DMPL Morgans can sell at huge premiums, and no one is claiming they are "specimens" or "proofs" or "master coins" or "first strikes" or anything else. They are just claiming that they have deeply mirrored surfaces. Which they do.
I see no undue commercial influence in this case.
It is quite possible to trade a coin on the basis of what it *is*, with no regard to the intent of the coiner.
Same thing with DCAM proofs. No one really cares if they were the first one struck (which can never be proven anyway), or if the coiner was "trying" to make a DCAM, they just care that they are way frosted and cool looking. And they are.
As for one-off cases like Mr. Contursi's 1794 dollar, he is free to make his case, and if someone wants to step up to the plate and pay the $10M, more power to them.
I wish to address several of FirstMint’s comments in this thread.
<<In trying to get back to a time before proof was a classification for coins in this country, it is my opinion that Master-Coins and Proofs are not the same thing.>>
Some of the coins that were then referred to as “Master-coins” are clearly Proofs, as the term is defined today.
<<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.>>
There is compelling historical evidence relating to the ‘King of Siam Set.’ Moreover, no pertinent expert could possibly dispute that the 1804 Eagle, 1804 dollar and 1834 quarter contained therein are true Proofs. The Proof status of at least one of the other coins in the set could possibly be challenged.
<<There have been first strike, and highly prooflike 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.>>
In several of my articles, I discuss the difference between a true Proof and a prooflike business strike. Moreover, there is a logical, defensible distinction between a Specimen striking and a true Proof. It is not relevant to the distinction between a 68 and a 69 grade, as you stated that it was.
<<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.>>
Many Proof Liberty Head gold coins and Liberty Seated silver coins that were struck in the 1840s have even stronger Proof characteristics than analogous Proof coins, of the same denominations, from the 1860s and 1870s. Certainly, true Proofs were made before the 1860s. There was not a need to employ the term Proof in order to make a Proof. Wheels were made before the English word ‘wheel’ came about.
<<The 1838-O proof half dollars were similarly saved and sent to acquaintances by New Orleans coiner Rufus Tyler. Most of these pieces are wonderful looking coins (at least the ones that haven't been damaged in the intervening years), but they were not at the time struck to be what we now accept as proof coinage.>>
As it is provable beyond a reasonable doubt, that many silver and gold coins from the 1840s are true Proofs, “as we now accept Proof coinage,” it follows logically that 1838-O halves may be as well. While 1838-O halves are not as convincing as Proofs as many other other pre-1860 Proofs, more than 90% of all experts agree that 1838-O halves are Proofs or Impaired Proofs.
FirstMint, have you studied the differences between a Proof and a business strike? Please read my articles, and view some pre-1860 Proof coins!
I have read your articles and they cover much groundwork and express opinions of the "experts" that you have interviewed. You are doing a good job presenting coverage of today's marketplace.
Yes, I have seen the 1855-S BMP's and several 1838-O Halves, and I know that they are called proofs by many and have been for decades (at least the 1838-O's).
That still does not make them proofs, especially BMP's. I was simply pointing out the original background for these particular items, and how they came to be in the numismatic channels. You mentioned that when the first time several of the 1855-S coins were submitted, they were not place into holders stating they were proof. That's as it should be - if one knows the real history and background of those pieces. The statement I made is certainly not "terribly wrong", but it is certainly correct!
The trouble is that there are other entities that will provide something where certain standards are rather lax. That's why we have grade-flation and a host of other problems in today's marketplace (or industry if you prefer).
edited to add - You mention that true proofs were made before 1860, but do not offer validation. That is the key point to this thread.
edited later to clarify - The above information is not new. It would be beneficial for people to read the earlier thread from December 2007 about the BMP CC dime. It covers in good detail what is mentioned above. Just type in branch mint proof in the search engine at the top of any page of thread topics.
PM me if you are looking for U.S. auction catalogs
<< <i> You (Analyst) mention that true Proofs were made before 1860, but do not offer validation. >>
I demonstrated how the existence of Proofs from the 1860s, which FirstMint acknowledges exist, could be used to prove the existence of Proofs from the 1840s. I did not then realize that, oddly, FirstMint seems to think that a coin can only be a Proof if it is accompanied by or can be strongly linked to documents that indicate that U.S. Mint officials employed the term ‘Proof’ in regard to its issue, and therefore Proofs cannot exist before the term ‘Proof’ was first used in surviving documents. This is like saying that wheels did not exist before the English word 'wheel' was first used.
As to what constitutes a Proof, I have been developing a definition, which is considerably consistent with, though different from, that of Walter Breen. I honestly believe my definition is clearer and more consistent with how leading experts on Proofs, in their minds, have interpreted Proofs, over a very long period of time. Indeed, my definition is certainly very much consistent with the practices in this regard of David Akers and John Pittman. My definition is explained to some extent in the three articles listed below, and will be further developed in the future. With the exceptions of Akers and JD (and maybe QDB and Jeff G.), there is no living individual who has done more research, viewing and writing in this area than I have. I do not ever remember seeing 'FirstMint' at lot viewing sessions when pre-1860 coins, which are certified as Proofs, are coming up for auction.
FirstMint's statement regarding "real history and background" stems from a point that FirstMint should have made clear at the onset. FirstMint is confusing the concept of a Proof with that of a coin that is made for some specific presentation or marketing program. There is no need to know the "real history and background" of a coin to determine whether or not it is a Proof. Read my defining terms or the definitions of Breen or Newcomb. It is the characteristics of a coin that determine whether or not it is a Proof, even if it was made in an illegal manner or for unethical reasons.
If FirstMint is going to continue to assert that there is a need to know "the real history and background" of a coin, then there is no point in us debating the definition of a Proof. FirstMint is referring to the orders that Mint Personnel were following and/or what was going in their minds. A Proof does not need to have been made for presentation to an influential politician or for a mail order sale to a collector; it could have been made for other reasons, some of which will never be known.
FirstMint is focusing on the pedigree and provenance of coins, not upon the definition of a Proof. While researching pedigrees is greatly beneficial to the coin collecting community, a coin with no discernible pedigree can still be a Proof.
In any event, it seems that FirstMint has formed a definition of a Proof that is in dramatic conflict with that of most pertinent experts who carefully inspect the coins themselves.
It appears that a clear definition for a “modern” (post 1858) proof would be helpful. FWIW proofs do not have to be mirror-finish; also so-called branch mint proofs did not have to be struck at the branch mint.
As for traditionally accepted descriptions – many of those have been demonstrated to be incorrect or misunderstandings. Sometimes inadvertent, sometimes out of genuine belief but lack of information, and sometimes for nothing more than to grab a price from a sucker.
Thank you for the response regarding yours, and the expert's opinions of pre-1860 proofs. I'm glad you agree with what they say, and all can see that your writing supports this. Keep drinking the Kool-aid.
The King of Siam "Set of Coins" along with the other three sets made in 1835 for diplomatic exchange purposes, were not labeled as being anything special when they were discussed in correspondence. To classify those as Proof sets is simply a misnomer that has come to be accepted in today's marketplace. They could be properly labelled "Presentation sets" with coins that were struck from freshly polished dies.
You have not seen me at lot viewing simply because I do not buy coins any longer. Having been a coin collector since the early 1960s, a coin dealer, A cataloguer (briefly) and numismatic literature collector and dealer, and now devoting much time to being a numismatic researcher (a thankless and unpaid position) I have watched the development of today's coin industry from the time of the experts I learned from (Breen, Taxay, and Ford, etc). Fortunately QDB is among the experts I learn from, and likewise he from me (being a contributor to several of his books).
The discussion found in this thread will not change anything in the coin industry. This is a fact that I fully realize, and I'm not on a crusade or a witchhunt to reform the business.
Historically speaking, there have been challenges made in this particular hobby since the beginnings of the coin collecting craze in the 1850s. I refer to the "Gus" and "Numismatist" exchanges in the New York newspapers (see Bowers "American Numismatics Before the Civil War" book). So what I'm doing is hardly new.
However, with that being said, there is a strong need to portray numismatic history in accurate terms based on reality and facts. We get less and less of this as time goes on. It has been up to dedicated individuals to present most of what is known from the past, which constantly needs to be questioned for accuracy.
As an example, Eric Newman wrote a book about the 1804 dollars that came out in 1962 after he had read in print that there was a collector who owned genuine 1804 and 1805 dollars. Rather than accept that, he began doing research to uncover the truth of the matter.
Presently, I am doing the same thing (writing a book) regarding John Ford and the Franklin Hoard in which USAOG $20 gold coins (forgeries) that were marketed by Ford were sold as original proofs from 1853. The PNG took nearly two years to declare the coins were "not true proofs" without addressing the subject for the arbitration, which was genuineness.
Breen and Taxay sucessfully defended Ford's position by sticking to the idea that the PNG panel did not know the difference of what constituted a proof coin (which is supposed to be a method of manufacture rather than a grade).
As others have mentioned in this thread, we are probably dealing with semantics, yet it probably won't make any difference in what happens in the future.
One recommendation that I would offer to everyone is to expand your background knowledge and read as much as possible from all sources. Build a library and do not accept a "bourse floor mentality" when it comes to your involvement with this hobby.
PM me if you are looking for U.S. auction catalogs
Upon further reflection of the intent of this thread, I would like to offer some additional thoughts.
Regrettably, we don't know the true intent of the coin makers when we see the results of their work. Therefore, people today try to place an event to tie in previously known "proof" coins to prove the coin makers intent for the issue. We create the stories, which are frequently used for promotional activity. That's the basis of how myths and legends are born, and there have been plenty in American numismatics.
Tying an event to exisiting coins and creating a reason for their existence instead of considering the possibility that they were among the first strikes, displays a certain amount narrow mindedness and assumption on our part, but part of that is due to the lack of existing validation and documents. Another problem is trying to sort out the multitude of mis-information which has already been presented by the experts.
To quote John Ford, "Ever since the first coin was sold to anybody, somebody has lied about it...We lie about different things at different times" (Legacy interview, summer 1990, p.52). This is not something that helps anyone and should be something that is held in check.
And, as Forest Gump might say, "That's all I have to say about that".
- edited to correct Mr. Gump's quote.
PM me if you are looking for U.S. auction catalogs
Andy - there was one such piece listed in a W.E. Woodward sale from the 1880's I believe. Give me a day or so to look through them and I'll post the details.
I also remember a collector writing about such an animal in the Coin Collector Journals or Numismatist's, or Scrapbooks, etc. back in the 1940s or 1950s (probably the same coin). Since I don't have all of those issues anymore, perhaps someboby would be interested in looking that up (in their spare time). It's a very obscure letter and and catalogue description that I saw years ago.
edited - It's going to take a lot longer than a day or so to find this again (because of my work schedule and the fact that nobody is paying to have the research done). There's thousands of pages to check. I will post the information when I find it again.
Andy, please chek with Saul T. and see if remembers this. I purchased most of his library a few years ago, but he may have written something down.
PM me if you are looking for U.S. auction catalogs
I am brand spanking new here, but if this thread is any indication of forum quality, I am really going to like it here. I just love the history and mechanics of coinage; far more than the coin itself. Fantastic thread. Thanks very much guys.
The probability of it being a counterfeit is very likely, as platinum was cheaper than gold back then. The coin was worn (probably cast) and nothing special as it was listed in the catalogue along with the rest of the half eagle pieces.
The later, brief letter was probably about the same coin that made it through the years without getting recognized. There may be one or two such pieces listed in the original 1913 Adams & Woodin book.
If the references are not necessary at this point in time, I will abandon my search (thank you) and go on to more important things.
edited for spelling
PM me if you are looking for U.S. auction catalogs
This has been one of the most educational reads since I started reading here a few years ago.
I have been assembling a copper type set, 1793 - present, half cents and cents, and I have been buying proofs to fill the slots whenever possible. My goal is to have at least one proof large cent and one proof half cent from as early a date as possible. After spending two days in Long Beach last week pouring over everything copper, I was able to locate about half a dozen PCGS graded proof Large Cents from as far back as 1841. I believe the 1841 coin was at Kagin's table.
Then something happened that messed me all up...
I ran into Ray Hinkelman, and he subsequently showed me an 1819 Small Date cent in PCGS MS63BN. It has prooflike surfaces and a relatively strong strike. Now, I have been until now resigned to the fact that these early proofs do in fact exist, but further resigned to the fact that I will unlikely ever have the disposable income required to actually buy one. The Hinkelman coin had such a nice look, and the mirrors were so engaging that I simply bought the coin. I indeed feel lucky to have an original surfaces coin from this era with PL surfaces that looks quite nice next to the rest of my brown proof copper.
So what's messed up about that? Well...
I start showing the coin around, and a couple of dealers look at it and say that this coin, out of the holder and in an auction, would likely be classified as a proof. Coins exactly like these have traded hands as proofs prior to the days of grading companies, and that some coins like these have actually ended up in proof holders from major TPGs.
I think from that point forward, I started asking questions like: How do we know that any of these "proof" cents I've been looking at are actual "proofs"? I mean, some of the coins I'm seeing in proof holders are weakly struck, and if I'm going to buy a proof coin, by golly I want full star centers, full denticles, and broad flat rims. I actually spoke to Tom Reynolds about this, and he told me to be sure to try and find a "proof only" issue, which I can't remember the exact type, something from the end of the series like a '55 or a '57. So now I go looking at the price guide and try to identify a "proof only" type from those years, and I find proofs and MS examples for each type listed.
So how do I know that any of these large cents I've been ogleing are actual proofs???
If any of the obviously erudite posters on this thread can point me in the right direction here, I would be most obliged.
Matt, You really don't. There are many layers of assumption, marketing hype, truth and lies. You will likely need to convince yourself that a particular coin was a special striking of some sort. Respected numismatic researchers - past and present - disagree, as you've noted in this thread.
When faced with so much confusion, one course is to go back to basics and focus on documented facts. The potential of archives have been so lightly explored, that it is possible the answer to your question is lying in plain sight.
<< <i>Matt, You really don't. There are many layers of assumption, marketing hype, truth and lies. You will likely need to convince yourself that a particular coin was a special striking of some sort. Respected numismatic researchers - past and present - disagree, as you've noted in this thread.
When faced with so much confusion, one course is to go back to basics and focus on documented facts. The potential of archives have been so lightly explored, that it is possible the answer to your question is lying in plain sight. >>
When it comes to attributing early Proofs of the types being discussed in this thread, rarely will there be close to universal agreement regarding their Proof status. However, some of them are a heck of a lot more convincing than others. And their status as Proofs garners much greater agreement among knowledgeable collectors and dealers.
If you are going to pursue any of them, target the ones that appear to speak for themselves and don't need to be explained/justified to you. And when you're examining them, ask yourself this: If a business strike were worth more than (rather than less than) a Proof, considering its appearance, would this coin still be attributed and sold as a Proof?
<< <i>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. ... [Coins can be] Proofs by intent. -- TD >>
To Capt. Henway and others who believe that the ‘original intent’ is a strong component in determining a coin’s Proof status,
Are you saying that a coin that would not otherwise be regarded as a Proof can rise to Proof status if it was intended to be a Proof? Are you further suggesting that a coin that has minimal Proof characteristics should be regarded as a Proof if it is of a so called “Proof-only” issue?
If some of the coins of a “Proof-only” issue are not really Proofs, then it could be because these were poorly made or because the issue in question was never really “Proof-only.” Walter Breen determined that non-Proofs of ‘Proof-only’ issues were “Mint Errors.” In my view, people might deliberately not follow orders or protocol and make non-Proofs to be sold as “Proofs” in order to save time, conserve other resources or for various reasons relating to why people do not always perform the tasks that they are assigned. Is there any society in which all people do the jobs that they are supposed to do or agree to do? Besides, U.S. Mint Personnel could have made business strikes for themselves or for private collectors.
It is also true that the Mint records regarding some ‘Proof-only’ issues could be accidentally wrong. Could there have been communications problems between those who made business strikes and those who decided or concluded that a particular issue was “Proof-only”?
Rather than non-Proofs of ‘Proof-only’ issues always being “Mint Errors,” as Breen suggests, it may sometimes be the Mint records that are in error, or were deliberately falsified. In the late 19th century, were the Secretary of the Treasury and U.S. Justice Dept. attorneys really going to care whether several hundred nickels, in any given year, are Proofs or business strikes?
