Options
Proof Bust Quarters Experts - Help Needed Please!
JustMakesCents
Posts: 319 ✭✭✭
See "Update" section to see photos. Sorry it has taken so long to get them taken.
First, I apologize for the lack of pictures, hope to get some soon.
So, I take in a estate consignment to appraise and in one box is 8x10 custom made Capital Plastics Holder. In the holder is one 1835 Bust Quarter with definite proof-like qualities. On the Holder is printed the following:
1835
Bust Quarter
Proof
B - 1
4 Specimens Known
The following description follows on the holder also:
High 3, Coarse Dentils. Reverse leftover die of 1834 B-3, Period after C., Crack joins "STA" and through field above head to wing and "RIC".
(1) Newcomb, (2) Clapp, Eliasberg, (3) Neil: 907, C.F. Parmelee: 1048, (4) Crystal Coin Inc. Use of an old cracked die for proofs is unusual.
This specimen does indeed have all of the characteristics described above with the obverse toned with blues and reds and the reverse untoned. Heritage shows only one 1834 Proof Quarter in their history and it does not match this coin's attributes.
Anyone on the boards specialize in this area and can lend a hand to verify attribution?
Thanks,
Jeff
Update
Not the best, but here are some photos of the coin and holder:
Obverse showing detail:
Obverse showing color:
Reverse showing detail:
Reverse showing reflectivity:
Custom made holder:
Comments welcome and appreciated!
Jeff
First, I apologize for the lack of pictures, hope to get some soon.
So, I take in a estate consignment to appraise and in one box is 8x10 custom made Capital Plastics Holder. In the holder is one 1835 Bust Quarter with definite proof-like qualities. On the Holder is printed the following:
1835
Bust Quarter
Proof
B - 1
4 Specimens Known
The following description follows on the holder also:
High 3, Coarse Dentils. Reverse leftover die of 1834 B-3, Period after C., Crack joins "STA" and through field above head to wing and "RIC".
(1) Newcomb, (2) Clapp, Eliasberg, (3) Neil: 907, C.F. Parmelee: 1048, (4) Crystal Coin Inc. Use of an old cracked die for proofs is unusual.
This specimen does indeed have all of the characteristics described above with the obverse toned with blues and reds and the reverse untoned. Heritage shows only one 1834 Proof Quarter in their history and it does not match this coin's attributes.
Anyone on the boards specialize in this area and can lend a hand to verify attribution?
Thanks,
Jeff
Update
Not the best, but here are some photos of the coin and holder:
Obverse showing detail:
Obverse showing color:
Reverse showing detail:
Reverse showing reflectivity:
Custom made holder:
Comments welcome and appreciated!
Jeff
0
Comments
actually Elwood (Steve) might be able to help ... please keep us informed
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
That's because there are so few of them. ( Probably less than 20 or so quarters from ALL the bust dates.)
There is very little research available, but from what I have seen and read, it was not unusual back then for them to
use whatever dies were available at the time they were requested. (it didn't really matter if the die(s) were
cracked.) They just polished up what die they had and struck up 1 or 2 proofs, or maybe a set - depending on
they "occasion".
Here are a couple pics of an 1836 Browning 2. (using different lighting techniques)
Thanks for the reply. Yea, I guess asking for an "expert" was a little aggressive. Thanks for posting pictures of yours, it looks quite nice!
Jeff
I bought the B1 proof out of the Eliasberg sale and although it was nicely reflective both obverse and reverse and it slabbed proof 64 at NGC, I was never totally convinced that it was a true proof. The texture of the proof surfaces in the fields was just not as convincing as some of the other early proofs that I have owned and the use of a cracked reverse die seems to contradict the purpose and definition of a true specimen coin.
I would love to see images of the coin in question and defer to Joe as a true expert on early proof coinage. In fact it was Joes opinion/confirmation that led to my purchase of the 1829 proof half dime in the first Eliasberg sale.
