or more proof coins. There was no legal prohibition in doing this.
“Branch Mint Proof Coins”
No proof coin could have been manufactured at any mint of the United States except at Philadelphia.
Any coin possessing all of the characteristics of normal proof coins of the same date or period, but which include a mintmark as part of the design, must have been made at the Philadelphia Mint.
Check out the Southern Gold Society
<< <i> Several of the 1875-S sold through Heritage were certified by NCS and PCI. I do not know, but doubt they would put their money where their mouth is >>
.
NCS yes, PCI no. Of course you know, and to a surety. If not, you really should get out more.
<< <i> If Jesus is not here to determine if these coins are proofs, what criteria do you suggest >>
Totally missed my point. I never said Jesus determines if coins are proofs. I said his existence as a historical figure cannot be proved by paperwork. Donald Trump will back me up on principle.
<< <i>One person or enity? Who? And what criteria should they use? >>
The entity would be the vast accumulated institutional knowledge of our hobby. The criteria would be the shared experience of numismatic titans and a few others who often must use the poor substitute of wisdom where intellectual capacity cannot suffice and inadequate data is all that is available. Extrapolating, interpolating, dialoguing with their peers.
<< <i> I have purchased coins certified as MS by one of the two major grading services, knew it was a Phila proof, sent to the other major, certified as proof. Like everyone else, graders are human, they normally have
more experience than most, but they can still make mistakes. >>
Totally specious. We're talking Branch MInts, not Philly's. Last year I cracked an 1867 25c out of a PCGS PR58 holder and got it over-graded as an NGC 61. But it was an incontrovertible, to all but our hosts, business strike. I tripled up Blah Blah Blah. BFD for me. Dimes and half dimes in the 1860's, '93, 1894 (P, not S), 95 Barber 10c dimes are tricky. Couple of the 25c too. Blah Blah Blah. Lots of people here do that.
<< <i> I am not saying I am absolutely right, but am saying that the records from the Mint and National Archives, from the individuals who made our history are correct. >>
The individuals who made our history? IMNSHO Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, even GWB made our history. You think clerks made our history? Clerks recorded as much as they could or wanted to of what they were tasked to do. This "made our history" remark is the one thing in all that you aver that I find most sadly disturbing.
Let's just say that, to slightly rip off the Bard of Avon, "There are more things between Heaven and Earth, Kevin, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
I could go on, but I have a question or two.
You asked us for information that you now state you already have, have available, or know where it is to be located.
What could any of us possibly contribute in adding to a knowledge base which conforms solely to your own self-defined criteria?
What was your purpose?
Are you now unsure whether or not it is correct?
Concerned about the lack of vigor in your intellectual rigor?
Write your book and offer it as a contribution to the institutional knowledge or sell it to us. Some will appreciate it more than others.
I miss Dave Akers. Battle-tested fella. Didn't just read about it. Did it. Touched it. Had passion for it.
You don't even know you're standing on the shoulders of giants while you're pissing on their heads.
And about RWB, a great researcher, as well you might be, I have the same complaint with him as I have with you. Albeit he has made enormous factually-provable contributions to the hobby, my take on his philosophical position is that if it wasn't written down, it didn't happen. Perhaps unfairly, but my take on his energy is that he likes "facts" more than coins. I just don't feel the juice that emanates from coin junkies.
Read Wayne Miller 40 years ago. Great taxonomy. Coin doctors also appreciated his observations on thin-film interference.
Can't keep track of all the BMP's and SP coming out of the woodwork lately. Wrote columns for The Numismatist on auctions a couple of years ago. One was "Close Encounters of the Proof Kind" on BMPs. Got cut in half it had so much in it. Rip it apart. Never intended it to be gospel. Wanted to generate some enthusiasm. Hell, I got the colors of matte proofs mixed up and corrected them after the issue was put to bed. Rip it apart. Woman I loved gave me Post-its that read "Often wrong. Never in doubt". I took it to heart. But a day late and a dollar short, and I still may well be behind the curve. I laugh at myself on a regular basis.
Stephanie has it nailed. "Coins are fun".
I'm one misguided silly sadistic battle-tested SOB. Sadly, I've forgotten more than I ever knew. But I dated a girl who lived down from the guy who played the sax solo on Paul Simon's "Still Crazy After All These Years" And I would not be convicted by a jury of my peers.
