Options
The proof coinage of 1817
denga
Posts: 922 ✭✭✭
A small number of 1817 proof coins are known although there is some
controversy on whether they are in fact proofs as we understand the term
today.
It has been learned that President James Monroe visited the Mint on the
morning of June 7, 1817, and one has to wonder if the proofs were made
especially for him as a gift from Director Robert Patterson. It would have
been normal under such circumstances to present the President with
souvenirs of his visit and what better way than specially struck coins?
One could even imagine the President taking a hand in the process.
Denga
controversy on whether they are in fact proofs as we understand the term
today.
It has been learned that President James Monroe visited the Mint on the
morning of June 7, 1817, and one has to wonder if the proofs were made
especially for him as a gift from Director Robert Patterson. It would have
been normal under such circumstances to present the President with
souvenirs of his visit and what better way than specially struck coins?
One could even imagine the President taking a hand in the process.
Denga
0
Comments
Do the records state the purpose of the President's visit?
No, it was one stop on a trip through several states. The fact that the
published account of the tour specifically mentions the Mint indicates
that it was of a certain importance, however.
Denga
The old mint wasn't much of a place, so a memento of some sort would have been appropriate. As “specimen” or “master” coins, they would have been the best the little mint could do.
Unfortunately none of this is true.
As for President James Madison visiting Philadelhia in 1817 during his extensive good will tour after his inaguration, his itinerary was much publicized in the local newspapers along the east coast. Part of the reason for his making this extended tour was that the Presidential house in Washington was still being remodeled and reconstructed after the British Army burned it in 1814. During all of 1817, President Monroe was renting a house on "I" street near 20th in Washington until the first day of 1818 when the Monroe's had a gala grand opening of the newly painted "White House".
Just because the President made a visit to the Mint during a visit that included visiting other attractions in Philadelphia (such as the Liberty Bell a block or so away) doesn't mean that anything special in the way of coinage was produced, and it is incorrect to assume such notions, unless one wishes to create their own version of history (as was the case with Breen and others). It is likewise incorrect to call such early reflective coins "Proofs", which had been created at the US Mint with newly polished dies since the 1790s.
From the available evidence, the first American President to visit the US Mint and have coinage made by request, was John Tyler in 1843 when he ordered and received two sets of coinage. He kept one and the other went to his children's governess, Octavia McMurray.
Put yourself in the shoes of the Director.
The President is coming.
Should I make a nice gift for him and show off our best work, or should I just walk him around our cramped and dingy campus and send him on his way?
The fact that there is no documentation surrounding a gift SHOULD NOT preclude proceeding with a historical analysis on conjectural terms.
Sometimes if you go down this path you will find your confirmation later.
Breen wasn't stupid. He was probably smarter than all of us put together. If he believed something, there was a good reason for it. That doesn't mean that he was always right, or that documentation verified his belief. Or that he disclosed when he was proceeding on conjecture.
But it does mean one should be careful about outrightly dismissing his work as so much mythology.
The idea of the Philadelphia Mint first producing Proof coinage in 1817 was first put forth in print by William H Sheldon in his 1949 book Early American Cents, p.39. Although there is no credible validation for such a claim, the young Walter Breen accepted, believed, copied, and embellished this and made it a fact, by repeating it again in his proof coin book, which is not filled with facts.
Unfortunately none of this is true.
As for President James Madison visiting Philadelhia in 1817 during his extensive good will tour after his inaguration, his itinerary was much publicized in the local newspapers along the east coast. Part of the reason for his making this extended tour was that the Presidential house in Washington was still being remodeled and reconstructed after the British Army burned it in 1814. During all of 1817, President Monroe was renting a house on "I" street near 20th in Washington until the first day of 1818 when the Monroe's had a gala grand opening of the newly painted "White House".
