@keets said: Come out and say it if you do as opposed to passive aggressive comments.
I don't know what your profession in life might be, but your attempt at Clinical Psychology will be short lived.
When you said purported, you are saying you doubt that is truly a trueview of his coin. There's no real reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt given the circumstances. Because of that it comes off as being kind of passive aggressive.
I don't know if writing this out will do any good given your defensiveness.
@keets said: Come out and say it if you do as opposed to passive aggressive comments.
I don't know what your profession in life might be, but your attempt at Clinical Psychology will be short lived.
As neil pointed out, when you use "purported" you are implying he's lying. Be explicit instead of asking questions of others to state what you evidently lack the guts to say.
I hate quoting myself: how did you manage to get a TrueView image before the grade is posted??
typically, my submissions are on the way to me with grades posted and waiting for images. please explain.
I suppose the author of the thread is too busy to reply or read my question, but I asked. when he didn't respond I made perhaps the wrong assumption that he didn't want to.
and trust me, I have the "guts" you've called into question, come around more often and you'll realize that.
I hate quoting myself: how did you manage to get a TrueView image before the grade is posted??
typically, my submissions are on the way to me with grades posted and waiting for images. please explain.
I suppose the author of the thread is too busy to reply or read my question, but I asked. when he didn't respond I made perhaps the wrong assumption that he didn't want to.
and trust me, I have the "guts" you've called into question, come around more often and you'll realize that.
Lol.
“That should tell you something”
“Why would he post a TrueView image with no insert number?“
You posted the side by side pics too but made no assertion other than eluding to the op being a liar. If you think it’s nonsense then say so. I’m certainly no expert on the subject but if there was one then I’d hope they’d make the case one way or the other and do so without the approach you've chosen. Clearly, just because somebody throws you a couple bucks to polish slabs at your LCS it doesn’t allow for that clearly stated case.
@keets said:
Neil, why would he post a TrueView image with no insert number?
I don't think there is a certification number yet. They had just photographed the coin. It's my understanding they usually do the photography before grading and encapsulation.
@keets said:
Neil, why would he post a TrueView image with no insert number?
I don't think there is a certification number yet. They had just photographed the coin. It's my understanding they usually do the photography before grading and encapsulation.
I've always had the grades pop before the True Views.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
The current theory in John Dannreuther's research (based on archived Mint letters) is that pre-1858 proofs
were made on demand in small quantities by polishing current dies and planchets.
It's 1858 and later where proofs were struck in quantity from new and relatively perfect dies.
This theory helps explain small quantities from different dies.
It also explains the occasional imperfect die.
(photos courtesy of Heritage Auctions www.ha.com)
An example of an imperfect die proof is the 1838 V-10a half dime in the Pittman and Gardner collections (PCGS PR-67).
It has a large area on the reverse where the die crumbled/spalled (pieces fell off) between MERIC and the wreath.
This is a middle die state of the V-10.
V-10, V-10a and V-10b are fairly common as business strikes.
As a proof there is only one V-10a known, and it sold for $129,250 in the 2014-10 Gardner sale.
@1northcoin said:
The discussion regarding the doubled profile has been very informative. My 1808 Quarter Eagle had that quality and I was always curious how it occurred. It was even more evident on my 1808 Quarter Eagle than in the OP's example. I am curious where it is today, having sold it in a Heritage Auction. Maybe someone can locate the auction photo as I assume a doubled profile 1808 Quarter Eagle may well be unique given that there are only 50-60 specimens known per Garrett and Guth in their "100 Greatest U.S. Coins" Second Edition.
Interesting how this thread has diverted from the original focus.
@1northcoin said:
The discussion regarding the doubled profile has been very informative. My 1808 Quarter Eagle had that quality and I was always curious how it occurred. It was even more evident on my 1808 Quarter Eagle than in the OP's example. I am curious where it is today, having sold it in a Heritage Auction. Maybe someone can locate the auction photo as I assume a doubled profile 1808 Quarter Eagle may well be unique given that there are only 50-60 specimens known per Garrett and Guth in their "100 Greatest U.S. Coins" Second Edition.
Interesting how this thread has diverted from the original focus.
“Interesting” is no doubt you being kind. For my role in shifting the focus away I apologize. The OP is obviously no bum though and for anyone to assert he was being dishonest in his presentation of the subject won’t ever sit right with me nor I hope anyone who reads this thread. Having the argument and confrontation is in my eyes always the lesser evil than to let it go.
