Is it a proof? Certified as proof coin sells repeatedly at auction for “proof money” now at GC

renomedphys · August 10, 2026 10:20PM

Twice this coin has sold at auction, at Heritage. Both times it was correctly attributed by the auction house as a Snow-1, with a wide RPD, and the obverse style of 1856. The thing is, these aren’t the proof dies. Rick Snow writes:
“This is the only die variety from the “Obverse of
1856” group. These are quite scarce and in high demand.
The coins from this die are some of the most attractive
regular issue Flying Eagles struck. Usually with sharp
strikes and very fine details. The earliest strikes are
prooflike and at times have been confused for proofs by
auction catalogers and grading services.
Probably no more than 300 known. Two are graded
MS-66 by PCGS, the finest of these being a proof-
like example. There are in fact at least 7 gem prooflike
examples known, These are very well struck and can
easily be mistaken for actual proofs. It is important that grading services know the die characteristics
of the proofs rather than just determining Proof
status solely on look and feel.”

So I did call GC and told them about this coin, and it looks like it’s still listed four days later, so here it is.

Here is a link to the GC auction:
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/2215900/1857-Flying-Eagle-Cent-PCGS-Proof-64-CAMEO-CAC-Green

And here is a link to the most recent Heritage auction:

https://coins.ha.com/itm/flying-eagle-cents/small-cents/1857-1c-flying-eagle-pr64-cameo-pcgs-cac-snow-1-pcgs-82040-/a/1357-3696.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

And here are the lot photos:

Thoughts? Naturally I’m interested to see how this turns out, because both other times it sold, it brought “cheap” proof money. Naturally I’d like to see this coin sold attributed correctly, so it doesn’t produce another low result for what lists as a much rarer bird.

Copperindian · August 10, 2026 11:08PM

IMO, the subject coin properly attributed is PCGS #410433. Description is FS-401a, Obv of 1856, RPD, S-1 (FS-001). Here’s pics of my example:

1madman · August 11, 2026 2:39AM

Get ahold of cac and let them get involved with gc to implement their guarantee?

lermish · August 11, 2026 4:57AM

@1madman said:
Get ahold of cac and let them get involved with gc to implement their guarantee?

This is a good idea. GC is a well run business with really good customer service but having CAC lean on them can speed up the review process significantly. And as good as GC's customer service turnaround has been, CAC's is even better.

TrickleCharge · August 11, 2026 5:02AM

Does a CAC sticker guarantee strike type?

TallahasseeCoinClub · August 11, 2026 5:36AM

Is it completely impossible for a proof (or "specimen") Snow-1 to have been struck off of freshly prepared dies intended for circulation strike cents?

jmlanzaf · August 11, 2026 5:52AM

@TallahasseeCoinClub said:
Is it completely impossible for a proof (or "specimen") Snow-1 to have been struck off of freshly prepared dies intended for circulation strike cents?

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say.

If it was circulation dies in a circulation press, it is impossible for it to be a "proof". It could be "proof-like", but it can't be a "proof".

If you are asking whether they could use circulation dies in a proof press. Certainly. Is it then a "proof"? Maybe. But die preparation is usually considered part of the process.

The more common crossover is to use proof dies to strike circulation cents after they are done striking proofs.

Cougar1978 · August 11, 2026 6:13AM

The holder no 6417 says proof 64 DC plus it is stickered. I guess the bidders will make that decision. Looks like a really nice PQ coin. Will put it on my bid list if it’s still out there.

jmlanzaf · August 11, 2026 6:20AM

@Cougar1978 said:
The holder says proof plus it is stickered. I guess the bidders will make that decision.

The holder doesn't "say" anything, you have to read the words.

[Sorry, that was one of my grandfather's favorite jokes. If you asked "what time does your watch say?" He'd immediately say, "it didn't 'say' anything, you have to look at it." It's funny what sticks in your head for 50 years. ]

Typekat · August 11, 2026 6:45AM

The old blue label and ‘series’ designation means the coin was graded quite some time ago.
Would PCGS reconsider, and possibly revoke, their former opinion as to the coin’s Proof status if the coin was sent to them now?
The issue involved reminds me of the recently discovered (and discussed here) 1824/1 proof bust half - when PCGS
calls a coin a Proof, does that make it so?