Just because the President made a visit to the Mint during a visit that included visiting other attractions in Philadelphia (such as the Liberty Bell a block or so away) doesn't mean that anything special in the way of coinage was produced, and it is incorrect to assume such notions, unless one wishes to create their own version of history (as was the case with Breen and others). It is likewise incorrect to call such early reflective coins "Proofs", which had been created at the US Mint with newly polished dies since the 1790s.
From the available evidence, the first American President to visit the US Mint and have coinage made by request, was John Tyler in 1843 when he ordered and received two sets of coinage. He kept one and the other went to his children's governess, Octavia McMurray.
Apparently firstmint thinks that polite speculation is “to create their own version of history.” That William Sheldon
considered the 1817 pieces as proofs, in modern terminology, does not mean that he was wrong, only that
firstmint thinks so.
That the President would not have been honored in some way on his Mint visit defies logic. I merely suggested
that carefully struck coins were presented to him by Mint Director Patterson, which would have been the proper
way of marking his visit. It also defies common sense that coinage would not be ongoing during his visit so that
he would see all departments at work.
Denga
"Although there are no proofs before 1817, some of the early cents have a singularly lovely surface, as if the coiner had perhaps rubbed the planchet a lilttle on his leather apron before dropping it into the press." - William H. Sheldon, "Early American Cents"
If this is to be believed and accepted as a validation (or "polite speculation" that has since become accepted fact after numerous repeatings), then there's little I can do to change anyone's opinion of what took place in 1817 at the first US Mint in Philadelphia.
The true fact is that there were no proof coins struck in 1817, at least by that terminology. So let's at least try for accuracy and not presume that there are such things in the first place.
It's not that firstmint thinks so, but a reality coming from mint correspondence where these first strike coins were labelled as "Master-Coins" by William E. DuBois in 1846. DuBois was there and was among the longest lasting employees having worked continuously at the Mint from 1833 to 1881. He, nor anyone else, ever called the coins coming from the first US Mint as "Proofs".
That's the reality of the early proofs from the US Mint. However, each person is free to choose what he wants to accept and believe as being the truth. That's how and why there are disputes in this hobby. Regrettably, earlier researchers have embellished the the few facts to the distorted terminology that is seen today.
Yes, the President would have been given the "Grand Tour" of the small Mint upon his visit in 1817. To suggest (or speculate) that special coins were presented to him (implying that these were proofs) is "creating a version of history" without presenting any supporting evidence.
Edited to add - The original main Mint structures, begun in 1792, were made of brick and stone, with marble steps and doorsills seen at the coinage building. The building mentioned by Sheldon was a small, wooden shop and stable structure at the rear of the property that caught fire when a neighbor placed hot coals nearby. There were new rollers purchased and installed (this was a ongoing problem), however this was no reason to suggest the Mint created any new proof coinage as Sheldon stated as fact.
"Proof coins were never struck for circulation and therefore, strictly speaking, should not be regarded as coins at all. Proofs were first used as presentation pieces, pricipally for politicians, members of Congress, and the like. Proof cents do not appear until 1817, the year in which the Old Mint building was replaced by a new brick one and many new pieces of eqipment were added, presumably including that for the special polishing of planchets".
"Although there are no proofs before 1817, some of the early cents have a singularly lovely surface, as if the coiner had perhaps rubbed the planchet a lilttle on his leather apron before dropping it into the press." - William H. Sheldon, "Early American Cents"
If this is to be believed and accepted as a validation (or "polite speculation" that has since become accepted fact after numerous repeatings), then there's little I can do to change anyone's opinion of what took place in 1817 at the first US Mint in Philadelphia. The true fact is that there were no proof coins struck in 1817, at least by that terminology. So let's at least try for accuracy and not presume that there are such things in the first place. It's not that firstmint thinks so, but a reality coming from mint correspondence where these first strike coins were labelled as "Master-Coins" by William E. DuBois in 1846. DuBois was there and was among the longest lasting employees having worked continuously at the Mint from 1833 to 1881. He, nor anyone else, ever called the coins coming from the first US Mint as "Proofs". That's the reality of the early proofs from the US Mint. However, each person is free to choose what he wants to accept and believe as being the truth. That's how and why there are disputes in this hobby. Regrettably, earlier researchers have embellished the the few facts to the distorted terminology that is seen today.
