For EARLY U.S. coins – What’s the difference between a Specimen and a Proof?
BillJones
Posts: 34,496 ✭✭✭✭✭
I am going to present a program to my local club in February about the 1936 Proof set. Before I get the 1936 set I am going to give a brief overview about U.S. Proof coins. The current view is that the first U.S. Proof coin is an 1817 large cent. Prior to that everything that exhibits special treatment with respect to production is called a Specimen. What is the difference between a "Specimen" and a "Proof?"
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
0
Comments
What a good question. Actually a great question. And frankly, I don't know and don't have a trained eye good enough to tell the difference. I looked around and found this which seemed like a good answer. "SP strikes are struck with a stronger force. The rims come out squared, and all the details of the coin are well defined. They do have mirror surfaces, like the PL coins, but if compared, you'll see that SP coins have much more definition" This might be a good question posed to a mint worker.
To clarify, I'm looking for the reason why none of the well-made coins that the Philadelphia Mint made prior to 1817 can be called "Proofs" while five cents produced in 1817 ARE called Proofs.
Walter Breen claimed that a coin had to be struck twice to be called a "Proof," but now that distinction is not regarded as the demarcation point.
So what makes those 1817 cents Proofs, while the 1794 Silver Dollar in SP-66 can’t be called Proof?
Fabric/skin.
Historical evidence
Rims.
Strike.
siliconvalleycoins.com
Perhaps you could expand on the "historical evidence" point or lead me to a reference. Thanks!
I really don't know, but could this be part of the distinction?
Modern proof coins are struck from special dies (has this always been the case?). Maybe specimens were struck from normal dies but to higher standards?
I was mentioning that sometimes, for argument, documents from the mint that point towards presentation pieces is what is needed to move from specimen to proof, or certainly from business strike to specimen/proof. For the 1794 dollar that @tradedollarnut owns, it is obvious that the coin is "special". But most numismatists would say that it isn't a proof, from a standpoint of planchet prep and the fabric of the coin. I don't know if there is any sort of mint documentation for that coin.
@MrEureka would be a much better source than I. Regarding your 1817 cent, I can't point to documentation, if indeed that was what you were asking about. s
siliconvalleycoins.com
Not sure if any of this will help, but here goes:
Modern use of the term "proof" includes production on a medal press and usually mirror-like dies and planchets. That definition ends in about 1970 when multi-strike presses became available at much higher output than hydraulic or screw-type medal presses.
**Here's one usage -- **
September 26, 1850
Hon. Thomas Corwin,
Secretary of the Treasury
Sir,
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday,
respecting an application made by the Committee on the Library for a series of
“Specimens of gold coins.”** I presume that these specimens include one set of
Gold Master Coins,** and I have the satisfaction to say that these can be furnished
without delay.
Here's another --
DuBois to Stickney March 29, 1852 (excerpt)
…I have now the silver dollar, ½ dollar, ¼ dollar, and ½ dime of 1851; the remainder you will have to get from circulation. In fact there is no longer any attention paid here to securing master coins or pieces of high finish, since Mr. Eckfeldt’s decline and decease, and since the business of the Mint has become so pressing. The pieces I have just named, of 1851, are no master coins; merely new and clean specimens.
The most common terms for a specially made coin are "master coin" or "master coin set." In the 1860s this term seems to be used in the same ways as "proof" or "proof set" and by the 1870s "proof" has become the universal term for a mirror-finish coin made on a medal press.
My personal approach is that "specimen" means simply an example or sample piece - not specially made. "Master coin", "proof coin" refer to polished dies and deliberate production on a medal press. "High finish" refers to polished dies but might not be fully detailed as would be normal for a medal press.
For early pre-1825 US coins, there is no contemporary Mint terminology used that includes the words proof or specimen. "Proof" is used in an engraving context in the US as early as 1783, and also used with copperplate engraving same time frame.
