1892 Columbian Exposition Proof Commemorative Half-Dollar being sold by Stack's.
Maywood
Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭✭✭
Stack's has a listing for an 1892 Proof Columbian Half-Dollar currently listed for sale. There have been a number of lively debates about this issue at this site over the years, generally when someone shows images of a well struck example believing it to be a Proof. I thought I'd link the auction listing along with images of the coin, currently residing in a PCGS PR65 Gen. 4 holder which dates to around 2000, for discussion. If I recall that's a timeframe when the Hobby was still trying to figure these out, proof or no proof. So it seemed like a good time for more discussion since I assume lots more research has been done.
Maywood
--- link to the auction listing/https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-1KO7EZ/1892-columbian-exposition-proof-65-pcgs
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
Comments
Stacks description for those who don’t want to click links:
This exceptionally well produced Columbian Exposition half dollar could only be a survivor of one of the type's extremely limited Proof deliveries. Fully defined throughout, the definition is particularly impressive in the center of the reverse, where sharp rigging is noted for the Santa Maria. The light golden-silver iridescence that dominates the coin's overall appearance allows ready appreciation of a lively Proof finish at direct viewing angles. Solidly in the Gem category, and eagerly awaiting inclusion in an advanced collection of classic U.S. Mint commemorative coinage or Columbiana.
Proofs of this issue were produced to the extent of just 103 pieces, all of which were struck by hand at the Philadelphia Mint on November 19 of that year. These coins were made at the request of Colonel James Ellsworth, a member of the World's Columbian Exposition Commission and one of the most famous numismatists of all time. Ellsworth's request, in turn, stemmed from an offer from the firm of Wyckoff, Seamans and Benedict - producers of the Remington Standard Typewriter - to pay the Commission $10,000 for the first Columbian Exposition half dollar struck. Exposition President Harlow N. Higinbotham was content to use the first circulation strike coin for this publicity stunt, but Ellsworth succeeded in having the Proofs produced, the first of which was used for this purpose. Interestingly, the mintage of 103 Proofs for this issue includes the first 100 coins struck, plus the 400th, 1,492nd and 1,892nd examples from the press run, the final three corresponding to the fact that the year 1892 represented the four hundredth anniversary of Columbus' "discovery" of the New World in 1492. In Gem Proof, the specimen offered here ranks among the finest certified. It is a lovely and rare coin the inclusion of which would define the importance of any numismatic cabinet.
PCGS Population: 7; 4 finer in this category (Proof-67 finest).
Going by the pictures, there are good and not so good things about this coin.
Positives are that it is a Proof, which makes it rare, and it seems to have cameo devices.
The bad things are the "carbon spot" in the hair, which would annoy me, and, more important, the cloudy surfaces.
I've read that the reason the mint did not issue many Proofs was that their price would have been about the same as the price the Columbian Exposition was trying to get for the Uncs.
Never knew the mint made those in proofs. Nice looking coin.
Are the cloudy surfaces caused by normal, everyday residue or toning from sub-optimal storage conditions?
Never explored the academic side of this argument but I know the proof designated coins and the modern Proof Likes are hammered coins... I think the cameo contrast/Mirroring that occurs lends itself to the proof argument. This is a well struck coin... There is a nice PL being auctioned by Heritage... Love the frostiness of the ships on the reverse.
hard to argue this is not a proof
It does appear to be one of the 103 proofs struck! Underrated coin IMO.
It is from the die used to strike the so-called Proofs. Note the die line running just inside the bottom right edge of the main sail, to the left of the designer's initial M.
That said, I can understand why many learned numismatists say that these are not Proofs.
The listing description mentions the strike being "particularly impressive in the center of the reverse" which is strange since the central detail on the sail clearly shows some weakness and unstruck planchet defects. It has always been my understanding that the dies to strike the Proof coins underwent no special preparation(and were subsequently used for the regular issues) but the striking process was done differently. That is what makes this issue so confusing.
Accepting that the term "Proof" relates to method of production and not necessarily to what the coin actually looks like I guess these would technically be Proofs. By modern standards and terminology they might be better referred to as Special Issues with the use of SP vs. PR.
With all that said the coin is overall hammered.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
My vote would be for sub-optimal conditions, but cloudy Proofs are not desirable, at least not for me. They are a perennial pass for me.
A coin with below average eye appeal. Pass.