Yes, the President would have been given the "Grand Tour" of the small Mint upon his visit in 1817. To suggest (or speculate) that special coins were presented to him (implying that these were proofs) is "creating a version of history" without presenting any supporting evidence.
The statement that "The true fact is that there were no proof coins struck in 1817, at least by that terminology." does not bear close scrutiny. In this case the word “proof” is modern terminology and well understood by collectors. What such pieces were called in 1846 is irrelevant, as firstmint carefully avoids mentioning.
Firstmint still has not given a good reason why the President would not have been presented souvenirs of his Mint visit. It would have been act of extreme rudeness not to have done so.
Denga
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Now I have to wonder what President Polk and his group of distinguished dignitiatires got when they visited the Mint in 1845?
This thread reminds me of the joke about the traveller stopping at a motel. He asks to get a room, and the clerk says "we're all full up". The traveler says, "What if I were the President of the United States?"... to which the clerk responds, "Then we would certainly get him a room". Then the traveler says, "then I'll take that one".
Rather than continuing to beat around the bush about what may have been given the President on his visit (and I agree there could have been a momento of some kind offered) I would state (and this is not my version of history) that it was not a coin (proof or otherwise) because as denga has repeatedly pointed out, there was no trading account established at the U S Mint until the 1830s and since all bullion was to be coined for depositors, especially after a hiatus of several years (because of the war with the British and the 1816 fire), then the President could have recived a token, or something non-intrinsic, etc. (that is if he didn't reach into his pocket, pull out a worn cent and want to do a tradeout for a nice, new, shiny one). Then again, I would never suggest such a thing was done, as was posted by the OP, as it amounts to nothing more than suggestive speculation.
Wrong on several counts. I have never said that there was “no trading account” at the Mint, primarily
because there never was any such account by that name or function. Proof coins prior to 1860 were
struck ‘off the books,’ meaning that no record was normally kept. Chief Coiner Eckfeldt, for example,
struck proof coins from his personal supply of bullion and, when reimbursed, simply purchased more
silver or gold on the open market. One exception to the rule about not keeping records of such coins
was the 1834–1835 striking of proofs for the special sets meant as diplomatic gifts. Copies of this bill
from Eckfeldt have been published but it was retained by the Mint only because the coins were struck
on government account but not credited in the bullion ledgers.
It should be noted, for accuracy, that proof coins of 1854–1859 were officially struck by order of Mint
Director James Ross Snowden but again no record was kept, Mint officers being responsible for
replacing the bullion. Prior to 1853 all such strikings were considered a private affair of the chief coiner.
It is of course true that all bullion deposited by individuals had to be paid for in coins but firstmint is using
an apples and oranges argument since these deposits had nothing to do with the proof coinage.
Denga
The historic record is what it is, and it is later numismatists that have added to it. There is a definitive answer as to when the term "Proof" was begun as a classification for American coinage. That was in 1854, the year after J R Snowden took office as the Mint Director. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing to support such a claim, even though there are many who would like to have it differently.
Which tells you what kind of life I lead.
If denga had asked a straight forward question, rather than implying something was done when there is no evidence to support such an implication, along with a further implication that there were indeed proofs struck in 1817, then it would be a different scenario.
The historic record is what it is, and it is later numismatists that have added to it. There is a definitive answer as to when the term "Proof" was begun as a classification for American coinage. That was in 1854, the year after J R Snowden took office as the Mint Director. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing to support such a claim, even though there are many who would like to have it differently.
With respect to the first point above, one has to wonder if the word “controversy” in my original posting is
actually understood by firstmint. I made it rather clear that the question of proofs for 1817 was uncertain
and was obviously subject to differing opinions.