This is exciting! I hope to see images soon. As far as determining if you have a proof or a well-struck prooflike coin..........well, that will always be a matter of opinion. PCGS will certify early proofs that are traceable to a famous collection (i.e. Eliasberg). A purported proof that just "falls from the sky" is much more difficult to get certified as a proof, regardless of its proof characteristics, at least in my experience. Did your consignor provide any provenance information? What were the other coins in the consignment like?
I can't wait to read more. I'm looking forward to the photos.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
I know I've seen very few bust coins that I would consider true proofs. (even certified ones with a proof designation) Many, I think, are just early strikings.
Certain dates and certain varieties just come proofy. So, I think it has to do more with the quality of the die and not that they were specially made proof strikings.
Browning only lists 2 known proofs for the date. The Newcomb and the Eliasberg coin.
I don't track proofs and am no expert. Hope my opinion helps.
I would like to see a pic.
Edited to make a correction...2 known proofs for the variety not the date, sorry!!
<< <i>One of my older photos, so please excuse the quality >>
"Awesome"!! Very nice job!!
Ed. S.
(EJS)
siliconvalleycoins.com
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
It is a semi-prooflike business strike. The only way PCGS or NGC would grade it as a proof is if you could prove that it was struck by the mint as such. To do that you would need key documentation/evidence and/or a rock solid provenance (with pictures or a thorough description).
It is a nice coin though. I like it!
Anybody have any links to auction archives of proof quarters. I woul like to learn a little more.
Thanks
Ron
2) The only way PCGS or NGC would grade it as a proof is if you could prove that it was struck by the mint as such. To do that you would need key documentation/evidence and/or a rock solid provenance (with pictures or a thorough description). - What passes for knowledge on here is scary.
Joe, not quite sure what you meant by your comment above, but I stand by what I posted. Note that I stated, after seeing the images, that the coin in question is a "semi-prooflike business strike". So we agree. There's no question about that.
My follow-up statement was made in regard to my actual experience with early proofs in general (not the 1835 quarter that was posted). There are plenty of examples of early bust coins being described in auction catalogs as proofs, but not being certified as such, due to insufficient evidence to justify a proof designation. It works the other way too (i.e. coins previously described as prooflike being certified as proofs). Some prooflike early coins are well-stuck and could be proofs, but getting a TGP to do so is not an easy task. Conversely, there are some early proofs in holders that are only slightly p/l, yet they have been slabbed due to lobbying by the submitter and backed by sufficient documentation (i.e. provenance, research notes, etc.). I have been down this road a few times myself with bust dimes, half dimes and half dollars.
Here is an excerpt from the 1/2007 Heritage sale of the 1829 O-107 Proof Half:
The problem facing numismatic researchers trying to establish a proof census of early issues, such as this, is the existence of deceptive prooflike examples and the willingness of earlier catalogers to describe such pieces as proof coins. Many past auction offerings describe coins as proofs when they are clearly just prooflike business strikes. In today's world of certified coins, the problems in proper attribution of proof coins have largely been eliminated, although there can still be differences of opinion. In some cases, it is only the price that a buyer is willing to pay that provides a clue. For example, the 1829 O-111 in the Eliasberg catalog was called a proof by Henry Chapman in 1912, yet was described as a prooflike business strike by Bowers in the 1997 sale of that collection. The coin, which was graded MS63 prooflike, realized nearly $30,000, suggesting that at least two prospective buyers both felt that it is a proof.
Here's a description that I wrote for Heritage (I am a consultant) regarding the same half:
1829 Small Letters PF66 NGC. The Pittman specimen. O-107, R.3 for the variety yet widely considered unique as a proof. Early Federal coinage specialists generally agree that so-called proofs dated before 1832 are not proofs in the technical sense. Evidence to support this opinion is plentiful. Take the 1829 proof halves as an example. Four proofs are known to exist, yet each proof is from a different die marriage. Furthermore, the strikes of the proofs are usually comparable to business strike examples of the same die variety and some display die cracks, the result of having been struck from damaged dies. Consider this coin as a paradigm; stars 6 and 7 lack substantial detail and a die crack is noted to the right of the final digit in the date, connecting the border to the curl. Since 1829 is a date within the series known to come well struck, the proof designation is applied solely in consideration of the mirrored surfaces.
