Is the PROOF 1878 Rev 79 Morgan $1 a Transitional Pattern?

MrEureka · August 26, 2013 11:47AM

In my 40 years in the business, I've only seen one. As far as I know, the coin is solid R-8. The coin has the reverse that was adopted in the following year. Usually, something like that iwould be considered a transitional pattern. But in the case of this coin, most people consider it an extremely rare major variety in the series of "regular" proofs.

How would you classify the coin? How would you go about proving your case?

numisma · August 26, 2013 12:06PM

What kind of documentation is available from Mint archives or anywhere for that matter? Is there a letter that verifies that the coin was struck as a proof? There are DMPL examples of the variety. Who attributed the one known example as a proof? Could it have been the first off of the die, and should it be classified as SP instead of PR? I am not familiar with the coin you mentioned.

Based on the facts--and assuming that it is a proof strike--then yes, it would be a transitional pattern. This would be similar to the gold patterns of 1865 which include IN GOD WE TRUST on the reverse, which was adpoted on all subsequent 1866 issues. Those are proof strikes with a very similar, yet different reverse. Granted, the design change is more dramatic on the 1865 transitional patterns than with the 1878 Rev. 79 design change, but the concept is the same.

MrEureka · August 26, 2013 12:18PM

First, I've seen the coin and it's a 100% no question proof. (In addition to the characteristics one would expect of a proof, it also has unusually concave fields, something never seen on the business strikes.)

As for the comparison to the 1865 transitionals, keep in mind that, unlike the 1865's, business strike 1878 Rev 79 Morgans were struck in large quantities.

Unknown · August 26, 2013 12:18PM

This content has been removed.

numisma · August 26, 2013 12:25PM

As for the comparison to the 1865 transitionals, keep in mind that, unlike the 1865's, business strike 1878 Rev 79 Morgans were struck in large quantities.

Good point on the quantity struck in business strike format for the 1878 Rev of 79 dollars, relative to the 1865 transitional gold patterns. The question then becomes a matter of WHEN the proof version was struck, and that takes us back to any sort of documentation on the matter.

Now, if it's a true proof and not just a fantastic specimen DMPL

MrEureka confirmed that it IS indeed a real proof, so I for one will take his word.

Wolf359 · August 26, 2013 12:27PM

When?

Delivered Nov 8th, 1878 per the Big VAM Book.

numisma · August 26, 2013 12:38PM

<< When?

Delivered Nov 8th, 1878 per the Big VAM Book. >>

Is that the date for the production of business strike Reverse of 79 dollars, or the proof version mentioned in the OP?

Wolf359 · August 26, 2013 12:54PM

<< 

<< When?

Delivered Nov 8th, 1878 per the Big VAM Book. >>

Is that the date for the production of business strike Reverse of 79 dollars, or the proof version mentioned in the OP? >>

Oh come on....

dragon · August 26, 2013 12:54PM

I have seen an 1878 Rev 79 proof Morgan dollar. It was at a coin show at the Chicago Hilton & Towers on Michigan Ave. way back in the early 80's I think. A prominent dealer showed me the coin in a custom Capital holder and he was telling me how rare it was. I remember the coin was a no question proof specimen and had some contrast and overall looked to be a near gem coin with only some light hairlines throughout and some very light gold color IIRC. I believe he was asking $20K for the coin at the time. I have never seen another since.

numisma · August 26, 2013 12:56PM

So when was the proof struck? When was the first delivery of business strikes?

MrEureka · August 26, 2013 1:00PM

I have seen an 1878 Rev 79 proof Morgan dollar. It was at a coin show at the Chicago Hilton & Towers on Michigan Ave. way back in the early 80's I think. A prominent dealer showed me the coin in a custom Capital holder and he was telling me how rare it was. I remember the coin was a no question proof specimen and had some contrast and overall looked to be a near gem coin with only some light hairlines throughout and some very light gold color IIRC. I believe he was asking $20K for the coin at the time. I have never seen another since.