His second point seems to say that proof coins cannot exist prior to 1854 because the term was not used
officially by the Mint until that time. The 1860 numismatic book by George Jones, on the other hand, says
that “proof sets” had been regularly issued since 1840 except for 1853. Poor Mr. Jones did not realize how
wrong he was to use such terms!
Denga
<< <i>The people who would like to have it differently it seems to me are those who benefit from the upcharge for proof designation and the tpg's are no exception. >>
Certainly the people who own these coins such designated, would want them to continue to be called proofs, although it may be just semantics, because even if the first coins struck with highly polished dies and proof like surfaces, are not technically proofs, they are in many cases as rare and often, as attractive.
<< <i>I'm liking this thread.
I vote to move this to the DCM Forum.
This issue of early "Proofs" has always been "controversial" in modern times. That's why the TPG's adopted Breen's "Specimen" classification, because they didn't want to go back to Master Coin after they had started something else (this according to John Dannruether when I asked him about this years ago).
For instance, in 1860 the Proof sets were issued and described as such and the 1860 mentioned book (actually more of a prices realized compendium) by Jones says one thing, but if a person goes by what the US Mint Director says, it's not the same. Even the Mint Director (Snowden) didn't have a set classification for those pieces struck in the 1850's. Between 1854 and 1859, the terms Proof and Master Coins were intermixed in printed offerings of such sets. There was a full page flyer, dated 1859, stating that "Master-Coins" (not Proof or Specimen) would soon be available. This was illustrated in a recent Kolbe sale (hopefully, I won't be challenged to verify this, but will do so if anyone believes it necessary).
I prefer to think of my attempts to correct numismatic terminology and background as a challenge to that which is not supported by validation. I blame Breen for this. It's not so much me wanting a fight, as it's a call for everyone to supply accurate evidence to support any theory, speculation, or fabrication that gets presented; and it would be benefical if those who presented such ideas knew the difference.
Specially struck coins for collectors were first issued in sets in 1858. Initially, these were called “Master coins,” “specimen coins,” or “proof coins” with the three terms being more or less synonymous. After about 1863 the term “proof coins” was used with increasing regularity until it became firmly established in the numismatic vocabulary.
The earliest correspondence referring to sets of proof coins made for collectors is a letter written on March 6, 1858 from mint director James Ross Snowden to Winslow J. Howard a clock and watch repairer employed by Tiffany & Co. in New York City. It obviously refers to earlier letters which are now lost.
“ I had hoped by this time to be able to send you a full series of proof coins of silver for 1858 but they are not yet prepared. I send you a half dollar and a cent; the others I will take pleasure in sending as soon as the specimen pieces are struck.”
“…I will see, as requested, “Whether any bright coins in silver or copper of the year 1853 can be obtained” for you, and inform you when I send the remaining specimen pieces for 1858.”
The letter suggests that Snowden considered “specimen” and “proof” to mean the same thing, and that “bright” (as in shiny or polished?) might also be used. It is also evident that Mr. Howard knew of previous “bright” coins being available at least as far back as 1853. Further, because all of the copper and silver proof coins were not available as of March 6, it is probable that the mint did not necessarily strike complete groups of proofs at one time.
[Excerpt from Burdette, “Origin of Modern Proof Coinage,” Coin World. 2007.]