So, are the early proofs actually early strikes from new dies or recently serviced business strike dies? What was the coiner’s intention when the supposed early proofs were struck? Lacking contemporary documentation, or other previously unreported evidence, there will always be a difference of opinion on the proper nomenclature to be used when describing early proofs. Regardless, sentiments converge when presented with a specimen such as this coin. Semantics become secondary and numismatists focus their attention on the astounding aesthetic qualities and consummate state of preservation.
The seemingly flawless mirrored fields contrast beautifully with the frosted devices, though they are slightly subdued by the bold toning observed on both sides. Electric-blue peripheral toning impressively frames a blend of lilac-gray color throughout. Gold iridescence clings to the central design details. The result is a truly remarkable coin, superior to most early proof half dollars, and ready to amaze the most discriminating of aficionados. Proof or simply prooflike, this Premium Gem is extraordinary and belongs to a fraternity shared by few other early Federal halves.
Thomas Elder (10/1912); Hillyer Ryder (1945); Wayte Raymond; New Netherlands (50th Sale, 12/1957), lot 588; John Jay Pittman (David Akers, 5/1998), lot 1491; American Numismatic Rarities (1/2004), lot 1473, Heritage (1/2007), lot 974.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Somebody got taken.
I don't think so. The OP stated that this is a consignment. Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds as if the consignor had the holder made for the 1835 quarter based on his opinion that it was a proof. The text of the holder is simply a verbatim copy from Breen's book on proof coinage, except that another coin was added to the list (#4, presumably the consignor). JustMakesCents, the OP, exercised due diligence by trying to verify the claim on the Capital holder, which is commendable. It is my understanding that this coin has never been sold as a proof.
For the record, I absolutely agree with everyone else in this thread that the coin posted is a business strike. It is B-1, which is known in proof. I think that the person who put it into the custom holder got excited when he read Breen's info on this date and he talked himself into believing it was a proof. It happens.
Joe, truly no offense, but I think that you are responding before completely reading what has been posted. My point was that even if a coin looks like a proof, it doesn't guarantee that it would be certified as a proof today. I never insinuated that the bust quarter in this thread was a proof. Again, my comment was with regard to any "proof" that is pre-1832, even ones that have deep mirrors and a nice strike. I am not quite sure why the tone of your posts seem so negative and unfriendly. We can have a constructive discussion on coins that is friendly in nature, can't we?
As for pedigree, simply look at an Eliasberg or Garrett catalaogue, impressive enough pedigrees, and you will find coins catalogued as Proof that are not considered to be Proofs today.
I stated the same thought in my post above. I used the Eliasberg 1829 O-111 Half that Chapman cataloged as a proof in 1912, but B&M cataloged as a prooflike business strike in the Eliasberg sale. It still sold for over $30,000. Again, my point is that if you have an early coin that looks like a proof, it can be difficult to get it certified as such. I have experienced this first hand! Sometimes pedigree and documentation helps. Unfortunately, there are examples of early type certified as proofs that should not be and, conversely, coins certified as business strikes that should be in proof holders. In the end, it is really just a matter of opinion and semantics become the basis of friendly debates on the subject.
However, since this issue in proof is out of the ordinary, documentation should be required to determine if proofs were struck at all. If proofs were struck, this is one of them.
You also stated that there "are enough 1820s coins that are no question Proofs to raise the bar on what is or isn't a proof much higher than most pseudo-proof owners would like". Unfortunately for that argument, there is not documentation stating that proofs were struck in the 1820s. In fact, the term "proof" was not even used by the U.S. Mint until the 1850s. Prior to that, they were referred to as "master coin" or "specimen". So, what is a "proof"? Well, that is a topic of discussion that can be complicated, but I did include some basic thoughts in my post above.