MrEureka · August 11, 2026 7:16AM

Would it be unreasonable for PCGS to take the position that when a coin really truly looks like a proof, it’s a proof as far as they’re concerned? I mean, it’s their grading service, so their call, right?

lermish · August 11, 2026 7:19AM

@MrEureka said:
Would it be unreasonable for PCGS to take the position that when a coin really truly looks like a proof, it’s a proof as far as they’re concerned? I mean, it’s their grading service, so their call, right?

It is their grading service and it is their call...and it is unreasonable.

They can do whatever they want but one should hope that they have some rationale behind their grading/designation calls besides, "Meh, it looks like it, who cares?"

AngryTurtle · August 11, 2026 7:44AM

@MrEureka said:
Would it be unreasonable for PCGS to take the position that when a coin really truly looks like a proof, it’s a proof as far as they’re concerned? I mean, it’s their grading service, so their call, right?

Then the OPs coin he posted is wrong, consistency ranks really high in the desirable attributes in the grading biz, IMHO. I seem to be a minority opinion, but on the larger issue my rule would be coins with a documented mint paper trail would be labeled PR, Coins that with their physical characteristics being exceptional ( razor strike, vertical letter sides, sharp rims, etc ) are SP, and the rest are MS. By that rule, this one would be SP or MS. I'm not sure how the initial MS designation was made by Rick Snow, or others, what documentations there is for 1857 proofs, how its known that this is not one of them, etc.

Copperindian · August 11, 2026 8:08AM

Rick has conducted extensive research on these as documented in the OP’s post. I’m not in a position to question his findings, but have collected this series (both MS & PR) for 15+ years. I haven’t encountered anything that refutes his assertions.
The nuances that determine some of these FE’s (both MS & PR) are sometimes difficult to discern. This has been acknowledged by PCGS, resulting in occasionally getting it wrong. My experience is 1) they’re good about backing up their contention; & 2) changing it when they’re proven to be incorrect.

renomedphys · August 11, 2026 11:21AM

For whatever it’s worth, it seems to me within my limited area of study that many MS issues can be PL. Look at 1908-S Indian cents. Or 1859’s. 1856 S-3’s also come PL. Indeed it seems like any time the mint produced brand new dies for a brand new design or a first run at a branch mint, some are struck so well that we might mistake them for actual proofs. Heck, I have an MS 1877 Indian that has no reverse clashing and is in fact very PL. I also own an 1809 cent that is very EDS and has been called semi PL by more than just one dealer.

I don’t think we should be surprised by this. I also don’t think this is an excuse to call them proofs. Brand new dies and a handful of “test run” blanks, along with careful initial setup and a bit of pressure tweaking can produce really excellent results. This in spite of the fact that the coins in question were produced in almost the exact same manner as every other MS coin for that date.

Typekat · August 11, 2026 12:55PM

The earliest meaning of “proof” in coinage was the first coin strike off new dies. This coin was a test, struck to ‘prove’ that the die brought up all the details intended.

But the definition of ‘Proof’ has changed over time.

Until the US Mint started offering ‘proof’ coins for public sale in 1858, obtaining what we now call proof coins was a matter of having connections at the Mint, or being an honored guest who was allowed to purchase a shiny new coin, or a few. Often both obverse and reverse dies were polished for this purpose, sometimes only the obverse, and at times the planchet was also polished before the coin was struck. Some were struck twice, but I don’t think that was usual in the early days.