I wonder what caliber of 'proof' the technology of 1817 was capable of creating. I doubt that the Chinese hand presses of today would be capable of producing a 'quality proof' by today's standards.
In the late 19th century, were the Secretary of the Treasury and U.S. Justice Dept. attorneys really going to care whether several hundred nickels, in any given year, are Proofs or business strikes?
In the latter 19th century, collectors’ proof coins were made in the medal department and were counted in annual coin production totals. However, they received different treatment because they were sold at a premium and the extra funds had to be accounted for in mint books.
The mint cared a great deal about the proof coins they sold to collectors. The mint was a primary supporter of coin collectors and reacted quickly to most complaints. Each year enough profit was generated by the medal department to pay the wages of several workmen – considerably more than the cost of production.
One must view the era from its own perspective, not from our 21st century vantage.
<< 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. ... [Coins can be] Proofs by intent. -- TD >>
To Capt. Henway and others who believe that the ‘original intent’ is a strong component in determining a coin’s Proof status, Are you saying that a coin that would not otherwise be regarded as a Proof can rise to Proof status if it was intended to be a Proof? Are you further suggesting that a coin that has minimal Proof characteristics should be regarded as a Proof if it is of a so called “Proof-only” issue?
If some of the coins of a “Proof-only” issue are not really Proofs, then it could be because these were poorly made or because the issue in question was never really “Proof-only.” Walter Breen determined that non-Proofs of ‘Proof-only’ issues were “Mint Errors.” In my view, people might deliberately not follow orders or protocol and make non-Proofs to be sold as “Proofs” in order to save time, conserve other resources or for various reasons relating to why people do not always perform the tasks that they are assigned. Is there any society in which all people do the jobs that they are supposed to do or agree to do? Besides, U.S. Mint Personnel could have made business strikes for themselves or for private collectors.
It is also true that the Mint records regarding some ‘Proof-only’ issues could be accidentally wrong. Could there have been communications problems between those who made business strikes and those who decided or concluded that a particular issue was “Proof-only”?
Rather than non-Proofs of ‘Proof-only’ issues always being “Mint Errors,” as Breen suggests, it may sometimes be the Mint records that are in error, or were deliberately falsified. In the late 19th century, were the Secretary of the Treasury and U.S. Justice Dept. attorneys really going to care whether several hundred nickels, in any given year, are Proofs or business strikes?
GR
Perhaps some general comments are in order as I have read the fiscal and coinage records of the Mint for the better part of the 19th century:
1) The internal Mint records are virtually flawless when it comes to the number of proofs released and the proof-only issues. Problems arose in 1886–1887 when the old fiscal year reports were changed, at the request of Mint Director Kimball, to calendar year instead and numerous errors were made by the clerks. Most of these errors were corrected in the 1960s but a few might yet remain.
2) The old saw about uncirculated pieces being substituted into proof sets deserves a decent burial. I found not a single complaint in the Medal Department records (the division responsible for proof set sales) from proof set buyers. The pieces were almost certainly switched after the sets left the Mint.
3) I did find one complaint about single proof pieces sold by the Mint at the Medal Department window. One collector wrote an irate letter to Superintendent A.L. Snowden to report careless handling of gold dollar proofs by the medal clerk. He was soon replaced.
4) Some of the lower-quality pieces in present-day collections probably came about in a different way. When proofs were being made in the 1870s, for example, it was the practice to choose only the best pieces for the sets. This normally meant a certain number left over to be melted at year’s end but this did not always happen. It is believed, for example, that the excess number of certain proof-only $3 gold pieces came about when someone switched full-weight pieces for the lesser-quality proofs at year’s end.
5) My view is that Capt. Henway is correct and some allowance must be made for intent. I have not seen the 1817 pieces but one would think that the quality of the supposed proofs is high enough that a conscious effort was made to produce something very special. That this did not happen by 2010 standards should not overly affect our view of what happened in 1817 or the 1820s.
**and he told me to be sure to try and find a "proof only" issue, which I can't remember the exact type, something from the end of the series like a '55 or a '57. So now I go looking at the price guide and try to identify a "proof only" type from those years, and I find proofs and MS examples for each type listed.
So how do I know that any of these large cents I've been ogleing are actual proofs???**
This is a great thread!
Matt - to give you one specific example, my 1857 proof large cent is a "proof only" 'type' from an 'issue' (1857) with 5 'types'. In other words, out of 5 'types' of the 1857 'issue' the type 3 and type 5 are in fact 'proof only'. But if you read this in the Red Book, you will find both MS and PR 1857 large cents, and no differentiation of 'types'.
My coin is a 'type 3' small date with the well-documented diagnostics and mintage records to establish authenticity. If you want to find the most recent compilation on the large cent mintages, try the First Edition of the Red Book "Professional Edition" now on the shelves; Page 44. Breen's original proof guide is, beleive it or not, pretty good for the diganostics as well. Ditto the Newcomb and text (1817-1857).
A comment on semantics. Some words have multiple meanings, and sometimes multiple words can have the same meaning.
While at ANACS, I did a number of weekend seminars with Ed Fleischmann. We did a lot of these, and typically we started out with some expense money and took turns paying for meals. After the trip we would each do our own expense account and turn in the leftover.
One week the Executive Director called us into his office with an "Aha!" look on his face. Holding the expense reports for the previous weekend, he said that on such and such a date we had both charged the ANA for "Dinner!" Obvious fraud, right?
Ed F. calmly asked me what I called the evening meal. I said "dinner." He then said that that was because I was from Michigan, but that where he came from, Wisconsin, you had "dinner" in the early afternoon and "supper" after work. Thus, he had paid for "dinner" at noontime and I had paid for "dinner" at six.
The Executive Director was quite crestfallen.
Don't say that a coin is not a Proof because the Mint did not use that term in that year. There are some early Proofs. I once saw a 1799 dollar that was amazing, so well struck that the obverse stars had tiny raised points in the centers. I have never seen that on another 1799 dollar.
I would have no problem calling that particular coin a Proof if asked to do so today. It was obviously multiply struck, from new dies with great luster. Was the luster as good as that of a Proof Morgan dollar? No. That does not mean that the coiner's intent was to make something less than special, be it a "presentation piece," a "master coin" or a Proof."
I likewise have no problem calling inferior Proof 1886 three cent nickels Proofs, even though the quality was lousy. They are not mint errors, they are just sloppy workmanship. The guy making Proofs made lousy Proofs. He was not the last government employee to give less than his best.
I have not seen the 1817 and 1818 coins cited above, and have no opinion on them.
TD
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
<< <i>In the latter 19th century, collectors- proof coins were made in the medal department and were counted in annual coin production totals. However, they received different treatment because they were sold at a premium and the extra funds had to be accounted for in mint books. - RWB >>
<< <i>The internal Mint records are virtually flawless when it comes to the number of proofs released and the proof-only issues. - Denga >>
RWB & Denga,
These statements are extremely misleading. Consider Proof 1884 and 1885 Trade Dollars. R. W. Julian told me that both issues were -off the books- and not listed in any ledger. The late Carl Carlson found a document that was said to authorize 1884 Proof sets, including 1884 Trade Dollars. Even Carlson acknowledged that 1884 Trade Dollars were not mentioned in official mintage and accounting records that survive.
During most periods from the mid 1850s to the mid 1880s, there were a lot of activities at the Mint, especially the manufacture of Patterns, which were not in -internal Mint records-, at least not in the accounting records. By the way, is there a record of the striking of the 1870-S half dime?
In 1877 alone, more than thirty different design types of patterns were produced, many of these were produced in more than one metal. The total number of 1877 pattern varieties, not including die trials of regular issues, is well over fifty, if my memory serves me correctly. In 1870, there were more one hundred varieties of patterns, including more than twenty-five of some single varieties that survive today. Indeed, more than one hundred 1879 Goloid dollars were struck in Goloid (an odd alloy) and more than ten of this same design type were struck in silver, plus probably more than a dozen in copper. Were all these Goloid dollars listed in the accounting records? No, they were distributed -off the books- and regular issues could have been as well.
All told, from the 1860s to the 1880s, thousands of patterns, in total, were struck. Many showed up in the numismatic marketplace long before William Woodin traded two 1877 $50 gold patterns in gold for a quantity of other patterns.
So, Mint Personnel had ample quantities of copper, nickel, aluminum and silver to make many patterns, sell them or give them away, all without much accounting. Additionally, not all patterns are Proofs. Some are business strikes. Therefore, Mint Personnel could have struck non-Proofs of supposed Proof-only regular issues at any time, just on whim. It was widely believed that at least two Directors of the U.S. Mint were involved in making items, off the books. If the Secretary of the Treasury and U.S. Justice Department attorneys did not view such activities as serious offenses, obviously, no one would have cared if business strike nickels were made of Proof-only dates.
The accounting ledgers did not reveal the true events at the U.S. Mint, and many other genuine documents are probably suspect as well, in terms of the truth.
Of course, I am not applying the standards of -today- to the late 19th century. I am suggesting that the -off the books- operations within the U.S. Mint might at the time have been considered minor offenses by law enforcement officials, or perhaps even to some extent legal. As long as the flows of silver and gold (and maybe other metals too) balanced, nothing was, in the opinions of most people at the time, considered stolen. Coins that were common at the time could always have been used to ensure that the flows of all metals were balanced. R. W. Julian has found that, in the 1920s and early 1930s, collectors were permitted to trade common date Saints for rare date Saints. A 1924 Saint could easily have been traded for a 1932 Saint Gaudens $20 gold coin. Such trades were considered legitimate. It is likely that common date coins, perhaps older circulated ones, were used to balance the books at various times from the 1860s to the 1880s.
Even gold patterns struck in gold were distributed without specific records, as far as we know. How can RWB and Denga possibly think that the records kept at the time were accurate in detail? Please show the mintage and sales records for Proof 1885 Trade Dollars.
--
Returning to a central theme, it is indisputable that some coins of Proof-only dates in the 1880s do not have the physical characteristics of Proofs. Capt. Henway said as much, as have almost all other pertinent experts, including David Akers. Breen called these Mint Errors. Other terms could be used. If Mint Officials could easily manufacture and distribute a large number of patterns, for decades, off the books, making business strikes of Proof-only issues could not have been difficult. It was probably fun.
As for the fact that there were not many complaints, discovered so far, regarding Proof sets. Consider the people who buy Proof sets directly from the U.S. Mint, today. Often, they are beginners or people who do not know anything about coins. On many occasions, sets are purchased to be given as gifts.
Undoubtedly, the percentage of Proof sets sold to sophisticated collectors was higher in 1886 than it is in 2010. Even so, most sophisticated collectors then were interested in older coins and rarer coins. Furthermore, surviving original Proof sets from the 19th century have, on several occasions, been accompanied by cases and inscriptions that indicate that the sets were gifts. Many of the recipients were casual collectors or non-collectors.
More importantly, Proof sets in the 19th century sold for only a very small premium over face value. Compare those premiums to the premiums over face value that are charged by the U.S. Mint for Proof sets now. Before 1910, it was not unusual for Proof coins to be spent. Hardly anyone would have bothered to complain if non-Proofs were included in Proof sets. Most buyers to whom the Proof sets were delivered would not know the difference between Proofs and business strikes, and those who did could just sell the set to a coin dealer, or, more likely, spend the coins included. Numerous Proof Morgan dollars were spent. Besides, a few sophisticated collectors had contacts at the U.S. Mint, or purchased through dealers who did, and could thus acquire Proof sets comprised of carefully selected coins.
Therefore, it is ridiculous for RWB and Denga to argue that the absence of complaints, so far discovered, demonstrates that business strikes were not in Proof sets. Besides, in the 1870s and 1880s, coins in Proof sets of the denominations of $2.5, $5, $10 and $20 were probably indisputable Proofs, the same for Morgans. No one is going to file a complaint because a nickel that is supposed to be a Proof is just a business strike. Few buyers would even know until they bring their coins to a knowledgeable dealer.
My suggestion that non-Proof nickels were probably in Proof sets seems valid. Breen put forth similar points. As there are a substantial number of coins that do not fulfill Proof criteria yet are of Proof-only dates, an explanation is needed. I have provided two theories, which are not mutually exclusive. (1) Business strikes of supposed Proof-only dates could have been easily deliberately made by advanced personnel. (2) Failed Proofs were made by workers who were not properly completing the tasks that they were assigned. To an extent, both explanations are probably true.
"In order to understand the scarce coins that you own or see, you must learn about coins that you cannot afford." -Me
<< In the latter 19th century, collectors- proof coins were made in the medal department and were counted in annual coin production totals. However, they received different treatment because they were sold at a premium and the extra funds had to be accounted for in mint books. - RWB >>
<< The internal Mint records are virtually flawless when it comes to the number of proofs released and the proof-only issues. - Denga >>
RWB & Denga,
These statements are extremely misleading. Consider Proof 1884 and 1885 Trade Dollars. R. W. Julian told me that both issues were -off the books- and not listed in any ledger. The late Carl Carlson found a document that was said to authorize 1884 Proof sets, including 1884 Trade Dollars. Even Carlson acknowledged that 1884 Trade Dollars were not mentioned in official mintage and accounting records that survive.
No, the statements are accurate. Your are confusing specimens struck off the books by A. Loudon Snowden with public sales to collectors; the latter are well documented. The 1884–1885 Trade dollars were made clandestinely and not sold publicly.
During most periods from the mid 1850s to the mid 1880s, there were a lot of activities at the Mint, especially the manufacture of Patterns, which were not in -internal Mint records-, at least not in the accounting records. By the way, is there a record of the striking of the 1870-S half dime?
The striking of patterns was rarely recorded as these were normally not sold to the public. There is, however, some documentation for the aluminum five cent pieces of the 1860s and the Trade dollar patterns of 1873. The 1870–S half dime was not struck at Philadelphia and I cannot answer the question.
In 1877 alone, more than thirty different design types of patterns were produced, many of these were produced in more than one metal. The total number of 1877 pattern varieties, not including die trials of regular issues, is well over fifty, if my memory serves me correctly. In 1870, there were more one hundred varieties of patterns, including more than twenty-five of some single varieties that survive today. Indeed, more than one hundred 1879 Goloid dollars were struck in Goloid (an odd alloy) and more than ten of this same design type were struck in silver, plus probably more than a dozen in copper. Were all these Goloid dollars listed in the accounting records? No, they were distributed -off the books- and regular issues could have been as well.
The regular Goloid issues sold to Congressmen, in the standard metals, are very well documented. Off-metal strikes and patterns are not.
All told, from the 1860s to the 1880s, thousands of patterns, in total, were struck. Many showed up in the numismatic marketplace long before William Woodin traded two 1877 $50 gold patterns in gold for a quantity of other patterns.
So, Mint Personnel had ample quantities of copper, nickel, aluminum and silver to make many patterns, sell them or give them away, all without much accounting. Additionally, not all patterns are Proofs. Some are business strikes. Therefore, Mint Personnel could have struck non-Proofs of supposed Proof-only regular issues at any time, just on whim. It was widely believed that at least two Directors of the U.S. Mint were involved in making items, off the books. If the Secretary of the Treasury and U.S. Justice Department attorneys did not view such activities as serious offenses, obviously, no one would have cared if business strike nickels were made of Proof-only dates.
The striking of patterns was tightly controlled by the Superintendent and Mint Director. This is not to say that abuses did not occur but ordinary workmen did not have access to the dies, which effectively kept them from striking pieces off the books.
The accounting ledgers did not reveal the true events at the U.S. Mint, and many other genuine documents are probably suspect as well, in terms of the truth.
It needs to be stated again, apparently, that the internal records are correct when it comes to items for the public, such as proof sets and circulation issues. Specimens struck off the books are another matter and were not recorded. The fact that some pieces were struck off the books does not mean that internal records are inaccurate. Your statement that “many other genuine documents are probably suspect as well” is not acceptable unless you have proof to the contrary.
