Might this 1872 5c NGC MS67 be a Proof? (And Other Fun Stuff)

IGWT · May 2, 2007 10:45AM

Link to Goldberg Auction. What do you think?

Edited to add: Check out the link in my second post, too.

CarlWohlforth · May 2, 2007 10:54AM

I don't know. That coin has an excellent strike. The S in CENTS looks just like the S on my NGC PF 64 1870 nickel. We would need someone familar with the proof die diagnostics to say for sure.

coindeuce · May 2, 2007 10:54AM

It certainly has the appearance of being Proof. Bidding on it as if it were Proof might be futile though, since business strikes in this grade would be much higher value.

Aegis3 · May 2, 2007 10:55AM

It's got a doubled die on the obverse, so a shield nickel expert should be easy to determine whether its a proof or a business strike.

Sunnywood · May 2, 2007 10:57AM

Yes Lou, absolutely. That full strike is virtually impossible on a business strike. Note the DDO. As we already know, there is a DDO die used on a substantial percentage of 1872 proofs. Someone with patience needs to compare this obverse to the known proof DDO obverse to verify they are the same. (That in and of itself is not conclusive, as the same obverse is known to have been used subsequently to strike MS pieces ... however, identification of the correct obverse, coupled with the extreme strike and the early obverse die state, would be quite dispositive in my book.)

Best,
Sunnywood

IGWT · May 2, 2007 10:59AM

It's got a doubled die on the obverse, so a shield nickel expert should be easy to determine whether its a proof or a business strike.

Not so easy as you might imagine. But check out this 1872 5c PROOF in the same auction for comparison: Link to another 1872 5c.

MrEureka · May 2, 2007 11:06AM

Not to try to sound stupid, but if the business strikes and proofs were struck from the same dies, and if both coins are mirrored and look pretty much the same, and if one is really not a proof, why should the method of manufacture make a big difference in the price? Is is just about the Registry?

IGWT · May 2, 2007 11:09AM

Not to try to sound stupid, but if the business strikes and proofs were struck from the same dies, and if both coins are mirrored, and if one is really not a proof, why should the method of manufacture make a big difference in the price? Is is just about the Registry?

That's a question best put to somebody who has purchased an 1880 for north of $50,000. Edited to add: I agree with you, Sunnywood.

Sunnywood · May 2, 2007 12:00PM

Andy, the days when proofs were collected interchangeably with business strikes are long since gone, as you know. Proofs were once considered "better" than Uncs, and were preferred as examples of Philadelphia issues for which they were available.

However, now that we view proofs and business strikes as distinct issues, they do often take on different valuations. For some of us, there is an appeal to collecting the rare gem uncirculated survivors of the business strikes intended for circulation, rather than the gem uncirculated proofs that were generally produced for and saved by collectors (and are therefore often more available in choice or gem than the true MS pieces).

For issues where there is an obvious difference of appearance, the MS pieces are even preferable to some based on their appearance. Tradedollarnut and I share this view, and we prefer the satiny cartwheel luster of MS silver and trade dollars, for example, to their proof counterparts. On the other hand, I have always been fond of cameo proof gold (but not the conserved widgets - I prefer the original pieces).

The 1880 nickel is a perfect example of how this can become a conundrum. (Also quite a few other issues where the MS mintage and/or survival rate is small as compared with the proofs, and where they are difficult to distinguish. Some 3CN's and 3CS's come to mind, for example.) A true MS 1880 is fascinating and rare, as a coin that was intended for circulation, and survived fortuitously for future generations. On the other hand, the proofs are not rare at all. Further complicating the picture is the fact that they are difficult to tell apart. The MS pieces struck with the Breen-2516 obverse may be found with a "true MS" satiny luster, whereas the pieces struck from the Breen-2515 obverse in the intermediate die states are always semi-prooflike, although they are believed by many to be MS pieces. The two MS66 coins happen to be Br-2516, and have commanded large sums for their blatantly MS character. The finest examples of Br-2515 have also commanded large sums, but largely by virtue of their plastic.