Research in this field of is often thwarted because early proofs seldom left a paper trail. A simple swap of specie-for-specie would not generate a Mint document (for instance, Izzy Switt)

My point is that what numismatists today call Proofs among pre1858 coins are a motley crew. They were not the first strike, were made under varying degrees of care, and are for the most part undocumented orphans. Do they look like specially made ‘Proofs’? If so, then they are (see: the recently sold 1824/1 Proof Bust Half)

As for the 1857 FE under discussion, its early strike status actually puts it pretty close to the earliest meaning of ‘proof.’
Perhaps one of the existing Prooflike S-1 examples WAS the one struck to ‘prove’ the dies - making it a true proof coin.

Rule556 · August 12, 2026 7:57AM

@jmlanzaf said:

[Sorry, that was one of my grandfather's favorite jokes. If you asked "what time does your watch say?" He'd immediately say, "it didn't 'say' anything, you have to look at it." It's funny what sticks in your head for 50 years. ]

My Dad would say a watch doesn't "say" anything. It "indicates". I've been annoying people with this ever since. LOL

TallahasseeCoinClub · August 12, 2026 10:03AM

@jmlanzaf said:

@TallahasseeCoinClub said:
Is it completely impossible for a proof (or "specimen") Snow-1 to have been struck off of freshly prepared dies intended for circulation strike cents?

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say.

If it was circulation dies in a circulation press, it is impossible for it to be a "proof". It could be "proof-like", but it can't be a "proof".

If you are asking whether they could use circulation dies in a proof press. Certainly. Is it then a "proof"? Maybe. But die preparation is usually considered part of the process.

The more common crossover is to use proof dies to strike circulation cents after they are done striking proofs.

To put it another way, this is an entirely different era of numismatic production. I do believe the research that has suggested in the past that a proof coin could have been struck off of fresh circulation-strike dies. It would amount to a combination of flan quality and preparation, die preparation, striking pressure, etc.

KOYNGUY · August 12, 2026 11:19AM

Intent is impossible to prove.
For many years at early ANACS we asked the question, does it matter if it was intentionally made to be a proof? We tried to document aspects of obvious proof dies and use them as earmarks for future calls. There in fact were thousands of photos taken through a microscope in the ANACS files. When this scientific method was used to expose proof like early strikes, the common response IN THE 1970'S-1980'S was that they were "Market Proofs" and were traded as such. If it looks like a proof, and it's bought and sold like a proof, it's a proof. End of disccusion.
It is hard to argue with this form of logic when money is the driver and decides truth.
But when the music stops and the last owner can't find a chair. He is the loser. Services and auction firms may say new information has surfaced and we no longer find this to be the valuable variety, proof, or business strike we said it was. We are not now responsible for these changes in market perceptions. The 1922 "NO D" cents in MS-65 red off Die pairs one or three are no longer being certified as such,and no longer are included in registry sets as the market has determined that only Die pair two's are the only true 'NO D" variety. You people that bought those cherry red coins off the other two dies are S.O.L., They are no longer worth "NO D" money. They are now nice 22-D die pairs one and three. Now this "new info" has been known for over 40 years now. And the reluctance to change course may have more to do with the amount of liability created in creating these mint state "NO D"s. Estimates I have heard run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Don't expect a large press release on any changes as firms tend to let these issues die a long silent death.
In making the call on Matte proof minor coins 1909-1916, It was common to call first strikes off new dies,off new hubs proof. There was fairly limited knowledge to actual diagnostics and dealers used their best judgement to make the call. Not reusing proof dies seems counteproductive as economics suggest the opposite to be true. Why would a mint dispose of perfectly good dies?. Undated dies can and were used, but rarely dated dies.
In 1982 ANACS produced diagnostics on the Matte cents. collectors now had the evidence to make educated purchases. The rarity could then be established based on proven populations. Confidence in the true rarity gives bidders what they need to move markets.
Another example that comes to mind is the 1880 nickel. Comparitively common as a proof, Business strikes are rare. Later proof die strikes develop some luster and were commonly passed as superb business strikings. Die characteristics for the business strike reverse die can now seperate PF/BS coins even in lower grades. Business strike prices prices have only risen once the true rarity has been defined
This technical method has gained traction when these calls attract the attention and money we see today.This
not only applies to PF/MS calls, but to long held beliefs on varieties. 1868/9 cents,1922 cents, Etc.
Accountability comes when as a grading service or auction firm Has to put their name behind a call.
J.P.Martin

FlyingAl · August 12, 2026 2:54PM

So I guess it really is all about what the plastic says these days. Interesting.