Catalogers and TPG's have labeled some early strikes with proof-like surfaces as proofs or specimens for marketing, with no Mint evidence. An example is the Queller 1807 O.109 half that Stack's described as "Choice Brilliant Proof" (raw). Five years later, it is PCGS Specimen 65, and sells for more than 10X the amount of the Queller auction, great marketing, would have made a good Forbes article.
Call the pre-1825 proof-like early die stage coins what you want, and add to the lore, hype, and fables.
I know that Proof dies were used, at least in the 19th century, to make business strike coins, but would be safe to say that the Proof dies were used to strike for circulation coins ONLY after they had been used to strike Proof coins?
Also the concept of two or more strikes to produce a Proof coin has come up again. Breen claimed that that was a hallmark of a true Proof coin, but RogerB disputes that. Could the double striking be a 19th century concept while the single strike Proof a 20th century or perhaps modern (post 1935 or 1949 concept)? I am trying to get this straight because of the conflicted opinions in the available information sources.
I would say no. I was able to closely examine an 1836 proof set owned by Rare Coin Wholesalers. The half Dime from the set exhibited the RETAINED CUD on the reverse. The rest of the coin screamed “Proof” as did the rest of the set. I believe a dignitary came to the mint and the director ordered a set struck for presentation. The workers quickly polished a few planchets and the dies currently in use, or the vault, for the special strikes. They also likely used the larger press and/or took great care in giving each a fuller strike. The dies were then likely returned to regular production producing PL strikes to the next group of coins to be produced.
A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.
A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
RE: "... the concept of two or more strikes to produce a Proof coin has come up again. Breen claimed that that was a hallmark of a true Proof coin, but RogerB disputes that."
Breen presented no evidence for a 2-strike practice and the coins show, overall, no multiple striking. (I am aware of, and discovered several exceptions, however.)
From at least 1858 forward to about 1970 all proof coins received one blow from a medal press - large screw press or hydraulic press. Prior to regular manufacture of proof coins we have little direct evidence one way or another. However, neither a screw press nor a toggle press lend themselves to holding a struck coin in precise alignment with both dies. None of the early presses had such tight mechanical tolerances that alignment could be maintained for low relief coins. Medals were different and were given many blows plus lathe trimming, etc.
Those with access to early master coins should look for a pattern of double images. If these appear on a large proportion of master coins of that date/type then they were likely given more than one blow. Otherwise, physical and mechanical conditions of the period point only to a single strike with a heavy press. (Further, every blow from a screw press was different in pressure - it was impossible to have all strikes equal. A toggle press has the same force per action, as would a hydraulic press.
I have always understood the term "Proof" when used in Numismatics to be a description of the method of manufacture, with the understanding that it involves a production run. that would mean that if it's one hundred or ten thousand pieces struck that all the coins struck would have been done using the same technique. a "Specimen" to me has always meant care was taken to produce a higher quality coin(s) but not with the same procedures used to make a Proof.
I’m with @keets and @JBK on the distinction. It’s equivalent to the “fine works” strikings during the reign of Charles I of Britain: regular dies and procedures but the workers simply took greater care during execution for a shirt-term purpose.
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
"Specimen" can mean different things in different circumstances. Best not to get too caught up in the semantics.
With respect to the "SP" designation on early US coins, I would argue that it is appropriate for non-proof coins that appear to have been produced with substantially special care. First-strike PL's do not automatically qualify, but they might if the strike and/or planchet preparation appear to be something special.
I would also argue that the "SP" designation on early US coins should be considered more opinion than fact, and that opinions as to what constitutes a special coin can easily change after seeing more coins.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
As I have mentioned many times before, I have handled a 1799 dollar I would call a Proof. Polished fields, and struck so well, or so many times, that the obverse stars were FULLY struck with tiny raised "nipples" in their centers.
The official pronouncement is that the 1817 Proof cents were the first U.S. Proof coins. Are there certain makers on those coins that single them out as Proofs and not Specimens? What factors cinched this issue for the graders?
I would like to thank all you who have responded to my question.
It seems that there is no quick, fixed answer to my question. Perhaps a PCGS grader could weigh in on it.
Where does the "1817 first use" come from? Is it on a slab like "First Struck" or "First Kinda Maybe" ?