Spanked maybe
Blah Blah Blah
<< <i> I buy all my coins through Laura - so I fail to see how my statement could be construed that she lied. >>
Are you kidding me? She'd know I'm kidding you
<< <i>
<< <i> I buy all my coins through Laura - so I fail to see how my statement could be construed that she lied. >>
Are you kidding me? She'd know I'm kidding you
But not everyone here would
<< <i>Just in case you were wondering, here are Roger Burdette's comments:
Proof Coins – 19th Century
A “proof coin” was deliberately manufactured through the application of specific processes, materials and machinery.
The only U.S. mint that possessed all of the materials, equipment and processes to do this was at Philadelphia, PA.
Ergo: all proof coins for this era were manufactured at the Philadelphia Mint.
This conclusion does not require that proof dies necessarily conform to all conventional criteria for a regular issue Philadelphia Mint coin. Thus, a die possessing a mintmark could have been used at the Philadelphia Mint to make one or more proof coins. There was no legal prohibition in doing this.
“Branch Mint Proof Coins”
No proof coin could have been manufactured at any mint of the United States except at Philadelphia.
Any coin possessing all of the characteristics of normal proof coins of the same date or period, but which include a mintmark as part of the design, must have been made at the Philadelphia Mint. >>
Objection: this conclusion presumes that ALL the processes are required to manufacture a proof coin. Why can't a proof coin be manufactured using many, but not all, of the normal processes? And if it can, and the branch mints were capable of those incomplete processes, then the assertion is left with no leg to stand on.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> I buy all my coins through Laura - so I fail to see how my statement could be construed that she lied. >>
Are you kidding me? She'd know I'm kidding you
But not everyone here would >>
Did you see the emoticons?
You need more fiber in your diet.
Just my own two cents:
Actually, Roger complains all the time about the things that happened that were never written down. He just hates the "old wives tales" that either never happened (and he has the written evidence to establish that they never happened) or, if they happened, there should be some written evidence to that effect and there isn't.
It's certainly possible that he now likes facts more than coins - I do.
Numismatic research is a lot of fun, there's still a ton of "low hanging fruit" and there aren't zillions of people competing with you.
Plus, one gets one's name in print - as an author, in book "acknowledgments", in footnotes, etc.
How many collectors can say that?
Check out the Southern Gold Society
<< <i> Objection: this conclusion presumes that ALL the processes are required to manufacture a proof coin. Why can't a proof coin be manufactured using many, but not all, of the normal processes? And if it can, and the branch mints were capable of those incomplete processes, then the assertion is left with no leg to stand on. >>
Damn, just when I'm all primed to be offensive, I find myself agreeing with you. And on a matter of intellectual rigor. Damn.
Very incisive insight
In the mid to late 80's, his fee for a letter was $100. However, the letter was only offered if he agreed with you about the coin.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
If so, what years and populations? Just curious.
If I'm wrong on the specifics, it's late and I'm wrung out from this thread, but I remember the fabric of the coin and am highly skeptical
The 1843-D formerly PCGS MS64, now NGC SP65, ex-Garrett, ex-Bass:
http://www.ngccoin.com/NGCcoinexplorer/CoinDetail.aspx?CoinID=18457
http://www.byersnc.com/1723016-001.html (link with more info on this coin, also for sale)
Another interesting coin that has been called either a branch mint proof or specimen is the 1891-O seated quarter. Depends on who is doing the grading I suppose.
The Dunham (Mehl), Edwards, Heifetz coin listed as a Specimen MS 65 (N) went for 161k when it went off in 2008 (Silbermunzen coin). In the description it was described as one of two known.
In 2011 the ANACS coin, entombed by ANACS as a PROOF, went off for ~18K, of course it was "only"graded as a 62, part of the reason why it brought considerably less. This may be the Ahwash coin, I'm not sure if this is the Breen plate coin or not.
The Silbermunzen coins brought insane money, but in this particular case it may be justified if there are only two of these Specimen (proof) strikings of the '91-O quarter known. At the risk of stating the obvious, the '91-O as a business strike is extremely tough in it's own right.
So I defer to some of the luminaries posting in this thread, would you call this a Specimen striking, or a Proof? Does it really matter?