<< <i>Thank you Firstmint and RWB for the great info. And getting back to whom my benefit today, many would afterall any bust proof as designated byt he TPG's goes for many multiples times ms examples. So lets once again take my 1796 10c that is PL, and yet not designated as such but when looking at in hand has all or many of the nembulous qualities of the typical proof bust coinage that the tpg's designate as proof coinage. i use the word nebulous because it isn't the same definition as the later REAL proofs of the 1850's - 1860's. I speak to many experts who tell me , "you know a bust proof when you see it, it just stands out above the rest", what the heck does tha tmean, seriously. I ask to go over all the point by point areas of the attributes of proof bust coinage and although my bust dime has ALL of them it has been determined that it isn't a proof, I won't bore you with all the points because they are nebulous and they change depending on who you speak to. Bottomline is that polished planchets were used on the very early coinage. Obviously the early minters had a great work ethic, 1796 10c JR-1 were the very first produced and the die were brand new, whatever came off the first roll would be pl but not proof. >>
Alan, are you speaking of the MS63 1796 Dime you have or another example?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Thank you Firstmint and RWB for the great info. And getting back to whom my benefit today, many would afterall any bust proof as designated byt he TPG's goes for many multiples times ms examples. So lets once again take my 1796 10c that is PL, and yet not designated as such but when looking at in hand has all or many of the nembulous qualities of the typical proof bust coinage that the tpg's designate as proof coinage. i use the word nebulous because it isn't the same definition as the later REAL proofs of the 1850's - 1860's. I speak to many experts who tell me , "you know a bust proof when you see it, it just stands out above the rest", what the heck does tha tmean, seriously. I ask to go over all the point by point areas of the attributes of proof bust coinage and although my bust dime has ALL of them it has been determined that it isn't a proof, I won't bore you with all the points because they are nebulous and they change depending on who you speak to. Bottomline is that polished planchets were used on the very early coinage. Obviously the early minters had a great work ethic, 1796 10c JR-1 were the very first produced and the die were brand new, whatever came off the first roll would be pl but not proof. >>
Alan, are you speaking of the MS63 1796 Dime you have or another example? >>
Mark, that be the one, the JR-1 that is ms and not a proof. >>
Alan, that's what I was afraid of. Sorry, but it looks nothing like a Proof. And I have seen a number of 1796 Dimes which bear some resemblance to Proofs, at least at first glance.
1) Is "master coin" the same concept as "proof coin," as applied to US numismatics, just using different words?
I lean strongly towards yes. Evans and this extract from Merchant's Magazine would support this.
2) When were the first master coins and/or proof coins struck, and how do we know?
This is the more difficult question to answer. We know that the method of manufacturing master/proof coins has varied throughout the years, and not always adequately known or even reported. And this is an issue that I think there is genuine debate and that I as an amateur do not have the answer. My opinion is that we can say that the earliest date at the latest is 1827. There are two lines of evidence I use for this. First, the proof 1829 N-6 and at least two original 1831 half cents are bronzed proof, and thus were specially made. Further, proof only die marriages can get us back to 1827. In the 1830's we have the 1834 N-7 large cent, the 1836 var.F and 1837 var.A quarter eagles, and the 1832 O-123 (I might be off by one number here) half dollar. In the 1820's we have the 1827 JR-10 dime. I think using the varieties rather than dates is the way to go. Supposed proof only dates, such as the 1827 quarter can be explained solely by the saving of a small mintage by whatever means. It is more difficult to explain a variety being saved specially if it was made in the normal means of business, especially since in general extremely rare varieties tend more to low grades (by chance).
From these coins is the best way to determine what an early proof coin/master coin would look like, and then start moving backwards in time. I will remain mostly moot here, because I have not inspected such early proof coins that often close up in person. I've seen the proof large cents in Stack's November 2008 sale, but I wouldn't be willing to draw many conclusions from my opinion of the coins at the time; I don't have much to compare them to yet. I'd say the 1821 was a clear proof (and some others much less clear), so perhaps my answer to question 2 should be "1821" or earlier. But I think at best I can say is "1827 or earlier."
