Options
Mixed proofs and circulation strikes
tradedollarnut
Posts: 20,650 ✭✭✭✭✭
From the "about Eliasberg" writeup:
Note that prior to the 1980s, most collectors mixed proofs and circulation strikes. So the Eliasberg collection features circulation strikes for the branch mints and proofs for most of the Philadelphia mint issues. This was how collectors built sets at the time and a collection was considered "complete" if it had one example from each date and mint, regardless of whether the examples were circulation strikes or proofs.
I'm curious as to what happened in the 1980's to change the thinking of what was complete. Any thoughts? Collectors collected this way for hundreds of years - what changed? Is the new thinking a passing fad or something permanent?
Does anyone out there collect the 'old' way? Why or why not?
Note that prior to the 1980s, most collectors mixed proofs and circulation strikes. So the Eliasberg collection features circulation strikes for the branch mints and proofs for most of the Philadelphia mint issues. This was how collectors built sets at the time and a collection was considered "complete" if it had one example from each date and mint, regardless of whether the examples were circulation strikes or proofs.
I'm curious as to what happened in the 1980's to change the thinking of what was complete. Any thoughts? Collectors collected this way for hundreds of years - what changed? Is the new thinking a passing fad or something permanent?
Does anyone out there collect the 'old' way? Why or why not?
0
Comments
So now that collectors no longer mix the two, shouldn't the 1895 proof Morgan come WAY down in price
since it's no rarer than any of the other proof issues???
dragon
I wonder if the advent of slabbing and the accompanying emphasis on grade rarity has been a factor. Many classic coins are valued less in proof than the equivalent circulation strike grade. Some say that this is justified because proofs were made for collectors so it's to be expected that they would have high survival rates, and mintage isn't relevant.
Yet for people doing sets, the proof-only issues are usually seen as necessary for completeness. An exception can be made for trade dollars, though.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
Wow, Dragon - good point! Same with such notables as the 1858 seated dollar and the 1877 Indian head cent!
I'm looking for a example of each year, and mint, and see the Proofs as just as valid versions as the MS coinage. They were made in Philidephia in the year on them, so why not see them that way? Seems reasonable to me.
Guess I just think like the old timers! :-)
Myriads
We ARE watching you.
<< <i>But,,,, we're refering to Eliasberg's collecting method, wouldn't that preclude it from referring to the 1880s? >>
Not really since something like 80% of the Eliasberg collection was bought intact from I believe Geroge Clapp and that collection that was formed to a large extent in the late 1800's if I remember correctly. (I believe it was a multi generational collection.)
Eliasberg
Norweb
Carter
Starr
Stack
Pittman
Two notable dollar collectors active in the late 80's and 90's - L.R. French, Jr and L.K. Rudolf mixed both.
dragon
When I am collecting them, they are differently two different animals (in my mind anyway).
L.K. Rudolf - his Seated Dollar collection was recently sold by Stacks - freely mixed proofs and circulation strikes. The majority of his coins were acquired in the 1990's.
Dan