I also will add that I think Heather is doing an amazing job, her dog is adorable, and her tolerance in management of this forum is deserving of a raise.
@yosclimber said:
The current theory in John Dannreuther's research (based on archived Mint letters) is that pre-1858 proofs
were made on demand in small quantities by polishing current dies and planchets.
It's 1858 and later where proofs were struck in quantity from new and relatively perfect dies.
This theory helps explain small quantities from different dies.
It also explains the occasional imperfect die.
(photos courtesy of Heritage Auctions www.ha.com)
An example of an imperfect die proof is the 1838 V-10a half dime in the Pittman and Gardner collections (PCGS PR-67).
It has a large area on the reverse where the die crumbled/spalled (pieces fell off) between MERIC and the wreath.
This is a middle die state of the V-10.
V-10, V-10a and V-10b are fairly common as business strikes.
As a proof there is only one V-10a known, and it sold for $129,250 in the 2014-10 Gardner sale.
A case in point is the 1850 Double Eagle Proof in a Paris Museum for which ironically there is a photo in John Dannreuther's recent book on proofs. Through Roger Burdette's researching of mint records (as set forth in his thread on the subject of whether there were any 1850 Double Eagle Proofs) it has been traced back to likely having been sourced from a set of proofs that was made in October of 1850, long after the first 1850 Double Eagles were struck. The 1850 $20 Double Eagle was available for circulation in the Spring of that year as confirmed from newspaper accounts.
As an added note, the Paris museum specimen although not in a TPG holder has been viewed by David Hall and he opines it would grade as a Proof 61. Interestingly my 1850 Double Eagle which has been traced back through auction records to have come from its designer Longacre's 1870 Estate Auction, while identified as a proof in that auction, was subsequently referenced by Max Mehl in a later 1949 auction as "a brilliant semi-proof, almost equal to a brilliant proof." Again, ironically, it was yosclimber who located that auction record posting it on another thread. Mine has been attributed as a Proof 62 by Larry Briggs. Having been retained by its designer Longacre in his personal collection , it may have been from a first strike of the 1850 $20 Double Eagle.
Apparently there are no other known today 1850 $20 Double Eagle Proof s from that first year of the $20 gold pieces having been made by the United States Mint for circulation.
This has really turned into quite an unfortunate thread...
The coin is currently being graded by our host. Seems there is no real closure until the coin is graded. And that will be an opinion so even then it would only serve as closure to the PCGS review. Let the process run its course.
Someone who starts a thread that involves a possible discovery coin deserves more respect than what has been displayed in this thread... Especially a numismatist who has shared research and has posted some incredible insight to various coins of interest to the numismatic community.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@1northcoin said:
Interesting how this thread has diverted from the original focus.
we've been kind of left hanging. natives are getting (have been) restless.
enough to keep us involved but denying us closure.
i'm going to extend patience because of previous threads of his. if he is dragging this out, there will most likely be a very interesting payoff.
would be nice if he'd at least give some reassurance about intent here though.
If the coin already had a grade and strike result, I would expect that @Rexford would have said so. If not, that would be disappointing.
My guess is that PCGS may be going to take a little while in assessing the coin but got photo already taken and posted.
If they were to end up calling it a Proof coin, it may have to make the rounds to some other experts first as it would be a discovery for this variety as a Proof. And a number of early proof coins seem to be made up of a consensus of opinions rather than any documented fact, often because there is no existing documentation.
For those saying it looks to just be a polished coin, be sure to check the link to videos in the first post. At the very least it was struck with strong Prooflike surfaces.
From the still photos I wondered what he was talking about. Seeing the videos, I think there is a possibility. I'm guessing the odds are it will be called Prooflike rather than Proof, but the experts are seeing it in person so who knows.
.
.
Here is his video link from the first post (scroll down in it to see video of the reverse also)
Click on Rexford's the Rex Collection link as well TDN. Not pawn shop finds.
Indeed. Superb
Should be the T Rex Collection.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@yosclimber said:
The current theory in John Dannreuther's research (based on archived Mint letters) is that pre-1858 proofs
were made on demand in small quantities by polishing current dies and planchets.
It's 1858 and later where proofs were struck in quantity from new and relatively perfect dies.