BTW. In checking correspondence from the 1870s and later the term "specimen" is increasingly used in a context that implies a mirror-like finish - however, I've found this ONLY in reference to pattern and experimental pieces and not to the regular proof coins sold to collectors.
I believe William H Sheldon was the first to put forth this idea in his 1949 book Early American Cents:
" Proof cents do not appear until 1817, the year in which the Old Mint building was replaced by a new brick one and many new pieces of eqipment were added, presumably including that for the special polishing of planchets...
"Although there are no proofs before 1817, some of the early cents have a singularly lovely surface, as if the coiner had perhaps rubbed the planchet a lilttle on his leather apron before dropping it into the press."
If this is what Breen relied on, perhaps the "official pronouncement" should be reconsidered.
As I recall a steam engine was added also, but it was only used to run the planchet strip rolling mill.
"Breen" is not a trusted source for nomenclature. I'm looking for an independent contemporary usage.
RE: "Many or most of the oldest US 'proof coins' are actually coins from the die-proving process that were traded to collectors at a time the mint was working on acquiring coins to round-out its cabinet."
Nope. Letters between mint and collectors regarding trades, purchases, exchanges neither state not imply anything about "proving-dies." Testing of hubs and dies was done using very soft metal, splashers or wax. Completed and hardened dies were put to use immediately on screw presses pre-fitted with the correct weights to match the size of coin being made.
That seems arbitrary. It is generally thought that a close collar was not used by the Mint until 1828 (though some would suggest a date earlier in the 1820's.)
And other than what Bill points out that the steam engine was used for the rolling mill, not sure what other significant changes were made in 1817 to merit such an important change in designation from Specimen to Proof.
Maybe Sheldon was onto something after all - starting in 1817 the coiner made it a policy to rub all Specimen planchets with his leather apron, thus inventing Proofs.
Bill -Since we share a common interest in Classic Head Gold, thought I would share a couple of points.
It is generally thought that the first use of the term "proof" at the Mint was during the 1850's when proof sets were standardized for collectors. The term overtook the use of "master coin" and by the 1860's was the norm.
There was a prior isolated use of "proof". After the Siam and Muscat presentation sets were made in late 1834, two more similar sets were made in early 1835, the Cochin-China and Japan sets. These sets included Classic Head quarter eagles and half eagles. In a register of letters for the Mint in 1835, an entry for the latter sets reads, "Shipment of two sets of proof coins ordered by Secy of State mailed to Collector of Customs NY."
I have been searching for another use of the term to describe these presentation sets, in correspondence, receipts, etc. to no avail.
I have also studied the proof Classic Head quarter eagles and half eagles (1834-1839), many of them in hand. None of the coins presently designated in holders as Proof appear double struck (at least I can't recall any.)
RE: Ronyahski's post. Here's one of the letters about the diplomatic sets, although it does not use the word "proof."
Interesting discussion. As to the difference between Specimen and Proof for early US coinage, I can tell you how John Dannreuther and I currently use it (along with Master Coin). But, be aware that this is not how PCGS uses it and our view has naturally changed over the years due to our continuing research.
First, I do want to clear up what seems to be a few misconceptions.
Prior to the introduction of the hydraulic press, the Mint used a screw press in what I have called "hubbing mode" to strike Master Coins and Proofs - the press was used like a giant vice, with one or two men pushing on the lever arm to crank the press closed. Functionally a "crush strike." They were also fed and removed by hand. That's why Master Coins and Proofs show such detail and the squared-off letters and rims.
At some point in the 20th century, the Mint did start using hydraulic presses capable of rapid multiple blows and this also may have misled Breen.
Breen's misunderstanding came from his misreading of a Nov. 1836 letter from Patterson to Woodbury where he referred to the new close collar in use on the half dollars as opposed to the prior open collar. Then, in his encyclopedia, Breen misattributed the letter to Moore in 1828.
Close collars were introduced to the large cents in 1816 and half cents in 1825. However, the collars from 1816 to around 1823 or so, were not as tight as later collars.