Of course, I am not applying the standards of -today- to the late 19th century. I am suggesting that the -off the books- operations within the U.S. Mint might at the time have been considered minor offenses by law enforcement officials, or perhaps even to some extent legal. As long as the flows of silver and gold (and maybe other metals too) balanced, nothing was, in the opinions of most people at the time, considered stolen. Coins that were common at the time could always have been used to ensure that the flows of all metals were balanced. R. W. Julian has found that, in the 1920s and early 1930s, collectors were permitted to trade common date Saints for rare date Saints. A 1924 Saint could easily have been traded for a 1932 Saint Gaudens $20 gold coin. Such trades were considered legitimate. It is likely that common date coins, perhaps older circulated ones, were used to balance the books at various times from the 1860s to the 1880s.
I do not know anything about trading common-date Saints for rare issues as you have stated and said nothing of the sort. My only involvement in such a statement was in connection with the 1933 double eagle, which is another matter entirely.
Even gold patterns struck in gold were distributed without specific records, as far as we know. How can RWB and Denga possibly think that the records kept at the time were accurate in detail? Please show the mintage and sales records for Proof 1885 Trade Dollars.
Explained above. These were done clandestinely and therefore no record was kept. It was standard practice at many world mints to make patterns, and sometimes proofs sets, off the books. -- Returning to a central theme, it is indisputable that some coins of Proof-only dates in the 1880s do not have the physical characteristics of Proofs. Capt. Henway said as much, as have almost all other pertinent experts, including David Akers. Breen called these Mint Errors. Other terms could be used. If Mint Officials could easily manufacture and distribute a large number of patterns, for decades, off the books, making business strikes of Proof-only issues could not have been difficult. It was probably fun.
One would agree that not all proofs were perfect. However, the the statement that “Mint Officials could easily manufacture and distribute a large number of patterns, for decades, off the books, making business strikes of Proof-only issues could not have been difficult. It was probably fun.” is hardly accurate. Many of the patterns and off-metal pieces did not show up until after 1900 and are believed to have come from the private accumulation of A.L. Snowden, distributed as a result of the dispute over the 1877 $50 patterns.
As for the fact that there were not many complaints, discovered so far, regarding Proof sets. Consider the people who buy Proof sets directly from the U.S. Mint, today. Often, they are beginners or people who do not know anything about coins. On many occasions, sets are purchased to be given as gifts. Undoubtedly, the percentage of Proof sets sold to sophisticated collectors was higher in 1886 than it is in 2010. Even so, most sophisticated collectors then were interested in older coins and rarer coins. Furthermore, surviving original Proof sets from the 19th century have, on several occasions, been accompanied by cases and inscriptions that indicate that the sets were gifts. Many of the recipients were casual collectors or non-collectors.
More importantly, Proof sets in the 19th century sold for only a very small premium over face value. Compare those premiums to the premiums over face value that are charged by the U.S. Mint for Proof sets now. Before 1910, it was not unusual for Proof coins to be spent. Hardly anyone would have bothered to complain if non-Proofs were included in Proof sets. Most buyers to whom the Proof sets were delivered would not know the difference between Proofs and business strikes, and those who did could just sell the set to a coin dealer, or, more likely, spend the coins included. Numerous Proof Morgan dollars were spent. Besides, a few sophisticated collectors had contacts at the U.S. Mint, or purchased through dealers who did, and could thus acquire Proof sets comprised of carefully selected coins.
“Most buyers to whom the proof sets were delivered would not know the difference between proofs and business strikes.” Analyst seems to think that 19th century collectors were not all that bright; I strongly disagree. Both uncirculated and proofs could be obtained from the Mint and both kinds would not have been offered had there not been a demand for these kinds of coins.
Therefore, it is ridiculous for RWB and Denga to argue that the absence of complaints, so far discovered, demonstrates that business strikes were not in Proof sets. Besides, in the 1870s and 1880s, coins in Proof sets of the denominations of $2.5, $5, $10 and $20 were probably indisputable Proofs, the same for Morgans. No one is going to file a complaint because a nickel that is supposed to be a Proof is just a business strike. Few buyers would even know until they bring their coins to a knowledgeable dealer.
In other words a 19th century collector did not know what a proof coin was supposed to look like.
My suggestion that non-Proof nickels were probably in Proof sets seems valid. Breen put forth similar points. As there are a substantial number of coins that do not fulfill Proof criteria yet are of Proof-only dates, an explanation is needed. I have provided two theories, which are not mutually exclusive. (1) Business strikes of supposed Proof-only dates could have been easily deliberately made by advanced personnel. (2) Failed Proofs were made by workers who were not properly completing the tasks that they were assigned. To an extent, both explanations are probably true.
It needs to be repeated that non-proof coins were not deliberately put into proof sets. The Medal Department letters indicate a sophistication among ordinary collectors far above what analyst indicates. I would suggest that he do the proper research before characterizing 19th century collectors as a bunch of neophytes unable to tell the difference between proof and uncirculated.
What an interesting thread. It certainly shows the massive amounts of knowledge that reside on this forum.
Even though relatively none of that belongs to me, I do have a point I wish to make, and this is specifically in reference to Firstmint's argument about Proofs being called Proofs or otherwise.
How often does something have a name before it exists? Not just in numismatics, but in the whole world, throughout history? Nearly everything is created, THEN has a name applied to it. There are very few, if any, cases where a name is created and THEN something is made to wear that name.
And now, back to being a single-celled invertibrate in a large pond...I don't rate being a small fish in a big pond. Yet...
<< <i>A comment on semantics. Some words have multiple meanings, and sometimes multiple words can have the same meaning. >>
I like the dinner/supper analogy above, as I think it points out the shortcomings in terminology AND intent! -For whatever it's worth, here's my definitional two cents
In reading this string, I break out the arguments into two groups: the 'intent' arguments and the 'process' arguments for making and defining coins.
Maybe 'intent' and 'process' should not be split into two groups when attempting to define what is or is not a 'proof' coin. The terms should not be mutually exclusive, but considered in conjunction.
Clearly, 'dinner' and 'supper' are not mutually exclusive - they exist together. And the intent (AND process) here is to 'eat' by whatever name it is called. So if I fall into the "coiner's 'intent'" camp, but with a consideration as to what the process is along WITH the intention, maybe the idea clarifies.
For example, assuming I know the process that a coin was created (this may require research, of course), at that point the question arises for me as to the coiner's (or mint's) 'intent' for implementing the process .... intent to do what??
A) Intent to 'Prove' a die for circulation strikes? (is that a 'proof'?);
Intent to create a special coin for a dignitary or one's own person (is that a 'specimen'?);
C) Create a high level version of the coin for formal release to the collecting public? (for an additional profit or seigniorage to the mint! Is that a 'proof'?);
D) Intent to create a high level version of the coin for the coiner's personal gain (for a personal profit. 'Proof' or 'theft'?);
E) Intent to create a high level 'pattern' to decide if a certain design is acceptable by the decision makers ('pattern' or 'proof' or BOTH?).
I'm sure there are many more reasons or 'intents' to make a coin, but these came to mind. But each one of these intentions above (and any others, I guess) could be ultimately detected and established (agreed to by many or most) with enough research and available information. So in order to define what a 'proof' coin actually is, in my HO, it would first be beneficial to define what "category of intent" (or even more than one category of intention) is agreeable by us to establish what is or is not a 'proof' in addition to the process.
Personally, I think that a 'proof' is actually a process, and the 'thing' (coin) that is created by the process can be a 'proof' per intent, and still 'be' any other name, as well. So define the process and intent, and you define the coin's status.
Mutual exclusivity of the terminology of process intent actually gets in the way of any one definition of the label on the 'thing'; in this case, a coin. I think that if both concepts are used, the together, the idea of a 'proof' can become definable to the agreement of most.
Mirrored proof coins were struck specifically for coin collectors. They were a special mint product prepared for that purpose. As noted above, the process was different than for normal circulation coins. This was an integral part of creating the special product for sale to collectors. Although documentation is limited, in instances where records exist for quantity struck versus quantity accepted by the Coiner as salable proofs, the rejection rate was high – 40% to 50%. (Rejects that were otherwise good coins were added to circulation deliveries. Rejects that were not good coins were destroyed along with other defective pieces.)
The Mint Director and Philadelphia Mint Superintendent occasionally expressed concern about the price of proof coins, and felt that the premium might be too high. There are letters of complaint in the mint archives regarding proofs. Most of these deal with non-delivery of an order, availability of a new design (i.e.: 1883 five-cent pieces, 1909 cents, 1913 nickels, etc.), or elimination of proof sets in 1916. The balance are scattered subjects including wealthy collectors who wanted to buy large quantities, collectors whose orders were returned as “sold out” (see the Giles Anderson material in “RAC 1909-1915”), and administrative issues. In examining mint records page-by-page in the 1873-1935 period, I do not recall seeing one complaint about quality.
A common justification some make for unsupported conclusions is that “the records lie.” Mint officials are accused of falsifying documents, or doing other things to hide the real reasons for something being produced. But reality is that mint operating records are very reliable, with only a few discrepancies scattered over hundreds of thousands of daily entries. It is these daily operating records and routine correspondence that tell what occurred and often why. However, with a large percentage of pre-1960 mint records missing, it is easier and more profitable to speculate, claim mint employees were rogues, liars and thieves, and invent tall tales, than to do the hard work of researching multiple archives.
Further, many of the things now considered “rarities” were little more than cheap substitutes. For example, 1878 pattern dollars in copper were made at the request of the Superintendent of the New York Assay Office. Their cost was $0 because there was no precious metal in them – they would have cost the silver bullion value otherwise. The same occurred for other issues both pattern and circulation. Mint officials did produce and sell pattern and experimental pieces to collectors – there are several letters to and about R. C. Davis and the mint’s interest in making sure his collection had the latest pattern pieces. While today’s collectors might think of these actions as “creating rarities,” in their own time the Mint was simply doing what it could to support coin collectors and publicly displayed collections. (This was a major theme in the 19th century – public/museum collections were popular entertainment for many people.)
I imagine that as many of us as there are, would be the number of opinions as to what qualities would constitute a 19th century proof.
I do not hesitate to think either that my own opinion would change dramatically if I were shown three coins (from 1817, 1846, and 1895) that were all touted as proofs. The 19th century covers a lot of ground in the technology available to the early mints in the effort to produce coinage.
Going all the way back to the original three or four posts to this thread, it seems to me that this has 'evolved' into something else.
Consider this, the first mint was also the first public building constructed by the US Government. I would think that this in itself would qualify it as a stop to be made by the President.
Also consider and grandeur of the structure. It's square footage was considerably smaller than that of my house. I could probably place the entire coining room inside my great room.
Then, what were the capabilities of the press used to strike these 'proofs' of 1817 ? I would imagine that these coins were struck (with great care) using polished dies and polished planchets and that was about it. I could well be wrong about that, and would welcome input by someone who knows exactly what press types were available in the mint of circa 1817.
Consider this, the first mint was also the first public building constructed by the US Government. I would think that this in itself would qualify it as a stop to be made by the President.
Several other buildings predate the Philadelphia Mint as the "first public building constructed by the US Government."
Agreed - the thread has evolved quite a bit, although it remains interesting.
Whatever; with my short attention span, opinions only interest me for so long anyway.
That dime is absolutely fantastic though Realone. Stunning would be putting it mildly !
I've never before viewed an example that I could actually see the bird so well. He looks so cute; like a little midget eagle. His talons, legs and head seem almost disproportionate to his little wings and body. I keep trying to imagine him without that shield he's wearing. (I'm not attempting to make fun of the coin). I sincerely think that it is gorgeous.
Please pardon if it's faux pas, but I'm going to drop in a picture of the aforementioned PL surfaces 1819 that I picked up last week in Long Beach. It also has nice reflective surfaces, and about as good a strike as you will find on a "proof" coin from that period, or even for the next few decades. It's graded PCGS MS63BN, but it really looks a lot more like a 64. The mirrors don't really come through in the photo:
I was perusing heritage past auctions for ms flowing hair halfs and I found a remarkable example of an 1807"SP"65 half and it's detailed description, which brought in much of the topic of discussion on this thread, I would guess many of the heavy hitters are aware of this coin and some may have even contributed to the description?, but I was blown away by the images of this coin and it's very interesting concentric polishing lines on the obverse. It clearly was made for a special purpose.
I thought I would share the link , because it addresses many of the topics discussed here, like master coin and early proof designation.... plus it keeps the thread going
<< <i>I was perusing heritage past auctions for ms flowing hair halfs and I found a remarkable example of an 1807"SP"65 half and it's detailed description, which brought in much of the topic of discussion on this thread, I would guess many of the heavy hitters are aware of this coin and some may have even contributed to the description?, but I was blown away by the images of this coin and it's very interesting concentric polishing lines on the obverse. It clearly was made for a special purpose.
I thought I would share the link , because it addresses many of the topics discussed here, like master coin and early proof designation.... plus it keeps the thread going
It is a very unusual and impressive looking coin. However, for what it's worth, when it was sold in auction before it got certified, it did not bring a price commensurate with a coin that two or more bidders thought was truly special.
<< <i>I was perusing heritage past auctions for ms flowing hair halfs and I found a remarkable example of an 1807"SP"65 half and it's detailed description, which brought in much of the topic of discussion on this thread, I would guess many of the heavy hitters are aware of this coin and some may have even contributed to the description?, but I was blown away by the images of this coin and it's very interesting concentric polishing lines on the obverse. It clearly was made for a special purpose.
I thought I would share the link , because it addresses many of the topics discussed here, like master coin and early proof designation.... plus it keeps the thread going
Considering the time period that the coin was created (1807?), the concentric die lines are very interesting, and the description of the die lines are curious to me as well.
Compare the 1807 circular die striations to a Tru-View close-up (100x) photograph below of a PCGS Proof 65RB Lincoln from 1938 - the same concentric-like striations! Interestingly, I read in David Bower's (Whitman) book on proof coins that it is believed that a sort of circular buffing wheel was used in the '30s and '40s to polish the dies on proof issues. So perhaps a similar circular buffing method was used in 1807?? Obviously not electric, though
Is it possible that the special issue 1807 half dollar was manufactured at a later date?
The concentric lines evident on that coin are lathe marks from when the die was turned from an ingot. They can be seen on other early half dollars.
A point that wasn't addressed was- what were the first mint's capabilities? Voight was certainly aware of what European mints were producing concurrently and likely others. Look at the US Mint medals which were produced at the dawn of the 19th century; those show that the mint could have produced first class proof coins similar to those of the mid-late 19th century. But they didn't and that renders the whole proof argument moot.
<< <i>The concentric lines evident on that coin are lathe marks from when the die was turned from an ingot. They can be seen on other early half dollars.
A point that wasn't addressed was- what were the first mint's capabilities? Voight was certainly aware of what European mints were producing concurrently and likely others. Look at the US Mint medals which were produced at the dawn of the 19th century; those show that the mint could have produced first class proof coins similar to those of the mid-late 19th century. But they didn't and that renders the whole proof argument moot. >>
SL:
I don't see any reason why a lathe cannot be used for die-polishing purposes, but that aside, I agree with you on the point of early mint capabilities. But on the point of the actual motivation to create proof issues, the U.S. collector base was not large enough until the mid-late 1850s to justify proof manufacture. James Snowden was the first to identify the dormant proof coin market if I understand the history correctly. Snowden was appointed in 1847 as Treasurer of the Mint and Assistant Treasurer of the United States, and from 1853 to 1861, he was Director of the Mint. Clearly, he obviously understood finance on the highest levels. So with his background in finance and high political post in addition to his mint experience, and the obvious timing of the 1858 mass proof offerings he master-minded, I think that the intent to make proofs actually came down to one of seigniorage or profit (both mint and personal). Prior to that point, just because the mint had the know how and (maybe) equipment to make proofs did not mean it was a worthwhile endeavor to do so. There may have been an occasional event or dignitary visit, but that was all. The intent to create proof issues was by and large the same one we see today - making $$ (IMHO).
So if the entire point of the thread is whether the U.S. could make a proof in the early years, my answer would be 'yes'. But if the point is whether the mint did in fact do so, I think the consensus has been that they did on occasion (irrespective of what the coins may have been called, or the purpose for which they were minted).
