Morgan Dollar branch mint proof question
mr1931S
Posts: 6,423 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have an 1882-O dollar that I would like to have checked for possibly being a branch mint proof.My understanding is that Walter Breen was the foremost expert on branch mint proofs,the go to guy,if you will.Now that he is gone,has anyone come forward as an authority on Morgan Dollar branch mint proofs?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
0
Comments
What does it look like? Can you post pics? We may be able to rule it out but probably not in.
I, for one, would love to see it.
bob
<< <i>Have PCGS examine it.
What does it look like? Can you post pics? We may be able to rule it out but probably not in.
I, for one, would love to see it.
bob
ditto. Where'd you find it?
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
<< <i>I have an 1882-O dollar that I would like to have checked for possibly being a branch mint proof.My understanding is that Walter Breen was the foremost expert on branch mint proofs,the go to guy,if you will.Now that he is gone,has anyone come forward as an authority on Morgan Dollar branch mint proofs? >>
PCGS won't certify it as a proof without documentation from the Mint. There were 1879-O and 1883-O Branch Mint proofs made, but none in 1882.
Free Trial
<< <i>Have PCGS examine it.
What does it look like? Can you post pics? We may be able to rule it out but probably not in.
I, for one, would love to see it.
bob
Honestly, they would reject it. Been there, done that.
Free Trial
<< <i>I have an 1882-O dollar that I would like to have checked for possibly being a branch mint proof.My understanding is that Walter Breen was the foremost expert on branch mint proofs,the go to guy,if you will.Now that he is gone,has anyone come forward as an authority on Morgan Dollar branch mint proofs? >>
John Dannreuther is the "go to" guy for 19th century proofs.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
I will tell you though, that for your coin to have even a ghost of a chance, it would have to be so overwhelmingly and obviously a proof that there could be no doubt. "Thick" and hard mirrors, full squaring off of letters and rims, thick frost on all devices and letters, etc. So much so that if someone saw just the obverse, they would immediately and unquestionably buy it as a Philadelphia mint proof.
I have a hard time imagining such a dollar dated 1882-O.
<< <i>As I understand it, if the coin is from a year with mint documented proof mintage, and has "the look" It will get a "Proof" designation. If the year has no documented proof mintage, it will get a "Specimen" designation. The bar also very well may be higher for "the look" in non proof years - that I dont know. >>
That very well may be but the bar is very high. Also most BM proof have known die pairs and extensive research to which dies are alleged to be special. It would not only need the look but the merits as well. As for specimens, good luck with that.
<< <i>A post on PCGS (Morgan Dollar branch mint proof question BMP Link ) asks about “branch mint proof” coins. Since this subject comes up occasionally, here’s a very brief explanation that might help collectors cut through decades of hype and distortion. Branch Mint Proof Coins Roger W. Burdette copyright 2014 Many catalogs and coin sellers describe certain mirror-surface coins with mint marks as “branch mint proofs.” The late numismatic research expert Walter Breen was a firm supporter of the authenticity of these pieces and issued many “Letters of Authenticity” for specimens. For many decades these pieces have been accepted based on Breen's authentication and descriptions, and various writers have added to the lore by proposing situations for which the coins were struck. Most of these special situations were for initiation of a new coinage design or opening/reopening of a mint, or possibly a visit by a very important person. With repetition and adaptation the original suggestions were converted into facts. Modern researchers, less likely to accept the received wisdom as inviolate than predecessors, have questioned both the proposed circumstances and the existence of some of the “branch mint proofs” themselves. Several salient facts or proof coin production have to be considered: 1. In the 19th century all legitimate proof coins were made at the Philadelphia Mint. 2. All proof coins were made on a high-pressure medal press – either hydraulic (after 1892) or screw-type (earlier). 3. Only the Philadelphia Mint had a medal press of sufficient size to strike proof coins. 4. All coin dies for all mints were manufactured in Philadelphia. These facts impose limits on where and how a legitimate “mirror proof” coin could be made. They also suggest a reasonable means for manufacture of mirror proof coins from mint marked dies. A. Thus, if a mint marked coin is truly a medal press proof striking, it must have been made in Philadelphia. The question is then “Why produce such an item?” Here we must fall back on mechanical and operating procedures. When a new mint was opened or when a new denomination/design was to be struck, the Coiner and Engraver always prepared sample pieces for critical examination. These are often called “patterns” or “experimental” pieces, but can also be thought of as engineering and pre-production samples. It is entirely reasonable for high quality engineering samples to be sent with the first order of dies to a branch mint. These gave the local coiner something to compare his first production against. The engineering samples could have been ordinary trial strikes, or medal press coins including ones from polished dies. B. Well-made engineering samples, possibly what we call “proof coins,” were a part of initiating production of new designs or a new mint. Lastly, using dies intended for a branch mint would have increased the confidence of the engraver and local coiner that these new dies would, indeed, strike excellent quality coins. This was especially helpful (and self-protective) for the engraver who occasionally received complaints from branch mint coiners that his dies were defective. Conclusions: If the coin looks like a true proof coin, it must have been made in Philadelphia, regardless of any mint mark. Such a coin is still a “branch mint proof” but is understood to have been made at the primary mint, not a branch. >>
<< <i> A message from RWB. Yes... he is still kicking! >>
I respect Roger’s work but I do not understand his stance on the BMP issue. His criteria for defining a “proof” amount to little more than a decree that if it was not struck at Philly it is not a proof. If his point is that all BMP should be called “specimens” or by some other name but not “proofs” we wind up with mere semantics.
If one were to carry RBW’s “equipment used for the striking” logic forward, starting with the first “proofs” from Philly struck on a screw press, then any “proof” from Philly after the old 19th century screw medal press was replaced was not a “proof” because it was struck using different equipment. But he simply avoids this logical extension of his own hypothesis by allowing for a switch in equipment at Philly from a screw press to a hydraulic press, without making any allowance for the branch mints that used different equipment. The branch mints obviously did not have a medal press like Philly. Instead they used the equipment available to them for special strikings, which would have varied over time and from branch mint to branch mint.
To put it another way, you can say that if it is not from Philly it is not a proof, but how is that helpful in explaining the coin at hand when one holds, for example, an 1879-O BMP dollar?
CG
I'm getting that the bar is high.Ghost of a chance sounds about right.It would be the only branch mint proof 1882-O Morgan known.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Fun read:
Branch Mint Proof summary. I think his PCGS numbers are incorrect though, none of these are in the pops.
edited: I found Julian's old writeup on the coin from 5 years ago:
1892-O Very Choice Brilliant Proof-Recently discovered, this coin is unquestionably not a commercial striking, although my colleagues at PCGS declined the opportunity to encapsulate it as a proof, because of a lack of documentation or reason for it to be struck. Deep proof surface, not 100% struck up, but far better than the vast majority of the date. Ask to see it, on approval, or at a show in the near future. Please note that I discovered the Bruce Todd 1893-CC proof dollar and the Herb Bergen 1883-O proof dollar, so I do happen to know what I am talking about!! This may very well be a truly unique opportunity! $99750.
Free Trial