The first documented used of the term proof comes from a handwritten note by James Ross Snowden dated Feb. 8, 1860. This is imaged in JD's upcoming book on proof gold.
So, how do JD and I use Specimen, Master Coin, and Proof?
Specimen - Patterns and other specially struck coins that do not rise to the quality of proofs or Master Coins. The 1856 Flying Eagle cent and the 1836 and 1839 Gobrecht dollars are both excellent examples. In particular, the Gobrecht dollars were struck using polished dies and nicely burnished or polished planchets, but were struck using the auto-feed and production striking methods. While there are a few true proofs of these issues, most Originals are merely PL or SPL. But, the Mint certainly intended to make a coin nicer than typical production, thus they can appropriately be called SP.
Master Coin - JD uses this for the one-sided proofs of the 1820s and all lettered-edge coinage, except the CLE's which were struck in close collars. I prefer to use it for all pre-1821 coinage, but do acknowledge that the Green-Newman 1818 quarter certainly meets the more stringent proof standards of the watery, mirror fields and squared-off letters and rims. The coins I call proofs from 1821 on all show a more consistent, heavier impression and the watery, mirror fields show that the polishing of the dies and planchets was much higher than on prior pieces.
Proofs - Coins specially struck in close collars using specially prepared dies and planchets. Most proofs use polished dies and planchets, however, there are later pieces with matte and sand-blast finishes.
What do JD and I mean when we say "watery, mirror fields"? The best way we can describe this is take a mirror and wet it with a thin film of water. If you want to try this, put a couple drops of ammonia in, that'll help the water wet the glass and get a real thin film. That's what real proof fields look like. The have a shimmering appearance to the mirror due to the deep polish. DMPL, PL, and SPL do not. IMHO, Master Coins, especially the earliest ones, do not quite have this level of mirror.
PCGS uses the following definitions on their website:
Specimen (SP) - Special coins struck at the Mint from 1792-1816 that display many characteristics of the later Proof coinage. Prior to 1817, the minting equipment and technology was limited, so these coins do not have the "watery" surfaces of later Proofs nor the evenness of strike of the close collar Proofs.
Proof (PR) - A coin usually struck from a specially prepared coin die on a specially prepared planchet. Proofs are usually given more than one blow from the dies and are usually struck with presses operating at slower speeds and higher striking pressure. Because of this extra care, Proofs usually exhibit much sharper detail than regular, or business, strikes. PCGS recognizes Proofs (PR) as those struck in 1817 and later. (I obviously disagree with the multiple blows for pre-20th century.)
Post of the Year!
Thanks for sharing.
For Liberty Seated Half Dimes, the above use of proof to check the dies as a "die trial" seems to be consistent with the surviving coins, at least from 1837-1857.
Roughly 5-20 proofs survive for each of these years, according to Breen's notes.
Often these proofs come from different die marriages within a year, as documented in Breen's Proof Encyclopedia, and by examination of recent auction photos. This further supports the "die trial" usage.
An extreme example is the 1838 V-10, ex-Pittman, ex-Gardner.
The reverse die had extensively crumbled between MERIC and the wreath.
So it's tempting to imagine the proof was made to examine or document how bad the die damage was.
The other 2 1838 proofs in recent auction photos are the V-6 die marriage.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-half-dimes/half-dimes/1838-h10c-no-drapery-pr67-pcgs-v-10-low-r8-as-a-proof/a/1214-98211.s
The estimated surviving quantities suggest that many of these coins ended up with collectors, possibly sold directly to collectors. I am just saying that a few of them could have been used as "die trials".
For 1858-1873, these have official proof mintage quantities of 80-1000 for each year, mostly made for collectors.
These later year proofs sometimes still exist for multiple die marriages within a year as well,
so it is possible the "die trial" usage was ongoing.
There are also examples of proofs struck in later years with later hubs but earlier dates, clearly made for collectors.
https://tapatalk.com/groups/seateddimes/proof-half-dime-restrikes-of-1863-and-1864-t5424.html
RE: "It matters not what the letters say, the coins were proofs, (many of them,) and since the mint did not yet make and sell to the public, ANY production-run 'collector proofs', and because we know those coins had to have come from somewhere, there is no other reasonable explanation, than that they were from the normal proofing process.