This theory helps explain small quantities from different dies.
It also explains the occasional imperfect die.
(photos courtesy of Heritage Auctions www.ha.com)
An example of an imperfect die proof is the 1838 V-10a half dime in the Pittman and Gardner collections (PCGS PR-67).
It has a large area on the reverse where the die crumbled/spalled (pieces fell off) between MERIC and the wreath.
This is a middle die state of the V-10.
V-10, V-10a and V-10b are fairly common as business strikes.
As a proof there is only one V-10a known, and it sold for $129,250 in the 2014-10 Gardner sale.
A case in point is the 1850 Double Eagle Proof in a Paris Museum for which ironically there is a photo in John Dannreuther's recent book on proofs. Through Roger Burdette's researching of mint records (as set forth in his thread on the subject of whether there were any 1850 Double Eagle Proofs) it has been traced back to likely having been sourced from a set of proofs that was made in October of 1850, long after the first 1850 Double Eagles were struck. The 1850 $20 Double Eagle was available for circulation in the Spring of that year as confirmed from newspaper accounts.
As an added note, the Paris museum specimen although not in a TPG holder has been viewed by David Hall and he opines it would grade as a Proof 61. Interestingly my 1850 Double Eagle which has been traced back through auction records to have come from its designer Longacre's 1870 Estate Auction, while identified as a proof in that auction, was subsequently referenced by Max Mehl in a later 1949 auction as "a brilliant semi-proof, almost equal to a brilliant proof." Again, ironically, it was yosclimber who located that auction record posting it on another thread. Mine has been attributed as a Proof 62 by Larry Briggs. Having been retained by its designer Longacre in his personal collection , it may have been from a first strike of the 1850 $20 Double Eagle.
Apparently there are no other known today 1850 $20 Double Eagle Proof s from that first year of the $20 gold pieces having been made by the United States Mint for circulation.
Attempting to stay on topic with regard to the OP's coin having been a possible pre-1858 proof.
As to my pre-1858 $20 Double Eagle that was identified as a "proof" in its first 1870 Longacre estate auction appearance and the proof specimen of the same denomination and same 1850 year coin located in a Paris museum, linked below is the above referenced thread discussing both.
This is the thread started by Roger Burdette titled, "1850 Proof Double Eagle Inquiry' and which begins by stating, "Yes, there was, at least one (1) 1850 Double Eagle Proof ("master coin") made along with a set of 1850 gold."
This is also the thread, as above referenced, in which fellow poster yosclimber posted a photo of the auction record he had located with Max Mehl's description of my coin in 1949 as "a brilliant semi-proof, almost equal to a brilliant proof."
For comparison of the two coins, I have added here a more recent additional photo of my 1850 $20 Double Eagle which is not included in the linked thread. It can be looked at together with the photograph of the 1850 $20 Double Eagle located in the Paris museum (Bibliotheque nationale de France) as contained in John Dannreuther's recently published book, "United States Proof Coins, Volume IV, Part Two) with the photograph of the Paris museum specimen located at page 864.
And again with regard to relevance to this thread as to proofs before 1858 having been made at subsequent dates, the U.S. Mint record research done by Roger Burdette leads to the conclusion that the 1850 Double Eagle Proof located in the Paris Museum was minted after the September 26, 1850 letter provided in his initial post. (This as contrasted to my 1850 Double Eagle having likely been a first strike at the beginning of 1850 from the original dies given that it was retained by its designer, John Longacre, in his personal collection.)
@TomB said:
I haven't seen it in-hand, but those TV images make it appear to be a polished, AU business strike. I know, I know, you are glad I'm not the one doing the grading...
Update: the saga comes to a close. The piece has graded out as Genuine - AU Details (Repaired). Some of you guessed pretty close to this after the TrueView was posted.
I’m not entirely sure what part of the coin “Repaired” refers to, but I assume it has something to do with the dull, flat areas to the left of the face, right below the truncation of the bust, and below the eagle’s left wing. At first I assumed these were the result of heavy PVC damage in those areas, but after looking it over again they don’t have the right look for that, and instead look more like smoothed or added metal.
As far as the shine/reflectivity in the fields - in sum, I really don’t know. If it was polished, I assume PCGS would have said as much. The other thing I was wondering, and maybe somebody could fill me in on this because I haven’t seen too many polished coins up close - do polished coins always show hairlines from the polishing? I would assume so, but this piece lacks any sort of consistent hairlines (just a few very thin and scattered ones).