Other coins are questionable though, yet they are certified as proofs anyway. Take the 1838 Pittman 25C in PCGS PR66. It is not a hammered strike and the weakness in the stars and hair make you scratch your head. Do I think that it is a "proof". Yes, but let us just agree that it is one heck of a coin and the price is really what matters at the end of the day.
I sold an 1829 Dime (JR-7) in December '06 that traded hands as a proof several times over the years as a proof. To be accurate, it was previously purchased as a PR-60. It had recently been submitted to PCGS but they would not go with the proof designation, despite an effort by the submitter to prove that it was considered a proof by respected numismatists and at least one researcher. They put it into an MS-63 holder, although it was really closer to a 60. A bump for the mirrored fields and sharp strike, I presume.
Before you respond to the first paragraph, please consider the one-sided proofs of that era. Should they be certified as proofs? They don't meet your requirements, yet they were struck to order, or at least we assume so.
I buy and sell these based upon what I see, not on misinformation that some lazy cataloguer plagiarized or dreamed up for the benefit of their consignor. I just sold the 1822 10c PCGS PR66 and 1822 50c PCGS PR65. Neither coin needed documentation to justify its "proof" or "master coin" manufacture. Both were struck on fresh dies with glassy, planar fields, and both were struck unlike any business strike of their type. That's what made them "proof", not their impressive pedigrees nor supporting documentation.
I was just reading Karl Moulton's new book, Henry Voigt and Others Involved With America's Early Coinage, and remembered this thread. Here's an excerpt from page 142:
The early prooflike pieces, which today are improperly labeled "specimen", "presentation piece", or "proof" (even one-sided) are the first few freshly polished (or re-lapped) circulation strikes minted regardless of what any so-called expert suggest, or labels that some grading service may place on a plastic slab. There were no "proof only" dies created; plus, there is no shred of contemporary evidence or documentation, official or otherwise, to validate these modern promotional terminologies currently used on distinctive looking United States coins minted prior to 1828 when the close collar was utilized.
My research uncovered that the coin in question came from the James B Longacre estate sale held by M. Thomas & Sons in Philadelphia in January of 1870. As most of us here know, Longacre was the designer of the Liberty Head Double Eagles, along with many other coins.
The coin in question was catalogued as a proof (because of the reflective surfaces) as were three 1848 CAL gold quarter eagles. However, it was also mentioned in the lot description that the 1850 DE came from the first dies used. It's not out of the realm of possibility that it was the very first regular production Double Eagle struck and given to Longacre. He may even have purchased it at face value - we don't know. However, at the time that it was struck, gold was very plentiful at the Philly Mint.
Early proofs are quite subjective based on vague qualifiers, which were enhanced greatly by Walter Breen in his writings. Trouble with Breen is that he created his own numismatic history to support his twisted assertations - especially when it came to early proofs.
Regardless of the stand one takes, everyone must remember that there is absolutely no United States Mint validation or documentary evidence to support any coinage being labeled today as being a "proof" if it was minted prior to the 1850s.
In a 2002 article about 1827/3/2 Bust Quarters apearing in Rare Coin Review, I suggested that a group of numismatic scholars should get together to create exacting qualifiers to label these early coins, of special fabric, as "Master Coins". John Dannreuther told me that PCGS was already committed to utilizing the Proof nomenclature and didn't want to add Master Coin to it's designations.
This suggestion will always be open until action gets taken to correct the situation. After all, "Master Coins" was the first designation used for American coin terminology. This term first saw print in 1846 in W E DuBois' book titled "Pledges of History", which was a description of the coins in the U S Mint Cabinet - officially begun in 1838.