Or do you wish to suggest that all of those proof coins made during the first 25 years of the US mint's coinage, subsequently given or traded, were specifically made just to be traded?"
I said they are not the product of "proving" or otherwise testing the dies. It is obvious from examination that there are early U.S. coins of unusual detail and surfaces. They might have been made for some special purpose or persons. These pieces were not called "proof" because that was not the accepted term at that time. However, the name of the thing is not the thing itself.
To claim that early pieces we now might call "proof" are from some die testing or "proving" procedure is to admit to having no knowledge about how production of early 19th century dies was performed, or how the coins were made, or why the mechanics and workmen operated as they did.
The letters and other documents tell us about the language and understanding of coinage at the time they were written.They are much more meaningful than some latter assumptions, guesses, or lies invented to sell baubles to John Ford's "boobs."
During the early years of the US Mint - especially in the first part of the 19th century - Adam Eckfeldt, other employees and all of the Directors encouraged people to collect American coins. They, but especially Eckfeldt, actively sought specimens of US coinage as well as medals and related ephemera. That was the collecting model of the period - diverse subjects and concentration on American artifacts.
Eckfeldt was the mint's prime mover, but he was fully supported by the directors. He was permitted to search gold and silver deposits, engage in exchanges and trades with collectors and public museums. After official recognition of the US Mint Cabinet of Coins, Medals and Ores of National Interest, activity increased to where Eckfeldt was running an exchange and coordinating with collectors of the period.
High quality coins were not accidental or incidental to some imaginary "proving of the dies." While some might have been made in the same engineering tests as 1922 Proof Peace dollars and similar pieces, the majority were exchange pieces. What better, cheaper and more engaging way to interest collectors than in showing off "the mint's best" to them?
The continuing research into sale and distribution of pattern and restrike pieces dovetails with earlier mint actions and expands that into the 1880s. The research also shows a mature interaction between the Mint, collectors, dealers and even foreign museums.
PS: My response to the OP's question is near the top of this thread. The comments immediately above are not especially material.
Do you believe 1804 dollars were struck in 1804? Which do you trust - the date on the coins or the written record?
Perhaps TDN's 1794 dollar was a "Proof" of sorts to see what the dies could do under the most ideal situation. The largest press a available could not fully strike silver dollars with all of the design details under normal conditions. Perhaps this piece was "squeezed struck" to see as much detail as possible on a finished coin.
To me the only factor that keeps this coin in the "specimen" category is the planchet. A "perfect" coin would not have been made on a planchet that required a plug to bring up the weight and adjustments to bring it down. Is there a chance that this coin was adjusted after it was struck? If so that might have done to make it "legal."
All of this is obviously speculation because no one can know what was going through the mint officials' minds almost 225 years ago.
I'll have to disagree. The only documented use of "proof" for proving dies comes from Peale's 1835 report on his visit to the European mints where he noted the process at the Paris mint for proving the dies submitted by artists for the design competitions held by the French mint commission. There is NO documentation showing the US Mint ever "proved" their dies.
The different varieties seen on many proof strikes well into the latter 19th century stems from the Mint striking proof or Master Coins on demand. This is especially true for those struck prior to the public sale of proof sets in the later 1850's. Early on, the Mint simply took whatever dies it had on hand, polished them, and struck proofs.
By the latter 1850's, the Mint did make, or more likely selected, dies specifically for proofs. However, once they were done striking proofs, those "proof dies" were often used for circ strikes. The data JD has found strongly suggests those who ordered proof sets and ordered early got pieces from the proof-only striking. Those who waited got whatever dies the Mint cared to polish up.
They also occasionally flipped back-and-forth between proof and circ strikes. There's a gold dollar obverse detailed in JD's upcoming proof book that illustrates this quite well. It was first used on proofs, then circ strikes, then proofs, then circs.