It is tempting to write volumes in an attempt to convey some minor level of research knowledge to the poster, but that seems to be useless, since the poster does not have a basic understanding of the subject. In any event, here are a few short replies, although it is not expected they will be understood.
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.
Agreed.
(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.
Collectors’ proofs were not packaged as “sets.” Only those who have examined quantities of original sets could answer this question.
(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.
Collectors of all income levels purchased collectors’ proofs directly from the Philadelphia Mint with most having the coins shipped by registered mail. While we have more information on the “big name” collectors, they were not the dominant purchasers – it was the little guy who bought a silver set or minor set by mail that accounts for most the individual sales. A few documents remain that substantiate the mailing of proofs, along with some of the registered mail receipts. [The Anderson anecdote in RAC 1909-1915 is not the only example, but it is one of the better documented ones.]
(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.
As noted earlier, the poster is attempting to apply 21st century values to 19th century collectors and products. What 19th century hobbyists considered acceptable quality might not be the same as in today’s money driven hobby. Using modern standards is an excellent way to confuse and mislead analysis. (The poster seems to put a lot of value in old auction catalogs – if so then explain the meanings of “Fine” or “Very Fine” or “Very Good” and how they relate to modern standards of condition.)
(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.
Hardly misleading. As with any inspection process, it is only as good as the practitioners. “Sub-standard striking” is a modern perception. When the coins were produced, collectors may have had no such perception. The only instance in which we have written information on appearance criteria (as opposed to weight, or misstruck) for identifying acceptable coins is for MCMVII HR $20 in Nove/Dec 1907. The absence of collector complaints, suggests both that collectors were OK with the “proofs” and that we probably don’t have all the relevant records. An experienced observer would understand this.
(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
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.
Naturally, if operations and procedures of several eras are lumped together, the result is mush. The few exceptions from the post-Civil War period do not disprove the general. To say that existence of1884 & 1885 mirror proof Trade dollars makes all the thousands of other documented records invalid, is an obvious absurdity.
<< [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.
It appears the writer of the above did not read the clear, simple reply presented earlier. Following the Civil War, proofs were recorded in monthly production totals. The US Mint supplied these totals to hobby publishers in 1938 from their coiner’s records.
(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.
The poster seems to enjoy exaggeration. Since he suggests “thousands” and “thousands of others” maybe he should take the sum of all extant specimens he considers “off the books” and report that quantity. But, be sure to exclude those with supporting documentation: Metric & Goloid sets, Trade dollars sets, 1896 experimental pieces, multiple aluminum and copper sets, and quite a few others…and be sure to do your own search of archives page-by-page.
Contrary to folklore, quite a few pattern and experimental pieces have documentary trails showing production, recipients and costs. Many are also missing this information, too. The data may or may not exist for ALL, but we do have a statement from Engraver Barber (1910) that many experimental pieces were made on verbal orders from mint officers. (Read the article on USPatterns.com regarding Barber’s pattern collection.)
The poster apparently does not understand that production coinage (including collectors’ proofs from the medal dept.) and experimental and pattern pieces were entirely different animals. Additionally, relying on 19th century auction catalogs (or most modern ones for that matter) for accurate information is highly suspect unless independently verified.
[PS: By about 1910, the mint was losing money on collector's proofs. That was one of the reasons for eliminating them in 1916. They still made money on medals and continued to produce them.]
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.
If analyst had taken the trouble to actually read original documents he would have learned that the coiner himself noted that copper-nickel proofs were a problem. In 1867, for example, Chief Coiner Snowden refused to furnish copper-nickel five cent proofs (with rays) for the sets for this reason. (This has also been published on several occasions.)
(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.
Analyst should re-read what he said and he certainly implied that 19th century collectors were not all that sophisticated when it came to proofs. The names of those ordering proof sets by mail are known but those who bought directly at the Mint are not. As analyst has obviously made no effort to determine who purchased sets, his argument is merely an opinion.
(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.>>
Analyst is entitled to his opinion. I disagree.
(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.
The only way that analyst could know what collectors were doing with their proof sets in the 1880s is to have been there himself. He has no idea of what collectors thought – or their level of expertise – in the 1880s.
(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.
The only “misleading” statements I see are coming from analyst, who clearly does not understand how the Mint worked in the 19th century. He has a right to disagree, based on his opinions, but that is all. He makes it clear, by using such terms as “misleading” and “Orwellian double-speak” that those who disagree with him are are knowingly giving false information.
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.
Orwellian double-talk? Hilarious. The matter was explained in an earlier posting but ignored. The 1884 and 1885 Trade dollars were struck clandestinely and therefore no record was kept. It is true that proof sets were sold off the books prior to 1860, and I said as much. The 1859 scenario, however, has nothing to do with 1885.
(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.>>
The information about the 1836 Gobrecht dollars being regular-issue coins was first published in 1978. Saying that thousands of pattern coins were available in the 1860s and on is easy enough to say but more difficult to prove. If thousands of pieces overhung the market in the 1870s the sellers would have had trouble giving them away with the small collector base of that era.
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 proof 1801, 1803, and 1803 dollars were not made in the 1870s. The restriking from old dies ended when H.R. Linderman destroyed the old dies before he left office in 1869. This is another well-established fact conveniently ignored by those who prefer opinions and speculation.
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.
Opinions are worth what you pay for them and that’s all analyst has to offer, opinions. He might try doing actual research in the original documents instead of making poorly-informed guesses on what occurred in the 19th century.
<< <i>It is tempting to write volumes in an attempt to convey some minor level of research knowledge to the poster, but that seems to be useless, since the poster does not have a basic understanding of the subject. In any event, here are a few short replies, although it is not expected they will be understood. >>
I agree. If the poster wishes to challenge selected knowledge with evidence to the contrary that would be enlightening, but to ask that the entire body of numismatic knowledge be reproven in this forum is asking a bit much.
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 hope to catch up with this thread, but I'm not there yet. For now, I'll just address the following comment, which jumped out at me.
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.
Another possibility is that the Mint ran out of certain proof singles, and they simply cheated by including a business strike. One set that comes to mind is an 1865 proof set in an original presentation case, which appeared at auction in Auction '89 or '90. The set appeared to be as original as they get, yet the dime was an obvious business strike. Although it's impossible to know if the set left the Mint that way, I believe it to be more than likely.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>I hope to catch up with this thread, but I'm not there yet. For now, I'll just address the following comment, which jumped out at me.
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.
Another possibility is that the Mint ran out of certain proof singles, and they simply cheated by including a business strike. One set that comes to mind is an 1865 proof set in an original presentation case, which appeared at auction in Auction '89 or '90. The set appeared to be as original as they get, yet the dime was an obvious business strike. Although it's impossible to know if the set left the Mint that way, I believe it to be more than likely. >>
That is a logical possibility, that may have occured in certain cases. Never underestimate the ability of an employee to violate established work rules or procedures.
Back in the late 70's one of the ANACS Authenticators got a VIP tour of the (then) San Francisco Assay Office's proof production line. The person giving him the tour had told him how all of the employees wore smocks and hairnets and gloves to protect the coins.
Then they came upon a lady whose job it was to align the coins upright in the cases. Between sets she was reaching into a bag of potato chips with the gloved hand and stuffing them into her mouth, then using the greasy glove to adjust the next set.
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>That is a logical possibility, that may have occured in certain cases. Never underestimate the ability of an employee to violate established work rules or procedures.
Back in the late 70's one of the ANACS Authenticators got a VIP tour of the (then) San Francisco Assay Office's proof production line. The person giving him the tour had told him how all of the employees wore smocks and hairnets and gloves to protect the coins.
Then they came upon a lady whose job it was to align the coins upright in the cases. Between sets she was reaching into a bag of potato chips with the gloved hand and stuffing them into her mouth, then using the greasy glove to adjust the next set.
TD >>
TD,
That is a great point because I think a lot of the 'human element', not on the larger policy level, which is where we usually focus, but on the basic manufacturing level, sometimes gets lost in the analysis. Most likely because it is 'between the lines' and mostly lost to history. So when I do hear stories about fabled coins which 'cannot' exist (the 1917 MPL comes to mind), I just have to chuckle, knowing human nature better as I 'mature'
I think formal mint policies were enacted for the first time in 1854 (group: correct me if that is error), so prior to that time, no formalistic approach was taken to establish a dictating set of rules. After that time, of course, the mints have developed stringent policies (employees signing confidentiality agts, for example), but one cannot ever truly account for the rule-breaker. So as there is so much information that we do NOT know (or may never), I think taking a inflexible position on the history of the mint and the historical happenings is a little silly. How far one can infer from the records is really the point (IMHO). I would like to hear the opinions of those with much more knowledge on that point.
Your point is great because you KNOW that someone is now looking at a potato-chip-tainted fantastic proof toner in the mint wrapper, and saying: "this must be NT"
I wish to bring new readers -up to speed- regarding the debate that has characterized the second half of this thread, and this is a rejoinder to RWB-s replies to my two previous posts. I wish to thank RWB and Denga for addressing my points. While I know little of Denga so far, I have tremendous respect for RWB. Coin Collectors should feel fortunate that RWB has done so much pathbreaking research and taken the time to share and write in detail about his findings.
Topic: Non-Proofs or Failed Proofs of Proof-only dates and Mint Records Regarding Proofs
Analyst <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.>
RWB <<Agreed.>>
In contrast to Denga, RWB seems to be agreeing that non-Proofs could have been sold as Proofs or been distributed -off the books-. The existence of Non-Proofs and/or Failed Proofs of supposed <Proof-Only Dates> is one of the most important points in this thread, and a point that I had sincerely hoped to convey. More thought and scrutiny needs to be directed towards coins of many Proof-only dates. If Mint records refer to some non-Proof coins as Proofs, this would be one of several reasons to be skeptical of some Mint records in regard to mintages and sales of 19th century Proofs.
(1) Non-Proofs (or incomplete Proofs) in Proof Sets
Analyst <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. >
RWB < Only those who have examined quantities of original sets could answer this question.>
Above, RWB <<agreed>> with my theory of two possible ways as to how Non-Proof coins of Proof-only dates, especially nickels, could have left the U.S. Mint, and with my point that there could be other ways. Obviously, I am not concluding that all Non-Proofs of Proof-only dates left the Mint in any one manner. I am hypothesizing about events that were likely to have occurred, or certainly were very plausible. Further, Denga stated that it would have been nearly impossible for Non-Proof coins to have left the Mint in Proof sets. I am stating that it is very plausible for the reasons given above and in earlier posts to this thread. It is not necessary to prove a point beyond a reasonable doubt in order to put forth a strong hypothesis.
(2) Who received Proof Sets in the mail directly from the U.S. Mint?
Analyst <I did not say, as Denga suggests, that collectors in the late 19th century were not sophisticated. Please read my [now next to last] 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.
Analyst continued <<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.>
RWB <<Collectors of all income levels purchased collectors’ proofs directly from the Philadelphia Mint with most having the coins shipped by registered mail. While we have more information on the “big name” collectors, they were not the dominant purchasers – it was the little guy who bought a silver set or minor set by mail that accounts for most the individual sales. ... >>
For reasons I put forth in two previous posts, it is fair to conclude that only a small percentage of the Proof sets then shipped by the U.S. Mint went to advanced, sophisticated collectors. The fact that not all such buyers were wealthy is consistent with my position here, not in opposition to it. A key evidentiary point is that, usually, a recently minted Proof coin was, in the 1880s, worth only slightly more than face value, or sometimes just face value. Even an advanced, sophisticated collector would not have bothered to write a complaint.
(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 of which would have literally been nickels and quarters, anyhow.