... But on the point of the actual motivation to create proof issues, the U.S. collector base was not large enough until the mid-late 1850s to justify proof manufacture. James Snowden was the first to identify the dormant proof coin market if I understand the history correctly. Snowden was appointed in 1847 as Treasurer of the Mint and Assistant Treasurer of the United States, and from 1853 to 1861, he was Director of the Mint. Clearly, he obviously understood finance on the highest levels. So with his background in finance and high political post in addition to his mint experience, and the obvious timing of the 1858 mass proof offerings he master-minded, I think that the intent to make proofs actually came down to one of seigniorage or profit (both mint and personal). Prior to that point, just because the mint had the know how and (maybe) equipment to make proofs did not mean it was a worthwhile endeavor to do so. There may have been an occasional event or dignitary visit, but that was all. The intent to create proof issues was by and large the same one we see today - making $$ (IMHO).
So if the entire point of the thread is whether the U.S. could make a proof in the early years, my answer would be 'yes'. But if the point is whether the mint did in fact do so, I think the consensus has been that they did on occasion (irrespective of what the coins may have been called, or the purpose for which they were minted).
Duane
Unfortunately the above fails to take into consideration the fact that from 1854 to 1859 Director James Ross Snowden issued proof coins at face value plus postage. There was no profit to the Mint during these years.
Could we discuss the "proofs" (I'm putting in quotations based upon some of this thread... however PCGS pop report lists them as proofs)
of 1820, 1821, and 1822 (the latter especially, as I recall a supposedly original and matching 1822 proof set crossing the auction block a few years ago)?
<< <i>...a supposedly original and matching 1822 proof set crossing the auction block a few years ago...
But, did it get to the other side?
Both major services try their best to identify these critters, but thus far have not reached either consensus or consistency. >>
In some ways it's like getting a coin slabbed. There is a moving bar as to whether a coin will slab or not. So too, the standards for certifying early & branch mint proofs have been variable. With little to no documentation to go on, you look at the coin and make your best guess.....and the consensus will shift over time.
I wish to return to a topic that dominated the early and middle parts of this thread, as the thrust of this thread seem to be the supposed connection between U.S. Mint Documents and Proof issues.
Topic: Non-Proofs or Failed Proofs of Proof-only dates and Mint Records
Almost every expert regarding 19th century Proofs is in agreement that there are a significant number of coins of supposed Proof-only dates that do not have the physical characteristics generally associated with Proofs. In an early post to this thread, Capt. Henway said so. In addition to Breen, JD, QDB, Akers, CRO (Dave Wnuck) and many others could be cited as agreeing with me on this point. There is no doubt about it. I am not referring to borderline cases. I thought that I had, in previous posts, explained two ways in which non-Proofs (or incomplete Proofs) of Proof-only dates could have been released. There could be other ways.
(1) Non-Proofs (or incomplete Proofs) in Proof Sets
Walter Breen seemed certain that there were business strikes in original Mint wrappers in original Proof sets. Breen claims to have seen a substantial number of them. Denga above declares that switches must have occurred after the sets were released from the U.S. Mint. The most glaring examples, however, of non-Proofs of supposed Proof-only dates are nickels. It is unlikely, however, that people would switch out nickels. In most cases, they were not worth much until the late 20th century. Someone who is going to switch a business strike for a Proof would pick a gold denomination, or maybe a silver dollar. Even those Proofs were worth barely more than face value in the year of issue and shortly afterwards. More importantly, please see my comments below regarding the supposed U.S. Mint quality control program.
(2) Who received Proof Sets in the mail directly from the U.S. Mint?
I did not say, as Denga suggests, that collectors in the late 19th century were not sophisticated. Please read my last post. On the contrary, I said that most sophisticated collectors, in the 1880s, did not purchase Proof Sets by mail from the U.S. Mint. In the 1880s, recently minted Proof coins had little (if any) market value and received little attention from advanced collectors in the numismatic media.
Those advanced sophisticated collectors who did buy Proof sets in the respective year of issue tended to have contacts at the Mint or ordered through dealers that had contacts. Privately owned correspondence survives regarding communications of late 19th century collectors with Mint officials. Garrett and Clapp obtained cherry-picked coins, Proofs and business strikes, directly from the Mints, in the 19th century.
(3) The absence of formal, written complaints is not relevant to the poor striking quality of many Proofs or supposed Proofs.
RWB <<In examining mint records page-by-page in the 1873-1935 period, I do not recall seeing one complaint about quality.>>
(3A) Most buyers by mail order from the U.S. Mint could not tell the difference between Proofs and prooflike business strikes, and certainly could not distinguish finer points like the squaring of dentils.
(3B) Those who could tell the difference had no incentive to complain as most such Proofs were worth little, if anything, over face value, for years after their respective mintage. Besides, the premiums paid to the U.S. Mint for Proof set orders were just a small percentage over face value, nothing compared to premiums paid in later eras. Moreover, relatively better quality Proofs could often have been obtained from coin dealers in Philadelphia. It would have been illogical for the recipients of mail orders to complain about substandard Proofs or non-Proofs in their sets, most which would have literally been nickels and quarters, anyhow.
In the 1880s and in the 1960s through the present day, only a small percentage of the Proof Sets mailed by the U.S. Mint were bought by advanced sophisticated collectors. Then and now, advanced collectors tend to prefer coins that are older and/or rarer. Moreover, a lot of the people who buy Proof sets directly from the Mint are beginning collectors or are not collectors at all. This was true in the 1880s and is true now. Consider all the recently minted Proof coins that are hawked on TV shopping networks.
Many buy Proof sets directly from the Mint to give as gifts. A perusal of auction catalogues, from the second half of the 20th century, would yield quite a few examples of 19th century Proof sets with 19th century cases along with gift inscriptions.
(4) RWB directs attention to Mint Records Regarding Quality-Control of Proof issues.
<< The Mint cared a great deal about the proof coins they sold to collectors ... in instances where records exist for quantity struck versus quantity accepted by the Coiner as salable proofs, the rejection rate was high – 40% to 50%. >>
The substandard striking quality of many Proof quarters and half dollars dated in the 1880s demonstrates that RWB-s point here is very misleading.
If U.S. Mint documents really indicated that a rigorous quality control procedure was used to filter Proofs struck in the 1870s and 1880s, this would be a prime example of genuine records not being true. It is not merely my opinion that many Proof quarters and half dollars from the 1880s are of extremely low striking quality, and were clearly not carefully made. Akers, JD, Martin P., Dave Wnuck, Rich Uhrich, John Albanese, Dave Schweitz and many others would, I believe, agree that a very large number of such coins are substandard Proofs and could not have survived a rigorous quality control test. Indeed, I just discussed this point with Dave Wnuck, known in the forum as CRO, and he agrees that many Proof quarters, and also nickels of Proof-only dates, could not have passed any kind of serious test regarding the striking-quality of Proofs. If genuine Mint records indicate that they were subject to quality control, then the Mint records are, in some metaphorical sense, lying. Quarters and halves from the 1880s are among the lowest quality (in terms of striking characteristics) of any Proofs in the history of the U.S.
(4) 19th century Mint production and sales records are not accurate.
<<Specimens struck off the books are another matter and were not recorded. The fact that some pieces were struck off the books does not mean that internal records are inaccurate.>> -Denga
Rather than admitting the false nature of his earlier statement that all Mint records regarding Proofs are accurate, Denga is employing Orwellian double-talk. If the Mint records indicate that zero1885 Trade Dollars were minted, and at least five were minted, then the mintage record is not true. The fact that many patterns and Proofs of regular issues, and other rarities like the 1870-S half dime, were struck without accounting entries demonstrates that the statements by Denga and RWB early in this thread regarding the truthfulness of Mint records are wrong. If mintage figures omit coins that were minted, then Mint Records are not true.
<< [Proof coins were] counted in annual coin production totals. However, they received different treatment because they were sold at a premium and the extra funds had to be accounted for in mint books. >> -- RWB
If the records relating to 1884 and 1885 are not true, why would Denga and RWB assume that the records for prior years are true? Additional Proof or even business strike 1883 Trade Dollars could have been made as well, and not recorded in the accounting books. Denga conceded, after my last post, that Proof sets were made and sold -off the books.- So, this could have occurred at many times from the 1830s to the mid 1880s.
(5) It is known that Mint officials made thousands of items for collectors, -off the books-, not just patterns. There could easily have been thousands of others.
In my previous post, I said that a large number of patterns appeared in the numismatic marketplace years before Woodin traded, --off the books-, two $50 gold patterns struck in gold for a large quantity of patterns. Yet, Denga challenged this point. Please read auction catalogues from the 1860s to the 1880s. I used to collect such auction catalogues. It is likely that Saul Teichman, an expert in markets for patterns in the 19th century, could provide evidence that substantial quantities of patterns entered the numismatic marketplace in the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s. If such a large -off the books- enterprise could occur, why would Denga and RWB assume that other mint records regarding mintages and sales are complete and accurate?
Not all patterns are Proofs. As Mint Directors, or other high officials, were able to produce innumerable patterns -off the books-, plus 1884 and 1885 Trade Dollars, they could easily have made Proofs and business strikes of many regular issues -off the books- as well.
Saul Teichman states, on USPatterns.com, that 1836 Gobrecht dollars << were deliberately released into circulation for commercial use and thus should not be considered patterns.>> Saul further says that restrikes of 1836 dollars were made, for collectors, <<in the 1860s and possibly later.>>
In the 19th century, there were some collectors who preferred business strikes to Proofs, though they constituted a minority. If collectors or their dealer-agents, who had Mint connections, wanted business strikes of so-called “Proof-only” issues, these would have been easy to supply. Consider all the fantasy pieces, which fall under the general category of patterns, that were struck for collectors. Some coins dated in the 1830s were likely to have been struck in the 1870s.
JD maintains, in an article published on PCGS.com, that Proof 1801, 1802 and 1803 silver dollars were likely to have been struck in the 1870s. (See a link to this article below.) Almost any coin, for which dies (or maybe even hubs?) were extant, could have been made -off the books- in the late 19th century.
The extensive -off the books- operations, utilizing significant quantities of copper, nickel and silver, plus some gold, and the existence of regular Proofs and business strikes that are not in the Mint records, demonstrates that many U.S. Mint production, distribution and sales records of coins, especially Proofs, are not accurate. I am not accusing 19th century U.S. Mint officials of wrongdoing. Such -off the books- activities may have been effectively legal, or considered minor offenses. I am suggesting that most mintage and sales records, in regard to Proofs and some other rarities from the 1850s to the 1880s, should not be taken too seriously.
... But on the point of the actual motivation to create proof issues, the U.S. collector base was not large enough until the mid-late 1850s to justify proof manufacture. James Snowden was the first to identify the dormant proof coin market if I understand the history correctly. Snowden was appointed in 1847 as Treasurer of the Mint and Assistant Treasurer of the United States, and from 1853 to 1861, he was Director of the Mint. Clearly, he obviously understood finance on the highest levels. So with his background in finance and high political post in addition to his mint experience, and the obvious timing of the 1858 mass proof offerings he master-minded, I think that the intent to make proofs actually came down to one of seigniorage or profit (both mint and personal). Prior to that point, just because the mint had the know how and (maybe) equipment to make proofs did not mean it was a worthwhile endeavor to do so. There may have been an occasional event or dignitary visit, but that was all. The intent to create proof issues was by and large the same one we see today - making $$ (IMHO).
So if the entire point of the thread is whether the U.S. could make a proof in the early years, my answer would be 'yes'. But if the point is whether the mint did in fact do so, I think the consensus has been that they did on occasion (irrespective of what the coins may have been called, or the purpose for which they were minted).
Duane
Unfortunately the above fails to take into consideration the fact that from 1854 to 1859 Director James Ross Snowden issued proof coins at face value plus postage. There was no profit to the Mint during these years.
Denga >>
Denga,
Point well taken. And I don’t want to banter it around too badly, but you presume a linear yes/no approach which does not actually address my implied point on personal profit v. seigniorage. Maybe I was not precise enough in my explanation.
For example, many patterns of the early 1850s are said to have been sold outside the mint for a profit – so that assumption always lead me to think that the pattern profit inured to individuals within the mint, but not to the mint itself. That ‘profit’ was not ‘seigniorage’ per se, but individual profit. An easy next step supports a cogent argument that the massive Flying Eagle pattern dissemination of 1856-57 was in fact a brilliant marketing campaign by Snowden focused on convincing the powers-that-be in Congress to accept the less expensive small cent (which would thus lead to another form of profit; i.e. government profit, or formal seigniorage).
This seigniorage idea was floating around from the 1830s vis-a-vis Lewis Feuchtwanger, but it was Snowden, with heavy lobbying and political support from Joseph Wharton on nickel use that won the day. So I see the idea of mass proof coinage and seigniorage inseparable.
To take your point, one must assume that early proofs were created solely for collectors, commemorations, or dignitaries, with no thought of profit on any level. While those reasons may have been the original motives for creating early proof coins, I think they primarily went out the window in roughly 1859. In fairness, though, I think T. Roosevelt did bring a true non-profit national pride motive to coinage back in the early Twentieth Century.
Point well taken. And I don’t want to banter it around too badly, but you presume a linear yes/no approach which does not actually address my implied point on personal profit v. seigniorage. Maybe I was not precise enough in my explanation.
For example, many patterns of the early 1850s are said to have been sold outside the mint for a profit – so that assumption always lead me to think that the pattern profit inured to individuals within the mint, but not to the mint itself. That ‘profit’ was not ‘seigniorage’ per se, but individual profit. An easy next step supports a cogent argument that the massive Flying Eagle pattern dissemination of 1856-57 was in fact a brilliant marketing campaign by Snowden focused on convincing the powers-that-be in Congress to accept the less expensive small cent (which would thus lead to another form of profit; i.e. government profit, or formal seigniorage).
This seigniorage idea was floating around from the 1830s vis-a-vis Lewis Feuchtwanger, but it was Snowden, with heavy lobbying and political support from Joseph Wharton on nickel use that won the day. So I see the idea of mass proof coinage and seigniorage inseparable.
To take your point, one must assume that early proofs were created solely for collectors, commemorations, or dignitaries, with no thought of profit on any level. While those reasons may have been the original motives for creating early proof coins, I think they primarily went out the window in roughly 1859. In fairness, though, I think T. Roosevelt did bring a true non-profit national pride motive to coinage back in the early Twentieth Century.
That was my true point being made.
Thanks, Duane
Some general points:
1) It is true that pattern coins were sold to collectors in the late 1850s but this is not quite what it seems. The director, Snowden, sold these for the sole purpose of raising funds to augment the Mint cabinet, especially in the area of Washington medals.
2) Some pattern pieces were sold, but not very many, by those with access to such pieces but without Snowden’s knowledge. There was of course a profit motive. It is known that the director took action when he discovered what was going on.
3) While it is true that seigniorage was involved with the circulating coinage, this is not quite true with the proofs struck after 1859, where there was a premium charged. There may have been a small profit but most – or all – of that was eaten up by wages for the workmen preparing the proofs, a rather time-consuming process. Upwards of 800 silver sets were made in 1859 and that required considerable man-hours and thus a direct loss to the Mint. There is therefore some doubt that there was any true profit to the government for the proof coinage.
Point well taken. And I don’t want to banter it around too badly, but you presume a linear yes/no approach which does not actually address my implied point on personal profit v. seigniorage. Maybe I was not precise enough in my explanation.
For example, many patterns of the early 1850s are said to have been sold outside the mint for a profit – so that assumption always lead me to think that the pattern profit inured to individuals within the mint, but not to the mint itself. That ‘profit’ was not ‘seigniorage’ per se, but individual profit. An easy next step supports a cogent argument that the massive Flying Eagle pattern dissemination of 1856-57 was in fact a brilliant marketing campaign by Snowden focused on convincing the powers-that-be in Congress to accept the less expensive small cent (which would thus lead to another form of profit; i.e. government profit, or formal seigniorage).
This seigniorage idea was floating around from the 1830s vis-a-vis Lewis Feuchtwanger, but it was Snowden, with heavy lobbying and political support from Joseph Wharton on nickel use that won the day. So I see the idea of mass proof coinage and seigniorage inseparable.
To take your point, one must assume that early proofs were created solely for collectors, commemorations, or dignitaries, with no thought of profit on any level. While those reasons may have been the original motives for creating early proof coins, I think they primarily went out the window in roughly 1859. In fairness, though, I think T. Roosevelt did bring a true non-profit national pride motive to coinage back in the early Twentieth Century.