Nonetheless, while there is a practical problem for some issues such as the 1880 nickel, I do agree with the current market that the MS pieces of many issues may deserve a significantly higher valuation than the proofs, as their survival was neither intended nor safeguarded except by a select few collectors with great foresight (or by chance).

You may consider this merely a Registry phenomenon, but it is more than that. For example, as a collector of MS Barber quarters, I enjoy having a complete set of busness strikes. I would personally find it quite odd to have Eliasberg's set, which contained proofs as representatives of the Philadelphia issues from 1892 to 1915, but the rest of the coins were business strikes. To me that makes a poorly matched and strangely incomplete set. And in general, I find MS sets (after 1858) to be more difficult and more rewarding to assemble than proof sets (excepting gold).

By the way, I have owned several toned shield nickel and Lib nickel proofs that were mis-certified by NGC as MS. Sometimes that was costly for me, for example an 1873 Closed 3 NGC MS66 that turned out to be a proof. Ditto for an 1886 Lib nickel. I didn't get very far in collecting the difference in market values either. So much for the guarantee.

Best,
Sunnywood

IGWT · May 2, 2007 11:20PM

I also have a preference for coins struck for circulation; and, for that reason, I would pass on the 1872 5c NGC MS67 if it looks in person as it appears in the photo.

The 1880 5c tests just how far I’m willing to pursue my preference. Business strikes and proofs were struck from the same two dies, so die diagnostics are not conclusive by any means. It appears that the dies were repolished to mint proofs after coining business strikes, so identifying die states doesn’t help much. Some proofs may have satiny luster, while some business strikes may have mirrors. It’s even possible (I believe your research showed this, Sunnywood), that the proof collar was kept on the press for business strikes, so the edge doesn’t necessarily give the answer (even if it were visible in TPG holders). It’s certainly very difficult to divine the intent of the coiners when looking at an 1880 5c.

Despite my preference for business strikes, I won’t (ok, I can’t) spend upwards of $50,000 for an uncirculated 1880 attributed as a business strike when I can purchase the next coin off the same dies for $1,500. And, to answer Andy’s question, while the Registry probably doesn’t account for all collectors who are willing to pay the premium, I’d guess that it accounts for some of them.

tradedollarnut · May 2, 2007 11:29PM

As I registry participant, I feel I can chime in that personally I feel the registry should allow collectors to intermix proofs and regular strikes such as in the days of yore. Weight them differently to handle any rarity discrepancies ... but why not allow us all the advantages of the registry for a mixed collection? If it was good enough for Louie, it should be good enough for us!

coinlieutenant · May 3, 2007 2:14AM

Funny,

I had written TDN last night about this very coin...I thought it looked like a proof as well. Absolutely no die cracks either that I can see.
The other 1872 NGC MS67 recently sold (it was a moose and definitely a bs) for 23K.

I still like this coin but it does bear research.

John

BlindedByEgo · May 3, 2007 2:23AM

I found this to be a very educational thread, esp. Sunnywood's extensive tretise on Proofs vs. MS. Thanks all!

coinlieutenant · May 3, 2007 3:38AM

The 1872 shield nick is a coin that I have thought about including in my set as a proof, along with the 1872 trime. Both are in that grey area that sunnywood discussed above. I personally think that a registry set should be able to consist of proofs and business strikes, especialy when the difference is nebulous. I like the challenge of business strikes as well, proofs dont get me quite as excited as finding a pristing bs that somehow survived. However, money is a factor big time for this 1872 set...and since I am on a budget, why should I pay 10x more for a bs when it is debatable if it really is one!!