Catbert · August 12, 2026 3:31PM

@ianrussell

KOYNGUY · August 16, 2026 7:10PM

I would not argue with Rick Snow. It would be hard to find a more dedicated researcher/specialist. If I am in disagreement with his call on a coin, I backtrack and try to figure where I went wrong. In this particular case it appears to be an early strike of dies that were prepared off fresh hubbing (as they all are). A remarkable technical Business striking that may trade as a market proof. I own a proof not off these dies. Pcgs has been grading since 1986. I believe that today they would not make this call. Possibly a unreconsidered reholder. These Business Strike coins make the proof census look more common than they are. I believe the 1857's are the rarest of the three dates. J.P. Martin

renomedphys · September 11, 2026 7:50AM

Okay so the coin in question sold for a whopping $24,693.75! I’m honestly not sure if this is the “right price” for this coin. If it were correctly attributed as say, MS64PL CAM, it may have actually brought more. The new owner would do well to see if that designation is a possibility since there are so few flying eagles certified as PL (3, all 1857’s) and would qualify as a rarity in that regard. Whatever the case, it’s still a nice coin, just not a proof

cameonut2011 · September 11, 2026 8:59AM

@renomedphys said:
Okay so the coin in question sold for a whopping $24,693.75! I’m honestly not sure if this is the “right price” for this coin. If it were correctly attributed as say, MS64PL CAM, it may have actually brought more. The new owner would do well to see if that designation is a possibility since there are so few flying eagles certified as PL (3, all 1857’s) and would qualify as a rarity in that regard. Whatever the case, it’s still a nice coin, just not a proof

Most top tier grading companies (e.g. PCGS, NGC, and CAC) do not designate PL coins as cameo or deep cameo even though some of them certainly do exhibit a field to device contrast. I'm also not sure I agree that it would be worth more as a PL. There is usually a limitation on what a PL piece will sell for relative to its non-PL counterpart, although sometimes I have been able to get large premiums (a choice BU designated PL buffalo nickel that was unique or near unique that I made and flipped for over $2k if I recall correctly). I may be wrong as there isn't a lot of data to work with, but I don't see a PL 64 Flying Eagle cent going for $25k.

Copperindian · September 11, 2026 9:32AM

The OP’s comments are spot on (almost - I can’t agree with the “CAM” part). What may have been missed by most is the variety of this particular piece - the 1857 FS-401a rev of 1856 aka S-1. That by itself is a rarity; with the PL designation, it’s worth much more.
I looked at the coin at the GC booth @ WFOM; agree again it should be a MS, not a PR. I discussed the coin with a dealer, who indicated his intention to bid. In his opinion, the value would be about the same, PR or MS. If he was the successful bidder, it would have been his intention to submit for the correct designation as MS + the variety (& seeking the PL).
I haven’t checked with him if he did win it, but I’ll post here if he did win & what the final outcome is with PCGS.

Update: he was outbid in the GC auction.

KOYNGUY · September 11, 2026 5:15PM

So is that MS-25K, PF 25k, or just 25k

RedRocket · September 11, 2026 8:27PM

@jmlanzaf said:

@Cougar1978 said:
The holder says proof plus it is stickered. I guess the bidders will make that decision.

The holder doesn't "say" anything, you have to read the words.

[Sorry, that was one of my grandfather's favorite jokes. If you asked "what time does your watch say?" He'd immediately say, "it didn't 'say' anything, you have to look at it." It's funny what sticks in your head for 50 years. ]

Next time you see your grandfather pass on this compliment.

renomedphys · September 12, 2026 7:14PM

🙄

Is it a proof? Certified as proof coin sells repeatedly at auction for “proof money” now at GC

Comments

Leave a Comment

Categories