That was my true point being made.
Thanks, Duane
Some general points:
1) It is true that pattern coins were sold to collectors in the late 1850s but this is not quite what it seems. The director, Snowden, sold these for the sole purpose of raising funds to augment the Mint cabinet, especially in the area of Washington medals.
2) Some pattern pieces were sold, but not very many, by those with access to such pieces but without Snowden’s knowledge. There was of course a profit motive. It is known that the director took action when he discovered what was going on.
3) While it is true that seigniorage was involved with the circulating coinage, this is not quite true with the proofs struck after 1859, where there was a premium charged. There may have been a small profit but most – or all – of that was eaten up by wages for the workmen preparing the proofs, a rather time-consuming process. Upwards of 800 silver sets were made in 1859 and that required considerable man-hours and thus a direct loss to the Mint. There is therefore some doubt that there was any true profit to the government for the proof coinage.
Comments
I see no undue commercial influence in this case.
It is quite possible to trade a coin on the basis of what it *is*, with no regard to the intent of the coiner.
Same thing with DCAM proofs. No one really cares if they were the first one struck (which can never be proven anyway), or if the coiner was "trying" to make a DCAM, they just care that they are way frosted and cool looking. And they are.
As for one-off cases like Mr. Contursi's 1794 dollar, he is free to make his case, and if someone wants to step up to the plate and pay the $10M, more power to them.
<<In trying to get back to a time before proof was a classification for coins in this country, it is my opinion that Master-Coins and Proofs are not the same thing.>>
Some of the coins that were then referred to as “Master-coins” are clearly Proofs, as the term is defined today.
<<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.>>
There is compelling historical evidence relating to the ‘King of Siam Set.’ Moreover, no pertinent expert could possibly dispute that the 1804 Eagle, 1804 dollar and 1834 quarter contained therein are true Proofs. The Proof status of at least one of the other coins in the set could possibly be challenged.
<<There have been first strike, and highly prooflike 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.>>
In several of my articles, I discuss the difference between a true Proof and a prooflike business strike. Moreover, there is a logical, defensible distinction between a Specimen striking and a true Proof. It is not relevant to the distinction between a 68 and a 69 grade, as you stated that it was.
<<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.>>
Many Proof Liberty Head gold coins and Liberty Seated silver coins that were struck in the 1840s have even stronger Proof characteristics than analogous Proof coins, of the same denominations, from the 1860s and 1870s. Certainly, true Proofs were made before the 1860s. There was not a need to employ the term Proof in order to make a Proof. Wheels were made before the English word ‘wheel’ came about.
<<The 1838-O proof half dollars were similarly saved and sent to acquaintances by New Orleans coiner Rufus Tyler. Most of these pieces are wonderful looking coins (at least the ones that haven't been damaged in the intervening years), but they were not at the time struck to be what we now accept as proof coinage.>>
As it is provable beyond a reasonable doubt, that many silver and gold coins from the 1840s are true Proofs, “as we now accept Proof coinage,” it follows logically that 1838-O halves may be as well. While 1838-O halves are not as convincing as Proofs as many other other pre-1860 Proofs, more than 90% of all experts agree that 1838-O halves are Proofs or Impaired Proofs.
FirstMint, have you studied the differences between a Proof and a business strike? Please read my articles, and view some pre-1860 Proof coins!
The Unique Proof-1876-CC Dime
Turtle Rock collection of Proof dimes, including an 1820 dime
Specimen 1856-O Double Eagle
Proof 1907-D Double Eagle
I have read your articles and they cover much groundwork and express opinions of the "experts" that you have interviewed. You are doing a good job presenting coverage of today's marketplace.
Yes, I have seen the 1855-S BMP's and several 1838-O Halves, and I know that they are called proofs by many and have been for decades (at least the 1838-O's).
That still does not make them proofs, especially BMP's. I was simply pointing out the original background for these particular items, and how they came to be in the numismatic channels. You mentioned that when the first time several of the 1855-S coins were submitted, they were not place into holders stating they were proof. That's as it should be - if one knows the real history and background of those pieces. The statement I made is certainly not "terribly wrong", but it is certainly correct!
The trouble is that there are other entities that will provide something where certain standards are rather lax. That's why we have grade-flation and a host of other problems in today's marketplace (or industry if you prefer).
edited to add - You mention that true proofs were made before 1860, but do not offer validation. That is the key point to this thread.
edited later to clarify - The above information is not new. It would be beneficial for people to read the earlier thread from December 2007 about the BMP CC dime. It covers in good detail what is mentioned above. Just type in branch mint proof in the search engine at the top of any page of thread topics.
<< <i> You (Analyst) mention that true Proofs were made before 1860, but do not offer validation. >>
I demonstrated how the existence of Proofs from the 1860s, which FirstMint acknowledges exist, could be used to prove the existence of Proofs from the 1840s. I did not then realize that, oddly, FirstMint seems to think that a coin can only be a Proof if it is accompanied by or can be strongly linked to documents that indicate that U.S. Mint officials employed the term ‘Proof’ in regard to its issue, and therefore Proofs cannot exist before the term ‘Proof’ was first used in surviving documents. This is like saying that wheels did not exist before the English word 'wheel' was first used.
As to what constitutes a Proof, I have been developing a definition, which is considerably consistent with, though different from, that of Walter Breen. I honestly believe my definition is clearer and more consistent with how leading experts on Proofs, in their minds, have interpreted Proofs, over a very long period of time. Indeed, my definition is certainly very much consistent with the practices in this regard of David Akers and John Pittman. My definition is explained to some extent in the three articles listed below, and will be further developed in the future. With the exceptions of Akers and JD (and maybe QDB and Jeff G.), there is no living individual who has done more research, viewing and writing in this area than I have. I do not ever remember seeing 'FirstMint' at lot viewing sessions when pre-1860 coins, which are certified as Proofs, are coming up for auction.
FirstMint's statement regarding "real history and background" stems from a point that FirstMint should have made clear at the onset. FirstMint is confusing the concept of a Proof with that of a coin that is made for some specific presentation or marketing program. There is no need to know the "real history and background" of a coin to determine whether or not it is a Proof. Read my defining terms or the definitions of Breen or Newcomb. It is the characteristics of a coin that determine whether or not it is a Proof, even if it was made in an illegal manner or for unethical reasons.
If FirstMint is going to continue to assert that there is a need to know "the real history and background" of a coin, then there is no point in us debating the definition of a Proof. FirstMint is referring to the orders that Mint Personnel were following and/or what was going in their minds. A Proof does not need to have been made for presentation to an influential politician or for a mail order sale to a collector; it could have been made for other reasons, some of which will never be known.
FirstMint is focusing on the pedigree and provenance of coins, not upon the definition of a Proof. While researching pedigrees is greatly beneficial to the coin collecting community, a coin with no discernible pedigree can still be a Proof.
In any event, it seems that FirstMint has formed a definition of a Proof that is in dramatic conflict with that of most pertinent experts who carefully inspect the coins themselves.
Proof 1876-CC Dime
Turtle Rock Proof Dimes
Proof 1907-D Double Eagle
This post was edited for clarity.
As for traditionally accepted descriptions – many of those have been demonstrated to be incorrect or misunderstandings. Sometimes inadvertent, sometimes out of genuine belief but lack of information, and sometimes for nothing more than to grab a price from a sucker.
Thank you for the response regarding yours, and the expert's opinions of pre-1860 proofs. I'm glad you agree with what they say, and all can see that your writing supports this. Keep drinking the Kool-aid.
The King of Siam "Set of Coins" along with the other three sets made in 1835 for diplomatic exchange purposes, were not labeled as being anything special when they were discussed in correspondence. To classify those as Proof sets is simply a misnomer that has come to be accepted in today's marketplace. They could be properly labelled "Presentation sets" with coins that were struck from freshly polished dies.
You have not seen me at lot viewing simply because I do not buy coins any longer. Having been a coin collector since the early 1960s, a coin dealer, A cataloguer (briefly) and numismatic literature collector and dealer, and now devoting much time to being a numismatic researcher (a thankless and unpaid position) I have watched the development of today's coin industry from the time of the experts I learned from (Breen, Taxay, and Ford, etc). Fortunately QDB is among the experts I learn from, and likewise he from me (being a contributor to several of his books).
The discussion found in this thread will not change anything in the coin industry. This is a fact that I fully realize, and I'm not on a crusade or a witchhunt to reform the business.
Historically speaking, there have been challenges made in this particular hobby since the beginnings of the coin collecting craze in the 1850s. I refer to the "Gus" and "Numismatist" exchanges in the New York newspapers (see Bowers "American Numismatics Before the Civil War" book). So what I'm doing is hardly new.
However, with that being said, there is a strong need to portray numismatic history in accurate terms based on reality and facts. We get less and less of this as time goes on. It has been up to dedicated individuals to present most of what is known from the past, which constantly needs to be questioned for accuracy.
As an example, Eric Newman wrote a book about the 1804 dollars that came out in 1962 after he had read in print that there was a collector who owned genuine 1804 and 1805 dollars. Rather than accept that, he began doing research to uncover the truth of the matter.
Presently, I am doing the same thing (writing a book) regarding John Ford and the Franklin Hoard in which USAOG $20 gold coins (forgeries) that were marketed by Ford were sold as original proofs from 1853. The PNG took nearly two years to declare the coins were "not true proofs" without addressing the subject for the arbitration, which was genuineness.
Breen and Taxay sucessfully defended Ford's position by sticking to the idea that the PNG panel did not know the difference of what constituted a proof coin (which is supposed to be a method of manufacture rather than a grade).
As others have mentioned in this thread, we are probably dealing with semantics, yet it probably won't make any difference in what happens in the future.
One recommendation that I would offer to everyone is to expand your background knowledge and read as much as possible from all sources. Build a library and do not accept a "bourse floor mentality" when it comes to your involvement with this hobby.
Regrettably, we don't know the true intent of the coin makers when we see the results of their work. Therefore, people today try to place an event to tie in previously known "proof" coins to prove the coin makers intent for the issue. We create the stories, which are frequently used for promotional activity. That's the basis of how myths and legends are born, and there have been plenty in American numismatics.
Tying an event to exisiting coins and creating a reason for their existence instead of considering the possibility that they were among the first strikes, displays a certain amount narrow mindedness and assumption on our part, but part of that is due to the lack of existing validation and documents. Another problem is trying to sort out the multitude of mis-information which has already been presented by the experts.
To quote John Ford, "Ever since the first coin was sold to anybody, somebody has lied about it...We lie about different things at different times" (Legacy interview, summer 1990, p.52). This is not something that helps anyone and should be something that is held in check.
And, as Forest Gump might say, "That's all I have to say about that".
- edited to correct Mr. Gump's quote.
The what??? Details, please!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I also remember a collector writing about such an animal in the Coin Collector Journals or Numismatist's, or Scrapbooks, etc. back in the 1940s or 1950s (probably the same coin). Since I don't have all of those issues anymore, perhaps someboby would be interested in looking that up (in their spare time). It's a very obscure letter and and catalogue description that I saw years ago.
edited - It's going to take a lot longer than a day or so to find this again (because of my work schedule and the fact that nobody is paying to have the research done). There's thousands of pages to check. I will post the information when I find it again.
Andy, please chek with Saul T. and see if remembers this. I purchased most of his library a few years ago, but he may have written something down.
Welcome to the forum!
<The what??? Details, please! >
Andy - there was one such piece listed in a W.E. Woodward sale from the 1880's I believe.
Karl - If that's the only documentation for the piece, I'd say it's a near certainty that the piece was a contemporary counterfeit.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i><<...they are similar to the platuinum 1869 half eagle from the San Francisco Mint.>>
<The what??? Details, please! >
Andy - there was one such piece listed in a W.E. Woodward sale from the 1880's I believe.
Karl - If that's the only documentation for the piece, I'd say it's a near certainty that the piece was a contemporary counterfeit. >>
Bingo -- I was thinking the same thing. Especially during that time period.
Coin Rarities Online
The later, brief letter was probably about the same coin that made it through the years without getting recognized. There may be one or two such pieces listed in the original 1913 Adams & Woodin book.
If the references are not necessary at this point in time, I will abandon my search (thank you) and go on to more important things.
edited for spelling
I have been assembling a copper type set, 1793 - present, half cents and cents, and I have been buying proofs to fill the slots whenever possible. My goal is to have at least one proof large cent and one proof half cent from as early a date as possible. After spending two days in Long Beach last week pouring over everything copper, I was able to locate about half a dozen PCGS graded proof Large Cents from as far back as 1841. I believe the 1841 coin was at Kagin's table.
Then something happened that messed me all up...
I ran into Ray Hinkelman, and he subsequently showed me an 1819 Small Date cent in PCGS MS63BN. It has prooflike surfaces and a relatively strong strike. Now, I have been until now resigned to the fact that these early proofs do in fact exist, but further resigned to the fact that I will unlikely ever have the disposable income required to actually buy one. The Hinkelman coin had such a nice look, and the mirrors were so engaging that I simply bought the coin. I indeed feel lucky to have an original surfaces coin from this era with PL surfaces that looks quite nice next to the rest of my brown proof copper.
So what's messed up about that? Well...
I start showing the coin around, and a couple of dealers look at it and say that this coin, out of the holder and in an auction, would likely be classified as a proof. Coins exactly like these have traded hands as proofs prior to the days of grading companies, and that some coins like these have actually ended up in proof holders from major TPGs.
I think from that point forward, I started asking questions like: How do we know that any of these "proof" cents I've been looking at are actual "proofs"? I mean, some of the coins I'm seeing in proof holders are weakly struck, and if I'm going to buy a proof coin, by golly I want full star centers, full denticles, and broad flat rims. I actually spoke to Tom Reynolds about this, and he told me to be sure to try and find a "proof only" issue, which I can't remember the exact type, something from the end of the series like a '55 or a '57. So now I go looking at the price guide and try to identify a "proof only" type from those years, and I find proofs and MS examples for each type listed.
So how do I know that any of these large cents I've been ogleing are actual proofs???
If any of the obviously erudite posters on this thread can point me in the right direction here, I would be most obliged.
Regards,
Empty Nest Collection
You really don't. There are many layers of assumption, marketing hype, truth and lies. You will likely need to convince yourself that a particular coin was a special striking of some sort. Respected numismatic researchers - past and present - disagree, as you've noted in this thread.
When faced with so much confusion, one course is to go back to basics and focus on documented facts. The potential of archives have been so lightly explored, that it is possible the answer to your question is lying in plain sight.
<< <i>Matt,
You really don't. There are many layers of assumption, marketing hype, truth and lies. You will likely need to convince yourself that a particular coin was a special striking of some sort. Respected numismatic researchers - past and present - disagree, as you've noted in this thread.
When faced with so much confusion, one course is to go back to basics and focus on documented facts. The potential of archives have been so lightly explored, that it is possible the answer to your question is lying in plain sight. >>
When it comes to attributing early Proofs of the types being discussed in this thread, rarely will there be close to universal agreement regarding their Proof status. However, some of them are a heck of a lot more convincing than others. And their status as Proofs garners much greater agreement among knowledgeable collectors and dealers.
If you are going to pursue any of them, target the ones that appear to speak for themselves and don't need to be explained/justified to you. And when you're examining them, ask yourself this: If a business strike were worth more than (rather than less than) a Proof, considering its appearance, would this coin still be attributed and sold as a Proof?
<< <i>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. ... [Coins can be] Proofs by intent. -- TD >>
To Capt. Henway and others who believe that the ‘original intent’ is a strong component in determining a coin’s Proof status,
Are you saying that a coin that would not otherwise be regarded as a Proof can rise to Proof status if it was intended to be a Proof? Are you further suggesting that a coin that has minimal Proof characteristics should be regarded as a Proof if it is of a so called “Proof-only” issue?
If some of the coins of a “Proof-only” issue are not really Proofs, then it could be because these were poorly made or because the issue in question was never really “Proof-only.” Walter Breen determined that non-Proofs of ‘Proof-only’ issues were “Mint Errors.” In my view, people might deliberately not follow orders or protocol and make non-Proofs to be sold as “Proofs” in order to save time, conserve other resources or for various reasons relating to why people do not always perform the tasks that they are assigned. Is there any society in which all people do the jobs that they are supposed to do or agree to do? Besides, U.S. Mint Personnel could have made business strikes for themselves or for private collectors.