But these two questions are one I'd like to know (and hopefully many of us would also like to know) how RWJ and KM (and others) would answer them.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>The historic record is what it is, and it is later numismatists that have added to it. There is a definitive answer as to when the term "Proof" was begun as a classification for American coinage. That was in 1854, the year after J R Snowden took office as the Mint Director. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing to support such a claim, even though there are many who would like to have it differently. >>
The Philadelphia collector Joseph Mickley used the term "proof" in 1852:
"Went to the Mint to see Mr. Peale at the Mint who gave me two Proof Half Dollars of the year 1838...." [American Journal of Numismatics, second series, vol. 13, p. 101]
So, I am trying to understand how "definitively" and "absolutely" the term "proof" wasn't used until 1854. Did Snowden invent the word in 1854? Did Mickley invent the word in 1852? I think not. I think it was in common use long before that.
The 1852 reference by Mickley (from his diary) getting Proof coins from Chief Coiner Franklin Peale (Eckfeldt's chosen successor when he retired in 1839) could have easily come from Peale. I say this because Peale had taken a two year tour of the Mint's in Europe (during the mid 1830s) and more than likely heard that terminology used at one or more of the Mint's during his visit. The term Proof is meant to prove the die.
George Eckfeldt was the foreman in the Medal room at the Philly Mint, that had the large screw press which was used to make Proof coinage. Proof coinage was not struck on regular production presses until after the 1890s. He may have used this term as well - unfortunately, there is simply no evidence presented in the literature.
According to Mint records, there were no complete proof sets made in 1853 when Snowden came in and the reduction of weight in the silver coinage was taking place. When sets were offered the following year, they were termed by Snowden as being Proof. This Official Mint reference (not saying that it was the first) terminology classifying such pieces was first seen in a June 1855 auction catalogue where the consignor (Mr. Kline) was a collector from Philadelphia. There were numerous American coins offered, one of which was an 1854 Proof $20 gold coin and a 1854 copper Cent both described as "beautiful proof, fresh from the die".
Other US coins in that sale (going back to the 1790s) were labeled as being "very fine, and mostly/many proofs". There was no other termiology used in the catalogue for the American coins, but they did note different dies being used.
As for "proof only dies", such as the earlier mentioned 1827 quarters, you can read my take on that assumption in the Tompkins book on Early US Quarters, 1827 chapter. For those who haven't read it, or don't have a copy, I disagree with what Breen had to say about those pieces in his proof book.
My friend David T. Alexander did a grand tour of European mints back in the 70's for a series of articles in Coin World. While at the Paris Mint, they ascertained the correct spelling of his name, took out a stock reverse die with a void in it, filled the void with reverse lettering (sort of like old newspaper type, letter by letter) and spacers, placed a planchet in the press and struck it with a Paris Mint obverse die. They then presented him with the medal as a souvenir of his visit.
One would not expect the Mint to engrave a die for the President, but I have to assume that they would do SOMETHING special to mark his visit.
TD
As for the 1817 coins, to which Denga alludes, at the beginning of this thread, I am skeptical as to whether any of them are Proofs. It is often said that, an 1817 large cent, which was in the John Pittman collection, is a Proof. I have never seen it. I have seen two 1818 halves that have been certified (not by PCGS) as being Proofs. One is close to being a Proof, but does not quite cross the threshold, in my opinion. The other is certainly not a Proof.
Please read some of my articles in which Proof criteria are discussed. I would very much like to read comments on these from the contributors to this thread, as you are clearly showing enthusiasm for the subject matter. My article on the Proof 1907-D Double Eagle is new.
Turtle Rock Collection of Proof Dimes
Only Known Proof 1876-CC Dime
1841 Quarter Eagle
Proof 1907-D Double Eagle
The early 1950 Proof coins could be argued to be non-Proofs, except by intent. Ditto the early 1936 Proofs. The 1817 "Proofs" might not be as good as what we can do today, but we can certainly consider the possibility that they were Proofs by intent.
TD
The commercial aspect has infiltrated into the hobby and made the market prices for early coins that look "special" to have risen dramatically. We now have to deal with a coin industry.