For those who don't wish to accept the term Master Coin, it needs to be pointed out that this was used by the Officers of the U S Mint before the classifications of Good, Very Good, Fine, Very Fine, Extremely Fine, About Uncirculated, and Mint State, which are grading terminologies originating from coin dealers.
but the bottom line is a "Proof" is a method of manufacture!
Specially prepared dies, double struck with increase pressure in a close collar environment.
I agree with numisma in the quote from Moulton's "Henry Voigt and Others Involved With America's Early Coinage"
The early proof like pieces, which today are improperly labeled "specimen", "presentation piece", or "proof" (even one-sided) are the first few freshly polished (or re-lapped) circulation strikes minted regardless of what any so-called expert suggest, or labels that some grading service may place on a plastic slab. There were no "proof only" dies created; plus, there is no shred of contemporary evidence or documentation, official or otherwise, to validate these modern promotional terminologies currently used on distinctive looking United States coins minted prior to 1828 when the close collar was utilized.
And yes, there are some damn fine Lady Liberty's out there, but not proofs.
First strikes PL's, yes!
numisma
..."Evidence to support this opinion is plentiful. Take the 1829 proof halves as an example.
Four proofs are known to exist, yet each proof is from a different die marriage."
I don't think the mint would prepare four sets of dies to strike a couple of coins! Do you?
There are a few other things that one may think about here.
One is simple, in fact maybe even unthought of in our time because of the
ready availability of the product today.
How would the Mint prepare specially polished dies?
Well they may have burnished them!
But they certainly didn't use a machine cloth (like sandpaper)!
It wasn't invented by that time!
Sand coated paper for wood or cleaning, yes, 1808.
Wire brush, no...1850's
They possibly could have taken some very fine abrasive stone and machined them in a lathe,
but that would leave a circular finish.
Since the dies themselves were slightly concave you really couldn't achieve a flat surface to polish.
Then with all the problems in die sinking, the making of each die, you know no two are alike...
hub depths were different and the open collar just to get the metal to move in this style of die.
You gave the example of the Beautiful Pittman coin, I've seen it and it is nice, but not a proof.
Heritage sold a Proof 1827 half for $60K, but that isn't a proof, Early First strike Proof- like, yes.
The PL characteristics last for the first 10 to 20 coins of a given die then it is gone.
So one of the reasons for the one sided Bust half coins.
So just my thoughts on this subject, this is a very good use of a forum thread.
Thanks for posting it.
Mike
This mild abrasive provided chemical reactions to other cleaning agents (muratic acid was used at the time) and explains how the first production coins issued in the 1790s were later labeled as being "proof".
This information is found in Henry Voigt's daily account ledger found in the National Archives in Philadelphia and reprinted in part in my Henry Voigt book.
I'm not quite following your statement on Proof!
Are you saying that a soultion ( muratic acid and salt ) on the planchets and dies for cleaning was called proofing?
As in that operation, or something else?
This was the burnishing process utilized at the time, and helped create the prooflike reflective surface on the finished coins. It wasn't necessarily the amount of polish on the dies.
Burnishing is defined as "To polish smooth, or to make glossy by or as if by rubbing. A smooth glossy finish or appearance".
The timeframe between 1854 and 1859 found the usage of the terms "proof" and "master coins" interchangeable and used by James R. Snowden, the Director of the Mint. After that, the coin dealers used the term proof in the auction catalogues if the surfaces looked like a real proof. This was a commercial endeavor not related to facts. They (the coin dealers and cataloguers) never utilized the term "master coin" at all. That's why we have this incorrect terminology today.
The above information comes from the 19th century American auction catalogues, over 1000 different, in my reference library; along with citations from recent literature sales.
You say... and also on the dies before the polish was applied, this is what I was saying...how did they polish the dies?
I understand the cleaning process or the planchets and dies.
But as for specially prepared dies as in the striking of "Proof" coinage there wasn't any!
Until the new steam press arrives and striking in a closed collar is done.
