Thoughts on this Ebay Morgan 1892-o proof

sweetwilliet · June 24, 2009 11:50AM

I was searching ebay and saw this morgan up for sale. I am not interested in buying it, but wanted some opinions from the forum on it. Anyone heard of an 1892-o proof? I think there are 3 branch mint proofs known, could there be others? As said in the description, PCGS did not designate it as a proof.

1892-o Proof Morgan

Also, isn't the seller a forum member?

Edited to add 1892-o proof to title

morgandollar1878 · June 24, 2009 11:56AM

No its not proof, but it looks like a cleaned PL, and no there are no 1892-O proofs

coinkid855 · June 24, 2009 12:04PM

Edited: I didn't realize this was a forum member's auction....I'd like to see his explanation for the auction...

-Paul

doh · June 24, 2009 12:05PM

I'm sure Julian will be on at some point to explain his position.

MsMorrisine · June 24, 2009 12:14PM

like to hear more of the story behind this one

"(92 - Cleaned)"

newb question: once cleaned sufficiently... even if it was a proof at one time, couldn't cleaning remove the evidence of it once being a proof?

I guess... in other words.... now that it is slabbed as cleaned, isn't it possible that 1) "one would never know it was a proof" and 2) there is a point where one could ask "how can you be sure it was a proof since it was so cleaned?"

Wolf359 · June 24, 2009 12:40PM

<< I was searching ebay and saw this morgan up for sale. I am not interested in buying it, but wanted some opinions from the forum on it. Anyone heard of an 1892-o proof? I think there are 3 branch mint proofs known, could there be others? As said in the description, PCGS did not designate it as a proof.

1892-o Proof Morgan

Also, isn't the seller a forum member?

Edited to add 1892-o proof to title >>

And to think, I was offered that coin at 14K a couple years ago. PCGS called it cleaned? It's not cleaned. I think it's their way of saying we are
ducking the question!!!

Wolf359 · June 24, 2009 12:41PM

<< No its not proof, but it looks like a cleaned PL, and no there are no 1892-O proofs >>

No offense, but in hand (and I've held it raw) - it's a proof.

Impossible, I know.

dragon · June 24, 2009 12:44PM

From looking at the Ebay sellers pics my opinion is that 1892-O is definately not a branch mint proof or any type of special specimen coin, but rather a whizzed business strike coin.

pheh · June 24, 2009 12:48PM

I'll pre-assume that the obverse and reverse don't match any known dies. Has Leroy seen it? I'd sure be interested to know more than is in the eBay description.

And no offense to the seller, but I wouldn't think your average customer would have any interest in this coin without being given significantly more information. I'm sure the listing is as much just to show to coin off as anything, but it comes off as self-defeating to me. Worse, many could read it and just consider it a grudge listing against PCGS.

Wolf359 · June 24, 2009 1:11PM

<< From looking at the Ebay sellers pics my opinion is that 1892-O is definately not a branch mint proof or any type of special specimen coin, but rather a whizzed business strike coin. >>

dragon, you are clueless. This coin has been known and around as a proof for a couple years. It's been traded privately between some very
high end dealers. It's not a whizzed business strike.

Wolf359 · June 24, 2009 1:13PM

Oh, I'll add this. It came out of a 65 DMPL holder.

dragon · June 24, 2009 1:16PM

<<< dragon, you are clueless. >>>

Well wolfy........ maybe one day I"ll be as smart as you, but until then is PCGS also clueless for putting it in a 'genuine' holder?

anablep · June 24, 2009 1:16PM

Hurry!

At only $99,750, these are going fast!

Seriously:
It looks proof, but PCGS sure is suspicious. I wonder if the seller can enlighten us with better pictures or an explanation of its existence...

Shortgapbob · June 24, 2009 1:17PM

I will also say that this is a known coin and that there are other branch Mint Morgans that owners have fought or been fighting to get into proof holders. Some are simply graded Mint State (as this was originally was), and others are given a designation like Specimen.

stinkinlincoln · June 24, 2009 1:19PM

Its listed on his site as well. I saw it listed there last week sometime.

SeattleSlammer · June 24, 2009 1:19PM

Sure as heck looks like a proof.

Wolf359 · June 24, 2009 1:20PM

<< <<< dragon, you are clueless. >>>

Well wolfy........ maybe one day I"ll be as smart as you, but until then is PCGS also clueless for putting it in a 'genuine' holder? >>

And maybe one day you'll read what I already posted about PCGS and it's grading of this coin.