Abe Kosoff, a leading dealer in American numismatics for over 50 years, had this to say about coin grading in the March 1958 issue of The Numismatist, "Facts are stubborn things, a proof is a proof; if it isn't, thinking or saying it is will not make it so. An early strike with a brilliant surface is veneeered with a high sounding theory and sold as a proof - that doesn't make it a proof. Nor does it stop sellers from offering coins as proofs...". Interestingly, this had been written earlier, but appeared at the same time that John Ford was offering Kosoff a Proof 1853 USAOG $20 gold coin. Those turned out to be modern forgeries.
Kosoff attended the Farouk sale in 1954, bought numerous items, saw the cleaning that was on some of the pieces (including the 1907-D $20 mentioned above) and handled the Dr. Judd pattern collection with numerous proofs, so he knew what he was talking about.
Today, we have a new set of experts that validate grades and classifications. They all grew up with a commercial orientation, which does not matter, if as Kosoff says, they follow the concept that "Facts are stubborn things".
Personally, I would enjoy seeing each coin (struck prior to the 1850s) that is to be designated as a proof have a written statement outlining those facts that would classify that it is indeed what it has been declared to be by the experts (TPG's). Of course Breen did this on napkins and business cards at coin shows for $100 to supplement his income, so hopefully something now (should it ever happen) would be a little more credible.
Interesting thread. I have been wondering for a while whether to what we are arguing over semantics vs. technical issues (and I suspect that is partly both.) I think we may have these two issues:
1) Is "master coin" the same concept as "proof coin," as applied to US numismatics, just using different words? I lean strongly towards yes. Evans and this extract from Merchant's Magazine would support this.
2) When were the first master coins and/or proof coins struck, and how do we know?
This is the more difficult question to answer. We know that the method of manufacturing master/proof coins has varied throughout the years, and not always adequately known or even reported. And this is an issue that I think there is genuine debate and that I as an amateur do not have the answer. My opinion is that we can say that the earliest date at the latest is 1827. There are two lines of evidence I use for this. First, the proof 1829 N-6 and at least two original 1831 half cents are bronzed proof, and thus were specially made. Further, proof only die marriages can get us back to 1827. In the 1830's we have the 1834 N-7 large cent, the 1836 var.F and 1837 var.A quarter eagles, and the 1832 O-123 (I might be off by one number here) half dollar. In the 1820's we have the 1827 JR-10 dime. I think using the varieties rather than dates is the way to go. Supposed proof only dates, such as the 1827 quarter can be explained solely by the saving of a small mintage by whatever means. It is more difficult to explain a variety being saved specially if it was made in the normal means of business, especially since in general extremely rare varieties tend more to low grades (by chance).
From these coins is the best way to determine what an early proof coin/master coin would look like, and then start moving backwards in time. I will remain mostly moot here, because I have not inspected such early proof coins that often close up in person. I've seen the proof large cents in Stack's November 2008 sale, but I wouldn't be willing to draw many conclusions from my opinion of the coins at the time; I don't have much to compare them to yet. I'd say the 1821 was a clear proof (and some others much less clear), so perhaps my answer to question 2 should be "1821" or earlier. But I think at best I can say is "1827 or earlier."
But these two questions are one I'd like to know (and hopefully many of us would also like to know) how RWJ and KM (and others) would answer them.
I think the above points are well thought out. The terms “master coin” and “proof coin” are (in my opinion)
the same, a point well made in the important quote from Merchant’s Magazine. As to when the first such
pieces were struck there is little in the way of concrete information available. It is known, however, that
Director Elias Boudinot sent examples of U.S. silver coinage to Europe in the late 1790s and one may
reasonably assume that only the very best would have been sent. In addition, Director Moore inquired
of Matthew R. Boulton about “bronzing powder” in the late 1820s, though I think the direct inspiration for
the inquiry was in connection with medals.
Denga
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
I think that we must allow a little tolerance in deciding what constitutes a "Proof." Many 1886 three-cent nickels are not "Proof" as we understand that term, yet it is a Proof-only year. Many other Proof coins of the 1880s are of suspect quality.
