1876 Proof Trade $1, Type 1/1

mbogoman · May 16, 2018 1:11PM

This was originally in an NGC MS62PL holder, but was clearly a proof. It has all the diagnostics for a proof, but I believe it was probably mis-attributed by NGC because the toning obscures the mirrors somewhat. I cracked it out and submitted it to our hosts. It came back PR62! Here is the Trueview:

Smudge · May 16, 2018 1:24PM

Good catch and good results.

TLeverage · May 16, 2018 2:14PM

Congratulations! Nice color.

Insider2 · May 16, 2018 2:17PM

That's really serious. Two top TPGS with different results and it reads that you gave NGC a chance to review their original opinion. BTW, while "mirrors" are important, AFAIK that is only one characteristic of a Proof strike and often not the best.

Interesting proposition...which service is correct. Mintage 1150 Proofs. The PCGS site shows three 1/1. The OP's coin appears to be different - at least a very used die state w/completely missing parts of letters.
Without seeing the coin myself consider this:

AFAIK there were 8 die pairs shown in the mint ledger for 1876. This number may have come from Roger or my records when I copied a ledger at the Mint Lab in the 1970'S. It said nothing about how many were used for the Proofs.

I sure would like to see the OP's coin as my records appear to match the coins on the PCGS site. I have seen the T$'s with the broken letters only in circulated condition. I'm wondering if one Proof die was used to strike business strikes. Otherwise, there is a possibility that the OP's coin may not be a proof.

I trust the numismatists at both services. This is the kind of thing that makes numismatics fun.

Hopefully, the true experts around here will solve this conundrum for us. Perhaps ANACS can settle this.

MilkmanDan · May 16, 2018 2:30PM

Nice work, that's the right die pair for what we believe were made into proofs. These are often misunderstood and misattributed. It doesn't help with the confusion that pretty much all 1876 TD Proof dies were re-used for regular issue coins.

Here's another PR62, looks similar quality to yours:

Here's an AU55, same die pair, mirrored surfaces, wire rims. PCGS won't call it a proof, despite everything I can see pointing to that. I even included a picture and documentation for my other proof, but it didn't help. The extra-weak reverse strike isn't helping it's cause. shrug

mbogoman · May 16, 2018 2:35PM

The broken letters die was used for both proof and business strikes. I have consulted with a couple of the experts here and they agreed that this coin is a proof. All of the type 1/1 Proofs I have seen have the broken letters reverse.

Insider2 · May 16, 2018 2:38PM

@mbogoman said:
The broken letters die was used for both proof and business strikes. I have consulted with a couple of the experts here and they agreed that this coin is a proof. All of the type 1/1 Proofs I have seen have the broken letters reverse.

There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between a "broken" part of a letter (trace still visible) and one that is completely MISSING (no trace).

Unknown · May 16, 2018 3:37PM

This content has been removed.

MilkmanDan · May 16, 2018 4:16PM

@mbogoman said:
The broken letters die was used for both proof and business strikes. I have consulted with a couple of the experts here and they agreed that this coin is a proof. All of the type 1/1 Proofs I have seen have the broken letters reverse.

Let's be a little more specific here. The hubs were damaged, resulting in MULTIPLE reverse dies being created with what we like to call "broken letters".

This very specific reverse (note the missing serif on the reverse, 2nd L in DOLLAR) is part of the only die pair of type 1/1 known in proof for this year, and it is also known as as a normal issue (not proof).

mbogoman · May 16, 2018 4:50PM

@OriginalDan said:

@mbogoman said:
The broken letters die was used for both proof and business strikes. I have consulted with a couple of the experts here and they agreed that this coin is a proof. All of the type 1/1 Proofs I have seen have the broken letters reverse.

Let's be a little more specific here. The hubs were damaged, resulting in MULTIPLE reverse dies being created with what we like to call "broken letters".

This very specific reverse (note the missing serif on the reverse, 2nd L in DOLLAR) is part of the only die pair of type 1/1 known in proof for this year, and it is also known as as a normal issue (not proof).

Thank you for clarifying. I think that's what I meant!

keoj · May 16, 2018 5:19PM

i've examined/looked at several 76 I/I PR coins. So far, a NGC 65 Cam, PCGS 64, NGC 63, PCGS 62, PCGS 62 Cam, and a few others. All have the same die diagnostics, the big one being the broken serif on the base of the L in DOLLAR as Dan noted. The fact that NGC put a PL on the coin is not that surprising. It's a rare variety and 76's are sometimes tough to distinguish between PR and BS. Nice, tough coin. Congrats!
Keoj

Unknown · May 16, 2018 6:09PM

This content has been removed.

MilkmanDan · May 16, 2018 6:57PM

@afford said:
But it could have been a business strike with the broken serif on the base of the L in Dollar, that alone doesn't make it a proof. there are business strikes with that pup.

As already stated above.

Timbuk3 · May 17, 2018 1:31AM

Great find, congratulations !!!

Unknown · May 17, 2018 5:14AM

This content has been removed.

Wabbit2313 · May 17, 2018 5:26AM

Cool!

ricko · May 17, 2018 6:32AM

Very interesting...really good information and adding history from the archives helps to understand the rather complex issue where proof dies were also used for regular issue coins. Cheers, RickO

MilkmanDan · May 17, 2018 6:40AM

To keep this conversation going, @stealer recently showed me an example of this die pair that does not look like a proof. @stealer any chance you can post pictures?

stealer · May 19, 2018 2:06PM

@OriginalDan I don't have any photos at the moment, it's at PCGS.

Unknown · May 19, 2018 2:47PM

This content has been removed.

mbogoman · May 19, 2018 7:12PM

@afford said:
Here is my PL example with the so-called proof pup:

From my simple perspective, the big difference between your PL example and the proofs pictured above are the rims. Can't comment on the surfaces...

Jimnight · May 19, 2018 7:18PM

Nice!

Unknown · May 19, 2018 11:20PM

This content has been removed.

1876 Proof Trade $1, Type 1/1

Comments

Leave a Comment