The coin was in an "Apostrophe Auction" in the early 80's. You probably saw that one. It has made a couple of appearances in dealers' hands since then, but AFAIK no others have surfaced since then.

numisma · August 26, 2013 1:20PM

Why does the Bowers-Borckardt book suggest an extant population of approximately (20) 1878 Reverse of 79 dollars?

MrEureka · August 26, 2013 1:25PM

Why does the Bowers-Borckardt book suggest an extant population of approximately (20) 1878 Reverse of 79 dollars?

They probably extrapolate from the pop reports, which (I presume) are exceptionally inflated by resubmissions. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

coindeuce · August 26, 2013 1:30PM

<< 
I have seen an 1878 Rev 79 proof Morgan dollar. It was at a coin show at the Chicago Hilton & Towers on Michigan Ave. way back in the early 80's I think. A prominent dealer showed me the coin in a custom Capital holder and he was telling me how rare it was. I remember the coin was a no question proof specimen and had some contrast and overall looked to be a near gem coin with only some light hairlines throughout and some very light gold color IIRC. I believe he was asking $20K for the coin at the time. I have never seen another since.

The coin was in an "Apostrophe Auction" in the early 80's. You probably saw that one. It has made a couple of appearances in dealers' hands since then, but AFAIK no others have surfaced since then. >>

You must not have been in the country when David Lawrence sold the Richmond Collection in 2004-2005. That sale bore out an NGC PF-64. I believe it went to Rick Tomaska through an intermediary. Jay Parrino also had a PCGS PR-61 in or around 1997, which may very well have been the example that came out of Apostrophe.

MrEureka · August 26, 2013 1:33PM

You must not have been in the country when David Lawrence sold the Richmond Collection in 2004-2005. That sale bore out an NGC PF-64. I believe it went to Rick Tomaska through an intermediary.

I've seen Rick's coin and thought it was the one I had seen in the Apostrophe sale. If I had a copy of the Richmond catalog, I'd verify it now. Maybe someone else here can do it? As for the 61, I never saw it, but I guess it has to be a second coin. I won't be shocked until I can identify 4-5 different coins. And 20 coins seems impossible.

coindeuce · August 26, 2013 1:40PM

In the Richmond Sale, the coin was not designated Cameo by NGC, and it was moderately toned. The coin in the Everest Collection of Proof Dollars (NGC Registry) is now designated Cameo and is untoned.

The PCGS PR-61 appeared in a CW full page fixed price ad by "The Mint". As I recall, the scale of the image in the ad didn't afford the opportunity to note the cert. number.

Just a quick review of the PCGS and NGC Registry sets gives some cred to the survival of at least 4 in 64: 2/NGC and 2/PCGS.

dragon · August 26, 2013 2:03PM

<< Why does the Bowers-Borckardt book suggest an extant population of approximately (20) 1878 Reverse of 79 dollars?

They probably extrapolate from the pop reports, which (I presume) are exceptionally inflated by resubmissions. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. >>

If there are around 20 of them extant, most are very well hidden away IMO.

To answer the OP's original question, I've always considered the 1878 Rev of 79 proof to be a major variety as well as 'the' rarity within the series.

coindeuce · August 26, 2013 2:20PM

"If there are around 20 of them extant, most are very well hidden away IMO."

That is an extreme understatement. The late Jack Lee never owned one, nor did Eliasberg and neither has Bob Simpson. One of the most elusive issues ever emitted from Philadelphia.

CaptHenway · August 26, 2013 11:15PM

<< In my 40 years in the business, I've only seen one. As far as I know, the coin is solid R-8. The coin has the reverse that was adopted in the following year. Usually, something like that iwould be considered a transitional pattern. But in the case of this coin, most people consider it an extremely rare major variety in the series of "regular" proofs.

