First and only known PROOF 1824/1 Capped Bust half-dollar certified

Perhaps it is Proof Like and not an actual proof? I would think that some mint production record would designate proof strikes. But, what do I know? She's a beauty!

@TallahasseeCoinClub said:
There are multiple examples of series with dates that are "proof only" emissions.

How many of those are over-dates? And what do you think the chances are that such a coin exists, but hasn’t surfaced by now?

@TallahasseeCoinClub said:

@MFeld said:

@TallahasseeCoinClub said:
There are multiple examples of series with dates that are "proof only" emissions.

How many of those are over-dates? And what do you think the chances are that such a coin exists, but hasn’t surfaced by now?

Well, I think that you just reiterated the point of the speculation you quoted!

Yes, as a response to your previous reply that “There are multiple examples of series with dates that are "proof only" emissions”. As I felt it was at least somewhat beside the point, since the speculation concerned a Proof-only over-date.

@logger7 said:
At a local shop some proof coins came in from 1883; proof Morgan, Trade dollar, liberty nickel. Missing were cent, dime, quarter, half dollar. Some years had sets and some didn't I assume.

"...heading to sale with a conservative pre-auction estimate of $75,000 to $90,000." Very likely into the six figures in the current market hungry for rarities like this.

The coin being discussed is from 1824 and there were certainly no Proof sets produced that year.

@MFeld said:

@logger7 said:
At a local shop some proof coins came in from 1883; proof Morgan, Trade dollar, liberty nickel. Missing were cent, dime, quarter, half dollar. Some years had sets and some didn't I assume.

"...heading to sale with a conservative pre-auction estimate of $75,000 to $90,000." Very likely into the six figures in the current market hungry for rarities like this.

The coin being discussed is from 1824 and there were certainly no Proof sets produced that year.

I realize that. It looks like 1858 was the first year the proof sets were available:

"The U.S. Mint first began selling proof sets to the public in 1858, offering collectors "minor coinage sets" (smaller denominations) and silver coin sets, followed by complete gold proof sets in 1861. While individual proof coins were crafted as early as the 1810s, organized sets weren't consistently packaged and sold as a collectible option until the mid-19th century." https://finestknown.com/u-s-proof-coins/

@MFeld said:
Neat coin.
I noticed that near the bottom of the article, it said “The catalog team also questioned whether the discovery could point to the existence of a proof 1824/2 half cent.”
I don’t understand why the discovery of the half dollar would have anything to do with the possible existence of an 1824/2 half cent, when there weren’t even any circulation strikes produced that year.

On my browser, an ad separated that sentence from the previous one: "Scotsman cited known proofs of the 1824 cent, 1824/2 dime, 1824/2 quarter and 1824/1 quarter eagle as precedents."

@MFeld said:
Neat coin.
I noticed that near the bottom of the article, it said “The catalog team also questioned whether the discovery could point to the existence of a proof 1824/2 half cent.”
I don’t understand why the discovery of the half dollar would have anything to do with the possible existence of an 1824/2 half cent, when there weren’t even any circulation strikes produced that year.

Maybe they meant half eagle?

Mechanical error is the more likely explanation.

Does not look anything like a proof to me. Proof designations on early US coins were grievously mishandled by the early TPGs in my opinion, and it’s unfortunate to see that they continue to be.

@MFeld said:

@coinbuf said:
Mechanical error is the more likely explanation.

I think the odds of it being a mechanical error are extremely slim. If it was, quality control in checking the coin and grading label, was less than exceptional.

Less than exceptional QC?!? PCGS?!?!

(Sarcasm aside, probably not likely this particular one is a mech error)

@MFeld said:

@MrEureka said:

@oih82w8 said:
Perhaps it is Proof Like and not an actual proof? I would think that some mint production record would designate proof strikes. But, what do I know? She's a beauty!

There’s almost always an element of subjectivity to PR and SP designations on early U.S. coinage, and documentation is almost non-existent. If I were in charge of a TPG, I would not let that stop me for designating these coins as something special, but my disclaimers would be very clear about the subjectivity and guesswork involved.

Andy, what “disclaimers” are you speaking of? Currently, I don’t see them being publicized by the major grading companies.

Fortunately, I am not in charge of a TPG.

@MFeld said:

@coinbuf said:
Mechanical error is the more likely explanation.

I think the odds of it being a mechanical error are extremely slim. If it was, quality control in checking the coin and grading label, was less than exceptional.

Not to mention that if this were a mechanical error, the CoinNews.net article would have a correction, they'd have nuked the cert on it, and the Scotsman lot would have been pulled by now.

Awesome coin.
Thanks for posting.
I enjoyed the article.
It's sad (to me at least) how one can spend a lifetime collecting amazing coins or other collectibles, share them w family over the years only to have them all sold off as soon as one dies.

@TrickleCharge said:
I know it is unlikely to happen, but it would be beneficial to see the TPG justify their decision with an explanation in cases like these. "It's a proof because PCGS says it is" just doesn't cut it.

I agree but to many buyers, that does cut it.