It is also true that the Mint records regarding some ‘Proof-only’ issues could be accidentally wrong. Could there have been communications problems between those who made business strikes and those who decided or concluded that a particular issue was “Proof-only”?
Rather than non-Proofs of ‘Proof-only’ issues always being “Mint Errors,” as Breen suggests, it may sometimes be the Mint records that are in error, or were deliberately falsified. In the late 19th century, were the Secretary of the Treasury and U.S. Justice Dept. attorneys really going to care whether several hundred nickels, in any given year, are Proofs or business strikes?
GR
Proof 1876-CC Dime
Turtle Rock Proof Dimes
Proof 1907-D Double Eagle
In the latter 19th century, collectors’ proof coins were made in the medal department and were counted in annual coin production totals. However, they received different treatment because they were sold at a premium and the extra funds had to be accounted for in mint books.
The mint cared a great deal about the proof coins they sold to collectors. The mint was a primary supporter of coin collectors and reacted quickly to most complaints. Each year enough profit was generated by the medal department to pay the wages of several workmen – considerably more than the cost of production.
One must view the era from its own perspective, not from our 21st century vantage.
<< 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. ... [Coins can be] Proofs by intent. -- TD >>
To Capt. Henway and others who believe that the ‘original intent’ is a strong component in determining a coin’s Proof status, Are you saying that a coin that would not otherwise be regarded as a Proof can rise to Proof status if it was intended to be a Proof? Are you further suggesting that a coin that has minimal Proof characteristics should be regarded as a Proof if it is of a so called “Proof-only” issue?
If some of the coins of a “Proof-only” issue are not really Proofs, then it could be because these were poorly made or because the issue in question was never really “Proof-only.” Walter Breen determined that non-Proofs of ‘Proof-only’ issues were “Mint Errors.” In my view, people might deliberately not follow orders or protocol and make non-Proofs to be sold as “Proofs” in order to save time, conserve other resources or for various reasons relating to why people do not always perform the tasks that they are assigned. Is there any society in which all people do the jobs that they are supposed to do or agree to do? Besides, U.S. Mint Personnel could have made business strikes for themselves or for private collectors.
It is also true that the Mint records regarding some ‘Proof-only’ issues could be accidentally wrong. Could there have been communications problems between those who made business strikes and those who decided or concluded that a particular issue was “Proof-only”?
Rather than non-Proofs of ‘Proof-only’ issues always being “Mint Errors,” as Breen suggests, it may sometimes be the Mint records that are in error, or were deliberately falsified. In the late 19th century, were the Secretary of the Treasury and U.S. Justice Dept. attorneys really going to care whether several hundred nickels, in any given year, are Proofs or business strikes?
GR
Perhaps some general comments are in order as I have read the fiscal and coinage records of the Mint for the
better part of the 19th century:
1) The internal Mint records are virtually flawless when it comes to the number of proofs released and the
proof-only issues. Problems arose in 1886–1887 when the old fiscal year reports were changed, at the
request of Mint Director Kimball, to calendar year instead and numerous errors were made by the clerks.
Most of these errors were corrected in the 1960s but a few might yet remain.
2) The old saw about uncirculated pieces being substituted into proof sets deserves a decent burial. I found
not a single complaint in the Medal Department records (the division responsible for proof set sales) from
proof set buyers. The pieces were almost certainly switched after the sets left the Mint.
3) I did find one complaint about single proof pieces sold by the Mint at the Medal Department window. One
collector wrote an irate letter to Superintendent A.L. Snowden to report careless handling of gold dollar proofs
by the medal clerk. He was soon replaced.
4) Some of the lower-quality pieces in present-day collections probably came about in a different way. When
proofs were being made in the 1870s, for example, it was the practice to choose only the best pieces for the
sets. This normally meant a certain number left over to be melted at year’s end but this did not always happen.
It is believed, for example, that the excess number of certain proof-only $3 gold pieces came about when
someone switched full-weight pieces for the lesser-quality proofs at year’s end.
5) My view is that Capt. Henway is correct and some allowance must be made for intent. I have not seen the
1817 pieces but one would think that the quality of the supposed proofs is high enough that a conscious effort
was made to produce something very special. That this did not happen by 2010 standards should not overly
affect our view of what happened in 1817 or the 1820s.
Denga
So how do I know that any of these large cents I've been ogleing are actual proofs???**
This is a great thread!
Matt - to give you one specific example, my 1857 proof large cent is a "proof only" 'type' from an 'issue' (1857) with 5 'types'. In other words, out of 5 'types' of the 1857 'issue' the type 3 and type 5 are in fact 'proof only'. But if you read this in the Red Book, you will find both MS and PR 1857 large cents, and no differentiation of 'types'.
My coin is a 'type 3' small date with the well-documented diagnostics and mintage records to establish authenticity. If you want to find the most recent compilation on the large cent mintages, try the First Edition of the Red Book "Professional Edition" now on the shelves; Page 44. Breen's original proof guide is, beleive it or not, pretty good for the diganostics as well. Ditto the Newcomb and text (1817-1857).
Hope that is helpful in a specific sense.
Duane
While at ANACS, I did a number of weekend seminars with Ed Fleischmann. We did a lot of these, and typically we started out with some expense money and took turns paying for meals. After the trip we would each do our own expense account and turn in the leftover.
One week the Executive Director called us into his office with an "Aha!" look on his face. Holding the expense reports for the previous weekend, he said that on such and such a date we had both charged the ANA for "Dinner!" Obvious fraud, right?
Ed F. calmly asked me what I called the evening meal. I said "dinner." He then said that that was because I was from Michigan, but that where he came from, Wisconsin, you had "dinner" in the early afternoon and "supper" after work. Thus, he had paid for "dinner" at noontime and I had paid for "dinner" at six.
The Executive Director was quite crestfallen.
Don't say that a coin is not a Proof because the Mint did not use that term in that year. There are some early Proofs. I once saw a 1799 dollar that was amazing, so well struck that the obverse stars had tiny raised points in the centers. I have never seen that on another 1799 dollar.
I would have no problem calling that particular coin a Proof if asked to do so today. It was obviously multiply struck, from new dies with great luster. Was the luster as good as that of a Proof Morgan dollar? No. That does not mean that the coiner's intent was to make something less than special, be it a "presentation piece," a "master coin" or a Proof."
I likewise have no problem calling inferior Proof 1886 three cent nickels Proofs, even though the quality was lousy. They are not mint errors, they are just sloppy workmanship. The guy making Proofs made lousy Proofs. He was not the last government employee to give less than his best.
I have not seen the 1817 and 1818 coins cited above, and have no opinion on them.
TD
<< <i>In the latter 19th century, collectors- proof coins were made in the medal department and were counted in annual coin production totals. However, they received different treatment because they were sold at a premium and the extra funds had to be accounted for in mint books. - RWB >>
<< <i>The internal Mint records are virtually flawless when it comes to the number of proofs released and the proof-only issues. - Denga >>
RWB & Denga,
These statements are extremely misleading. Consider Proof 1884 and 1885 Trade Dollars. R. W. Julian told me that both issues were -off the books- and not listed in any ledger. The late Carl Carlson found a document that was said to authorize 1884 Proof sets, including 1884 Trade Dollars. Even Carlson acknowledged that 1884 Trade Dollars were not mentioned in official mintage and accounting records that survive.
During most periods from the mid 1850s to the mid 1880s, there were a lot of activities at the Mint, especially the manufacture of Patterns, which were not in -internal Mint records-, at least not in the accounting records. By the way, is there a record of the striking of the 1870-S half dime?
In 1877 alone, more than thirty different design types of patterns were produced, many of these were produced in more than one metal. The total number of 1877 pattern varieties, not including die trials of regular issues, is well over fifty, if my memory serves me correctly. In 1870, there were more one hundred varieties of patterns, including more than twenty-five of some single varieties that survive today. Indeed, more than one hundred 1879 Goloid dollars were struck in Goloid (an odd alloy) and more than ten of this same design type were struck in silver, plus probably more than a dozen in copper. Were all these Goloid dollars listed in the accounting records? No, they were distributed -off the books- and regular issues could have been as well.
All told, from the 1860s to the 1880s, thousands of patterns, in total, were struck. Many showed up in the numismatic marketplace long before William Woodin traded two 1877 $50 gold patterns in gold for a quantity of other patterns.
So, Mint Personnel had ample quantities of copper, nickel, aluminum and silver to make many patterns, sell them or give them away, all without much accounting. Additionally, not all patterns are Proofs. Some are business strikes. Therefore, Mint Personnel could have struck non-Proofs of supposed Proof-only regular issues at any time, just on whim. It was widely believed that at least two Directors of the U.S. Mint were involved in making items, off the books. If the Secretary of the Treasury and U.S. Justice Department attorneys did not view such activities as serious offenses, obviously, no one would have cared if business strike nickels were made of Proof-only dates.
The accounting ledgers did not reveal the true events at the U.S. Mint, and many other genuine documents are probably suspect as well, in terms of the truth.
Of course, I am not applying the standards of -today- to the late 19th century. I am suggesting that the -off the books- operations within the U.S. Mint might at the time have been considered minor offenses by law enforcement officials, or perhaps even to some extent legal. As long as the flows of silver and gold (and maybe other metals too) balanced, nothing was, in the opinions of most people at the time, considered stolen. Coins that were common at the time could always have been used to ensure that the flows of all metals were balanced. R. W. Julian has found that, in the 1920s and early 1930s, collectors were permitted to trade common date Saints for rare date Saints. A 1924 Saint could easily have been traded for a 1932 Saint Gaudens $20 gold coin. Such trades were considered legitimate. It is likely that common date coins, perhaps older circulated ones, were used to balance the books at various times from the 1860s to the 1880s.
Even gold patterns struck in gold were distributed without specific records, as far as we know. How can RWB and Denga possibly think that the records kept at the time were accurate in detail? Please show the mintage and sales records for Proof 1885 Trade Dollars.
--
Returning to a central theme, it is indisputable that some coins of Proof-only dates in the 1880s do not have the physical characteristics of Proofs. Capt. Henway said as much, as have almost all other pertinent experts, including David Akers. Breen called these Mint Errors. Other terms could be used. If Mint Officials could easily manufacture and distribute a large number of patterns, for decades, off the books, making business strikes of Proof-only issues could not have been difficult. It was probably fun.
As for the fact that there were not many complaints, discovered so far, regarding Proof sets. Consider the people who buy Proof sets directly from the U.S. Mint, today. Often, they are beginners or people who do not know anything about coins. On many occasions, sets are purchased to be given as gifts.
Undoubtedly, the percentage of Proof sets sold to sophisticated collectors was higher in 1886 than it is in 2010. Even so, most sophisticated collectors then were interested in older coins and rarer coins. Furthermore, surviving original Proof sets from the 19th century have, on several occasions, been accompanied by cases and inscriptions that indicate that the sets were gifts. Many of the recipients were casual collectors or non-collectors.
More importantly, Proof sets in the 19th century sold for only a very small premium over face value. Compare those premiums to the premiums over face value that are charged by the U.S. Mint for Proof sets now. Before 1910, it was not unusual for Proof coins to be spent. Hardly anyone would have bothered to complain if non-Proofs were included in Proof sets. Most buyers to whom the Proof sets were delivered would not know the difference between Proofs and business strikes, and those who did could just sell the set to a coin dealer, or, more likely, spend the coins included. Numerous Proof Morgan dollars were spent. Besides, a few sophisticated collectors had contacts at the U.S. Mint, or purchased through dealers who did, and could thus acquire Proof sets comprised of carefully selected coins.
Therefore, it is ridiculous for RWB and Denga to argue that the absence of complaints, so far discovered, demonstrates that business strikes were not in Proof sets. Besides, in the 1870s and 1880s, coins in Proof sets of the denominations of $2.5, $5, $10 and $20 were probably indisputable Proofs, the same for Morgans. No one is going to file a complaint because a nickel that is supposed to be a Proof is just a business strike. Few buyers would even know until they bring their coins to a knowledgeable dealer.
My suggestion that non-Proof nickels were probably in Proof sets seems valid. Breen put forth similar points. As there are a substantial number of coins that do not fulfill Proof criteria yet are of Proof-only dates, an explanation is needed. I have provided two theories, which are not mutually exclusive. (1) Business strikes of supposed Proof-only dates could have been easily deliberately made by advanced personnel. (2) Failed Proofs were made by workers who were not properly completing the tasks that they were assigned. To an extent, both explanations are probably true.
<< In the latter 19th century, collectors- proof coins were made in the medal department and were counted in annual coin production totals. However, they received different treatment because they were sold at a premium and the extra funds had to be accounted for in mint books. - RWB >>
<< The internal Mint records are virtually flawless when it comes to the number of proofs released and the proof-only issues. - Denga >>
RWB & Denga,
These statements are extremely misleading. Consider Proof 1884 and 1885 Trade Dollars. R. W. Julian told me that both issues were -off the books- and not listed in any ledger. The late Carl Carlson found a document that was said to authorize 1884 Proof sets, including 1884 Trade Dollars. Even Carlson acknowledged that 1884 Trade Dollars were not mentioned in official mintage and accounting records that survive.
No, the statements are accurate. Your are confusing specimens struck off the books by A. Loudon Snowden
with public sales to collectors; the latter are well documented. The 1884–1885 Trade dollars were made
clandestinely and not sold publicly.
During most periods from the mid 1850s to the mid 1880s, there were a lot of activities at the Mint, especially the manufacture of Patterns, which were not in -internal Mint records-, at least not in the accounting records. By the way, is there a record of the striking of the 1870-S half dime?
The striking of patterns was rarely recorded as these were normally not sold to the public. There is, however,
some documentation for the aluminum five cent pieces of the 1860s and the Trade dollar patterns of 1873. The
1870–S half dime was not struck at Philadelphia and I cannot answer the question.
In 1877 alone, more than thirty different design types of patterns were produced, many of these were produced in more than one metal. The total number of 1877 pattern varieties, not including die trials of regular issues, is well over fifty, if my memory serves me correctly. In 1870, there were more one hundred varieties of patterns, including more than twenty-five of some single varieties that survive today. Indeed, more than one hundred 1879 Goloid dollars were struck in Goloid (an odd alloy) and more than ten of this same design type were struck in silver, plus probably more than a dozen in copper. Were all these Goloid dollars listed in the accounting records? No, they were distributed -off the books- and regular issues could have been as well.
The regular Goloid issues sold to Congressmen, in the standard metals, are very well documented. Off-metal
strikes and patterns are not.
All told, from the 1860s to the 1880s, thousands of patterns, in total, were struck. Many showed up in the numismatic marketplace long before William Woodin traded two 1877 $50 gold patterns in gold for a quantity of other patterns.
So, Mint Personnel had ample quantities of copper, nickel, aluminum and silver to make many patterns, sell them or give them away, all without much accounting. Additionally, not all patterns are Proofs. Some are business strikes. Therefore, Mint Personnel could have struck non-Proofs of supposed Proof-only regular issues at any time, just on whim. It was widely believed that at least two Directors of the U.S. Mint were involved in making items, off the books. If the Secretary of the Treasury and U.S. Justice Department attorneys did not view such activities as serious offenses, obviously, no one would have cared if business strike nickels were made of Proof-only dates.
The striking of patterns was tightly controlled by the Superintendent and Mint Director. This is not to say
that abuses did not occur but ordinary workmen did not have access to the dies, which effectively kept
them from striking pieces off the books.
The accounting ledgers did not reveal the true events at the U.S. Mint, and many other genuine documents are probably suspect as well, in terms of the truth.
It needs to be stated again, apparently, that the internal records are correct when it comes to items
for the public, such as proof sets and circulation issues. Specimens struck off the books are another
matter and were not recorded. The fact that some pieces were struck off the books does not mean
that internal records are inaccurate. Your statement that “many other genuine documents are probably
suspect as well” is not acceptable unless you have proof to the contrary.