How would you classify the coin? How would you go about proving your case? >>

Absent finding a letter of transmittal from somebody at the Philadelphia Mint to somebody in Washington saying something to the effect of "Here is a Proof specimen of a revised design we propose using for the circulation coinage. Do you approve?" I don't think you could ever establish these as Transitional Patterns. They could just be late Proof strikes make to fill late orders for Proofs.

That said, was the collar die the same one used for the earlier Proofs, and were pattern dollars of the era struck from the same collar die or a different one?

TD

RichieURich · August 26, 2013 11:20PM

I'm glad I read this thread, I learned something new today!

Thanks to Andy and all who posted!

MrEureka · August 27, 2013 1:02AM

Absent finding a letter of transmittal from somebody at the Philadelphia Mint to somebody in Washington saying something to the effect of "Here is a Proof specimen of a revised design we propose using for the circulation coinage. Do you approve?" I don't think you could ever establish these as Transitional Patterns. They could just be late Proof strikes make to fill late orders for Proofs.

I think you can get to "pattern, beyond a reasonable doubt" without documentation, based on two things. First, I can't see the Mint preparing new obverse and reverse proof dies to fill late orders for such a small number of coins. They would almost certainly have used the dies of the earlier Rev 78 type. Second, and more importantly, the Rev 79 Proof has unusually concave fields, unlike any other Morgan proof and unlike the Rev 79 business strikes. To me, that seems like the type of experimentation one would expect on a pattern, not so much on a regular issue, proof or not.

CaptHenway · August 27, 2013 2:07AM

Do you have pictures you can post here for the benefit of those who have never seen one?

coindeuce · August 27, 2013 2:51AM

There are other Mint products from the time period with concave fields that don't have any particular relevance to pattern standards, such as the 1878 8 TF Morgan dollar business strike die variety VAM 14.4, which exhibits a remarkably concave and deep mirror surface reverse. The concave fields of the VAM 215 Proof may simply have been a technical necessity to account for the higher relief of the convex eagles breast design which was implemented to counter initially harsh criticism of the general public over the flat or concave eagles breast design, which Linderman seemed to take very seriously.

MrEureka · August 27, 2013 3:13AM

Image ATS here. I'd like a better image, but this is as good as I could find.

Wolf359 · August 27, 2013 3:22AM

The proof reverse was reused for all 1879 and 1880 proofs.

I have to admit I don't find them to be concave.....and I'm wondering if we have a rogue out there. It seems unlikely to me.

Anacs article with info and small photos

MrEureka · August 27, 2013 3:30AM

have to admit I don't find them to be concave.....and I'm wondering if we have a rogue out there.

If not concave, that would be both surprising and embarrassing, but not impossible. Next time I see one...

Edited to add that that ANACS article was very helpful.

coindeuce · August 27, 2013 7:51AM

In response to the question posed by CaptHenway, "That said, was the collar die the same one used for the earlier Proofs, and were pattern dollars of the era struck from the same collar die or a different one?"
To date it is apparent that no one has gone to the effort of documenting the reed count of either the 1878 Pattern Proof Dollars or the 1878 7TF Reverse of 1879 VAM 215 Proof. The lack of access to the latter by researchers such as VanAllen & Mallis is understandable. Possibly John Roberts would have determined this recently, but not certain.

For MrEureka, from the Richmond Collection Part II, lot #1680: NGC PF-64

DennisH · August 27, 2013 8:04AM

Wow! That's coin is something to see.

MrEureka · August 27, 2013 8:27AM

For MrEureka, from the Richmond Collection Part II, lot #1680: NGC PF-64

Which is now the Chappell coin. Is it also ex: Rick Tomaska?

coindeuce · August 27, 2013 8:36AM

My understanding was that the Richmond coin is now in the Everest Collection, which is owned by Tomaska. I have always been more interested in the appearance of the pair of PCGS PR-64 coins. They are not viewable in the PCGS Registry. Perhaps one of these two is the coin which allegedly went unsold at the Anaheim A.N.A. signature sale in 1995.

Is the PROOF 1878 Rev 79 Morgan $1 a Transitional Pattern?

Comments

Leave a Comment