MirroredBucks · June 24, 2009 1:34PM

I would also like to heqar Julian's explanation of his attribution.

The coin does not appear to have an obvious cleaning from the photos. On first glance (and because the rim is obscured), I would say that this coin is not a proof.

The 92-O is among the rarest of prooflike Morgan Dollars. I think it is vastly underpriced relative to its rarity. I purchased the ANACS 58-PL out of Heritage's sale of the Diamond Head Collection and crossed the coin to NGC at the same grade. Here are links to Heritage's photos:

1892-O Obverse
1892-O Reverse

Coxe helped me with the VAM attribution (VAM-3, the most "common" PL die pair for this date). Coxe said there were other 92-O die pairs with known PL coins. Perhaps he can chime in if he is out there. The 92-O that he sold (PCGS 64-DMPL) is awesome. It is halfway down the page below:

1892-O PCGS 64 DMPL and other Significant PL Morgan Dollars

pheh · June 24, 2009 1:42PM

Breen lists an 1892-O branch mint proof. The way I understand it, the argument would be that there was at least one denomination set of these made - though there is no known record.

Barber's design took over in 1892 so the dime, quarter and half dollar certainly make sense - and (at least according to NGC) the dime and half dollar exist.

Someone feel free to chime in with some more in depth data.

MrEureka · June 24, 2009 1:42PM

I've seen the coin in person. I don't know if the coin's a "real proof", but it's just as proof as the 95-O and 96-O Morgans that have been certified as SP and PR on various occasions. (Julian - Have you tried NGC?)

DennisH · June 24, 2009 1:46PM

It sure looks like something special in terms of striking, and I don't mean DMPL.

AndyMac · June 24, 2009 1:48PM

It strikes me as odd that someone would sell a Morgan of that caliber and also sell SGS slabbed coins.

UtahCoin · June 24, 2009 1:50PM

I would think that for that much $$$, the pictures could sure be better.....

Julian · June 24, 2009 1:52PM

I have had a long history of discovering & handling Branch Mint Proof Morgan's, starting with the Bruce Todd 1893-CC, that I sold to him and the Bergen 1883-O that I sold to Wayne Miller. One of the most important assets to a numismatist is intuition. This has aided me many times over my 40+ year career.

David Hall and John Dannreuther have both told me that the only way that they would consider encapsulating this as a proof would be if a contemporary article or mint document spoke to the fact that the New Orleans Mint had struck a proof coin.

I do not have that documentation, but believe me, this coin is a proof striking.

FYI, I do not believe that PCGS has encapsulated many special numismatic items for exactly the same reason. There is no contemporary documentation for any of them.

I am not angry with them. They are my colleagues.

We just have different opinions.

TwoSides2aCoin · June 24, 2009 1:52PM

<< It strikes me as odd that someone would sell a Morgan of that caliber and also sell SGS slabbed coins. >>

Yeah, that would be like having a beer with QDB or somethin'.

Shortgapbob · June 24, 2009 1:53PM

<< It strikes me as odd that someone would sell a Morgan of that caliber and also sell SGS slabbed coins. >>

All dealers get this kind of material in just by buying enough collections. It has to be sold somehow. The specific grades or SGS is not mentioned anywhere in the auction, and it is obvious that the coins are not being hyped up, just sold for what they are.

Julian · June 24, 2009 1:54PM

<< It strikes me as odd that someone would sell a Morgan of that caliber and also sell SGS slabbed coins. >>

I have a coin store and purchase all coins from two cent wheat cents and inexpensive foreign up to the most exotic of numismatic rarities, my icon included.

TwoSides2aCoin · June 24, 2009 1:58PM

Julian, you know my beer comment was just to whet a whistle.
Thank you for responding. I got to the party just a second too late.

a039 · June 24, 2009 2:10PM

If Julian says its a Proof, its most likely a Proof.