The big difficulty with this piece is that the surface has several issues: a) some wear, b) extensive PVC damage that has created tiny pockmarks in the fields and over the devices (maybe this is what makes it look polished?), and c) apparently some sort of repair work, so it’s really hard to tell what’s going on. In hand, from some angles it looks like a total proof (albeit heavily impaired) and from some angles it just looks messed with. Definitely a weird piece though, so I'll hang on to it.
To address several recent comments on the thread, the die variety has essentially no relevance to the proof status. There generally were no proof-only dies in this period, and proofs were not struck simultaneously. Instead, they were struck upon demand from whatever circulation-strike dies were available. In fact, the six confirmed proof 1830 half dollars originated from five distinct dies. That means that save for the two that share a die variety, they are all unique as proofs.
This is why there can be a significant variety in the level of detail evident on these older proofs, as the die may have developed slight weakness in certain areas by the time the proof was struck. However, the physical strike of the planchet itself should usually be pretty strong. The weaknesses you can see on this piece, ignoring the evident actual wear, are die-sided rather than planchet-sided, and can be matched up with other circulation strikes of the same die state.
Interestingly, upon inquiry to PCGS, I received the following message: "Per grading experts, it is not a “Proof” coin. Variety O-107a Small 0 not recognized on Proofs." Since as we’ve established these proofs aren't tied to any individual dies, this doesn’t make much sense, but I'm sure the graders did their due diligence when designating the piece.
I took/probably will take a bit of a loss on the piece in the end, but I made the original purchase as a sort of celebratory gamble after finishing up my research on the engraved large cent discovery from earlier this year (thank you for your comments on it in this thread, by the way), and with the knowledge that a loss was likely, so I don’t mind the result as much as I would otherwise. I guess two new discoveries in the field of US numismatics would be too much to hope for. In any case, it certainly has been an exciting and suspenseful journey, and I appreciate all the attention this thread has gotten.
@Nic@Justacommeman Thank you for your comments on the "Rex Collection" link in my sig. That thread is actually way out of date unfortunately - a few pieces I’ve decided to let go or replace, and I've added some new ones. One of my favorite new additions is this piece that I submitted to PCGS myself. It's a German States, Bavaria 1834 Thaler in PR63CAM. The mirrors are extraordinary. Here are some videos of it in its raw state that really show off the reflectivity: https://imgur.com/a/7mQRYYK
@Rexford said:
Update: the saga comes to a close. The piece has graded out as Genuine - AU Details (Repaired). Some of you guessed pretty close to this after the TrueView was posted.
-Rex
tyvm for the closure! unfortunate it didn't work out. i'd be lying if i said i never chased/pushed something right up until the end sometimes with defeat, sometimes with victory.
it is nice to know my eyes were right on the money with the pits i saw on the obv rev like it were from polishing/whizzing. the video you made sure made it look like a nice coin. i am not going to ask you after all of this but i'd love to see professional images that accurately represent this coin one day. the technique PCGS uses is nice but it doesn't always accurately represent an item.
keep up the hunt, stay the course and show that fortitude!
btw, that collection thread of yours is just magnificent!
Thank you for sharing Rexford. It takes a lot of courage to be able to put yourself out there and share the results in the end. I think this type of discussion, in general, is good for these forums.
As someone who didn't know anything about Bust Half proofs before reading this thread, I learned a fair bit from your posts and those of the many informed commenters.
This proved to be an excellent test of anyone's knowledge in numismatics.. I heard a variety of answers from a variety of people. Out of all of the answers I saw, I think PCGS was the first one to suggest repaired. I'd be curious to learn more what they meant in this case too.
Thanks so much for reporting back. Could you share any more relating to its provenance given that it came from Europe? The “repaired” suggestion seems less likely if this was a coin sequestered in some foreign bank. As you noted the graders completely missed the mark on the red herring relating to die attribution so that adds uncertainty as to the rest,
(Of course some here had made the same erroneous assumptions until yosclimber’s post referencing the work of John Dannreuther as to how proofs were made prior to 1858.