RWB <<As noted earlier, [Analyst] is attempting to apply 21st century values to 19th century collectors and products. What 19th century hobbyists considered acceptable quality might not be the same as in today’s money driven hobby. Using modern standards is an excellent way to confuse and mislead analysis. ...>>
If RWB had examined more 19th century Proof coins and researched great collections, he would know that the <19th century values> are not as different from <21st century values> as he implies without evidence. (There is some information about this topic in Part 2 of my three part series on Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring.) Moreover, many great coins from epic collections can be traced to great collections that were formed, at least in part, in the late 19th century. Indeed, many coins from the Norweb, Eliasberg and Pittman collections were earlier in collections that were auctioned from 1870 to 1915. Other fabulous coins have been traced to specific collectors during this era, or earlier. It is known now that several, advanced wealthy collectors of the era sought coins that would grade from 66 to 69 by today’s standards.
By viewing the Proof coins that were highlights of auctions conducted from the 1870s to 1915 or so, I can tell that coins favored by advanced sophisticated collectors and dealers then are the same as those that are so favored by their successors now. The criteria then employed to evaluate Proofs, in terms of striking-quality and grade, is consistent (though not exactly the same) with the criteria employed now. Then and now, no one could find a way to precisely state such criteria in words. Not all knowledge can be articulated. To learn about Proofs, it is necessary to carefully examine them and ask questions of experts.
(4) RWB directs attention to Mint Records Regarding Quality-Control of Proof issues.
RWB << 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%. >>
Analyst <The substandard striking quality of many Proof quarters and half dollars dated in the 1880s demonstrates that RWB-s point here is very misleading.>
RWB <<Hardly misleading. As with any inspection process, it is only as good as the practitioners. “Sub-standard striking” is a modern perception. When the coins were produced, collectors may have had no such perception. ... The absence of collector complaints, suggests both that collectors were OK with the “Proofs” and that we probably don’t have all the relevant records. An experienced observer would understand this.>>
In my last two posts, including points cited above, I put forth reasons as to why the buyers of Proof sets directly from the Mint would not have complained even if substandard Proofs and business strikes were included in many of the sets. See sections (3A) and (3B) above. I add that collectors who were unhappy with their Proofs could just wait to obtain upgrades as recently minted Proofs had so little monetary value, anyway. During the period from 1880 to 1910, a number of Proofs were either spent or worn through mishandling. Your new statement that “we probably don’t have all the relevant records” is curious, as, previously, you and Denga both implied that you had access to all the complaints regarding Proofs.
In 1821, personnel at the U.S. Mint knew how to manufacture Proofs that had very strong Proof characteristics. In every decade from the 1820s until the beginning of the 20th century, though not in every single year, there were produced a significant number of Proofs of very high striking quality, which is a concept different from grade. I believe that JD, Jeff Garrett, Dave Wnuck and many others would all agree with me on this point. My point in this paragraph is consistent with Breen’s published research. In the 1880s, Mint Personnel were knowledgeable about the characteristics of Proofs. Many of the substandard Proof quarters and halves of the 1880s are inferior, in terms of striking quality, in the views of experts, then and now.
From the 1830s to 1870s, sometimes in the 1880s, and in the 1890s, the U.S. Mint managed to usually produce Proof Liberty Seated quarters that were of much higher striking-quality than the substandard Proofs of the 1880s. RWB may disagree with my interpretation, but it is clear that I am referring to criteria employed in the 19th century. I honestly believe that these could not have passed a true inspection or survived a quality-control process. Dave Wnuck has granted permission for me to mention that he agrees with my position on this point. As I said in an earlier post in this thread regarding the possibility of business strikes in Proof sets, <people might deliberately not follow orders or protocol and make Non-Proofs [or substandard 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?>
I return to an earlier point: IF Mint records suggest that all Proofs from the 1880s were of ample striking quality and were subject to quality control procedures, then the Mint records are, in some sense, wrong. Those who have carefully examined many Proofs from the 19th century in general and the 1880s in particular would probably agree with me.
Concluding Remarks:
Generally, RWB and CaptHenway have read a little too much into my criticism of Mint records. I am primarily referring to Mint records in regard to Proofs, and a few other rarities. My point about 1884 and 1885 Trade Dollars was not intended to challenge the validity of all 19th century U.S. Mint records. From a logical perspective, if the mintage and sales records for Proofs in 1884 and 1885 are not true, why assume that the mintage and sales records for 1882 and 1883 are true? These might very well be true, but we just do not know.
I withdraw my remark that some of these Mint records, regarding mintages and sales of Proofs, should not be taken too seriously. It is better to say, should not be taken too literally. Information from other sources should be considered when interpreting such mintage and sales records.
Sorry, Greg, but it seems impossible to have a productive discussion. You appear to be capable and intelligent, and your summaries of auctions read well. But you should consider going much deeper into subjects – well beyond the copy-cat and promotional mentality of most auction catalogs. If you want assistance getting started, I’m certain a PM or email to some of the board members will help, but rest assured there are no easy paths.
Regrettably, I must maintain what was stated earlier, “…the poster does not have a basic understanding of the subject."
I'm going through this whole thread this morning and will comment on anything that requires a response. And since Analyst has been taking a beating here, let me preface my first point by saying that my intention is not to "pile on". This just happens to be the first thing I've wanted to address.
<<Certain coins that are now called branch mint proofs are in reality the first examples struck. The 1855-S Quarter, Half, and $3 gold pieces are such examples.>>
This statement is terribly wrong. FirstMint, have you seen these coins? I have carefully examined the unique Proof 1855-S quarter, the unique Proof 1855-S $3 piece, and one of supposedly two known Proof 1855-S half dollars. Regardless of whether they were made before business strikes or afterwards, these are true Proofs. These are NOT business strikes struck from heavily polished dies.
I've also seen these coins. First, my take on the quarter and half dollar is that they are not made anywhere close to "Philadelphia Proof" standards. (I would say the same of the "proof" 1854-S $20 in the Smithsonian, which has striated dies not normally seen on proofs but more frequently seen on first strike business strikes.) However, the fabric of the coins is so different than all other examples of these issues, and so similar to each other, that it's nearly impossible to think that they weren't specially struck with intent.
As for the 1855-S $3, I like it enough to have bought it (in the proof holder) and sold it, but I don't think it's a slam dunk obvious proof. The call is also more difficult than on the 55-S quarter and half for three reasons. First, the surfaces on the $3 aren't as fresh and "original" as on the silver. Second, I've seen a couple of highly PL (or not quite as proof) 1856-S $3 gold pieces that are of similar fabric to the 1855-S. (That makes me wonder if the SF Mint wasn't just in the habit of highly polishing its business strike dies, at least for gold issues.) And third, unlike the quarter and half, the $3 does not have a perfect mate to provide circumstantial evidence of its special origin.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Generally, RWB and CaptHenway have read a little too much into my criticism of Mint records. I am primarily referring to Mint records in regard to Proofs, and a few other rarities. My point about 1884 and 1885 Trade Dollars was not intended to challenge the validity of all 19th century U.S. Mint records. From a logical perspective, if the mintage and sales records for Proofs in 1884 and 1885 are not true, why assume that the mintage and sales records for 1882 and 1883 are true? These might very well be true, but we just do not know.
I withdraw my remark that some of these Mint records, regarding mintages and sales of Proofs, should not be taken too seriously. It is better to say, should not be taken too literally. Information from other sources should be considered when interpreting such mintage and sales records.
A few general remarks and then I think analyst and I will agree to disagree:
1) The sales records for proofs in 1884 and 1885 are correct. That the Trade dollars were struck clandestinely does not affect this comment.
2) The quality of the quarter dollar proofs in the 1880s may well be below that of earlier proofs. However, it is worth noting that in 1886, as but one example, only two pairs of dies were used to produce both proof and uncirculated pieces. It is quite possible that the proof dies were pressed into service to strike some of the small number struck for collectors in uncirculated. The quality of the latter would have been very high in a small run and it is quite possible that such coins are so close to being proof that they have been mislabelled as poorly- struck proofs. In my opinion, if there is a question about the quality of a “proof” 1880s quarter dollar, it may well be a high-quality uncirculated coin instead.
3) While it appears to be true that A.L. Snowden was responsible for many of the patterns and off-metal strikes that appeared in later years, it is is equally true that he persuaded the Treasury to allow the special strikings of low mintage uncirculated coins for collectors after 1879. His reputation among collectors depended in part upon the quality of such special coinages.
4) Depending on auction catalogues from the 1870s or 1880s for numismatic data often produces misleading information. The cataloguers, for example, invariably got it wrong when discussing the Goloid coinage and especially the Stella. Unfortunately one still sees errors from the 1880s when the 1879 Flowing Hair Stellas are discussed today. Even the Redbook has it wrong, for example, when it says that 15 pieces of this issue were struck in 1879, the rest in 1880; in point of fact all were coined in 1880.
5) Silver proof coins were sold only in sets after 1861 but not in any special packaging. They were individually wrapped in tissue paper. Gold coins, at the suggestion of A.L. Snowden, were sold individually and in sets after 1880.
While there are, thanks to Denga and RWB, some great historical tidbits in this thread, it seems to be that all of the debates result from the lack of a good definition of the word "proof", and nothing has (or could have) been resolved.
BTW, I do have my own definition of "proof", and it has served me very well (as a collector/dealer) over the years. But that doesn't make my definition "right", and I certainly don't want to debate it. >>
Andy, please post it? And I promise not to debate it....unless you ask me to.
There are hazards to a SEMI-photographic memory. I can hang on to coin stories in my mind, but I can't remember the source. Then, accuracy is questionable. Walter Breen has an interesting quote on the same problem. It was typed vertically in the margin of a letter as an afterthought.
"I too have that same pack rack memory, which sometimes causes delays in locating sources. Too many of the sources proved to be crammed full of errors, which no teenager could have spotted them. God, how much we all have to unlearn! I wish to God I was about 16 and growing up now, or at worst about 26, and without the orphanage history."
<< <i>BTW, I do have my own definition of "proof", and it has served me very well (as a collector/dealer) over the years. But that doesn't make my definition "right", and I certainly don't want to debate it. >>
Of course you don't want to debate it. If you have only one definition of "proof", it's either wrong, incomplete, or hopelessly vague. ;-)
Mr. Eureka <<While there are, thanks to Denga and RWB, some great historical tidbits in this thread, it seems to be that all of the debates result from the lack of a good definition of the word "proof", and nothing has (or could have) been resolved.>>
The first half, approximately, of this thread related to the definition of the numismatic term Proof. Therein, I argued that a determination of whether a coin is a Proof should be independent of U.S. Mint records. FirstMint took the opposite position and stated that only those coins declared to be Proofs in currently known U.S. Mint records should be accepted as such. In fairness to FirstMint, he was referring to <<pre-1860>> coins. I do not know whether FirstMint would agree that 1884 and 1885 Trade Dollars are Proofs.
The second half of the thread did not relate to the definition of the term Proof. There was a debate about the veracity and usefulness of U.S. Mint records pertaining to Proofs that were minted in the 1860s, 1870s and 1880s.
A lot was accomplished. Terms of a debate were framed and avenues for further research were paved. Readers of this this thread could learn a good deal about different viewpoints. Moreover, I believe, or at least I hope, that something specific was accomplished that is tremendously important, in regard to <Proof-only> dates.
In this thread, there was considerable agreement that a significant number of coins of <Proof-only> dates do not have the physical characteristics of Proofs. I am not talking here about borderline cases. I am referring to coins of <Proof-only> dates that most advanced specialists in Proofs would agree are not Proofs, or at least do not have the characteristics that are associated with 19th century Proofs. There are collectors, dealers, reference guides, and maybe even at least one TPG, that tend to assume that a coin of a <Proof-only> date is a Proof, often without even carefully examining the coin, and usually without even thinking about it. Undoubtedly, it is confusing and counterproductive to tell a collector that a coin, which clearly does not have the physical characteristics of a Proof, is one. Therefore, in regard to so called <Proof-only> dates, this thread certainly served a valuable educational purpose.
You all are really great and seem to know your stuff, particularly enough to get into a good debate on it. I have a question that stems from the early part of the debate, so is most likely very late. Maybe someone can weigh in on it. Simply put, this quote got me thinking...
"President James Madison visiting Philadelhia in 1817 during his extensive good will tour after his inaguration"
From there, it was argued that he would have likely gotten a "gift" from the mint director (e.g. a Proof coin)...