Not to derail, but there is an 1880 5c at auction right now which is certified as an F15 circulation strike. It is pretty clearly reverse JD-1, which is accepted to be only used on proofs. Despite the evidence pointing to a proof strike, the coin is currently bid up to the more valuable business strike value just because the TPG has called it that.

@jacrispies said:

@coinbuf said:

@jacrispies said:

@coinbuf said:
Mechanical error is the more likely explanation.

What makes you think so?

Since it seems that many (most) question this as a proof the other option is that PCGS messed up and incorrectly misattributed it as a proof. Now that could not have happened at the world's number one (according to PCGS) grading firm. All kidding aside there are many known/reported cases of mechanical errors by all the TPG's, seems just as likely as any other possible explanation.

I was curious if you have any observable evidence to add to the discussion. "Most question this as a proof" doesn't hold much weight.

Mechanical error can't be strongly argued either because there is little context to make that claim, i.e. swapped label with another coin etc.

If you are going to quote me you should do so correctly, I did not say "Most question this as a proof". What I said is that "many (most) question this as a proof". I was assuming that readers would understand that I am referring to the members here with the word "many". And added most in quotes as more of a question than an absolute, perhaps that was not clear to you.

As far as observable evidence I think that is pretty straight forward, the coin does not look like a proof in the photo. And again, many who have replied to this thread don't see it as a proof either. This would not be the first time that mistakes on TPG labels involving PR vs MS have happened. I never ruled out the possibility of PCGS making a mistaken determination, meaning the label is typed correctly but wrong. Nor have I ruled out PCGS getting it right and everyone who has replied questioning the PF status as wrong. Only proposed a theory that had not been offered which is (imo) just as possible as the other two theories.

What is your opinion, proof or not and what is your observable evidence to support your opinion? And no you cannot use the PCGS label as evidence.

Does anyone want to venture what this coin will hammer for at auction? My guess $125K at least.

Even if he did, what were his reasons? JD knows his stuff, don't get me wrong, but coins like these deserve an explanation beyond 'an expert says it is, so it must be'.

@TrickleCharge said:
Even if he did, what were his reasons? JD knows his stuff, don't get me wrong, but coins like these deserve an explanation beyond 'an expert says it is, so it must be'.

While I agree with you, unfortunately, the major grading companies don’t make a habit out of giving explanations for their grading decisions - not even for especially rare and/or esoteric coins. And that includes early, undocumented Proofs.

@MFeld said:

Fortunately, I am not in charge of a TPG.

Same, here.😉

I would vote for the two of you. Mark presumably has more time these days.

Looks like a really nicely struck business strike to me. Overdate proof sounds like hens' teeth.

@coinbuf said:

@jacrispies said:

@coinbuf said:

@jacrispies said:

@coinbuf said:
Mechanical error is the more likely explanation.

What makes you think so?

Since it seems that many (most) question this as a proof the other option is that PCGS messed up and incorrectly misattributed it as a proof. Now that could not have happened at the world's number one (according to PCGS) grading firm. All kidding aside there are many known/reported cases of mechanical errors by all the TPG's, seems just as likely as any other possible explanation.

I was curious if you have any observable evidence to add to the discussion. "Most question this as a proof" doesn't hold much weight.

Mechanical error can't be strongly argued either because there is little context to make that claim, i.e. swapped label with another coin etc.

If you are going to quote me you should do so correctly, I did not say "Most question this as a proof". What I said is that "many (most) question this as a proof". I was assuming that readers would understand that I am referring to the members here with the word "many". And added most in quotes as more of a question than an absolute, perhaps that was not clear to you.

As far as observable evidence I think that is pretty straight forward, the coin does not look like a proof in the photo. And again, many who have replied to this thread don't see it as a proof either. This would not be the first time that mistakes on TPG labels involving PR vs MS have happened. I never ruled out the possibility of PCGS making a mistaken determination, meaning the label is typed correctly but wrong. Nor have I ruled out PCGS getting it right and everyone who has replied questioning the PF status as wrong. Only proposed a theory that had not been offered which is (imo) just as possible as the other two theories.

What is your opinion, proof or not and what is your observable evidence to support your opinion? And no you cannot use the PCGS label as evidence.

I have a hard time attributing "proof" to bust halves without documentation, especially because surviving VEDS examples can present just as premier as a presentation piece. Proofs were not struck twice so even strike quality isn't a reliable attribute, as EDS examples usually have a better strike anyway.

Studying another certified early 1820s proof bust half dollar recently, I recognized by the die state, it was likely struck as one of the first 10 coins from the dies. Additional notable lack of contact marks, toning that points to special care in velvet or a coin cabinet, etc. points to this other coin being a specially handled coin from it's creation. I agreed with PCGS on this other example.

Without studying this 1824 proof in hand, it is difficult to credit those qualities to this example without high power in hand inspection or documentation. I find the PCGS photos wash out all those important details, so my opinion is neutral for now.

PCGS and the market have spoken.
Really, that’s all the “Proof” we need.