DennisH · June 24, 2009 2:24PM

<< If Julian says its a Proof, its most likely a Proof. >>

I agree.

al410 · June 24, 2009 2:34PM

There is no way I know enough to comment about proof or not, but I am glad I was able to see those pictures, absolutely beautiful!
AL

soty27 · June 24, 2009 3:37PM

Hmm! The seller in question is a VERY knowledgeable about these types of coins. At first glance from a photo it would simply appear to be a whizzed coin hence the genuine slab. If it was in a 65 dmpl slab why is it in a genuine slab now? Either way it wont sell for that amount site unseen obviously. Without it being in a proof slab its simply seen as a genuine common morgan. To bad you didnt have proof of some sort from the mint. I would side with the seller in this case as I think he knows what he is talking about, but the fact is it wont sell at that price in its current slab.

stinkinlincoln · June 24, 2009 4:03PM

<<David Hall and John Dannreuther have both told me that the only way that they would consider encapsulating this as a proof would be if a contemporary article or mint document spoke to the fact that the New Orleans Mint had struck a proof coin. >>

To me, I dont get how a coin like this: PCGS Proof N.O coin gets in this slab, but yet yours needs documentation to verify this mint struck proofs. ISnt the fact that some proof coins were struck?

commoncents05 · June 24, 2009 4:26PM

<< To me, I dont get how a coin like this: PCGS Proof N.O coin gets in this slab, but yet yours needs documentation to verify this mint struck proofs. ISnt the fact that some proof coins were struck?
>>

PCGS didn't designate it Proof, but Specimen. For branch mint proofs, PCGS would grade it "PRxxBM" on the label, like this 1838-O Half.

-Paul

stinkinlincoln · June 24, 2009 4:45PM

My example wasnt as good as yours, but thats what Im talking about. Obviously the New Orleans Mint struck proof coinage. Why require a contemporary article or mint document that speaks to the fact that the New Orleans Mint had struck a proof coin? They already slabbed an N.O. Mint proof coin...

TorinoCobra71 · June 25, 2009 12:46AM

<< Oh, I'll add this. It came out of a 65 DMPL holder. >>

Why the heck didnt it stay where it was at!?!?!?!?!?!?

BlindedByEgo · June 25, 2009 12:52AM

<< <<< dragon, you are clueless. >>>

Well wolfy........ maybe one day I"ll be as smart as you, but until then is PCGS also clueless for putting it in a 'genuine' holder? >>

Clueless.

sweetwilliet · June 25, 2009 12:55AM

<< 

<< Oh, I'll add this. It came out of a 65 DMPL holder. >>

Why the heck didnt it stay where it was at!?!?!?!?!?!?

>>

I wonder whose holder it was in at 65dmpl, may make a differnce.

Julian · June 25, 2009 12:59AM

I never saw the coin in a holder. I purchased the coin, au naturel, or raw, in the vernacular!!

pheh · June 25, 2009 1:14AM

<< 

<< Oh, I'll add this. It came out of a 65 DMPL holder. >>

Why the heck didnt it stay where it was at!?!?!?!?!?!?

>>

Because the owner wanted it in a PR holder?

@Julian - I never thought you intended any malice toward PCGS in your listing. I am merely stating that to the average viewer of that eBay listing it could certainly appear that you do. There flatly isn't enough information in the listing to allow for anyone uneducated about that piece, or other 1892-O BMPs, to appreciate the coin. Heck - since it is in a Genuine holder crack it, and retake some decent pictures. If you want to sell the notion that it is a PR strike to people that can't physically hold the coin then take some magnified shots of the surfaces.

Otherwise, I still really don't get the point of the eBay listing (other than the chatter it has generated here

).

Sunnywood · June 25, 2009 1:16AM

For comparison, here is the reverse of the Eliasberg coin, which is considered the finest known 1892-O Morgan (and it's the only one ever certified MS67 by either service).

You can see the details are fully struck up on the reverse, but the fields are decidedly satiny. If this coin were dipped (heaven forbid), there would be contrast between the devices and the fields, but the fields would not be mirrored.

Here is the obverse of the Eliasberg coin, which is presumed to have been an Assay Commission specimen and an early striking - yet it too is not fully struck up over the ear:

The appearance of Julian's '92-O reminds me of the Eliasberg '93-O, which is a monster PCGS MS66PL different from and superior to all others, but is not considered a proof. Still, it must have been some sort of special striking. The Eliasberg '93-O is in pristine undipped condition; unfortunately Julian's '92-O is not quite in that state of preservation, but it is an interesting coin.

Sunnywood

ChrisRx · June 25, 2009 1:52AM

blu62vette · June 25, 2009 3:13AM

Here is my thought: I would love to see that coin and hope he still has it at the ANA.