So have any of you all ever *asked* the current sitting president about the issue? I know it sounds ridiculous, but lists of gifts to each President have been created through time, as the President is not allowed to *personally* accept them...he accepts them on behalf of the country as a whole. Is it possible that President Madison noted this visit in his personal diary or in a list of gifts given to him? Has anyone gone down this avenue?
Mind you, I could be very off on this idea, so just let me know if I am.
I did not take the position that Analyst says I took about proofs being only accepted by known U.S. Mint records. My point about pre-1860's terminology regarding Proofs was at what timeframe they were first CLASSIFIED as such by Mint personel and records.
To restate- there were no proof coins made prior to 1854 according to Mint records and terminology.
Between 1851 and 1854 there was a lot of upheaval in the Philadelphia Mint. Director Patterson left in July 1851. He had been the Director since 1835 and specifically used the term "Master-Coins". Patterson was replaced by George Eckert, who lasted until April 1853. As far as I know, there are no records to indicate what he might have classified any specially struck coinage.
Another Director, Thomas Pettit came in in April of 1853 and was in office for two months. Again, there are no documents relating to what he may have called anything special. Besides, because of the disruption this year, there were no specially struck sets of coins made in 1853. In June of 1853, James Ross Snowden was appointed. He had his hands full with making sure the weight reduction of the silver coinage was done properly (along with other things). The following year, when sets of specially struck coins were offered to collectors, they were termed Proof sets. I might add that these sets did not consist of all denominations being made at the Philly Mint.
The classification of Proof coins in American numismatics is what I was referrring to. It happened between 1854 and 1859, when Master Coins was officially last seen in U.S. Mint documents. As I also stated, there was an intermixing of these two terms coming from the Mint. However, coin dealers and cataloguers used the term Proof. Then again, there was basically one sale (1851 Roper) of notable numismatic content held in America prior to 1853 - and in fact, none of the items included in the Roper sale had any grades or classifying terminology whatsoever.
The reference by Mickley in 1852 about him receiving two Proof half dollars that came from coiner Franklin Peale, may have been the name that Peale used when he made "Proof" restrikes of the 1838 halves for Mickley that year. These had been made earlier as evidenced by Roper having one in his collection as well (p.10).
As I mentioned, the person who may have coined the phrase "proof" (pun intended) might have been George Eckfeldt, the foreman of the Medal Dept. He knew various formula's on how to make dies reflective, frosty, or have a matte (pickled) surface (this comes from reviewing a copy of his work ledger that has not been published).
To call these specially struck early coins "proofs" (prior to 1854) is not technically correct, and that's the point that was being made, as today, we have come to accept a shiny, reflective surface coin to mean numerous things, with several different (albeit incorrect) names. Regrettably, the proper term of "Master-Coins" is not even in the numismatic vocabulary at this point.
Amazingly, we don't even know where the term "Proof" originated from in regards to American coinage, and we have no precise defintions, perhaps the closest now being p.3 and 33 in the PCGS grading book which relates to a numerical grade and not the standards of what constitutes a proof coin (I did notice the "Specimens" in the early coinage sections).
I recommended that a committee be formed to address this issue (lack of precise definitions for early "Proofs" or "Master-Coins") when I wrote an article about the 1827/3/2 quarters that appeared in the Rare Coin Review several years ago. Nothing was ever accomplished, as it goes squarely against the accepted norms of today's coin industry. Oh well...
PM me if you are looking for U.S. auction catalogs
<< <i> So how do I know that any of these large cents I've been ogling are actual proofs???
Matt - Your best bet is to stick to die varieties that exist only as proofs. Some of these may be "proof-only" dates, others not. >>
Is there an easy way to research the die varieties that exist only as proofs? It would mean a lot to me if I could reference a list of proof dates and check potential purchases against known varieties.
To clarify a mis-assumption by Analyst - I did not take the position that Analyst says I took about proofs being only accepted by known U.S. Mint records. My point about pre-1860's terminology regarding Proofs was at what timeframe they were first CLASSIFIED as such by Mint personel and records. To restate- there were no proof coins made prior to 1854 according to Mint records and terminology.
Between 1851 and 1854 there was a lot of upheaval in the Philadelphia Mint. Director Patterson left in July 1851. He had been the Director since 1835 and specifically used the term "Master-Coins". Patterson was replaced by George Eckert, who lasted until April 1853. As far as I know, there are no records to indicate what he might have classified any specially struck coinage. Another Director, Thomas Pettit came in in April of 1853 and was in office for two months. Again, there are no documents relating to what he may have called anything special. Besides, because of the disruption this year, there were no specially struck sets of coins made in 1853. In June of 1853, James Ross Snowden was appointed. He had his hands full with making sure the weight reduction of the silver coinage was done properly (along with other things). The following year, when sets of specially struck coins were offered to collectors, they were termed Proof sets. I might add that these sets did not consist of all denominations being made at the Philly Mint.
The classification of Proof coins in American numismatics is what I was referrring to. It happened between 1854 and 1859, when Master Coins was officially last seen in U.S. Mint documents. As I also stated, there was an intermixing of these two terms coming from the Mint. However, coin dealers and cataloguers used the term Proof. Then again, there was basically one sale (1851 Roper) of notable numismatic content held in America prior to 1853 - and in fact, none of the items included in the Roper sale had any grades or classifying terminology whatsoever.
The reference by Mickley in 1852 about him receiving two Proof half dollars that came from coiner Franklin Peale, may have been the name that Peale used when he made "Proof" restrikes of the 1838 halves for Mickley that year. These had been made earlier as evidenced by Roper having one in his collection as well (p.10).
As I mentioned, the person who may have coined the phrase "proof" (pun intended) might have been George Eckfeldt, the foreman of the Medal Dept. He knew various formula's on how to make dies reflective, frosty, or have a matte (pickled) surface (this comes from reviewing a copy of his work ledger that has not been published). To call these specially struck early coins "proofs" (prior to 1854) is not technically correct, and that's the point that was being made, as today, we have come to accept a shiny, reflective surface coin to mean numerous things, with several different (albeit incorrect) names. Regrettably, the proper term of "Master-Coins" is not even in the numismatic vocabulary at this point. Amazingly, we don't even know where the term "Proof" originated from in regards to American coinage, and we have no precise defintions, perhaps the closest now being p.3 and 33 in the PCGS grading book which relates to a numerical grade and not the standards of what constitutes a proof coin (I did notice the "Specimens" in the early coinage sections).
I recommended that a committee be formed to address this issue (lack of precise definitions for early "Proofs" or "Master-Coins") when I wrote an article about the 1827/3/2 quarters that appeared in the Rare Coin Review several years ago. Nothing was ever accomplished, as it goes squarely against the accepted norms of today's coin industry. Oh well...
Firstmint seems intent on proving that proof coins as such do not exist prior to 1854 because the terminology was not used. The following statement by analyst, used earlier in this thread, is correct and to the point:
I demonstrated how the existence of Proofs from the 1860s, which you acknowledge exist, could be used to prove the existence of Proofs from the 1840s. I did not then realize that, oddly, you seem 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.
There are some points left out by firstmint which are necessary to an understanding of the situation:
1) The old English saying – A rose by any other name is still a rose – applies perfectly here. What Director Patterson - or Adam Eckfeldt – called such coins is irrelevant.
2) Franklin Peale spent considerable time in Europe, especially France and Britain, studying their coining techniques. As Peale was a collector, he almost certainly met with leading numismatists in his spare time. If firstmint had researched the English word “proof” he would have found that it had been used as early as 1650 by Peter Blondeau to describe specially struck pieces for examination. To make the point, however, we use the records of the London Mint for 1764 in which we find Mint Smith Reuben Fletcher charging ten shillings for “four pairs [of] shoulder dies for proof pieces for small coins.” That Peale would not have heard the term “proof” from London Mint officials and/or British numismatists defies common sense.
3) The practice at the London Mint was very similar to that at Philadelphia. There a Mint official sold proof coins on the side to supplement his income although in this case such coins were struck less often than in the U.S.
4) Proof sets as such were not offered until 1858 by Snowden, not 1854 as stated by firstmint. From 1854 to 1857 collectors obtained individual proof coins to suit their collecting tastes; in some cases proof coins of a given denomination were not ready for some months into a new year.
5) As firstmint seems to insist on precise terminology for the period in question, then there is another problem he avoids discussing. By his standards proof silver or gold coins do not exist prior to 1860 (except for the 1836 Gobrecht dollars) or minor proof coins prior to 1878. The reason for this? To be a coin a piece must be delivered according to the law and these proof pieces were not. In 1877, for example, the copper-nickel five cent proofs were struck but no official record was made of their coinage. Therefore, if firstmint insists that his nomenclature for pre-1854 proofs is correct (i.e. they must be called “master coins”) that he must also admit that there are no proof “coins” of 1858. Proof pieces yes, proof coins no. In point of fact even “master coins” is an incorrect term if the legal niceties are observed.
6) My personal view is that proof coins exist prior to 1860 (and 1854) and should be called as such even if this does not meet firstmint’s insistence on some obscure point of language.
8) And one last point. In 1834 Adam Eckfeldt made out a bill for the two special diplomatic sets of coins. He called them “coins of the U. States,” not “master coins.”
<< <i>......8) And one last point. In 1834 Adam Eckfeldt made out a bill for the two special diplomatic sets of coins. He called them “coins of the U. States,” not “master coins.”
Denga >>
I thought that there were more than two such sets. Am I mistaken about the number and/or were others billed out at a different time? Thanks.
<< ......8) And one last point. In 1834 Adam Eckfeldt made out a bill for the two special diplomatic sets of coins. He called them “coins of the U. States,” not “master coins.” Denga >>
I thought that there were more than two such sets. Am I mistaken about the number and/or were others billed out at a different time? Thanks.
Yes, you are correct. Two more sets were made in early 1835 but I was quoting the December 1834 invoice, not having the 1835 bill handy.
The State Dept. ordered two more sets from the Mint before Edmund Roberts left in 1835. The total was four diplomatic sets.
And, as denga pointed out, there were no such classifiers of any special striking for those sets - yet we freely call them proof sets today. It's not the big deal as certain people claim it to be. I am merely pointing out realistic terminology used in a contemporary timeframe; and if others don't wish to accept it, I have no problem with that, but it is simply not correct.
I'm not trying to prove anything other than terminology that was used by the Officials at the U.S.Mint. It is obscure only because we have ignored past reality. It's completely pointless to try and declare something that has no precise qualifiers and definitions. However, it would certainly benefit everyone if we, as numismatists at least made an attempt to do so. Until this happens, those who control the market will win by default, with whatever terminologyy they so choose.
I'm not debating the existance of specially struck coinage prior to 1854. We all know they exist, but by what terminology and classification should we label them today? If I simply went along with the popular, later classification and called them Proofs, then what do we have in a proper historical context - nothing, but more inaccuracies. Where does it stop?
I have not discussed any later proof coinage in my responses. In fact, I didn't address such later issues (post 1859) as it did not pertain to the topic of the thread. I don't believe in bouncing around the entire 19th century and making an apples to oranges, to anything else, comparison. It's not accurate to compare things decades apart in the 19th century; this is because of tecnhnology changes, personel changes, and other factors. That discussion and ideas were presented by others, not me.
In reviewing numerous 19th century auction catalogues, the proof sets from the Mint (in the paper wrappers) were indeed issued from 1854-on (see Wooward#71 sale, February 24, 1885, lots 891-922 as an example). There are other offerings throughout the realm of 19th century auction catalogues, and some, such as those obtained directly from the Mint by J. Colvin Randall (Woodward sale #78, p.43) who owned the largest stock of early proof sets (mostly 6-7 pcs.) can validate what I stated earlier.
This exchange of information in this thread is interesting, and it shows the background of people's research, but it will not change anything, as I also stated earlier.
To clarify another misconception coming from denga, in his reply above #5, he claims that I set standards for proof coinage - the things that some people misinterpret! Nothing of the sort was ever presented in my posts - and there is a huge difference between standards and terminology.