Of course, I am not applying the standards of -today- to the late 19th century. I am suggesting that the -off the books- operations within the U.S. Mint might at the time have been considered minor offenses by law enforcement officials, or perhaps even to some extent legal. As long as the flows of silver and gold (and maybe other metals too) balanced, nothing was, in the opinions of most people at the time, considered stolen. Coins that were common at the time could always have been used to ensure that the flows of all metals were balanced. R. W. Julian has found that, in the 1920s and early 1930s, collectors were permitted to trade common date Saints for rare date Saints. A 1924 Saint could easily have been traded for a 1932 Saint Gaudens $20 gold coin. Such trades were considered legitimate. It is likely that common date coins, perhaps older circulated ones, were used to balance the books at various times from the 1860s to the 1880s.
I do not know anything about trading common-date Saints for rare issues as you have stated and
said nothing of the sort. My only involvement in such a statement was in connection with the 1933
double eagle, which is another matter entirely.
Even gold patterns struck in gold were distributed without specific records, as far as we know. How can RWB
and Denga possibly think that the records kept at the time were accurate in detail? Please show the mintage
and sales records for Proof 1885 Trade Dollars.
Explained above. These were done clandestinely and therefore no record was kept. It was standard practice
at many world mints to make patterns, and sometimes proofs sets, off the books.
--
Returning to a central theme, it is indisputable that some coins of Proof-only dates in the 1880s do not have the physical characteristics of Proofs. Capt. Henway said as much, as have almost all other pertinent experts, including David Akers. Breen called these Mint Errors. Other terms could be used. If Mint Officials could easily manufacture and distribute a large number of patterns, for decades, off the books, making business strikes of Proof-only issues could not have been difficult. It was probably fun.
One would agree that not all proofs were perfect. However, the the statement that “Mint Officials could
easily manufacture and distribute a large number of patterns, for decades, off the books, making business
strikes of Proof-only issues could not have been difficult. It was probably fun.” is hardly accurate. Many of
the patterns and off-metal pieces did not show up until after 1900 and are believed to have come from the
private accumulation of A.L. Snowden, distributed as a result of the dispute over the 1877 $50 patterns.
As for the fact that there were not many complaints, discovered so far, regarding Proof sets. Consider the people who buy Proof sets directly from the U.S. Mint, today. Often, they are beginners or people who do not know anything about coins. On many occasions, sets are purchased to be given as gifts. Undoubtedly, the percentage of Proof sets sold to sophisticated collectors was higher in 1886 than it is in 2010. Even so, most sophisticated collectors then were interested in older coins and rarer coins. Furthermore, surviving original Proof sets from the 19th century have, on several occasions, been accompanied by cases and inscriptions that indicate that the sets were gifts. Many of the recipients were casual collectors or non-collectors.
More importantly, Proof sets in the 19th century sold for only a very small premium over face value. Compare those premiums to the premiums over face value that are charged by the U.S. Mint for Proof sets now. Before 1910, it was not unusual for Proof coins to be spent. Hardly anyone would have bothered to complain if non-Proofs were included in Proof sets. Most buyers to whom the Proof sets were delivered would not know the difference between Proofs and business strikes, and those who did could just sell the set to a coin dealer, or, more likely, spend the coins included. Numerous Proof Morgan dollars were spent. Besides, a few sophisticated collectors had contacts at the U.S. Mint, or purchased through dealers who did, and could thus acquire Proof sets comprised of carefully selected coins.
“Most buyers to whom the proof sets were delivered would not know the difference between proofs
and business strikes.” Analyst seems to think that 19th century collectors were not all that bright; I
strongly disagree. Both uncirculated and proofs could be obtained from the Mint and both kinds would
not have been offered had there not been a demand for these kinds of coins.
Therefore, it is ridiculous for RWB and Denga to argue that the absence of complaints, so far discovered, demonstrates that business strikes were not in Proof sets. Besides, in the 1870s and 1880s, coins in Proof sets of the denominations of $2.5, $5, $10 and $20 were probably indisputable Proofs, the same for Morgans. No one is going to file a complaint because a nickel that is supposed to be a Proof is just a business strike. Few buyers would even know until they bring their coins to a knowledgeable dealer.
In other words a 19th century collector did not know what a proof coin was supposed to look like.
My suggestion that non-Proof nickels were probably in Proof sets seems valid. Breen put forth similar points. As there are a substantial number of coins that do not fulfill Proof criteria yet are of Proof-only dates, an explanation is needed. I have provided two theories, which are not mutually exclusive. (1) Business strikes of supposed Proof-only dates could have been easily deliberately made by advanced personnel. (2) Failed Proofs were made by workers who were not properly completing the tasks that they were assigned. To an extent, both explanations are probably true.
It needs to be repeated that non-proof coins were not deliberately put into proof sets. The Medal
Department letters indicate a sophistication among ordinary collectors far above what analyst
indicates. I would suggest that he do the proper research before characterizing 19th century
collectors as a bunch of neophytes unable to tell the difference between proof and uncirculated.
Denga
Even though relatively none of that belongs to me, I do have a point I wish to make, and this is specifically in reference to Firstmint's argument about Proofs being called Proofs or otherwise.
How often does something have a name before it exists? Not just in numismatics, but in the whole world, throughout history? Nearly everything is created, THEN has a name applied to it. There are very few, if any, cases where a name is created and THEN something is made to wear that name.
And now, back to being a single-celled invertibrate in a large pond...I don't rate being a small fish in a big pond. Yet...
<< <i>A comment on semantics. Some words have multiple meanings, and sometimes multiple words can have the same meaning. >>
I like the dinner/supper analogy above, as I think it points out the shortcomings in terminology AND intent! -For whatever it's worth, here's my definitional two cents
In reading this string, I break out the arguments into two groups: the 'intent' arguments and the 'process' arguments for making and defining coins.
Maybe 'intent' and 'process' should not be split into two groups when attempting to define what is or is not a 'proof' coin. The terms should not be mutually exclusive, but considered in conjunction.
Clearly, 'dinner' and 'supper' are not mutually exclusive - they exist together. And the intent (AND process) here is to 'eat' by whatever name it is called. So if I fall into the "coiner's 'intent'" camp, but with a consideration as to what the process is along WITH the intention, maybe the idea clarifies.
For example, assuming I know the process that a coin was created (this may require research, of course), at that point the question arises for me as to the coiner's (or mint's) 'intent' for implementing the process .... intent to do what??
A) Intent to 'Prove' a die for circulation strikes? (is that a 'proof'?);
C) Create a high level version of the coin for formal release to the collecting public? (for an additional profit or seigniorage to the mint! Is that a 'proof'?);
D) Intent to create a high level version of the coin for the coiner's personal gain (for a personal profit. 'Proof' or 'theft'?);
E) Intent to create a high level 'pattern' to decide if a certain design is acceptable by the decision makers ('pattern' or 'proof' or BOTH?).
I'm sure there are many more reasons or 'intents' to make a coin, but these came to mind. But each one of these intentions above (and any others, I guess) could be ultimately detected and established (agreed to by many or most) with enough research and available information. So in order to define what a 'proof' coin actually is, in my HO, it would first be beneficial to define what "category of intent" (or even more than one category of intention) is agreeable by us to establish what is or is not a 'proof' in addition to the process.
Personally, I think that a 'proof' is actually a process, and the 'thing' (coin) that is created by the process can be a 'proof' per intent, and still 'be' any other name, as well. So define the process and intent, and you define the coin's status.
Mutual exclusivity of the terminology of process intent actually gets in the way of any one definition of the label on the 'thing'; in this case, a coin. I think that if both concepts are used, the together, the idea of a 'proof' can become definable to the agreement of most.
Just food for thought.
Duane
The Mint Director and Philadelphia Mint Superintendent occasionally expressed concern about the price of proof coins, and felt that the premium might be too high. There are letters of complaint in the mint archives regarding proofs. Most of these deal with non-delivery of an order, availability of a new design (i.e.: 1883 five-cent pieces, 1909 cents, 1913 nickels, etc.), or elimination of proof sets in 1916. The balance are scattered subjects including wealthy collectors who wanted to buy large quantities, collectors whose orders were returned as “sold out” (see the Giles Anderson material in “RAC 1909-1915”), and administrative issues. In examining mint records page-by-page in the 1873-1935 period, I do not recall seeing one complaint about quality.
A common justification some make for unsupported conclusions is that “the records lie.” Mint officials are accused of falsifying documents, or doing other things to hide the real reasons for something being produced. But reality is that mint operating records are very reliable, with only a few discrepancies scattered over hundreds of thousands of daily entries. It is these daily operating records and routine correspondence that tell what occurred and often why. However, with a large percentage of pre-1960 mint records missing, it is easier and more profitable to speculate, claim mint employees were rogues, liars and thieves, and invent tall tales, than to do the hard work of researching multiple archives.
Further, many of the things now considered “rarities” were little more than cheap substitutes. For example, 1878 pattern dollars in copper were made at the request of the Superintendent of the New York Assay Office. Their cost was $0 because there was no precious metal in them – they would have cost the silver bullion value otherwise. The same occurred for other issues both pattern and circulation. Mint officials did produce and sell pattern and experimental pieces to collectors – there are several letters to and about R. C. Davis and the mint’s interest in making sure his collection had the latest pattern pieces. While today’s collectors might think of these actions as “creating rarities,” in their own time the Mint was simply doing what it could to support coin collectors and publicly displayed collections. (This was a major theme in the 19th century – public/museum collections were popular entertainment for many people.)
I do not hesitate to think either that my own opinion would change dramatically if I were shown three coins (from 1817, 1846, and 1895) that were all touted as proofs. The 19th century covers a lot of ground in the technology available to the early mints in the effort to produce coinage.
Going all the way back to the original three or four posts to this thread, it seems to me that this has 'evolved' into something else.
Consider this, the first mint was also the first public building constructed by the US Government. I would think that this in itself would qualify it as a stop to be made by the President.
Also consider and grandeur of the structure. It's square footage was considerably smaller than that of my house. I could probably place the entire coining room inside my great room.
Then, what were the capabilities of the press used to strike these 'proofs' of 1817 ? I would imagine that these coins were struck (with great care) using polished dies and polished planchets and that was about it.
I could well be wrong about that, and would welcome input by someone who knows exactly what press types were available in the mint of circa 1817.
Several other buildings predate the Philadelphia Mint as the "first public building constructed by the US Government."
Agreed - the thread has evolved quite a bit, although it remains interesting.
<< <i>Agreed - the thread has evolved quite a bit, although it remains interesting. >>
Interesting? This thread has ruined my productivity thus far this week!
Empty Nest Collection
That dime is absolutely fantastic though Realone. Stunning would be putting it mildly !
I've never before viewed an example that I could actually see the bird so well. He looks so cute; like a little midget eagle. His talons, legs and head seem almost disproportionate to his little wings and body. I keep trying to imagine him without that shield he's wearing.
(I'm not attempting to make fun of the coin). I sincerely think that it is gorgeous.
Empty Nest Collection
Really, another exceptional coin, another best of the best of year. Where do you guys find these things?
I have seen some beauties here today. There is an 1867 dime on another thread that just makes me dizzy as well.
I thought I would share the link , because it addresses many of the topics discussed here, like master coin and early proof designation.... plus it keeps the thread going
1807 50c SP65
<< <i>I was perusing heritage past auctions for ms flowing hair halfs and I found a remarkable example of an 1807"SP"65 half and it's detailed description, which brought in much of the topic of discussion on this thread, I would guess many of the heavy hitters are aware of this coin and some may have even contributed to the description?, but I was blown away by the images of this coin and it's very interesting concentric polishing lines on the obverse. It clearly was made for a special purpose.
I thought I would share the link , because it addresses many of the topics discussed here, like master coin and early proof designation.... plus it keeps the thread going
1807 50c SP65 >>
It is a very unusual and impressive looking coin. However, for what it's worth, when it was sold in auction before it got certified, it did not bring a price commensurate with a coin that two or more bidders thought was truly special.
<< <i>I was perusing heritage past auctions for ms flowing hair halfs and I found a remarkable example of an 1807"SP"65 half and it's detailed description, which brought in much of the topic of discussion on this thread, I would guess many of the heavy hitters are aware of this coin and some may have even contributed to the description?, but I was blown away by the images of this coin and it's very interesting concentric polishing lines on the obverse. It clearly was made for a special purpose.
I thought I would share the link , because it addresses many of the topics discussed here, like master coin and early proof designation.... plus it keeps the thread going
1807 50c SP65 >>
Considering the time period that the coin was created (1807?), the concentric die lines are very interesting, and the description of the die lines are curious to me as well.
Compare the 1807 circular die striations to a Tru-View close-up (100x) photograph below of a PCGS Proof 65RB Lincoln from 1938 - the same concentric-like striations! Interestingly, I read in David Bower's (Whitman) book on proof coins that it is believed that a sort of circular buffing wheel was used in the '30s and '40s to polish the dies on proof issues. So perhaps a similar circular buffing method was used in 1807?? Obviously not electric, though
Is it possible that the special issue 1807 half dollar was manufactured at a later date?
A point that wasn't addressed was- what were the first mint's capabilities? Voight was certainly aware of what European mints were producing concurrently and likely others. Look at the US Mint medals which were produced at the dawn of the 19th century; those show that the mint could have produced first class proof coins similar to those of the mid-late 19th century. But they didn't and that renders the whole proof argument moot.
<< <i>The concentric lines evident on that coin are lathe marks from when the die was turned from an ingot. They can be seen on other early half dollars.
A point that wasn't addressed was- what were the first mint's capabilities? Voight was certainly aware of what European mints were producing concurrently and likely others. Look at the US Mint medals which were produced at the dawn of the 19th century; those show that the mint could have produced first class proof coins similar to those of the mid-late 19th century. But they didn't and that renders the whole proof argument moot. >>
SL:
I don't see any reason why a lathe cannot be used for die-polishing purposes, but that aside, I agree with you on the point of early mint capabilities. But on the point of the actual motivation to create proof issues, the U.S. collector base was not large enough until the mid-late 1850s to justify proof manufacture. James Snowden was the first to identify the dormant proof coin market if I understand the history correctly. Snowden was appointed in 1847 as Treasurer of the Mint and Assistant Treasurer of the United States, and from 1853 to 1861, he was Director of the Mint. Clearly, he obviously understood finance on the highest levels. So with his background in finance and high political post in addition to his mint experience, and the obvious timing of the 1858 mass proof offerings he master-minded, I think that the intent to make proofs actually came down to one of seigniorage or profit (both mint and personal). Prior to that point, just because the mint had the know how and (maybe) equipment to make proofs did not mean it was a worthwhile endeavor to do so. There may have been an occasional event or dignitary visit, but that was all. The intent to create proof issues was by and large the same one we see today - making $$ (IMHO).
So if the entire point of the thread is whether the U.S. could make a proof in the early years, my answer would be 'yes'. But if the point is whether the mint did in fact do so, I think the consensus has been that they did on occasion (irrespective of what the coins may have been called, or the purpose for which they were minted).
Great post.
Duane
... But on the point of the actual motivation to create proof issues, the U.S. collector base was not large enough until the mid-late 1850s to justify proof manufacture. James Snowden was the first to identify the dormant proof coin market if I understand the history correctly. Snowden was appointed in 1847 as Treasurer of the Mint and Assistant Treasurer of the United States, and from 1853 to 1861, he was Director of the Mint. Clearly, he obviously understood finance on the highest levels. So with his background in finance and high political post in addition to his mint experience, and the obvious timing of the 1858 mass proof offerings he master-minded, I think that the intent to make proofs actually came down to one of seigniorage or profit (both mint and personal). Prior to that point, just because the mint had the know how and (maybe) equipment to make proofs did not mean it was a worthwhile endeavor to do so. There may have been an occasional event or dignitary visit, but that was all. The intent to create proof issues was by and large the same one we see today - making $$ (IMHO).
So if the entire point of the thread is whether the U.S. could make a proof in the early years, my answer would be 'yes'. But if the point is whether the mint did in fact do so, I think the consensus has been that they did on occasion (irrespective of what the coins may have been called, or the purpose for which they were minted).
Duane
Unfortunately the above fails to take into consideration the fact that from 1854 to 1859
Director James Ross Snowden issued proof coins at face value plus postage. There
was no profit to the Mint during these years.
Denga
of 1820, 1821, and 1822 (the latter especially, as I recall a supposedly original and matching 1822 proof set crossing the auction block a few years ago)?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
But, did it get to the other side?