I do like the coin...bs or proof. Lets just hope this sale is strong (except on this coin of course

)...as I have several busties up for auction.

coinlieutenant · May 3, 2007 3:42AM

I have owned an 1872 proof before...it also had the broken S on the reverse that both the top NGC MS67 has and the NGC PF66 in the middle has. The bottom is the other NGC MS67...definitely a bs.

coinlieutenant · May 3, 2007 5:12AM

Notice too how the business strike at the bottom, while well struck, is not fully struck. Of particular note are the dentils, definitely a major difference in crispness. The business strike is easily noticeable by the presence of the die crack and of course the luster.

One thing I find interesting is that it appears that proofs might have been struck after the bs's (if of course the same dies were used, which I am not sure.) The reason why I say that is due to the 'S' serif being broken from apparent polishing of the dies. This would have shown up on the business strike as well if they were struck after the proofs.

Any thoughts?

Edited to add...different dies for sure...date on BS is also different.

IGWT · May 3, 2007 5:38AM

<< Notice too how the business strike at the bottom, while well struck, is not fully struck. Of particular note are the dentils, definitely a major difference in crispness. The business strike is easily noticeable by the presence of the die crack and of course the luster.

One thing I find interesting is that it appears that proofs might have been struck after the bs's (if of course the same dies were used, which I am not sure.) The reason why I say that is due to the 'S' serif being broken from apparent polishing of the dies. This would have shown up on the business strike as well if they were struck after the proofs.

Any thoughts? >>

The broken S was almost certainly transferred from the hub, and was not a result of polishing the die. I'd say that the hub deterioration likely occurred in the process of preparing dies to mint coins for circulation; so, you'd be correct that proofs followed business strikes. Die cracks are a sign of business strikes, but there are instances of proofs with die cracks and business strikes without. Regarding your earlier post, there are no-bainer business strike '72s in true 65 that come into the market occasionally. Don't shy away from these coins graded by NGC; just be selective if you want to cross the coin.

howards · May 3, 2007 10:49AM

<< 
The broken S was almost certainly transferred from the hub, and was not a result of polishing the die. I'd say that the hub deterioration likely occurred in the process of preparing dies to mint coins for circulation; so, you'd be correct that proofs followed business strikes. >>

I don't understand the reasoning that proofs necessarily followed business strikes. Recall that we are dealing with a multiple working hub situation by 1872, so it is not possible to draw a timeline that says a coin with a broken letter was necessarily minted after a coin with no broken letters.

What is curious is that the mint chose to use a broken hub if they had unbroken hubs available.

howards · May 3, 2007 10:52AM

I'm a bit late to the party here, but Lou alerted me to the thread.

Determining beyond doubt whether the Goldberg coin is a proof or business strike could be accomplished by cracking the coin and examining the edge. No one in his right mind should attempt this, however, because I believe with 99% certainty that the coin in question is a proof (and therefore some idjit exists who will overpay for the plastic as is).

The coin definitely appears to be the proof die. The reverse shows the broken S in CENTS that has been present on every 1872 proof DDO I've examined. The two examples of business strike DDOs from the same die that I've seen were paired with a different reverse die that did not have a broken S in CENTS.

Furthermore, I believe the strike of the Goldberg coin to be superior to that seen on business strikes, particularly on the veins of the right side leaves.

----

Regarding the use of proof or business strike coins in your collection: This only matters when the price differential is large. Otherwise, I would strive to have a matched set.

Howard
ShieldNickels.Net

tradedollarnut · May 3, 2007 11:02AM

Otherwise, I would strive to have a matched set.

Why?

I had one of the great rarities in the Seated Dollar proofs [an 1853]. I considered long and hard not having a business strike coin for that date and using the proof to fill the hole. In my opinion, in a more mundane series, going for the toughest coin between circ strike or proof would improve a set.

roadrunner · May 3, 2007 11:02AM

I side with Andy on this one. If it looks like a proof, I really don't care if technically it is a business strike. The same goes for those low mintage seated coins in the 1864-1868 era (half dimes, dimes in particular). If it's fully PL, it might as well be a proof imo. And in this case the seated MS peices don't command multiples above the proof pricing.

roadrunner

IGWT · May 3, 2007 12:17PM

-- "As I registry participant, I feel I can chime in that personally I feel the registry should allow collectors to intermix proofs and regular strikes such as in the days of yore. Weight them differently to handle any rarity discrepancies ... but why not allow us all the advantages of the registry for a mixed collection?" --

They do. Don't you think the 1872 5c NGC 67 is destined for a business strike registry set?