That's the problem - we don't have any standards!
To continue to try and make personal points of contention, with misinformation, putting words in other people's mouth, and self-promotional reasons, is not going to resolve anything in a positive way.
PM me if you are looking for U.S. auction catalogs
Topic: In regard to coins of the 18th and 19th centuries, the same definition of a Proof applies to all, though the definition itself cannot be rigid.
FirstMint <<It's completely pointless to try and declare something that has no precise qualifiers and definitions. However, it would certainly benefit everyone if we, as numismatists at least made an attempt to do so. Until this happens, those who control the market will win by default, with whatever terminology they so choose.>>
Whether or not a coin is genuine can be ambiguous as can whether or not a coin is uncirculated, there is no perfect definition that can be applied by non-experts to complex items. As for an attempt, that is the topic of this post. As for the other point in this quoted statement, rules that govern coin markets evolve gradually over time, and be influenced by the participants and readers of this thread.
FirstMint <<It's not accurate to compare things decades apart in the 19th century; this is because of technology changes, personnel changes, and other factors. That discussion and ideas were presented by others, not me.>>
I thought I made it clear, for new readers, in my last post that, in the first part of the thread, FirstMint and I debated, and, in the second part, I debated Denga and RWB. Moreover, Breen-s definition of a Proof applies throughout the 19th century and to British coins of the 18th century. It can, in theory, apply to coins minted throughout the world for the whole 19th century, though, of course, Proofs were not minted everywhere.
To illustrate a concept, I wish to repeat, <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.>
RWB-s suggestion above that there should be different definitions for pre-1858 and for later Proofs is not helpful. As I mentioned more than once, Proofs in the 1840s for Liberty Head gold coins and Liberty Seated quarters and halves, are extremely similar to Proofs of the 1860s for corresponding coins. While there are some exceptions, these Proofs from two different decades are extremely similar. Moreover, there is widescale agreement regarding which are Proofs and which are business strikes. I honestly believe that coin experts who have spent a lot of time viewing 19th century Proofs would not consider my point in this paragraph to be controversial or even debatable.
Coinosaurus – <<Breen was not stupid. He was probably smarter than all of us put together. If he believed something, there was a good reason for it. That does not mean that he was always right, or that documentation verified [all] his belief[s]. >>
Of course, Breen made mistakes. Sometimes, he listed coins as Proofs though he never saw them, and did not provide an explanation, and, other times, he was under pressure to state opinions that he may not have really believed or been sure about.
Breen's discussions of the concept of a Proof add up to more of a definition than anyone else has put forth. His encyclopedia on Proof coins, which was published in 1977, remains, by far, the only worthwhile book relating to the topics in this thread. Despite its many flaws, it is a much more solid and more powerful book than most collectors realize.
The basic definition of a Proof does not change over time and does not stem from the archives of the Philadelphia Mint. As Denga points out in a recent post, Proofs were minted in the UK in the 1700s. I maintain that I have seen a British Proof coin dated in the 1600s. In the 19th century, many Proofs were minted in several European nations and in Latin America, and a quite a few elsewhere in the world. While some coins are borderline cases, in terms of Proof status, and others are inherently ambiguous in this regard, a large number of 19th century Proof U.S. coins (from the 1820s onward) and from Europe and Latin America are clearly Proofs in the opinions of advanced experts in Proofs. David Akers catalogued Pittman's world coins as well as Pittman-s U.S. coins. Although I missed the Pittman 3 event, my impression is that most of the 19th century world coins that were identified as Proofs by Akers are so in the opinions of pertinent experts.
Please consider again one of the statements that I put forth earlier in this thread in a different, though very relevant context, <In 1821, personnel at the U.S. Mint knew how to manufacture Proofs that had very strong Proof characteristics. In every decade from the 1820s until the beginning of the 20th century, though not in every single year, there were produced a significant number of Proofs of very high striking quality, which is a concept different from grade. I am almost certain that Akers, Jeff G., Dave Wnuck and many others would all agree with me on this point. [This conclusion] is consistent with Breen's published research.>
For Brilliant Proofs (as opposed to Matte or Roman-Finish Proofs), the same definition applies to coins of more than two centuries, and, with some adjustments, to Proofs of the present day as well.
Unfortunately, such a definition can never be fully communicated in words. Analogously, because someone cannot fully explain how he is authenticating coins does not mean he is not authenticating them. There is no definition of an authentic coin that enables readers to authenticate coins; even so, there is a real difference between genuine coins and fakes. Certainly, there is a real difference between Proofs and Non-Proofs.
<< <i>...... In every decade from the 1820s until the beginning of the 20th century, though not in every single year, there were produced a significant number of Proofs of very high striking quality, which is a concept different from grade. I believe that JD, Jeff Garrett, Dave Wnuck and many others would all agree with me on this point.... >>
I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "'significant number", but, at least in the first few decades beginning in the 1820's, I would be surprised if the individuals you mentioned, or many others, would agree with your above statement.
I would like to make a concluding remark and end my participation in this particular thread, which has evolved beyond the original post.
In reference to the ceaseless tirade by Analyst, I would like like to state that proper terminology of Proof and Master Coins of the early 19th century was not the issue at all.
The blatant use of historical events by numismatic researchers to explain coinage that may or may not have been especially made for any purpose other than regular coinage, was the objection which I raised.
If there ever gets to be a committee or group formed to outline specicifc standards for 19th century specially struck coinage, then perhaps, Analyst would be invited to participate where his remarks might be considered.
Thank you PCGS for providing this forum.
PM me if you are looking for U.S. auction catalogs
Analyst, quoted by Coinguy1 -- < ... In every decade from the 1820s until the beginning of the 20th century, though not in every single year, there were produced a significant number of Proofs of very high striking quality, which is a concept different from grade. I believe that JD, Jeff Garrett, Dave Wnuck and many others would all agree with me on this point. ... >
Coinguy1 -- <<I am not sure precisely what you mean by <significant number> but, at least in the first few decades beginning in the 1820s, I would be surprised if the individuals you mentioned, or many others, would agree with your above statement.>>
Those have been reading this thread since its inception know that some of the other participants have, (1) questioned whether pre-1858 Proofs exist at all, (2) have implied that supposed pre-1858 Proofs are so ambiguous that there cannot be a definitive determination by experts in the field as to whether they are Proofs (like the difference between a 67 and 68 grade to paraphrase one participant), or (3) suggested that, as no one can consistently distinguish Proofs from Non-Proofs, collectors will be misled or cheated outright in the absence of historical documentation. As I have worked so hard to dispel these notions, and explain that a significant number of of pre-1858, including pre-1840, Proofs definitely exist, I am disappointed that CoinGuy1 did not support my effort in this regard and declare that a significant number can be definitively identified as Proofs as he is a widely respected grading expert and I hope he is very knowledgeable about the characteristics of Proofs as well. Plus, I am trying to make clear that the same definition of a Proof applies to coins for the entire 19th century and for some foreign coins from earlier times.
In the statement that Coinguy quoted, I am trying to explain that there is a consensus among experts that, not just a few like the pieces in the King of Siam Set, but a substantial number of pre-1840 coins are definitely Proofs and they are not that much different from Proofs of the 1840s, 1850s, 1860s, and onward. Sure, in terms of Proof status, some coins are inherently ambiguous and others are borderline cases. Even so, there are a substantial number of definite Proofs. I am NOT talking about a few unexplainable pieces, or curiosities.
A significant number means that I am talking about hundreds of pre-1840 Proofs in existence, and hundreds more dated in the 1840s. Add up all copper, silver and gold Proofs dating from 1821 to 1840, including those in museums. Certainly, it would be easy to count more than one hundred, and there would be at least a few for most years. Branch Mint Proofs, in contrast, are a different matter, as there are very few in the whole 19th century. One could argue that the Proof 1844-O Eagle and the Proof 1876-CC dime are anomalies. They are unique in their own respective categories. Moreover, I am referring to Proofs that were struck, more or less, in the years in which they are dated. The Proof silver dollars of 1801, 1802 and 1803 are novodels and were struck in an unknown time period. Part of my point is that the topic of pre-1840 Proofs does NOT primarily refer to anomalies, restrikes or inherently ambiguous coins.
At least two of the people who contributed to this thread would doubt that there are indisputable Proofs of 1821. I have discussed the Proofs of 1821 with JD, Jeff Garrett and Dave Wnuck. Ask them. Moreover, in the BD book (Whitman, 2006), JD says, <<The Proof [1821 BD-1 Half Eagle] in Bass is identical in almost all respects to the Proof of this variety in the Smithsonian Institution [... which ...] has been part of the earliest known COMPLETE Proof set ...[p. 383, very bottom of page]>>. While Proofs are not the focus of the BD book, JD does mention Proof Quarter Eagles and Half Eagles of several dates prior to1840. For example, JD states, “the Smithsonian 1826 Half Eagle is the FINEST early Proof gold coin among their examples in [Proof] format. Waldo Newcomer also owned a Proof of this variety, ... its location is currently unknown [p. 397]>>. For purposes here, the plain 4 1804 Eagles could be thought of as Proofs of 1834 or 1835, as these were struck in 1834-35. They are indisputably Proofs.
Among pertinent experts, Jeff Garrett is probably the toughest in terms of granting Proof status to a coin. In the Garrett-Guth encyclopedia of gold coins (which I do not have in front of me now), I believe Garrett lists a few definite Proof gold coins from the 1820s, more than a few from the 1830s, and many from each of later decades, though 1915. Undoubtedly, there are others that he has never seen, or seen so long ago that he does not fully remember them. If Garrett calls a gold coin a Proof, then it is likely that almost all other experts will do so as well.
As for the pre-1840 dates for which there are no known Proof gold coins, there are often Proof silver coins. For most years in the 1820s, definitive Proof half dollars exist. There are, too, dimes and quarters of several years in the 1820s. Please read my article on the Turtle Rock dimes.
In the Eliasberg and Pittman collections, there were a large number of pre-1840 copper and silver coins that were catalogued as Proofs. Of course, I am not saying that each of these is an indisputable Proof. Many pre-1840 coins in both collections, though, are indisputable Proofs. For almost every year from 1821 to 1840, at least a couple very convincing Proofs, of at least one denomination, could be identified, from coins that are pedigreed to Eliasberg or Pittman,just two collections. The Norweb family, James A. Stack and Floyd Starr also collected pre-1858 Proofs, including a good number of pre-1840 Proofs. In terms of individual coins, there is minimal overlap (in most cases none) among these five collections, and they all had amazing, very convincing pre-1840 Proofs. Also, there now is a West Coast collector who specializes in pre-1840 Proof gold coins and has a substantial number of coins that most experts would regard as definite Proofs with strong Proof characteristics.
As an aside, I note that most Proof quarters of the 1830s are of superb striking quality with very strong Proof characteristics. The half dimes of the 1830s that have been called Proofs, in contrast, are often controversial. I did not say that there exist a significant number of Proofs of every denomination of every year. I said that there exist a significant number of definite Proofs, of at least one denomination of most years, from the 1820s onward. I refer to striking quality rather than the mere presence of mirror surfaces, which may also be found on Non-Proofs. Hopefully, it is also clear that, when identifying Proofs, I am, in this thread and in general, referring to the physical characteristics of the coins, regardless of whether there is any historical documentation.
Coinguy, please understand that I do not wish to pin myself down with exact numbers here as it would take considerable additional research to come up with accurate estimates of extant early Proofs. Consider that published information includes errors, controversial coins, mistakenly certified coins, and multiple listings of some individual coins. Plus, quite a few early Proofs are in museums or other long-term holdings.
As I have spent so many years viewing and thinking about 19th century Proofs, interviewing pertinent experts, and studying the few key texts that exist, I ask the readers to carefully consider my post of Wed. 02/17 at least, and, hopefully, earlier posts as well. There is much more agreement regarding the nature of Proofs than critics suggest, and it is logical for the same definition to apply to multiple time periods, Mints and nations. I do not expect everyone to agree with me. I just wish for collectors, dealers and researchers to give my position on this topic more consideration than it has received so far. Thank you.