Edited to add, BTW Kevin, best of luck with your book! I almost forgot who started this thread after reading thru page 2
http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1108&lotNo=334
<< <i>Here are the specifics, I believe - almost exactly as you recalled: http://www.byersnc.com/1723016-001.html (link with more info on this coin, also for sale) >>
Thanks for the photos and the link... much appreciated!
So, nothing from Charlotte?
<< <i>IMO, many of the coins called branch mint proof are not really. The 38-O halves, the 94-S barber dimes to name a few. However, there are some no brainer branch mint proofs - Morgan dollars and a few early gold coins come to mind. >>
The 1894-S dimes are definitely not Proofs. I don't know when that canard got started.
TD
<< <i> The individuals who made our history? IMNSHO Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, even GWB made our history. You think clerks made our history? Clerks recorded as much as they could or wanted to of what they were tasked to do. This "made our history" remark is the one thing in all that you aver that I find most sadly disturbing.
>>
Clerks? You bark loud, but there is nothing behind it.
If you opened my books, you will see letters from the Secretary of the Treasury, Director of the Mint, Superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint and Superintendent of the Branch Mints, Chief Engraver, Chief Coiner, Assayer, and Melter and Refiner to name a few. These are the individuals who made the history of our Mint, and were responsibile for the day to day operations. There are also sometimes witnesses to special events, such as the striking of the 1892 Columbian proofs, below is an article on this
"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."
This shows the same coining press was used for proofs, then circulation strikes,
that manual mode for the proofs, then power applied for circulated strikes
<< <i> NCS yes, PCI no. Of course you know, and to a surety. If not, you really should get out more.
The entity would be the vast accumulated institutional knowledge of our hobby. The criteria would be the shared experience of numismatic titans and a few others who often must use the poor substitute of wisdom where intellectual capacity cannot suffice and inadequate data is all that is available. Extrapolating, interpolating, dialoguing with their peers.
You asked us for information that you now state you already have, have available, or know where it is to be located.
What could any of us possibly contribute in adding to a knowledge base which conforms solely to your own self-defined criteria?
What was your purpose? Are you now unsure whether or not it is correct? Concerned about the lack of vigor in your intellectual rigor?
You don't even know you're standing on the shoulders of giants while you're pissing on their heads.
>>
Is this documented somewhere that NCS will back a designation, either on their web site, written policy, or somewhere else, please provide.
So the intent of the Mint and the individuals who created this coins is irrelevant? This is what Breen thought, that he was the absolute authority.
Actually there is alot I do not know, in researching the Liberty Seated 20s, Rusty Goe amazed me with his knowledge of the Carson City
Mint, I would believe without hesitation that he is the absolute authority on the CC Mint.
There are individuals who have knowledge for example of newspaper articles on some of these coins, that provides answers.
There are different perspectives that need to be considered.
My goal of course is not just to put my perspective in these books, goal is to provide the reader with all information possible, this is
why I sometimes invite people to present their perspective, which might be opposite of mine, shows the reader both sides of the
argument.
Also to see what other branch mint coins have been considered proofs or specimen coins.
You obviously know not what you speak. I listen and read everything. I check every fact, and then research beyond. I lost count on how many times Breen was wrong. He used hearsay as fact. Then I would have people like you say, no, Breen put it in writing, it must be true, don't know how many times I heard that, when the facts clearly showed he was wrong.
<< <i>Just in case you were wondering, here are Roger Burdette's comments:
Proof Coins – 19th Century
A “proof coin” was deliberately manufactured through the application of specific processes, materials and machinery.
The only U.S. mint that possessed all of the materials, equipment and processes to do this was at Philadelphia, PA.
Ergo: all proof coins for this era were manufactured at the Philadelphia Mint.
This conclusion does not require that proof dies necessarily conform to all conventional criteria for a regular issue Philadelphia Mint coin. Thus, a die possessing a mintmark could have been used at the Philadelphia Mint to make one or more proof coins. There was no legal prohibition in doing this.
“Branch Mint Proof Coins”
No proof coin could have been manufactured at any mint of the United States except at Philadelphia.
Any coin possessing all of the characteristics of normal proof coins of the same date or period, but which include a mintmark as part of the design, must have been made at the Philadelphia Mint. >>
I would respectfully disagree with Roger on this subject
There are clear examples of Branch Mint proofs, such as the 1854-S Double Eagle, 1855-S quarter and 1855-S half dollar.