Smittys · June 25, 2009 3:15AM

I think I would pay for trueview pics on this

MsMorrisine · June 25, 2009 4:01AM

<< 

<< I was searching ebay and saw this morgan up for sale. I am not interested in buying it, but wanted some opinions from the forum on it. Anyone heard of an 1892-o proof? I think there are 3 branch mint proofs known, could there be others? As said in the description, PCGS did not designate it as a proof.

1892-o Proof Morgan

Also, isn't the seller a forum member?

Edited to add 1892-o proof to title >>

And to think, I was offered that coin at 14K a couple years ago. PCGS called it cleaned? It's not cleaned. I think it's their way of saying we are
ducking the question!!! >>

Hmmmm...... moral dilemmas....

labeling a coin as "Cleaned" just to get rid of it would taint PCGS' name, imo. That's a bad way to punt this problem away.
There's other ways, but all involve "Fee Refunds":
86 No Opinion - our experts are unable to determine a coin's authenticity. Fee refunded
87 Not Eligible For Service Selected - the coin is too valuable for the chosen service level. Fee refunded
96 No Service - coins we do not certify (i.e. medals, some privately made issues, etc.) or cannot certify (i.e. over-sized coins). Fee Refunded.

Leaving it in a holder with a cert that shows "Cleaned" and "Genuine" with an explanation that it's just PCGS' way of avoiding the proof issue might leave some wondering about PCGS or the seller or both.

If one truly believes it is not cleaned, I would think that having PCGS correct the mistake would be supremely important on such a valuable coin. Additionally, cracking it out and selling it, while thinking "cleaned" is a mistake on PCGS' part, would likely give the appearances to some that the seller is potentially selling a coin with a problem.

Just throwing ideas out there for discussion.... most people on here know I'm a newb. Sounds like many trust Julian and he has been in biz for years... I'm just tossing ideas out there, that's all.

messydesk · June 25, 2009 4:14AM

The coin is what it is. It is a genuine 1892-O with an appearance like no other such that it requires contemporary documentation to confirm its suspected method of manufacture. You just can't fit all that on a slab insert.

messydesk · June 26, 2009 5:08AM

I took a look at the coin today. It is truly something special, documentation or no. The fields are flat, smooth, and shiny, and the detail that is fully struck up is extremely sharp. I'm currently unclear whether it is VAM 8, 11, or 17, as it has a doubled profile and doubling on the 1 in the date. I asked Julian if he counted the reeds before submitting, as a count other than 181 would show that it was struck on a different from the other 92-O coins, but he didn't. Thanks for showing me, Julian.

Also, was the "question to seller" posted by someone here to yank his chain?

sweetwilliet · June 26, 2009 7:23AM

<< I took a look at the coin today. It is truly something special, documentation or no. The fields are flat, smooth, and shiny, and the detail that is fully struck up is extremely sharp. I'm currently unclear whether it is VAM 8, 11, or 17, as it has a doubled profile and doubling on the 1 in the date. I asked Julian if he counted the reeds before submitting, as a count other than 181 would show that it was struck on a different from the other 92-O coins, but he didn't. Thanks for showing me, Julian.

Also, was the "question to seller" posted by someone here to yank his chain? >>

I wish I could jump over and look at the coin as well, but I'm a little too far. Maybe one day at a show.

Anyone want to try and count the reeds from the pics?

Connecticoin · June 26, 2009 8:04AM

<< 

<< I was searching ebay and saw this morgan up for sale. I am not interested in buying it, but wanted some opinions from the forum on it. Anyone heard of an 1892-o proof? I think there are 3 branch mint proofs known, could there be others? As said in the description, PCGS did not designate it as a proof.

1892-o Proof Morgan

Also, isn't the seller a forum member?

Edited to add 1892-o proof to title >>

And to think, I was offered that coin at 14K a couple years ago. PCGS called it cleaned? It's not cleaned. I think it's their way of saying we are
ducking the question!!! >>

That does seem strange. If it were indeed a proof, would it be considered an impaired proof?

Unknown · June 26, 2009 8:40AM

This content has been removed.

messydesk · June 26, 2009 1:22PM

<< That does seem strange. If it were indeed a proof, would it be considered an impaired proof? >>

The term "impaired proof" typically means circulated, rather than cleaned. Even so, it would also be "officially" considered a unique coin and join the ranks of branch mint proofs of other dates.

Thoughts on this Ebay Morgan 1892-o proof

Comments

Leave a Comment