Again, please read my post just before this one, above coinguy1-s comment.
<< <i>Analyst, quoted by Coinguy1 -- < ... In every decade from the 1820s until the beginning of the 20th century, though not in every single year, there were produced a significant number of Proofs of very high striking quality, which is a concept different from grade. I believe that JD, Jeff Garrett, Dave Wnuck and many others would all agree with me on this point. ... >
Coinguy1 -- <<I am not sure precisely what you mean by <significant number> but, at least in the first few decades beginning in the 1820s, I would be surprised if the individuals you mentioned, or many others, would agree with your above statement.>>
Those have been reading this thread since its inception know that some of the other participants have, (1) questioned whether pre-1858 Proofs exist at all, (2) have implied that supposed pre-1858 Proofs are so ambiguous that there cannot be a definitive determination by experts in the field as to whether they are Proofs (like the difference between a 67 and 68 grade to paraphrase one participant), or (3) suggested that, as no one can consistently distinguish Proofs from Non-Proofs, collectors will be misled or cheated outright in the absence of historical documentation. As I have worked so hard to dispel these notions, and explain that a significant number of of pre-1858, including pre-1840, Proofs definitely exist, it is harmful for Coinguy to question whether a significant number can be definitively identified as Proofs as he probably knows that these can be. Plus, I am trying to make clear that the same definition of a Proof applies to coins for the entire 19th century and for some foreign coins from earlier times.
In the statement that Coinguy quoted, out of context, I am trying to explain that there is a consensus among experts that, not just a few like the pieces in the King of Siam Set, but a substantial number of pre-1840 coins are definitely Proofs and they are not that much different from Proofs of the 1840s, 1850s, 1860s, and onward. Sure, in terms of Proof status, some coins are inherently ambiguous and others are borderline cases. Even so, there are a substantial number of definite Proofs. I am NOT talking about a few unexplainable pieces, or curiosities.
A significant number means that I am talking about hundreds of pre-1840 Proofs in existence, and hundreds more dated in the 1840s. Add up all copper, silver and gold Proofs dating from 1821 to 1840, including those in museums. Certainly, it would be easy to count more than one hundred, and there would be at least a few for most years. Branch Mint Proofs, in contrast, are a different matter, as there are very few in the whole 19th century. One could argue that the Proof 1844-O Eagle and the Proof 1876-CC dime are anomalies. They are unique in their own respective categories. Moreover, I am referring to Proofs that were struck, more or less, in the years in which they are dated. The Proof silver dollars of 1801, 1802 and 1803 are novodels and were struck in an unknown time period. Part of my point is that the topic of pre-1840 Proofs does NOT primarily refer to anomalies, restrikes or inherently ambiguous coins.
At least two of the people who contributed to this thread would doubt that there are indisputable Proofs of 1821. I have discussed the Proofs of 1821 with JD, Jeff Garrett and Dave Wnuck. Ask them. Moreover, in the BD book (Whitman, 2006), JD says, <<The Proof [1821 BD-1 Half Eagle] in Bass is identical in almost all respects to the Proof of this variety in the Smithsonian Institution [... which ...] has been part of the earliest known COMPLETE Proof set ...[p. 383, very bottom of page]>>. While Proofs are not the focus of the BD book, JD does mention Proof Quarter Eagles and Half Eagles of several dates prior to1840. For example, JD states, “the Smithsonian 1826 Half Eagle is the FINEST early Proof gold coin among their examples in [Proof] format. Waldo Newcomer also owned a Proof of this variety, ... its location is currently unknown [p. 397]>>. For purposes here, the plain 4 1804 Eagles could be thought of as Proofs of 1834 or 1835, as these were struck in 1834-35. They are indisputably Proofs.
Among pertinent experts, Jeff Garrett is probably the toughest in terms of granting Proof status to a coin. In the Garrett-Guth encyclopedia of gold coins (which I do not have in front of me now), I believe Garrett lists a few definite Proof gold coins from the 1820s, more than a few from the 1830s, and many from each of later decades, though 1915. Undoubtedly, there are others that he has never seen, or seen so long ago that he does not fully remember them. If Garrett calls a gold coin a Proof, then it is likely that almost all other experts will do so as well.
As for the pre-1840 dates for which there are no known Proof gold coins, there are often Proof silver coins. For most years in the 1820s, definitive Proof half dollars exist. There are, too, dimes and quarters of several years in the 1820s. Please read my article on the Turtle Rock dimes.
In the Eliasberg and Pittman collections, there were a large number of pre-1840 copper and silver coins that were catalogued as Proofs. Of course, I am not saying that each of these is an indisputable Proof. Many pre-1840 coins in both collections, though, are indisputable Proofs. For almost every year from 1821 to 1840, at least a couple very convincing Proofs, of at least one denomination, could be identified, from coins that are pedigreed to Eliasberg or Pittman,just two collections. The Norweb family, James A. Stack and Floyd Starr also collected pre-1858 Proofs, including a good number of pre-1840 Proofs. In terms of individual coins, there is minimal overlap (in most cases none) among these five collections, and they all had amazing, very convincing pre-1840 Proofs. Also, there now is a West Coast collector who specializes in pre-1840 Proof gold coins and has a substantial number of coins that most experts would regard as definite Proofs with strong Proof characteristics.
As an aside, I note that most Proof quarters of the 1830s are of superb striking quality with very strong Proof characteristics. The half dimes of the 1830s that have been called Proofs, in contrast, are often controversial. I did not say that there exist a significant number of Proofs of every denomination of every year. I said that there exist a significant number of definite Proofs, of at least one denomination of most years, from the 1820s onward. I refer to striking quality rather than the mere presence of mirror surfaces, which may also be found on Non-Proofs. Hopefully, it is also clear that, when identifying Proofs, I am, in this thread and in general, referring to the physical characteristics of the coins, regardless of whether there is any historical documentation.
Coinguy, I do not mean to sound rude. I did so much work, however, to write my last post about the topic of the definition of a Proof, and you have sidetracked me and the readers into a discussion of the number of pre-1840 Proofs in existence. We both know that it would take years of research to come up with fair estimates, especially since published information includes errors, controversial coins, mistakenly certified coins, and multiple listings of some individual coins. Plus, quite a few early Proofs are in museums or other long-term holdings.
As I have put so much time into this thread, and spent so many years viewing and thinking about 19th century Proofs, here, I ask the readers to carefully consider my last post at least, and, hopefully, earlier posts as well. There is much more agreement regarding the nature of Proofs that critics suggest, and it is logical for the same definition to apply to multiple time periods, Mints and nations. I do not expect everyone to agree with me. I just wish for collectors, dealers and researchers to give my position on this topic more consideration than it has received so far. Thank you.
Again, please read my post just before this one, above coinguy1-s comment.
You made a statement pertaining to the number of Proofs from each decade beginning in the 1820's and included the word "significant" . I responded "I am not sure precisely what you mean by <significant number> but, at least in the first few decades beginning in the 1820s, I would be surprised if the individuals you mentioned, or many others, would agree with your above statement". I didn't ask you to do the research required to come up with "fair estimates" of how many Proofs there are from each decade. Presumably, you already had some idea as to the minimum number extant when you made that statement. And now you have explained it, for which I thank you.
While you apparently didn't mean to be rude, I feel that you were, in your unfair use of "out of context" and "side tracked". And for calling it "harmful" for me to have posed the question I did, while at the same time attempting to put words into my moth with your "As I have worked so hard to dispel these notions, and explain that a significant number of of pre-1858, including pre-1840, Proofs definitely exist, it is harmful for Coinguy to question whether a significant number can be definitively identified as Proofs as he probably knows that these can be".
At first blush at reading this thread, I thought "tempest in a teapot". Now I think this is exactly what these forums are all about. This stuff is great. Hopefully all the learned numismatists contributing to this thread aren't put off by some of the emotional comments, but feel that their contributions have roused the others into thinking and finally learning from the others. GREAT STUFF!
re: I thought I made it clear, for new readers, in my last post that, in the first part of the thread, FirstMint and I debated, and, in the second part, I debated Denga and RWB.
Greg, It is very difficult to understand your definition for the word "debate" as you seem to apply it to portions of this thread. A debate is based on a solid background of relevant material, and evidence to back up claims. You presented and continue to present, little more than name dropping, exaggeration and insinuation. No points are earned for whining about how much time you took to write a post, or the number of thoughtless comments to other posters.
You’re a smart guy. Your event and auction summaries are clear and well written. You can accomplish more, if you wish. All the best to you.
CoinGuy1 <<[Analyst] made a statement pertaining to the number of Proofs from each decade beginning in the 1820's and included the word "significant" . I responded "I am not sure precisely what you mean by <significant number> but, at least in the first few decades beginning in the 1820s, I would be surprised if the individuals you mentioned, or many others, would agree with your above statement". I didn't ask you to do the research required to come up with "fair estimates" of how many Proofs there are from each decade. Presumably, you already had some idea as to the minimum number extant when you made that statement. And now you have explained it, for which I thank you.>>
<<While you apparently didn't mean to be rude, I feel that you were, in your unfair use ...>>
I apologize to Coinguy1 for my tone in a couple of passages. I thank CoinGuy1 for quoting my response to his point in its entirety. CoinGuy1 is correct that I should have given an indication, in my next to last post, of the meaning of -a significant number.- It was very late and I was very tired. Moreover, I was really hoping that people would focus on my previous post, that of Wed. 02/17 4:18 PM, in which I addressed the topic of a definition of Proof that applies to the entire 19th century and to some foreign coins from earlier eras. Walter Breen indicates that his definition applied to British coins of the 18th century and possibly to some in the 17th century as well. Coinguy1, since maybe you have carefully examined a significant number of pre-1840 Proofs, while you were working as a grader, I was hoping for your help.
I hope that all will read the following two edited paragraphs from my (while very tired) Th. 02/18 2:28 AM post in question,
<Those have been reading this thread since its inception know that some of the other participants have, (1) questioned whether pre-1858 Proofs exist at all, (2) have implied that supposed pre-1858 Proofs are so ambiguous that there cannot be a definitive determination by experts in the field as to whether they are Proofs (like the difference between a 67 and 68 grade to paraphrase one participant), or (3) suggested that, as no one can consistently distinguish Proofs from Non-Proofs, collectors will be misled or cheated outright in the absence of historical documentation. As I have worked so hard to dispel these notions, and explain that a significant number of of pre-1858, including pre-1840, Proofs definitely exist, I am disappointed that CoinGuy1 did not rise to the occasion and declare that a significant number can be definitively identified as Proofs as he is a widely respected grading expert and I hope he is very knowledgeable about the characteristics of Proofs as well. Plus, I am trying to make clear that the same definition of a Proof applies to coins for the entire 19th century and for some foreign coins from earlier times.
<In the statement that Coinguy quoted, I am trying to explain that there is a consensus among experts that, not just a few like the pieces in the King of Siam Set, but a substantial number of pre-1840 coins are definitely Proofs and they are not that much different from Proofs of the 1840s, 1850s, 1860s, and onward. Sure, in terms of Proof status, some coins are inherently ambiguous and others are borderline cases. Even so, there are a substantial number of definite Proofs. I am NOT talking about a few unexplainable pieces, or curiosities. ... Part of my point is that the topic of pre-1840 Proofs does NOT primarily refer to anomalies, restrikes or inherently ambiguous coins.>
<< <i>CoinGuy1 <<[Analyst] made a statement pertaining to the number of Proofs from each decade beginning in the 1820's and included the word "significant" . I responded "I am not sure precisely what you mean by <significant number> but, at least in the first few decades beginning in the 1820s, I would be surprised if the individuals you mentioned, or many others, would agree with your above statement". I didn't ask you to do the research required to come up with "fair estimates" of how many Proofs there are from each decade. Presumably, you already had some idea as to the minimum number extant when you made that statement. And now you have explained it, for which I thank you.>>
<<While you apparently didn't mean to be rude, I feel that you were, in your unfair use ...>>
I apologize to Coinguy1 for my tone in a couple of passages. I thank CoinGuy1 for quoting my response to his point in its entirety. CoinGuy1 is correct that I should have given an indication, in my next to last post, of the meaning of -a significant number.- It was very late and I was very tired. Moreover, I was really hoping that people would focus on my previous post, that of Wed. 02/17 4:18 PM, in which I addressed the topic of a definition of Proof that applies to the entire 19th century and to some foreign coins from earlier eras. Walter Breen indicates that his definition applied to British coins of the 18th century and possibly to some in the 17th century as well. Coinguy1, since maybe you have carefully examined a significant number of pre-1840 Proofs, while you were working as a grader, I was hoping for your help.
