Question about determining Proof status of early US Coins
lsica
Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭✭
The earliest US Federal Proof coin listed by PCGS is the 1817 Cent. There are earlier "Presentation" coins listed, but PCGS lists them as "Specimen", and I'm curious as to why. From my understanding it's because the Specimen coins don't meet all the criteria of a Proof coin (specially prepared blanks, specially prepared dies, multiple strikes under increased pressure), but how do the experts know this? Can they actually tell just by examining a specimen that the 1817 Cent meets all the Proof criteria while other earlier coins do not, or does actual documentation exist from the time these coins were minted?
Philately will get you nowhere....
2
Comments
I’ve seen a good number of early coins labeled “Specimen”, as well as post-1817 coins labeled Proof, without documentation.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
So is it often just "tradition" - "we've always known coin X is a Proof"?
Sometimes, those designations are awarded to coins that were previously unknown or to coins that received neither of those designations previously, but upon resubmission, the designation was changed.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
For me, it isn't really a "specimen" vs "proof" designation as these terms represent a grey area in the striking of early coins -- and a lot of it is guesswork (i.e. as Mark noted, a lack of actual documentation).
One possible point to distinguish might be that a proof would require multiple strikes while a specimen might be struck the same number of times as a contemporary circulation strike. There could also be speculation as to whether the blank ("flan") was specially prepared (polished) as it would be for a true proof vs. a specimen striking on a typical planchet.
These are just some thoughts since I am far from expert but have been privy to some discussion between numismatic scholars.
Official PCGS account of:
www.TallahasseeCoinClub.com
There is significant debate amongst experts on which early coins are actual Proofs, just like Branch Mint Proofs or other "SP" coins that are pre-1965.
The TPGs evidently do it off of "feel" - if the graders look at the coin and it looks like a PR or SP to them, into the holder it goes with that designation. There are nuances to that decision that I cannot talk about here, but that's the general idea.
As far as "criteria" for these coins go, they would have had to been struck on the screw press at the original Philadelphia mint. Different levels of skill and variable manufacturing produced a wide array of surfaces and significant overlap that cannot be reconciled without proper research.
Coin Photography
A generation before any of todays experts were born, coins minted before 1836 were usually considered to be Proofs if they had the look - the mirror. As with today, It took the experience of viewing coins to make the determination. As an example, there are many half cents that look like Proofs - until you actually see a real one. From then on it becomes a black and white thing. Same for one dollar gold.
IMO, the term "Specimen" has become abused.