Sunnywood · May 3, 2007 2:49PM

I owned the other 1872 NGC MS67 coin when it was a pop 1/0, and it was definitely a business strike, although I thought it was maybe a 66.8, and certainly would not have crossed. But it was the finest MS piece I had seen up to that point (I later had a better one in a PCGS MS66 holder). I bought the coin from Superior in 2000 or 2001 for $6500, and sold it to another collector in late 2002 for $8000. So you can imagine how thrilled I am to hear that it realized $23000 at auction. The same story applies to so many of my other coins !!! Especially all the pop top shield and Lib nickels I once owned ... oh well. Anything I sell skyrockets in value !!!

I estimate that the coins I sold in 2002 are now worth 2.8 to 3.1 times what they sold for. This includes the nickels, Indian $2.50, early type, proof two cents, patterns, and proof gold. The only exception are the proof seated dollars ... those don't seem to have appreciated nearly as much.

Best,
Sunnywood

howards · May 3, 2007 6:40PM

<< Otherwise, I would strive to have a matched set.

Why?

I had one of the great rarities in the Seated Dollar proofs [an 1853]. I considered long and hard not having a business strike coin for that date and using the proof to fill the hole. In my opinion, in a more mundane series, going for the toughest coin between circ strike or proof would improve a set. >>

Why? So that the appearance of the matched set of coins would please me. Personal preference only.

howards · May 3, 2007 6:45PM

<< Anything I sell skyrockets in value !!!

Sunnywood >>

Please advise me of your future sales.

IGWT · May 3, 2007 8:51PM

I don't understand the reasoning that proofs necessarily followed business strikes. Recall that we are dealing with a multiple working hub situation by 1872, so it is not possible to draw a timeline that says a coin with a broken letter was necessarily minted after a coin with no broken letters. What is curious is that the mint chose to use a broken hub if they had unbroken hubs available.

Sorry, Howard, I missed the first of your two posts when I came back to read the thread. It makes sense to me -- although I'm speculating, of course -- that the letter broke on the hub before it was used to press the proof die. That is, it suggests that this particular workiing hub was used to produce dies for business strikes before it was used to press the die used for proofs.

AlixTCat · May 3, 2007 10:09PM

<< It's got a doubled die on the obverse, so a shield nickel expert should be easy to determine whether its a proof or a business strike. >>

Nice coin. Now I see the doubling. I must have been blind before.

Jonathan

howards · May 4, 2007 7:14AM

<< I don't understand the reasoning that proofs necessarily followed business strikes. Recall that we are dealing with a multiple working hub situation by 1872, so it is not possible to draw a timeline that says a coin with a broken letter was necessarily minted after a coin with no broken letters. What is curious is that the mint chose to use a broken hub if they had unbroken hubs available.

Sorry, Howard, I missed the first of your two posts when I came back to read the thread. It makes sense to me -- although I'm speculating, of course -- that the letter broke on the hub before it was used to press the proof die. That is, it suggests that this particular workiing hub was used to produce dies for business strikes before it was used to press the die used for proofs. >>

I wasn't clear enough in my earlier post, I see. There is no reason to assume that the SAME reverse working hub was used for the proof dies as the business strike dies. Therefore, you can't infer a temporal relationship between the 1872 DDO proofs and the 1872 DDO business strikes with the same obverse die.

Moreover, since reverse hubs could easily be held over from previous years, you can't assume that the working hub with the broken S was used for business strikes in 1872 before it was used for proofs in 1872.