I hope that all will read the following two edited paragraphs from my (while very tired) Th. 02/18 2:28 AM post in question,
<Those have been reading this thread since its inception know that some of the other participants have, (1) questioned whether pre-1858 Proofs exist at all, (2) have implied that supposed pre-1858 Proofs are so ambiguous that there cannot be a definitive determination by experts in the field as to whether they are Proofs (like the difference between a 67 and 68 grade to paraphrase one participant), or (3) suggested that, as no one can consistently distinguish Proofs from Non-Proofs, collectors will be misled or cheated outright in the absence of historical documentation. As I have worked so hard to dispel these notions, and explain that a significant number of of pre-1858, including pre-1840, Proofs definitely exist, I am disappointed that CoinGuy1 did not rise to the occasion and declare that a significant number can be definitively identified as Proofs as he is a widely respected grading expert and I hope he is very knowledgeable about the characteristics of Proofs as well. Plus, I am trying to make clear that the same definition of a Proof applies to coins for the entire 19th century and for some foreign coins from earlier times.
<In the statement that Coinguy quoted, I am trying to explain that there is a consensus among experts that, not just a few like the pieces in the King of Siam Set, but a substantial number of pre-1840 coins are definitely Proofs and they are not that much different from Proofs of the 1840s, 1850s, 1860s, and onward. Sure, in terms of Proof status, some coins are inherently ambiguous and others are borderline cases. Even so, there are a substantial number of definite Proofs. I am NOT talking about a few unexplainable pieces, or curiosities. ... Part of my point is that the topic of pre-1840 Proofs does NOT primarily refer to anomalies, restrikes or inherently ambiguous coins.>
I am currently out of town at an airport and have a bad headache, so am going to keep this relatively brief. As a collector, grader and a dealer outside of the grading room, at various times, I have seen/examined (and owned a few) coins from as far back as the 1830's which were as convincing as Proofs, as are examples from the 1850's and onward. So, too, have I examined a number of examples from the 1820's which I felt the same way about, though that number was probably much smaller. When it comes to coins struck prior to the 1820's, as a general rule, I feel differently, at least off the top of my head.
A small number of particularly well made early Proof's which seemed to speak for themselves at the time I saw them and quickly come to mind now are: Bust Half Dimes from 1829 and 1834; Bust Dimes from 1831 and 1834; Bust Quarters from 1834 and to a lesser extent, an 1838 (Norweb?) that I owned and sold as a PR65 and which eventually ended up in a PR68 (cameo?)holder); Bust Half Dollars from 1834 and 1836. There were also a small number of equally convincing Classic Proof Quarter Eagles and Half Eagles, among others.
To all of the participants in this thread - thank you. I have enjoyed it immensely.
A small number of particularly well made early Proof's which seemed to speak for themselves at the time I saw them and quickly come to mind now are: Bust Half Dimes from 1829 and 1834; Bust Dimes from 1831 and 1834; Bust Quarters from 1834 and to a lesser extent, an 1838 (Norweb?) that I owned and sold as a PR65 and which eventually ended up in a PR68 (cameo?)holder); Bust Half Dollars from 1834 and 1836. There were also a small number of equally convincing Classic Proof Quarter Eagles and Half Eagles, among others.
Some of the (surprisingly few) 100% obvious early proofs that come to mind are an 1829 Small Planchet $5, the Eliasberg 1833 Quarter Eagle, an 1831 half dollar I had long ago, and all 1834-36 Crushed Lettered Edge half dollars. What makes these particular proofs different than most of the other early proofs out there is that their fabric is completely different than one would expect of a carefully made "first strike".
In other words, most (but not all) early proofs look like they could have been the first (or one of the first) coins off new, freshly polished dies. They may have received special care in production, they may have been intended as proofs, and they may indeed be "real proofs", but it's hard to know for sure. But the obvious proofs I mentioned cannot be mistaken for early business strikes. They look look like complete freaks.
None of which is meant to disparage the less-than-obvious proofs. The point is only that not all proofs are created equal.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
CoinGuy1 <<As a collector, grader and a dealer outside of the grading room, at various times, I have seen/examined (and owned a few) coins from as far back as the 1830s which were as convincing as Proofs, as are examples from the 1850s and onward. So, too, have I examined a number of examples from the 1820s which I felt the same way about, though that number was probably much smaller. >>
CoinGuy goes on to discuss <<well made early Proofs which seemed to speak for themselves>>! My guess is that these are coins that myself and other experts would regard as Proofs as well. There are more than a few convincing pre-1840 Proofs. Someone reading this thread might get the incorrect impression that such coins cannot possibly be identified or are subject to endless controversies. It is true that some pre-1840 coins, with reflective surfaces, are inherently ambiguous. A substantial number, however, are agreed upon as being Proofs by more than 90% of all pertinent experts.
Curiously, it seems from his last post that Mr. Eureka may be one of the other 10% in many cases and is taking a position that is markedly inconsistent with Breen’s definition and Akers’ approach.
Mr. Eureka <<Some of the (surprisingly few) 100% obvious early proofs that come to mind are an 1829 Small Planchet $5, the Eliasberg 1833 Quarter Eagle, an 1831 half dollar I had long ago, and all 1834-36 Crushed Lettered Edge half dollars. What makes these particular proofs different than most of the other early proofs out there is that their fabric is completely different than one would expect of a carefully made "first strike".>>
Mr. Eureka is likely to have seen most (or all?) of the pre-1840 U.S. coins that are catalogued as Proofs in the auctions of the following collections, which are landmark sales for early Proofs: Eliasberg (1982, ’96, ’97), Norweb (1987-88), Starr (1984?, 1992), and Pittman (1997-98).
Though my Pittman catalogues are not accessible to me at this very moment, I am certain that there were a substantial number of pre-1840 coins in the Pittman collection that Akers and Pittman himself clearly agreed are definitely Proofs. Here, I am putting my opinions aside, and referring to the pre-1840 Proofs that are in the PCGS Registry listings of the Pittman collection.
This registry lists Proof sets of 1831 and 1834, each including a Half Cent, a Cent, a Half Dime, a Dime, a Quarter and a Half Dollar. Additionally, from the Pittman collection, Proof Capped Bust quarters of the following dates are listed in the PCGS registry, 1822, 1828, 1831 (Large), 1833, 1835, 1837 and 1838. (I am here ignoring the Pittman 1827/3 and this date may require a separate discussion.)
Consider the Parmelee-Pittman-Gold Rush Collection 1833 Half Eagle that is PCGS certified Proof-67. Among the readers of this thread who have seen this coin, would anyone say that it is not a Proof?
Almost all of those that I just mentioned are coins that Akers, Pittman, and PCGS experts all agreed are Proofs, even including coins that are not PCGS certified. I am here using Pittman’s Proofs as examples to illustrate the existence of a rough consensus regarding pre-1840 Proofs. I have provided other evidence in earlier posts to this thread.
Mr. Eureka dissents, <<In other words, most (but not all) early proofs look like they could have been the first (or one of the first) coins off new, freshly polished dies. ... But the [very few] obvious proofs I mentioned cannot be mistaken for early business strikes. ...>>
While it is true that reflective first strikes, from new dies, have often been mistaken for Proofs, Mr. Eureka’s statement is very misleading and makes it more difficult for collectors to learn about the differences between Proofs and business strikes. Proofs need not be struck from new dies. Indeed, some Proofs were struck from dies that had considerable wear, especially reverse dies. More importantly, there are dozens of pre-1840 coins, which Mr. Eureka has seen, that are recognized as Proofs, not because they are shiny and reflective, but because they have physical characteristics of Proofs in addition to reflective fields. As a rough analogy, consider that Deep Mirror Prooflike Morgan Dollars are different from true Proof Morgan dollars, which may be less reflective than some of the prooflike Morgans.
Breen makes clear that, typically, business strikes were only struck once while pre-1840 Proof coins received -two to four blows-. <<The manufacture of unquestionable proofs appears to have begun on a consistent basis in [1821]. On these proof coins 2 to 4 blows from the dies in a screw press can usually be demonstrated, dies and blanks having first been polished>> states Walter Breen (1977, p. 39).
Of course, no expert can perfectly evaluate the Proof status of every coin that has at least some Proof characteristics. None of us will bat 1.000, so to speak, and it is not necessary to do so to be an all-star. Nonetheless, Proofs are conceptually and physically different. It is wrong to suggest that a prooflike first strike from new dies can be a Proof.
There is often a need to employ a glass with high magnification to form a meaningful opinion as to whether a specific coin is a Proof. For a coin to be a Proof, there must be evidence of a certain kind of relationship between the devices and the fields and/or there must be evidence of a certain kind of structure of the borders (usually dentils and rims). A pre-1840 coin that was struck only once is not a Proof even if it was planned to be one.
"In order to understand the scarce coins that you own or see, you must learn about coins that you cannot afford." -Me
Comments
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.
Agreed.
(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.
Collectors’ proofs were not packaged as “sets.” Only those who have examined quantities of original sets could answer this question.
(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.
Collectors of all income levels purchased collectors’ proofs directly from the Philadelphia Mint with most having the coins shipped by registered mail. While we have more information on the “big name” collectors, they were not the dominant purchasers – it was the little guy who bought a silver set or minor set by mail that accounts for most the individual sales. A few documents remain that substantiate the mailing of proofs, along with some of the registered mail receipts. [The Anderson anecdote in RAC 1909-1915 is not the only example, but it is one of the better documented ones.]
(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.
As noted earlier, the poster is attempting to apply 21st century values to 19th century collectors and products. What 19th century hobbyists considered acceptable quality might not be the same as in today’s money driven hobby. Using modern standards is an excellent way to confuse and mislead analysis. (The poster seems to put a lot of value in old auction catalogs – if so then explain the meanings of “Fine” or “Very Fine” or “Very Good” and how they relate to modern standards of condition.)
(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.
Hardly misleading. As with any inspection process, it is only as good as the practitioners. “Sub-standard striking” is a modern perception. When the coins were produced, collectors may have had no such perception. The only instance in which we have written information on appearance criteria (as opposed to weight, or misstruck) for identifying acceptable coins is for MCMVII HR $20 in Nove/Dec 1907. The absence of collector complaints, suggests both that collectors were OK with the “proofs” and that we probably don’t have all the relevant records. An experienced observer would understand this.
(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
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.
Naturally, if operations and procedures of several eras are lumped together, the result is mush. The few exceptions from the post-Civil War period do not disprove the general. To say that existence of1884 & 1885 mirror proof Trade dollars makes all the thousands of other documented records invalid, is an obvious absurdity.
<< [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.
It appears the writer of the above did not read the clear, simple reply presented earlier. Following the Civil War, proofs were recorded in monthly production totals. The US Mint supplied these totals to hobby publishers in 1938 from their coiner’s records.
(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.
The poster seems to enjoy exaggeration. Since he suggests “thousands” and “thousands of others” maybe he should take the sum of all extant specimens he considers “off the books” and report that quantity. But, be sure to exclude those with supporting documentation: Metric & Goloid sets, Trade dollars sets, 1896 experimental pieces, multiple aluminum and copper sets, and quite a few others…and be sure to do your own search of archives page-by-page.
Contrary to folklore, quite a few pattern and experimental pieces have documentary trails showing production, recipients and costs. Many are also missing this information, too. The data may or may not exist for ALL, but we do have a statement from Engraver Barber (1910) that many experimental pieces were made on verbal orders from mint officers. (Read the article on USPatterns.com regarding Barber’s pattern collection.)