Roger Burdette’s research described in my postings added confirmation with regard to the 1850 Double Eagle as a case in point. As chronicled , the 1850 Double Eagle Proof in a Paris Museum was made some six months after the 1850 Double Eagle First Strikes,)
Redford thank you for starting this thread, I have enjoyed it. I was hoping the coin was going to come back a proof, sorry it didn't. I give you a lot credit for both taking the risk and sharing the process with us.
Thank you for an informative thread and for updating us.
You know how it goes when you hang your fanny out the window--sometimes you get a nice pat on the cheek and other times you get pelted with garbage.🙂
@Rexford said:
Interestingly, upon inquiry to PCGS, I received the following message: "Per grading experts, it is not a “Proof” coin. Variety O-107a Small 0 not recognized on Proofs." Since as we’ve established these proofs aren't tied to any individual dies, this doesn’t make much sense, but I'm sure the graders did their due diligence when designating the piece.
As to the determination, I have no opinion one way or the other, but that is a disappointing answer - it gives the impression they are sidestepping the entire question.
Maybe it was impossible to make a proof determination with confidence on this coin, given the damage. Maybe the coin is clearly not a proof for reasons other than the Overton variety. If that is the case, it seems to me they should have said so. If I were in your position, I would hope to get more of an explanation.
With no disrespect intended, I never assume that anyone has done all due diligence or has not made a mistake. It happens all the time and to the best of us.
Rexford,
first off accolades for your writings on the cent earlier this year, it was a great piece. As to this debacle, while I would put my money on Mr Feld every time, the fact that when PCGS said it couldn't be a proof because they don't know of any proofs of that die marriage seems like a flawed argument imo but who knows, they have more experience then anybody in the field of numismatics. Adding the damage to the piece and our in house expert and others here opining that it wasn't a proof is good enough to me. PCGS ended up getting it right, its just their explanation was flawed. I learned a great deal about proofs today and appreciate your thick skin.
Carry on.
Sometimes the Supreme Court renders a decision that fails to address the real issue and instead falls back on a technicality...a dodge...an empty judgment that satisfies no one.
Lance.
@neildrobertson said:
Thank you for sharing Rexford. It takes a lot of courage to be able to put yourself out there and share the results in the end. I think this type of discussion, in general, is good for these forums.
As someone who didn't know anything about Bust Half proofs before reading this thread, I learned a fair bit from your posts and those of the many informed commenters.
This proved to be an excellent test of anyone's knowledge in numismatics.. I heard a variety of answers from a variety of people. Out of all of the answers I saw, I think PCGS was the first one to suggest repaired. I'd be curious to learn more what they meant in this case too.
Comments
When you said purported, you are saying you doubt that is truly a trueview of his coin. There's no real reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt given the circumstances. Because of that it comes off as being kind of passive aggressive.
I don't know if writing this out will do any good given your defensiveness.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
Neil, why would he post a TrueView image with no insert number?
Well, They are both different Obv. + Rev. Dies.
As neil pointed out, when you use "purported" you are implying he's lying. Be explicit instead of asking questions of others to state what you evidently lack the guts to say.
They are both different Obv. + Rev. Dies.
that should tell you something.
I hate quoting myself:
how did you manage to get a TrueView image before the grade is posted??
typically, my submissions are on the way to me with grades posted and waiting for images. please explain.
I suppose the author of the thread is too busy to reply or read my question, but I asked. when he didn't respond I made perhaps the wrong assumption that he didn't want to.
and trust me, I have the "guts" you've called into question, come around more often and you'll realize that.
H> @keets said:
Lol.
“That should tell you something”
“Why would he post a TrueView image with no insert number?“
You posted the side by side pics too but made no assertion other than eluding to the op being a liar. If you think it’s nonsense then say so. I’m certainly no expert on the subject but if there was one then I’d hope they’d make the case one way or the other and do so without the approach you've chosen. Clearly, just because somebody throws you a couple bucks to polish slabs at your LCS it doesn’t allow for that clearly stated case.
There are only a handful of proof coins. Why would the Mint create multiple proof dies?
I love this thread. 🍿
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
I don't think there is a certification number yet. They had just photographed the coin. It's my understanding they usually do the photography before grading and encapsulation.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
I've always had the grades pop before the True Views.
removed ... not something I usually do, but my keyboard got the better of me
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
Maybe as a GTG. I'll bite. AU details polished.