These were struck at the San Francisco Mint, struck as first coins. I have examined these coins, definitely proof quality.
<< <i>
I would respectfully disagree with Roger on this subject
There are clear examples of Branch Mint proofs, such as the 1854-S Double Eagle, 1855-S quarter and 1855-S half dollar.
These were struck at the San Francisco Mint, struck as first coins. I have examined these coins, definitely proof quality. >>
No brainers? nope. NGC at first refused to certify the 55-S coins as proofs. PCGS did and NGC later crossed them when the Richmond Collection was sold.
So far, NGC stated they guaranteed grade and designation.
be defined as a coin struck twice by a basined die though some people would insist the dies,
blanks, or all three are polished. I don't believe you can positively discern whether a coin is
struck twice or not. Those struck twice will show all the details of the dies and single struck
specimens almost never do. You also can't be certain of the degree or the degree of the intent
of the polishing.
With these definitions there are probably quite a few more branch mint proofs than normally
considered and some coins now considered branch mint proofs might not be. The older ones,
I believe, were frequently made for presentation purposes but newer ones tend to be inadver-
tant. I've seen a few SMS which appear to have been struck twice by basined dies which I con-
sider branch mint (San Francisco) proofs. There are some heavily PL coins (like the '49-S Frank-
lin) which are obviously not struck twice but have all the other attributes of proofs. Without doc-
umentation or a full strike I'd consider most of these to merely be PL. It is known, I believe, that
proofs were sometimes made at the branch mints for visiting dignitaries or to test new dies.
In my opinion if a coin looks proof than it is (and was probably made at the designated mint). PL's
can be highly decieving because they can be highly PL.
I believe that, in essence, the mint makes a wide range of mistakes and these can combine to pro-
duce both proofs and PL's but most proofs and PL's are intentional or mostly intentional.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>difficult and painful.... would it not make sense that a pair of dies would have been polished for a special occasion ? the 1855-s quarter and half, for instance, may not have been intentional "proof" coinage but rather a striking for a special purpose, such as the firsts of a new coin at the san fran branch mint... that would have been a big deal to the coiner back in the 1850's other branch mint proofs were surely similar situations, for some reason, the coiner wanted a presentation piece, could have been a visitor to the mint or whatever, but it makes perfect sense to strike a special coin for a special occasion. the mint probably wasnt intending them to be "proofs" just a highly polished example of thier product. >>
Yes. This was performed for "master coins". Eckfeldt started the practice in 1814 and many pieces in the NNC are "master coins" that he put aside. But did this practice occur in branch mints is the $1m question...
<< <i>
<< <i>difficult and painful.... would it not make sense that a pair of dies would have been polished for a special occasion ? the 1855-s quarter and half, for instance, may not have been intentional "proof" coinage but rather a striking for a special purpose, such as the firsts of a new coin at the san fran branch mint... that would have been a big deal to the coiner back in the 1850's other branch mint proofs were surely similar situations, for some reason, the coiner wanted a presentation piece, could have been a visitor to the mint or whatever, but it makes perfect sense to strike a special coin for a special occasion. the mint probably wasnt intending them to be "proofs" just a highly polished example of thier product. >>
Yes. This was performed for "master coins". Eckfeldt started the practice in 1814 and many pieces in the NNC are "master coins" that he put aside. But did this practice occur in branch mints is the $1m question... >>
PCGS founder John Dannreuther, a brilliant, thorough and scrupulous researcher (you've got to spend an afternoon with him in the catacombs of ANS), is in the process of producing a definitive study of master coins, specimens and early proofs. It will have will have color photos, pedigrees, histories, and other very useful and quite interesting text. It's been a years-long work and I have no idea when it will be completed. I've seen much of his work product, mostly on gold. Superb!
The numismatic community will have its socks blown off when it is published.
And the Capt is right on target in describing much of the pseudo-controversy here as tending to be more of a theological dialogue than a technical one.
<< <i>Yes. This was performed for "master coins". Eckfeldt started the practice in 1814 and many pieces in the NNC are "master coins" that he put aside. But did this practice occur in branch mints is the $1m question... >>
If people that once staffed Philadelphia and were familiar with the "master coin" practice staffed the branch mints, I don't see why they wouldn't have done the same there.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Gorgeous. Would love to see in hand!