IGWT · May 4, 2007 8:42AM

-- "There is no reason to assume that the SAME reverse working hub was used for the proof dies as the business strike dies." --

I'm thinking it's not likely that a broken hub was used exclusively to press a die intended for proofs. It seems more plausible -- at least to me -- that the hub broke in the process of preparing dies intended for business strikes before it was used to produce a proof die (and, as far as I can tell, there was only one reverse die used for '72 proofs of which approx. 950 were minted). You have a good point that this working hub might have been used and broken in earlier years. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong . . . but at least we agree that the '72 NGC MS67 is almost certainly a proof.

Edited for typo.

CarlWohlforth · May 4, 2007 9:27AM

How often are broken Ss found on Proof Shield nickels? I have one here on an 1870 proof that looks very similar.

howards · May 4, 2007 9:40AM

<< How often are broken Ss found on Proof Shield nickels? >>

Surprisingly, it is not uncommon. Every 1872 proof DDO that I've seen has the broken letter.

A good idea for further research would be to review the Heritage archive photos of previously auctioned proof shield nickels and check for broken letters.

howards · May 4, 2007 9:45AM

<< -- "There is no reason to assume that the SAME reverse working hub was used for the proof dies as the business strike dies." --

I'm thinking it's not likely that a broken hub was used exclusively to press a die intended for proofs. It seems more plausible -- at least to me -- that the hub broke in the process of preparing dies intended for business strikes before it was used to produce a proof die (and, as far as I can tell, there was only one reverse die used for '72 proofs of which approx. 950 were minted). You have a good point that this working hub might have been used and broken in earlier years. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong . . . but at least we agree that the '72 NGC MS67 is almost certainly a proof.

>>

We may be talking partially at cross-purposes. I thought you originally were trying to establish that the 1872 DDO business strikes using the same obverse die as the proof DDO were struck before the proofs, by virtue of their unbroken reverse letters. Perhaps you are only trying to establish that SOME 1872 business strikes were struck before the 1872 proof DDO?

That's probably a lock, because the 1872 proof DDO was most likely struck at multiple times throughout the year. Whether the broken working hub occurred in 1872 or earlier is anybody's guess, though.

Yup, we agree that the NGC67 is nearly a lock for a proof.

IGWT · May 4, 2007 10:19AM

-- "Perhaps you are only trying to establish that SOME 1872 business strikes were struck before the 1872 proof DDO?" --

Yes!

Sunnywood · May 4, 2007 11:44AM

Actually this is often the case in the series ... there were usually deliveries of proofs early in the year, from fresh dies. And there were often subsequent strikings, later in the year. In several instances, most notably 1880 Breen-2515, the same die was used to strike proofs, then business strikes, the proofs again after heavy repolishing.

Best,
Sunnywood

TwoSides2aCoin · May 4, 2007 11:53AM

Sometimes I read these threads and am truly amazed.
This one made me "GULP"

more than a few times.
So much more to learn

... so many more toes to try and avoid stepping on.

Now when it comes to coins, I come here to learn. Thank you guys who share.

Longacre · May 4, 2007 12:27PM

The OP looks like a proof to me, but I really don't know much about this series.

IGWT · May 29, 2007 1:10AM

The coin realized $4,400, about $2,000 more than we'd expect to see for a proof in this condition. The power of plastic.

ebaytrader · May 29, 2007 1:18AM

<< The coin realized $4,400, about $2,000 more than we'd expect to see for a proof in this condition. The power of plastic.

>>

The coin is listed as a proof in the auction.

IGWT · May 29, 2007 1:30AM

Sonuvagun! You're right; but the coin had been listed as a business strike (graded MS67). I'm not sure when the description was changed (or how it was described in the print catalogue). Does anyone know?

CarlWohlforth · May 29, 2007 3:47AM

I don't know when the description was changed. Perhaps someone at Goldberg reads these forums?

Might this 1872 5c NGC MS67 be a Proof? (And Other Fun Stuff)

Comments

Leave a Comment