Both major services try their best to identify these critters, but thus far have not reached either consensus or consistency.
<< <i>...a supposedly original and matching 1822 proof set crossing the auction block a few years ago...
But, did it get to the other side?
Both major services try their best to identify these critters, but thus far have not reached either consensus or consistency. >>
In some ways it's like getting a coin slabbed. There is a moving bar as to whether a coin will slab or not. So too, the standards for certifying early & branch mint proofs have been variable. With little to no documentation to go on, you look at the coin and make your best guess.....and the consensus will shift over time.
Topic: Non-Proofs or Failed Proofs of Proof-only dates and Mint Records
Almost every expert regarding 19th century Proofs is in agreement that there are a significant number of coins of supposed Proof-only dates that do not have the physical characteristics generally associated with Proofs. In an early post to this thread, Capt. Henway said so. In addition to Breen, JD, QDB, Akers, CRO (Dave Wnuck) and many others could be cited as agreeing with me on this point. There is no doubt about it. I am not referring to borderline cases. I thought that I had, in previous posts, explained two ways in which non-Proofs (or incomplete Proofs) of Proof-only dates could have been released. There could be other ways.
(1) Non-Proofs (or incomplete Proofs) in Proof Sets
Walter Breen seemed certain that there were business strikes in original Mint wrappers in original Proof sets. Breen claims to have seen a substantial number of them. Denga above declares that switches must have occurred after the sets were released from the U.S. Mint. The most glaring examples, however, of non-Proofs of supposed Proof-only dates are nickels. It is unlikely, however, that people would switch out nickels. In most cases, they were not worth much until the late 20th century. Someone who is going to switch a business strike for a Proof would pick a gold denomination, or maybe a silver dollar. Even those Proofs were worth barely more than face value in the year of issue and shortly afterwards. More importantly, please see my comments below regarding the supposed U.S. Mint quality control program.
(2) Who received Proof Sets in the mail directly from the U.S. Mint?
I did not say, as Denga suggests, that collectors in the late 19th century were not sophisticated. Please read my last post. On the contrary, I said that most sophisticated collectors, in the 1880s, did not purchase Proof Sets by mail from the U.S. Mint. In the 1880s, recently minted Proof coins had little (if any) market value and received little attention from advanced collectors in the numismatic media.
Those advanced sophisticated collectors who did buy Proof sets in the respective year of issue tended to have contacts at the Mint or ordered through dealers that had contacts. Privately owned correspondence survives regarding communications of late 19th century collectors with Mint officials. Garrett and Clapp obtained cherry-picked coins, Proofs and business strikes, directly from the Mints, in the 19th century.
(3) The absence of formal, written complaints is not relevant to the poor striking quality of many Proofs or supposed Proofs.
RWB <<In examining mint records page-by-page in the 1873-1935 period, I do not recall seeing one complaint about quality.>>
(3A) Most buyers by mail order from the U.S. Mint could not tell the difference between Proofs and prooflike business strikes, and certainly could not distinguish finer points like the squaring of dentils.
(3B) Those who could tell the difference had no incentive to complain as most such Proofs were worth little, if anything, over face value, for years after their respective mintage. Besides, the premiums paid to the U.S. Mint for Proof set orders were just a small percentage over face value, nothing compared to premiums paid in later eras. Moreover, relatively better quality Proofs could often have been obtained from coin dealers in Philadelphia. It would have been illogical for the recipients of mail orders to complain about substandard Proofs or non-Proofs in their sets, most which would have literally been nickels and quarters, anyhow.
In the 1880s and in the 1960s through the present day, only a small percentage of the Proof Sets mailed by the U.S. Mint were bought by advanced sophisticated collectors. Then and now, advanced collectors tend to prefer coins that are older and/or rarer. Moreover, a lot of the people who buy Proof sets directly from the Mint are beginning collectors or are not collectors at all. This was true in the 1880s and is true now. Consider all the recently minted Proof coins that are hawked on TV shopping networks.
Many buy Proof sets directly from the Mint to give as gifts. A perusal of auction catalogues, from the second half of the 20th century, would yield quite a few examples of 19th century Proof sets with 19th century cases along with gift inscriptions.
(4) RWB directs attention to Mint Records Regarding Quality-Control of Proof issues.
<< The Mint cared a great deal about the proof coins they sold to collectors ... in instances where records exist for quantity struck versus quantity accepted by the Coiner as salable proofs, the rejection rate was high – 40% to 50%. >>
The substandard striking quality of many Proof quarters and half dollars dated in the 1880s demonstrates that RWB-s point here is very misleading.
If U.S. Mint documents really indicated that a rigorous quality control procedure was used to filter Proofs struck in the 1870s and 1880s, this would be a prime example of genuine records not being true. It is not merely my opinion that many Proof quarters and half dollars from the 1880s are of extremely low striking quality, and were clearly not carefully made. Akers, JD, Martin P., Dave Wnuck, Rich Uhrich, John Albanese, Dave Schweitz and many others would, I believe, agree that a very large number of such coins are substandard Proofs and could not have survived a rigorous quality control test. Indeed, I just discussed this point with Dave Wnuck, known in the forum as CRO, and he agrees that many Proof quarters, and also nickels of Proof-only dates, could not have passed any kind of serious test regarding the striking-quality of Proofs. If genuine Mint records indicate that they were subject to quality control, then the Mint records are, in some metaphorical sense, lying. Quarters and halves from the 1880s are among the lowest quality (in terms of striking characteristics) of any Proofs in the history of the U.S.
(4) 19th century Mint production and sales records are not accurate.
<<Specimens struck off the books are another matter and were not recorded. The fact that some pieces were struck off the books does not mean that internal records are inaccurate.>> -Denga
Rather than admitting the false nature of his earlier statement that all Mint records regarding Proofs are accurate, Denga is employing Orwellian double-talk. If the Mint records indicate that zero1885 Trade Dollars were minted, and at least five were minted, then the mintage record is not true. The fact that many patterns and Proofs of regular issues, and other rarities like the 1870-S half dime, were struck without accounting entries demonstrates that the statements by Denga and RWB early in this thread regarding the truthfulness of Mint records are wrong. If mintage figures omit coins that were minted, then Mint Records are not true.
<< [Proof coins were] counted in annual coin production totals. However, they received different treatment because they were sold at a premium and the extra funds had to be accounted for in mint books. >> -- RWB
If the records relating to 1884 and 1885 are not true, why would Denga and RWB assume that the records for prior years are true? Additional Proof or even business strike 1883 Trade Dollars could have been made as well, and not recorded in the accounting books. Denga conceded, after my last post, that Proof sets were made and sold -off the books.- So, this could have occurred at many times from the 1830s to the mid 1880s.
(5) It is known that Mint officials made thousands of items for collectors, -off the books-, not just patterns. There could easily have been thousands of others.
In my previous post, I said that a large number of patterns appeared in the numismatic marketplace years before Woodin traded, --off the books-, two $50 gold patterns struck in gold for a large quantity of patterns. Yet, Denga challenged this point. Please read auction catalogues from the 1860s to the 1880s. I used to collect such auction catalogues. It is likely that Saul Teichman, an expert in markets for patterns in the 19th century, could provide evidence that substantial quantities of patterns entered the numismatic marketplace in the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s. If such a large -off the books- enterprise could occur, why would Denga and RWB assume that other mint records regarding mintages and sales are complete and accurate?
Not all patterns are Proofs. As Mint Directors, or other high officials, were able to produce innumerable patterns -off the books-, plus 1884 and 1885 Trade Dollars, they could easily have made Proofs and business strikes of many regular issues -off the books- as well.
Saul Teichman states, on USPatterns.com, that 1836 Gobrecht dollars << were deliberately released into circulation for commercial use and thus should not be considered patterns.>> Saul further says that restrikes of 1836 dollars were made, for collectors, <<in the 1860s and possibly later.>>
In the 19th century, there were some collectors who preferred business strikes to Proofs, though they constituted a minority. If collectors or their dealer-agents, who had Mint connections, wanted business strikes of so-called “Proof-only” issues, these would have been easy to supply. Consider all the fantasy pieces, which fall under the general category of patterns, that were struck for collectors. Some coins dated in the 1830s were likely to have been struck in the 1870s.
JD maintains, in an article published on PCGS.com, that Proof 1801, 1802 and 1803 silver dollars were likely to have been struck in the 1870s. (See a link to this article below.) Almost any coin, for which dies (or maybe even hubs?) were extant, could have been made -off the books- in the late 19th century.
The extensive -off the books- operations, utilizing significant quantities of copper, nickel and silver, plus some gold, and the existence of regular Proofs and business strikes that are not in the Mint records, demonstrates that many U.S. Mint production, distribution and sales records of coins, especially Proofs, are not accurate. I am not accusing 19th century U.S. Mint officials of wrongdoing. Such -off the books- activities may have been effectively legal, or considered minor offenses. I am suggesting that most mintage and sales records, in regard to Proofs and some other rarities from the 1850s to the 1880s, should not be taken too seriously.
Proof 1876-CC Dime
Turtle Rock Proof Dimes
Proof 1907-D Double Eagle
JD Article on 1801-1803 silver dollars
<< <i>Duane February 11, 2010
... But on the point of the actual motivation to create proof issues, the U.S. collector base was not large enough until the mid-late 1850s to justify proof manufacture. James Snowden was the first to identify the dormant proof coin market if I understand the history correctly. Snowden was appointed in 1847 as Treasurer of the Mint and Assistant Treasurer of the United States, and from 1853 to 1861, he was Director of the Mint. Clearly, he obviously understood finance on the highest levels. So with his background in finance and high political post in addition to his mint experience, and the obvious timing of the 1858 mass proof offerings he master-minded, I think that the intent to make proofs actually came down to one of seigniorage or profit (both mint and personal). Prior to that point, just because the mint had the know how and (maybe) equipment to make proofs did not mean it was a worthwhile endeavor to do so. There may have been an occasional event or dignitary visit, but that was all. The intent to create proof issues was by and large the same one we see today - making $$ (IMHO).
So if the entire point of the thread is whether the U.S. could make a proof in the early years, my answer would be 'yes'. But if the point is whether the mint did in fact do so, I think the consensus has been that they did on occasion (irrespective of what the coins may have been called, or the purpose for which they were minted).
Duane
Unfortunately the above fails to take into consideration the fact that from 1854 to 1859 Director James Ross Snowden issued proof coins at face value plus postage. There
was no profit to the Mint during these years.
Denga >>
Denga,
Point well taken. And I don’t want to banter it around too badly, but you presume a linear yes/no approach which does not actually address my implied point on personal profit v. seigniorage. Maybe I was not precise enough in my explanation.
For example, many patterns of the early 1850s are said to have been sold outside the mint for a profit – so that assumption always lead me to think that the pattern profit inured to individuals within the mint, but not to the mint itself. That ‘profit’ was not ‘seigniorage’ per se, but individual profit. An easy next step supports a cogent argument that the massive Flying Eagle pattern dissemination of 1856-57 was in fact a brilliant marketing campaign by Snowden focused on convincing the powers-that-be in Congress to accept the less expensive small cent (which would thus lead to another form of profit; i.e. government profit, or formal seigniorage).
This seigniorage idea was floating around from the 1830s vis-a-vis Lewis Feuchtwanger, but it was Snowden, with heavy lobbying and political support from Joseph Wharton on nickel use that won the day. So I see the idea of mass proof coinage and seigniorage inseparable.
To take your point, one must assume that early proofs were created solely for collectors, commemorations, or dignitaries, with no thought of profit on any level. While those reasons may have been the original motives for creating early proof coins, I think they primarily went out the window in roughly 1859. In fairness, though, I think T. Roosevelt did bring a true non-profit national pride motive to coinage back in the early Twentieth Century.
That was my true point being made.
Thanks,
Duane
Denga,
Point well taken. And I don’t want to banter it around too badly, but you presume a linear yes/no approach which does not actually address my implied point on personal profit v. seigniorage. Maybe I was not precise enough in my explanation.
For example, many patterns of the early 1850s are said to have been sold outside the mint for a profit – so that assumption always lead me to think that the pattern profit inured to individuals within the mint, but not to the mint itself. That ‘profit’ was not ‘seigniorage’ per se, but individual profit. An easy next step supports a cogent argument that the massive Flying Eagle pattern dissemination of 1856-57 was in fact a brilliant marketing campaign by Snowden focused on convincing the powers-that-be in Congress to accept the less expensive small cent (which would thus lead to another form of profit; i.e. government profit, or formal seigniorage).
This seigniorage idea was floating around from the 1830s vis-a-vis Lewis Feuchtwanger, but it was Snowden, with heavy lobbying and political support from Joseph Wharton on nickel use that won the day. So I see the idea of mass proof coinage and seigniorage inseparable.
To take your point, one must assume that early proofs were created solely for collectors, commemorations, or dignitaries, with no thought of profit on any level. While those reasons may have been the original motives for creating early proof coins, I think they primarily went out the window in roughly 1859. In fairness, though, I think T. Roosevelt did bring a true non-profit national pride motive to coinage back in the early Twentieth Century.
That was my true point being made.
Thanks, Duane
Some general points:
1) It is true that pattern coins were sold to collectors in the late 1850s but this is not quite what it seems. The
director, Snowden, sold these for the sole purpose of raising funds to augment the Mint cabinet, especially
in the area of Washington medals.
2) Some pattern pieces were sold, but not very many, by those with access to such pieces but without Snowden’s
knowledge. There was of course a profit motive. It is known that the director took action when he discovered what
was going on.
3) While it is true that seigniorage was involved with the circulating coinage, this is not quite true with the proofs
struck after 1859, where there was a premium charged. There may have been a small profit but most – or all – of
that was eaten up by wages for the workmen preparing the proofs, a rather time-consuming process. Upwards of
800 silver sets were made in 1859 and that required considerable man-hours and thus a direct loss to the Mint.
There is therefore some doubt that there was any true profit to the government for the proof coinage.
Denga
<< <i>Duane February 11, 2010
Denga,
Point well taken. And I don’t want to banter it around too badly, but you presume a linear yes/no approach which does not actually address my implied point on personal profit v. seigniorage. Maybe I was not precise enough in my explanation.
For example, many patterns of the early 1850s are said to have been sold outside the mint for a profit – so that assumption always lead me to think that the pattern profit inured to individuals within the mint, but not to the mint itself. That ‘profit’ was not ‘seigniorage’ per se, but individual profit. An easy next step supports a cogent argument that the massive Flying Eagle pattern dissemination of 1856-57 was in fact a brilliant marketing campaign by Snowden focused on convincing the powers-that-be in Congress to accept the less expensive small cent (which would thus lead to another form of profit; i.e. government profit, or formal seigniorage).
This seigniorage idea was floating around from the 1830s vis-a-vis Lewis Feuchtwanger, but it was Snowden, with heavy lobbying and political support from Joseph Wharton on nickel use that won the day. So I see the idea of mass proof coinage and seigniorage inseparable.
To take your point, one must assume that early proofs were created solely for collectors, commemorations, or dignitaries, with no thought of profit on any level. While those reasons may have been the original motives for creating early proof coins, I think they primarily went out the window in roughly 1859. In fairness, though, I think T. Roosevelt did bring a true non-profit national pride motive to coinage back in the early Twentieth Century.
That was my true point being made.
Thanks, Duane
Some general points:
1) It is true that pattern coins were sold to collectors in the late 1850s but this is not quite what it seems. The
director, Snowden, sold these for the sole purpose of raising funds to augment the Mint cabinet, especially
in the area of Washington medals.
2) Some pattern pieces were sold, but not very many, by those with access to such pieces but without Snowden’s
knowledge. There was of course a profit motive. It is known that the director took action when he discovered what
was going on.
3) While it is true that seigniorage was involved with the circulating coinage, this is not quite true with the proofs
struck after 1859, where there was a premium charged. There may have been a small profit but most – or all – of
that was eaten up by wages for the workmen preparing the proofs, a rather time-consuming process. Upwards of
800 silver sets were made in 1859 and that required considerable man-hours and thus a direct loss to the Mint.
There is therefore some doubt that there was any true profit to the government for the proof coinage.
Denga >>
Denga,
Very educational information - thank you.
Duane