Bad juju thread.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I have no idea if the OP's coin is a proof or not, but these two 1830 proofs appear to have different obverse and reverse dies.
https://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/32743723_46930594_2200.jpg
https://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/50123122_146132930_2200.jpg
so three die pairings to strike three Proof coins??
same as above
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
J> @yosclimber said:
Well that’s interesting
Given the research Rexford did on that large cent discovery and how compelling it is, I’d give his research the benefit of the doubt.
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
Link?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/12662808
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
Wow!
Interesting how this thread has diverted from the original focus.
H> @1northcoin said:
“Interesting” is no doubt you being kind. For my role in shifting the focus away I apologize. The OP is obviously no bum though and for anyone to assert he was being dishonest in his presentation of the subject won’t ever sit right with me nor I hope anyone who reads this thread. Having the argument and confrontation is in my eyes always the lesser evil than to let it go.
I also will add that I think Heather is doing an amazing job, her dog is adorable, and her tolerance in management of this forum is deserving of a raise.
Click on Rexford's the Rex Collection link as well TDN. Not pawn shop finds.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
we've been kind of left hanging. natives are getting (have been) restless.
enough to keep us involved but denying us closure.
i'm going to extend patience because of previous threads of his. if he is dragging this out, there will most likely be a very interesting payoff.
would be nice if he'd at least give some reassurance about intent here though.
A case in point is the 1850 Double Eagle Proof in a Paris Museum for which ironically there is a photo in John Dannreuther's recent book on proofs. Through Roger Burdette's researching of mint records (as set forth in his thread on the subject of whether there were any 1850 Double Eagle Proofs) it has been traced back to likely having been sourced from a set of proofs that was made in October of 1850, long after the first 1850 Double Eagles were struck. The 1850 $20 Double Eagle was available for circulation in the Spring of that year as confirmed from newspaper accounts.
As an added note, the Paris museum specimen although not in a TPG holder has been viewed by David Hall and he opines it would grade as a Proof 61. Interestingly my 1850 Double Eagle which has been traced back through auction records to have come from its designer Longacre's 1870 Estate Auction, while identified as a proof in that auction, was subsequently referenced by Max Mehl in a later 1949 auction as "a brilliant semi-proof, almost equal to a brilliant proof." Again, ironically, it was yosclimber who located that auction record posting it on another thread. Mine has been attributed as a Proof 62 by Larry Briggs. Having been retained by its designer Longacre in his personal collection , it may have been from a first strike of the 1850 $20 Double Eagle.
Apparently there are no other known today 1850 $20 Double Eagle Proof s from that first year of the $20 gold pieces having been made by the United States Mint for circulation.
This has really turned into quite an unfortunate thread...
The coin is currently being graded by our host. Seems there is no real closure until the coin is graded. And that will be an opinion so even then it would only serve as closure to the PCGS review. Let the process run its course.
Someone who starts a thread that involves a possible discovery coin deserves more respect than what has been displayed in this thread... Especially a numismatist who has shared research and has posted some incredible insight to various coins of interest to the numismatic community.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
If the coin already had a grade and strike result, I would expect that @Rexford would have said so. If not, that would be disappointing.
My guess is that PCGS may be going to take a little while in assessing the coin but got photo already taken and posted.
If they were to end up calling it a Proof coin, it may have to make the rounds to some other experts first as it would be a discovery for this variety as a Proof. And a number of early proof coins seem to be made up of a consensus of opinions rather than any documented fact, often because there is no existing documentation.
For those saying it looks to just be a polished coin, be sure to check the link to videos in the first post. At the very least it was struck with strong Prooflike surfaces.
From the still photos I wondered what he was talking about. Seeing the videos, I think there is a possibility. I'm guessing the odds are it will be called Prooflike rather than Proof, but the experts are seeing it in person so who knows.
.
.
Here is his video link from the first post (scroll down in it to see video of the reverse also)
.
.
https://imgur.com/a/mYhZxQc
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
thanks for that. didn't recall seeing the vidz. that trueview is really confusing based on the vidz.
now i can't wait for the results even more than before!
I did a bit of courtesy photo editing to reduce OP’s TrueView image brightness, which helps me discern more of the coin’s detail...
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
Indeed. Superb
Should be the T Rex Collection.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Excellent thread on early Proof characteristics and procedure. Fascinating.