I believe the mint had enough problems with the steel and die manufacture.
Looking at what records that I find that are available you only see deposits taken in
and exchanged coinage given out.
With no [n]"Special Orders" taken for special master coins til the 1804 proof sets were produced.
I completely agree that there were no specially prepared dies for making "proofs" or "master coins" before the close collar came into production. Master coins were simply nice examples of the first ones struck from the dies.
There are numerous prooflike, first strikes found in all denominations. Some were the result of re-lapping the dies (perhaps with emery?). Some are well struck, others are not.
There are no extant (if they existed in the first place) technological accounts relating to the production of early U S coinage. There's nothing from Voigt or Eckfeldt that describes what they did, how they did it, and if running production changes were made, what they were. This is truly unfortunate!
I don't know of any contemporary account in the U S Mint records in the NARA office in Philly which accurately explains how they even polished the dies before striking. That's a good question that could use an answer. I'm sure there is one available as most every Mint in the world was producing well struck, reflective surface coinage by then.
Can anyone else provide some insights?
As in my first post, ...There are a few other things that one may think about here.
One is simple, in fact maybe even unthought of in our time because of the
ready availability of the product today.
Coated abrasives weren't invented yet !
as to your "...(perhaps with emery?).
What may possibly be a truer fact, is they did nothing to the fresh surface of the dies (other than clean them)!
The hubbing of the production dies may have left a fresh and smooth surface.
Without the need of polish, the only other work would have been the stamping of the remainder
of the details ( date, stars & letters) but some additional engraving work was also preformed.
The stripes in the shield, strengthening the hair details.
You said "...I'm sure there is one available as most every Mint in the world was producing well struck,
reflective surface coinage by then."
That's why I had mentioned burnishing of the dies earlier.
Mike
Emery was often made in a powdered substance, and may have been used as a final rubbing compound on the dies (possibly mixed with something else).
It didn't necessarily have to be coated on paper. As SGFM states, "coated abrasives weren't invented yet".
However, this is only a theory that could use additional research.
The proof/bs/master coin argument will never be fully worked out...mainly due to the fact that there is money to be made. The disclosure of the fact that proofs were not made by the early mint would take away quite a bit of the romance and possibly the some of the demand.
A PL first strike might not be nearly as attractive to a uninformed collector because that collector places much of the worth on what he thinks is a very very small mintage.
My opinion is that there were certainly master coins struck and that it was the intent of the mint to produce them. The occasion for minting could be very formal (and perhaps traceable) or on the sly, similar to 94-S dimes (and therefore very hard to trace regarding intent).
There were also pieces that were the first strikes from lapped or new dies that the mint had no intention of making as "master coins".
What is ridiculous is that some of the former are improperly designated as MS and some of the latter improperly designated as proof. (This is aside from the improper designation of any bust era coin as proof versus mastercoin as discussed by firstmint).
This has been done mainly due to who was arguing the case to the grading services and how "convincing" a person was at the time.
I find Joe's (somewhat combative) posts from earlier in the year interesting given my original premise that it will never be worked out because there is money to be made. Joe deals in many of these types of coins and therefore has a vested interest in the truth. The real rubber meets the road when a collector walks in with a new coin that is undocumented and wants to sell it raw as a proof. So Joe...and I am not trying to be combative...if you agreed it was a proof...would you lay down the cash for the coin raw?
John
siliconvalleycoins.com
siliconvalleycoins.com
<< <i>*crickets chirping* >>
John, the crickets are usually in full force with threads of this intensity. It is also my opinion that we have hit the research brick wall on the issue of early proofs. I know of several modern day researchers who have thoroughly examined documents in the National Archives, but nothing new seems to turn up, other than some of Karl's info included in his new book. Personally, I always check old newspapers and books for any references to early coinage, hoping to find something, but no luck so far. I do have many coin dealer references from the 1860s referring to proofs, with no mention of the term "master coin."