The early 1950 Proof coins could be argued to be non-Proofs, except by intent. Ditto the early 1936 Proofs. The 1817 "Proofs" might not be as good as what we can do today, but we can certainly consider the possibility that they were Proofs by intent.
The Captain may wish to correct me, but if memory serves correctly I recall seeing auction catalogue
comments that the 1877 nickels, a proof-only issue, were sometimes so poorly struck that the proof
designation was in question.
Denga
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
the chance of finding threads like this are why some of us old timers still wade through these boards every day, not to interrupt the discussion, but I have always been curious about how the platinum patterns of 1814 were produced, was it the production coin press or other? are specimen or proof or otherwise special 1814 coins known to the numismatic community? ... off to check my pop reports. I'm remembering specimen 1797 and 1807 halves certified by PCGS.
As early as 1808 Melter & Refiner Joseph Cloud was conducting scientific experiments at
the Mint with both palladium and platinum. It is therefore quite possible that Cloud was
responsible for the half dollars struck in platinum.
These would have been struck on a regular screw coining press as this was the only type
of press used at the Mint prior to March 1836.
Denga
The counterstamped "P" Platina half dollars are a very interesting part of American numismatics, they are similar to the platuinum 1869 half eagle from the San Francisco Mint. Most of the time off-metal coins were made as patterns.
Thank you all for contributing, what a greatly informative and interesting thread.
“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
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Threads like this one. Kudos to the participants any many thanks for an interesting read.
J
We have grown up with the assumption that proofs were made for dignitaries or special occasions. This idea was popularized by Breen and others, but they never contributed any valid background evidence to support the claims.
If Henry Voigt and Adam Eckfeldt saved first strike examples of coinage, which were better looking (not necessarily better struck) because of newly polished dies, then those coins would be appropriately termed as Master Coins of the regular production run (meaning no special activity was required or taken for the striking).
If you go to a convenience store or post office today, there is usually a penny jar on the counter. It's easy for a coin person to make a quick examination and notice the prooflike pieces. We as numismatists are immediately focused on such items.
There have been first strike, and highly prooflike lustre examples created since the beginning of coinage in this country (and long before elsewhere). There are prooflike coins known for all denominations, and from each one of the Mints.
The term proof became an accepted standard classification in the 1860s. We have naturally accepted this terminology today, but it doesn't mean that coins produced before that timeframe are the same as what we classify and label them as now.
Certain coins that are now called branch mint proofs are in reality the first examples struck. The 1855-S Quarter, Half, and $3 gold pieces are such examples. The history of these pieces was that they were sent directly to William W Long for his coin display in his Philadelphia museum by SF Mint Director LA Birdsall. The 1854-S Double Eagle in the National Numismatic Collection in the Smithsonian could easily have it origins to the Birdsall/Long connection. The 1838-O proof half dollars were similarly saved and sent to acquiantances by New Orleans coiner Rufus Tyler. Most of these pieces are wonderful looking coins (at least the ones that haven't been damged in the intervening years), but they were not at the time struck to be what we now accept as proof coinage.
Regrettably, as has been brought out in this thread, there are no finite characteristics or qualifiers to determine such early examples (pre-1850s) as Master-Coins. However, one early letter dated 1850, by Mint Director Robert Patterson to Secretary of the Treasury Meredith specifically mentions "Gold Master Coins" (see Breen proof book, p.22)
Breen used the term Presentation Pieces in his proof book (p.21) "I realize that in enumerating presentation pieces I am to a certain extent violating the rather strict ground rules for identification of coins as proofs, but at the moment I see no alternative" (p.29)
Today's "Specimen" is a Breen created (aka: cop-out) terminology that also has no qualifiers, much like Mehl's "Semi-Proof". So we are stuck in a quandry.
All in all, this is an issue that has yet to be addressed, and action taken with exacting qualifiers based on known facts, by a group of numismatists who don't have a commercial interest in the outcome.