Its OK to doubt the OP's coin is Proof. He put it out there and expects difference of opinion.
Personally, I think its a nice Circ strike.
Attempting to stay on topic with regard to the OP's coin having been a possible pre-1858 proof.
As to my pre-1858 $20 Double Eagle that was identified as a "proof" in its first 1870 Longacre estate auction appearance and the proof specimen of the same denomination and same 1850 year coin located in a Paris museum, linked below is the above referenced thread discussing both.
This is the thread started by Roger Burdette titled, "1850 Proof Double Eagle Inquiry' and which begins by stating, "Yes, there was, at least one (1) 1850 Double Eagle Proof ("master coin") made along with a set of 1850 gold."
This is also the thread, as above referenced, in which fellow poster yosclimber posted a photo of the auction record he had located with Max Mehl's description of my coin in 1949 as "a brilliant semi-proof, almost equal to a brilliant proof."
For comparison of the two coins, I have added here a more recent additional photo of my 1850 $20 Double Eagle which is not included in the linked thread. It can be looked at together with the photograph of the 1850 $20 Double Eagle located in the Paris museum (Bibliotheque nationale de France) as contained in John Dannreuther's recently published book, "United States Proof Coins, Volume IV, Part Two) with the photograph of the Paris museum specimen located at page 864.
And again with regard to relevance to this thread as to proofs before 1858 having been made at subsequent dates, the U.S. Mint record research done by Roger Burdette leads to the conclusion that the 1850 Double Eagle Proof located in the Paris Museum was minted after the September 26, 1850 letter provided in his initial post. (This as contrasted to my 1850 Double Eagle having likely been a first strike at the beginning of 1850 from the original dies given that it was retained by its designer, John Longacre, in his personal collection.)
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/993882/1850-proof-double-eagle-inquiry/p1
I agree.
For the record, I don't think the OP's coin is a proof. I guess that's just me being aggressively aggressive.
The denticles are just not sharply struck. That is especially clear when looking at the two recognized proofs.
Excited to hopefully find out the verdict soon
Update: the saga comes to a close. The piece has graded out as Genuine - AU Details (Repaired). Some of you guessed pretty close to this after the TrueView was posted.
I’m not entirely sure what part of the coin “Repaired” refers to, but I assume it has something to do with the dull, flat areas to the left of the face, right below the truncation of the bust, and below the eagle’s left wing. At first I assumed these were the result of heavy PVC damage in those areas, but after looking it over again they don’t have the right look for that, and instead look more like smoothed or added metal.
As far as the shine/reflectivity in the fields - in sum, I really don’t know. If it was polished, I assume PCGS would have said as much. The other thing I was wondering, and maybe somebody could fill me in on this because I haven’t seen too many polished coins up close - do polished coins always show hairlines from the polishing? I would assume so, but this piece lacks any sort of consistent hairlines (just a few very thin and scattered ones).
The big difficulty with this piece is that the surface has several issues: a) some wear, b) extensive PVC damage that has created tiny pockmarks in the fields and over the devices (maybe this is what makes it look polished?), and c) apparently some sort of repair work, so it’s really hard to tell what’s going on. In hand, from some angles it looks like a total proof (albeit heavily impaired) and from some angles it just looks messed with. Definitely a weird piece though, so I'll hang on to it.
Here’s a video of the coin in the slab: https://imgur.com/a/aPH3aF5
To address several recent comments on the thread, the die variety has essentially no relevance to the proof status. There generally were no proof-only dies in this period, and proofs were not struck simultaneously. Instead, they were struck upon demand from whatever circulation-strike dies were available. In fact, the six confirmed proof 1830 half dollars originated from five distinct dies. That means that save for the two that share a die variety, they are all unique as proofs.
This is why there can be a significant variety in the level of detail evident on these older proofs, as the die may have developed slight weakness in certain areas by the time the proof was struck. However, the physical strike of the planchet itself should usually be pretty strong. The weaknesses you can see on this piece, ignoring the evident actual wear, are die-sided rather than planchet-sided, and can be matched up with other circulation strikes of the same die state.
Interestingly, upon inquiry to PCGS, I received the following message: "Per grading experts, it is not a “Proof” coin. Variety O-107a Small 0 not recognized on Proofs." Since as we’ve established these proofs aren't tied to any individual dies, this doesn’t make much sense, but I'm sure the graders did their due diligence when designating the piece.