The poster apparently does not understand that production coinage (including collectors’ proofs from the medal dept.) and experimental and pattern pieces were entirely different animals. Additionally, relying on 19th century auction catalogs (or most modern ones for that matter) for accurate information is highly suspect unless independently verified.
[PS: By about 1910, the mint was losing money on collector's proofs. That was one of the reasons for eliminating them in 1916. They still made money on medals and continued to produce them.]
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.
If analyst had taken the trouble to actually read original documents he would have learned that the
coiner himself noted that copper-nickel proofs were a problem. In 1867, for example, Chief Coiner
Snowden refused to furnish copper-nickel five cent proofs (with rays) for the sets for this reason. (This
has also been published on several occasions.)
(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.
Analyst should re-read what he said and he certainly implied that 19th century collectors were not all
that sophisticated when it came to proofs. The names of those ordering proof sets by mail are known
but those who bought directly at the Mint are not. As analyst has obviously made no effort to determine
who purchased sets, his argument is merely an opinion.
(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.>>
Analyst is entitled to his opinion. I disagree.
(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.
The only way that analyst could know what collectors were doing with their proof sets in the 1880s is
to have been there himself. He has no idea of what collectors thought – or their level of expertise – in
the 1880s.
(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.
The only “misleading” statements I see are coming from analyst, who clearly does not understand how
the Mint worked in the 19th century. He has a right to disagree, based on his opinions, but that is all. He
makes it clear, by using such terms as “misleading” and “Orwellian double-speak” that those who disagree
with him are are knowingly giving false information.
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.
Orwellian double-talk? Hilarious. The matter was explained in an earlier posting but ignored. The
1884 and 1885 Trade dollars were struck clandestinely and therefore no record was kept. It is true
that proof sets were sold off the books prior to 1860, and I said as much. The 1859 scenario, however,
has nothing to do with 1885.
(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.>>
The information about the 1836 Gobrecht dollars being regular-issue coins was first published in 1978.
Saying that thousands of pattern coins were available in the 1860s and on is easy enough to say but more
difficult to prove. If thousands of pieces overhung the market in the 1870s the sellers would have had
trouble giving them away with the small collector base of that era.
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 proof 1801, 1803, and 1803 dollars were not made in the 1870s. The restriking from old dies ended
when H.R. Linderman destroyed the old dies before he left office in 1869. This is another well-established
fact conveniently ignored by those who prefer opinions and speculation.
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.
Opinions are worth what you pay for them and that’s all analyst has to offer, opinions. He might try
doing actual research in the original documents instead of making poorly-informed guesses on what
occurred in the 19th century.
Denga
<< <i>It is tempting to write volumes in an attempt to convey some minor level of research knowledge to the poster, but that seems to be useless, since the poster does not have a basic understanding of the subject. In any event, here are a few short replies, although it is not expected they will be understood. >>
I agree. If the poster wishes to challenge selected knowledge with evidence to the contrary that would be enlightening, but to ask that the entire body of numismatic knowledge be reproven in this forum is asking a bit much.
TD
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.
Another possibility is that the Mint ran out of certain proof singles, and they simply cheated by including a business strike. One set that comes to mind is an 1865 proof set in an original presentation case, which appeared at auction in Auction '89 or '90. The set appeared to be as original as they get, yet the dime was an obvious business strike. Although it's impossible to know if the set left the Mint that way, I believe it to be more than likely.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>I hope to catch up with this thread, but I'm not there yet. For now, I'll just address the following comment, which jumped out at me.
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.
Another possibility is that the Mint ran out of certain proof singles, and they simply cheated by including a business strike. One set that comes to mind is an 1865 proof set in an original presentation case, which appeared at auction in Auction '89 or '90. The set appeared to be as original as they get, yet the dime was an obvious business strike. Although it's impossible to know if the set left the Mint that way, I believe it to be more than likely. >>
That is a logical possibility, that may have occured in certain cases. Never underestimate the ability of an employee to violate established work rules or procedures.
Back in the late 70's one of the ANACS Authenticators got a VIP tour of the (then) San Francisco Assay Office's proof production line. The person giving him the tour had told him how all of the employees wore smocks and hairnets and gloves to protect the coins.
Then they came upon a lady whose job it was to align the coins upright in the cases. Between sets she was reaching into a bag of potato chips with the gloved hand and stuffing them into her mouth, then using the greasy glove to adjust the next set.
TD
<< <i>That is a logical possibility, that may have occured in certain cases. Never underestimate the ability of an employee to violate established work rules or procedures.
Back in the late 70's one of the ANACS Authenticators got a VIP tour of the (then) San Francisco Assay Office's proof production line. The person giving him the tour had told him how all of the employees wore smocks and hairnets and gloves to protect the coins.
Then they came upon a lady whose job it was to align the coins upright in the cases. Between sets she was reaching into a bag of potato chips with the gloved hand and stuffing them into her mouth, then using the greasy glove to adjust the next set.
TD >>
TD,
That is a great point because I think a lot of the 'human element', not on the larger policy level, which is where we usually focus, but on the basic manufacturing level, sometimes gets lost in the analysis. Most likely because it is 'between the lines' and mostly lost to history. So when I do hear stories about fabled coins which 'cannot' exist (the 1917 MPL comes to mind), I just have to chuckle, knowing human nature better as I 'mature'
I think formal mint policies were enacted for the first time in 1854 (group: correct me if that is error), so prior to that time, no formalistic approach was taken to establish a dictating set of rules. After that time, of course, the mints have developed stringent policies (employees signing confidentiality agts, for example), but one cannot ever truly account for the rule-breaker. So as there is so much information that we do NOT know (or may never), I think taking a inflexible position on the history of the mint and the historical happenings is a little silly. How far one can infer from the records is really the point (IMHO). I would like to hear the opinions of those with much more knowledge on that point.
Your point is great because you KNOW that someone is now looking at a potato-chip-tainted fantastic proof toner in the mint wrapper, and saying: "this must be NT"
Duane
Topic: Non-Proofs or Failed Proofs of Proof-only dates and Mint Records Regarding Proofs
Analyst <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.>
RWB <<Agreed.>>
In contrast to Denga, RWB seems to be agreeing that non-Proofs could have been sold as Proofs or been distributed -off the books-. The existence of Non-Proofs and/or Failed Proofs of supposed <Proof-Only Dates> is one of the most important points in this thread, and a point that I had sincerely hoped to convey. More thought and scrutiny needs to be directed towards coins of many Proof-only dates. If Mint records refer to some non-Proof coins as Proofs, this would be one of several reasons to be skeptical of some Mint records in regard to mintages and sales of 19th century Proofs.
(1) Non-Proofs (or incomplete Proofs) in Proof Sets
Analyst <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. >
RWB < Only those who have examined quantities of original sets could answer this question.>
Above, RWB <<agreed>> with my theory of two possible ways as to how Non-Proof coins of Proof-only dates, especially nickels, could have left the U.S. Mint, and with my point that there could be other ways. Obviously, I am not concluding that all Non-Proofs of Proof-only dates left the Mint in any one manner. I am hypothesizing about events that were likely to have occurred, or certainly were very plausible. Further, Denga stated that it would have been nearly impossible for Non-Proof coins to have left the Mint in Proof sets. I am stating that it is very plausible for the reasons given above and in earlier posts to this thread. It is not necessary to prove a point beyond a reasonable doubt in order to put forth a strong hypothesis.
(2) Who received Proof Sets in the mail directly from the U.S. Mint?
Analyst <I did not say, as Denga suggests, that collectors in the late 19th century were not sophisticated. Please read my [now next to last] 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.
Analyst continued <<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.>
RWB <<Collectors of all income levels purchased collectors’ proofs directly from the Philadelphia Mint with most having the coins shipped by registered mail. While we have more information on the “big name” collectors, they were not the dominant purchasers – it was the little guy who bought a silver set or minor set by mail that accounts for most the individual sales. ... >>
For reasons I put forth in two previous posts, it is fair to conclude that only a small percentage of the Proof sets then shipped by the U.S. Mint went to advanced, sophisticated collectors. The fact that not all such buyers were wealthy is consistent with my position here, not in opposition to it. A key evidentiary point is that, usually, a recently minted Proof coin was, in the 1880s, worth only slightly more than face value, or sometimes just face value. Even an advanced, sophisticated collector would not have bothered to write a complaint.
(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 of which would have literally been nickels and quarters, anyhow.
RWB <<As noted earlier, [Analyst] is attempting to apply 21st century values to 19th century collectors and products. What 19th century hobbyists considered acceptable quality might not be the same as in today’s money driven hobby. Using modern standards is an excellent way to confuse and mislead analysis. ...>>
If RWB had examined more 19th century Proof coins and researched great collections, he would know that the <19th century values> are not as different from <21st century values> as he implies without evidence. (There is some information about this topic in Part 2 of my three part series on Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring.) Moreover, many great coins from epic collections can be traced to great collections that were formed, at least in part, in the late 19th century. Indeed, many coins from the Norweb, Eliasberg and Pittman collections were earlier in collections that were auctioned from 1870 to 1915. Other fabulous coins have been traced to specific collectors during this era, or earlier. It is known now that several, advanced wealthy collectors of the era sought coins that would grade from 66 to 69 by today’s standards.
By viewing the Proof coins that were highlights of auctions conducted from the 1870s to 1915 or so, I can tell that coins favored by advanced sophisticated collectors and dealers then are the same as those that are so favored by their successors now. The criteria then employed to evaluate Proofs, in terms of striking-quality and grade, is consistent (though not exactly the same) with the criteria employed now. Then and now, no one could find a way to precisely state such criteria in words. Not all knowledge can be articulated. To learn about Proofs, it is necessary to carefully examine them and ask questions of experts.
(4) RWB directs attention to Mint Records Regarding Quality-Control of Proof issues.
RWB << 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%. >>
Analyst <The substandard striking quality of many Proof quarters and half dollars dated in the 1880s demonstrates that RWB-s point here is very misleading.>
RWB <<Hardly misleading. As with any inspection process, it is only as good as the practitioners. “Sub-standard striking” is a modern perception. When the coins were produced, collectors may have had no such perception. ... The absence of collector complaints, suggests both that collectors were OK with the “Proofs” and that we probably don’t have all the relevant records. An experienced observer would understand this.>>
In my last two posts, including points cited above, I put forth reasons as to why the buyers of Proof sets directly from the Mint would not have complained even if substandard Proofs and business strikes were included in many of the sets. See sections (3A) and (3B) above. I add that collectors who were unhappy with their Proofs could just wait to obtain upgrades as recently minted Proofs had so little monetary value, anyway. During the period from 1880 to 1910, a number of Proofs were either spent or worn through mishandling. Your new statement that “we probably don’t have all the relevant records” is curious, as, previously, you and Denga both implied that you had access to all the complaints regarding Proofs.
In 1821, personnel at the U.S. Mint knew how to manufacture Proofs that had very strong Proof characteristics. In every decade from the 1820s until the beginning of the 20th century, though not in every single year, there were produced a significant number of Proofs of very high striking quality, which is a concept different from grade. I believe that JD, Jeff Garrett, Dave Wnuck and many others would all agree with me on this point. My point in this paragraph is consistent with Breen’s published research. In the 1880s, Mint Personnel were knowledgeable about the characteristics of Proofs. Many of the substandard Proof quarters and halves of the 1880s are inferior, in terms of striking quality, in the views of experts, then and now.
From the 1830s to 1870s, sometimes in the 1880s, and in the 1890s, the U.S. Mint managed to usually produce Proof Liberty Seated quarters that were of much higher striking-quality than the substandard Proofs of the 1880s. RWB may disagree with my interpretation, but it is clear that I am referring to criteria employed in the 19th century. I honestly believe that these could not have passed a true inspection or survived a quality-control process. Dave Wnuck has granted permission for me to mention that he agrees with my position on this point. As I said in an earlier post in this thread regarding the possibility of business strikes in Proof sets, <people might deliberately not follow orders or protocol and make Non-Proofs [or substandard 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?>
I return to an earlier point: IF Mint records suggest that all Proofs from the 1880s were of ample striking quality and were subject to quality control procedures, then the Mint records are, in some sense, wrong. Those who have carefully examined many Proofs from the 19th century in general and the 1880s in particular would probably agree with me.