I took/probably will take a bit of a loss on the piece in the end, but I made the original purchase as a sort of celebratory gamble after finishing up my research on the engraved large cent discovery from earlier this year (thank you for your comments on it in this thread, by the way), and with the knowledge that a loss was likely, so I don’t mind the result as much as I would otherwise. I guess two new discoveries in the field of US numismatics would be too much to hope for. In any case, it certainly has been an exciting and suspenseful journey, and I appreciate all the attention this thread has gotten.
@Nic @Justacommeman Thank you for your comments on the "Rex Collection" link in my sig. That thread is actually way out of date unfortunately - a few pieces I’ve decided to let go or replace, and I've added some new ones. One of my favorite new additions is this piece that I submitted to PCGS myself. It's a German States, Bavaria 1834 Thaler in PR63CAM. The mirrors are extraordinary. Here are some videos of it in its raw state that really show off the reflectivity: https://imgur.com/a/7mQRYYK
-Rex
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
tyvm for the closure! unfortunate it didn't work out. i'd be lying if i said i never chased/pushed something right up until the end sometimes with defeat, sometimes with victory.
it is nice to know my eyes were right on the money with the pits i saw on the obv rev like it were from polishing/whizzing. the video you made sure made it look like a nice coin. i am not going to ask you after all of this but i'd love to see professional images that accurately represent this coin one day. the technique PCGS uses is nice but it doesn't always accurately represent an item.
keep up the hunt, stay the course and show that fortitude!
btw, that collection thread of yours is just magnificent!
Thank you for sharing Rexford. It takes a lot of courage to be able to put yourself out there and share the results in the end. I think this type of discussion, in general, is good for these forums.
As someone who didn't know anything about Bust Half proofs before reading this thread, I learned a fair bit from your posts and those of the many informed commenters.
This proved to be an excellent test of anyone's knowledge in numismatics.. I heard a variety of answers from a variety of people. Out of all of the answers I saw, I think PCGS was the first one to suggest repaired. I'd be curious to learn more what they meant in this case too.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
Thanks so much for reporting back. Could you share any more relating to its provenance given that it came from Europe? The “repaired” suggestion seems less likely if this was a coin sequestered in some foreign bank. As you noted the graders completely missed the mark on the red herring relating to die attribution so that adds uncertainty as to the rest,
(Of course some here had made the same erroneous assumptions until yosclimber’s post referencing the work of John Dannreuther as to how proofs were made prior to 1858.
Roger Burdette’s research described in my postings added confirmation with regard to the 1850 Double Eagle as a case in point. As chronicled , the 1850 Double Eagle Proof in a Paris Museum was made some six months after the 1850 Double Eagle First Strikes,)
Redford thank you for starting this thread, I have enjoyed it. I was hoping the coin was going to come back a proof, sorry it didn't. I give you a lot credit for both taking the risk and sharing the process with us.
Thank you for an informative thread and for updating us.
You know how it goes when you hang your fanny out the window--sometimes you get a nice pat on the cheek and other times you get pelted with garbage.🙂
As to the determination, I have no opinion one way or the other, but that is a disappointing answer - it gives the impression they are sidestepping the entire question.
Maybe it was impossible to make a proof determination with confidence on this coin, given the damage. Maybe the coin is clearly not a proof for reasons other than the Overton variety. If that is the case, it seems to me they should have said so. If I were in your position, I would hope to get more of an explanation.
With no disrespect intended, I never assume that anyone has done all due diligence or has not made a mistake. It happens all the time and to the best of us.
Rexford,
first off accolades for your writings on the cent earlier this year, it was a great piece. As to this debacle, while I would put my money on Mr Feld every time, the fact that when PCGS said it couldn't be a proof because they don't know of any proofs of that die marriage seems like a flawed argument imo but who knows, they have more experience then anybody in the field of numismatics. Adding the damage to the piece and our in house expert and others here opining that it wasn't a proof is good enough to me. PCGS ended up getting it right, its just their explanation was flawed. I learned a great deal about proofs today and appreciate your thick skin.
Carry on.
I appreciate you following up with the verdict. It was an interesting thread.
Sometimes the Supreme Court renders a decision that fails to address the real issue and instead falls back on a technicality...a dodge...an empty judgment that satisfies no one.
Lance.
100% agreed