Concluding Remarks:
Generally, RWB and CaptHenway have read a little too much into my criticism of Mint records. I am primarily referring to Mint records in regard to Proofs, and a few other rarities. My point about 1884 and 1885 Trade Dollars was not intended to challenge the validity of all 19th century U.S. Mint records. From a logical perspective, if the mintage and sales records for Proofs in 1884 and 1885 are not true, why assume that the mintage and sales records for 1882 and 1883 are true? These might very well be true, but we just do not know.
I withdraw my remark that some of these Mint records, regarding mintages and sales of Proofs, should not be taken too seriously. It is better to say, should not be taken too literally. Information from other sources should be considered when interpreting such mintage and sales records.
Proof 1876-CC Dime
Turtle Rock Proof Dimes
Proof 1907-D Double Eagle
JDs Article on 1801-1803 silver dollars
Collecting Naturally Toned coins, Part 2
Regrettably, I must maintain what was stated earlier, “…the poster does not have a basic understanding of the subject."
<<Certain coins that are now called branch mint proofs are in reality the first examples struck. The 1855-S Quarter, Half, and $3 gold pieces are such examples.>>
This statement is terribly wrong. FirstMint, have you seen these coins? I have carefully examined the unique Proof 1855-S quarter, the unique Proof 1855-S $3 piece, and one of supposedly two known Proof 1855-S half dollars. Regardless of whether they were made before business strikes or afterwards, these are true Proofs. These are NOT business strikes struck from heavily polished dies.
I've also seen these coins. First, my take on the quarter and half dollar is that they are not made anywhere close to "Philadelphia Proof" standards. (I would say the same of the "proof" 1854-S $20 in the Smithsonian, which has striated dies not normally seen on proofs but more frequently seen on first strike business strikes.) However, the fabric of the coins is so different than all other examples of these issues, and so similar to each other, that it's nearly impossible to think that they weren't specially struck with intent.
As for the 1855-S $3, I like it enough to have bought it (in the proof holder) and sold it, but I don't think it's a slam dunk obvious proof. The call is also more difficult than on the 55-S quarter and half for three reasons. First, the surfaces on the $3 aren't as fresh and "original" as on the silver. Second, I've seen a couple of highly PL (or not quite as proof) 1856-S $3 gold pieces that are of similar fabric to the 1855-S. (That makes me wonder if the SF Mint wasn't just in the habit of highly polishing its business strike dies, at least for gold issues.) And third, unlike the quarter and half, the $3 does not have a perfect mate to provide circumstantial evidence of its special origin.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Matt - Your best bet is to stick to die varieties that exist only as proofs. Some of these may be "proof-only" dates, others not.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
...[snipped] ...
Generally, RWB and CaptHenway have read a little too much into my criticism of Mint records. I am primarily referring to Mint records in regard to Proofs, and a few other rarities. My point about 1884 and 1885 Trade Dollars was not intended to challenge the validity of all 19th century U.S. Mint records. From a logical perspective, if the mintage and sales records for Proofs in 1884 and 1885 are not true, why assume that the mintage and sales records for 1882 and 1883 are true? These might very well be true, but we just do not know.
I withdraw my remark that some of these Mint records, regarding mintages and sales of Proofs, should not be taken too seriously. It is better to say, should not be taken too literally. Information from other sources should be considered when interpreting such mintage and sales records.
A few general remarks and then I think analyst and I will agree to disagree:
1) The sales records for proofs in 1884 and 1885 are correct. That the Trade dollars were struck clandestinely
does not affect this comment.
2) The quality of the quarter dollar proofs in the 1880s may well be below that of earlier proofs. However, it is
worth noting that in 1886, as but one example, only two pairs of dies were used to produce both proof and
uncirculated pieces. It is quite possible that the proof dies were pressed into service to strike some of the small
number struck for collectors in uncirculated. The quality of the latter would have been very high in a small run
and it is quite possible that such coins are so close to being proof that they have been mislabelled as poorly-
struck proofs. In my opinion, if there is a question about the quality of a “proof” 1880s quarter dollar, it may well
be a high-quality uncirculated coin instead.
3) While it appears to be true that A.L. Snowden was responsible for many of the patterns and off-metal strikes
that appeared in later years, it is is equally true that he persuaded the Treasury to allow the special strikings of
low mintage uncirculated coins for collectors after 1879. His reputation among collectors depended in part upon
the quality of such special coinages.
4) Depending on auction catalogues from the 1870s or 1880s for numismatic data often produces misleading
information. The cataloguers, for example, invariably got it wrong when discussing the Goloid coinage and
especially the Stella. Unfortunately one still sees errors from the 1880s when the 1879 Flowing Hair Stellas are
discussed today. Even the Redbook has it wrong, for example, when it says that 15 pieces of this issue were
struck in 1879, the rest in 1880; in point of fact all were coined in 1880.
5) Silver proof coins were sold only in sets after 1861 but not in any special packaging. They were individually
wrapped in tissue paper. Gold coins, at the suggestion of A.L. Snowden, were sold individually and in sets after
1880.
Denga
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>OK, I'm caught up.
While there are, thanks to Denga and RWB, some great historical tidbits in this thread, it seems to be that all of the debates result from the lack of a good definition of the word "proof", and nothing has (or could have) been resolved.
BTW, I do have my own definition of "proof", and it has served me very well (as a collector/dealer) over the years. But that doesn't make my definition "right", and I certainly don't want to debate it. >>
Andy, please post it? And I promise not to debate it....unless you ask me to.
"I too have that same pack rack memory, which sometimes causes delays in locating sources. Too many of the sources proved to be crammed full of errors, which no teenager could have spotted them. God, how much we all have to unlearn! I wish to God I was about 16 and growing up now, or at worst about 26, and without the orphanage history."
<< <i>BTW, I do have my own definition of "proof", and it has served me very well (as a collector/dealer) over the years. But that doesn't make my definition "right", and I certainly don't want to debate it. >>
Of course you don't want to debate it. If you have only one definition of "proof", it's either wrong, incomplete, or hopelessly vague. ;-)
Ed. S.
(EJS)
The first half, approximately, of this thread related to the definition of the numismatic term Proof. Therein, I argued that a determination of whether a coin is a Proof should be independent of U.S. Mint records. FirstMint took the opposite position and stated that only those coins declared to be Proofs in currently known U.S. Mint records should be accepted as such. In fairness to FirstMint, he was referring to <<pre-1860>> coins. I do not know whether FirstMint would agree that 1884 and 1885 Trade Dollars are Proofs.
The second half of the thread did not relate to the definition of the term Proof. There was a debate about the veracity and usefulness of U.S. Mint records pertaining to Proofs that were minted in the 1860s, 1870s and 1880s.
A lot was accomplished. Terms of a debate were framed and avenues for further research were paved. Readers of this this thread could learn a good deal about different viewpoints. Moreover, I believe, or at least I hope, that something specific was accomplished that is tremendously important, in regard to <Proof-only> dates.
In this thread, there was considerable agreement that a significant number of coins of <Proof-only> dates do not have the physical characteristics of Proofs. I am not talking here about borderline cases. I am referring to coins of <Proof-only> dates that most advanced specialists in Proofs would agree are not Proofs, or at least do not have the characteristics that are associated with 19th century Proofs. There are collectors, dealers, reference guides, and maybe even at least one TPG, that tend to assume that a coin of a <Proof-only> date is a Proof, often without even carefully examining the coin, and usually without even thinking about it. Undoubtedly, it is confusing and counterproductive to tell a collector that a coin, which clearly does not have the physical characteristics of a Proof, is one. Therefore, in regard to so called <Proof-only> dates, this thread certainly served a valuable educational purpose.
Proof 1876-CC Dime
Turtle Rock Proof Dimes
Proof 1907-D Double Eagle
JDs Article on 1801-1803 silver dollars
Collecting Naturally Toned coins, Part 2
As the first dimes struck in a close collar, they should be unusual looking coins. Makes me wonder if none of them are really proofs.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
"President James Madison visiting Philadelhia in 1817 during his extensive good will tour after his inaguration"
From there, it was argued that he would have likely gotten a "gift" from the mint director (e.g. a Proof coin)...
So have any of you all ever *asked* the current sitting president about the issue? I know it sounds ridiculous, but lists of gifts to each President have been created through time, as the President is not allowed to *personally* accept them...he accepts them on behalf of the country as a whole. Is it possible that President Madison noted this visit in his personal diary or in a list of gifts given to him? Has anyone gone down this avenue?
Mind you, I could be very off on this idea, so just let me know if I am.
thanks for any responses!
Greg
I did not take the position that Analyst says I took about proofs being only accepted by known U.S. Mint records. My point about pre-1860's terminology regarding Proofs was at what timeframe they were first CLASSIFIED as such by Mint personel and records.
To restate- there were no proof coins made prior to 1854 according to Mint records and terminology.
Between 1851 and 1854 there was a lot of upheaval in the Philadelphia Mint. Director Patterson left in July 1851. He had been the Director since 1835 and specifically used the term "Master-Coins". Patterson was replaced by George Eckert, who lasted until April 1853. As far as I know, there are no records to indicate what he might have classified any specially struck coinage.
Another Director, Thomas Pettit came in in April of 1853 and was in office for two months. Again, there are no documents relating to what he may have called anything special. Besides, because of the disruption this year, there were no specially struck sets of coins made in 1853. In June of 1853, James Ross Snowden was appointed. He had his hands full with making sure the weight reduction of the silver coinage was done properly (along with other things). The following year, when sets of specially struck coins were offered to collectors, they were termed Proof sets. I might add that these sets did not consist of all denominations being made at the Philly Mint.
The classification of Proof coins in American numismatics is what I was referrring to. It happened between 1854 and 1859, when Master Coins was officially last seen in U.S. Mint documents. As I also stated, there was an intermixing of these two terms coming from the Mint. However, coin dealers and cataloguers used the term Proof. Then again, there was basically one sale (1851 Roper) of notable numismatic content held in America prior to 1853 - and in fact, none of the items included in the Roper sale had any grades or classifying terminology whatsoever.
The reference by Mickley in 1852 about him receiving two Proof half dollars that came from coiner Franklin Peale, may have been the name that Peale used when he made "Proof" restrikes of the 1838 halves for Mickley that year. These had been made earlier as evidenced by Roper having one in his collection as well (p.10).
As I mentioned, the person who may have coined the phrase "proof" (pun intended) might have been George Eckfeldt, the foreman of the Medal Dept. He knew various formula's on how to make dies reflective, frosty, or have a matte (pickled) surface (this comes from reviewing a copy of his work ledger that has not been published).
To call these specially struck early coins "proofs" (prior to 1854) is not technically correct, and that's the point that was being made, as today, we have come to accept a shiny, reflective surface coin to mean numerous things, with several different (albeit incorrect) names. Regrettably, the proper term of "Master-Coins" is not even in the numismatic vocabulary at this point.
Amazingly, we don't even know where the term "Proof" originated from in regards to American coinage, and we have no precise defintions, perhaps the closest now being p.3 and 33 in the PCGS grading book which relates to a numerical grade and not the standards of what constitutes a proof coin (I did notice the "Specimens" in the early coinage sections).
I recommended that a committee be formed to address this issue (lack of precise definitions for early "Proofs" or "Master-Coins") when I wrote an article about the 1827/3/2 quarters that appeared in the Rare Coin Review several years ago. Nothing was ever accomplished, as it goes squarely against the accepted norms of today's coin industry. Oh well...
<< <i> So how do I know that any of these large cents I've been ogling are actual proofs???
Matt - Your best bet is to stick to die varieties that exist only as proofs. Some of these may be "proof-only" dates, others not. >>
Is there an easy way to research the die varieties that exist only as proofs? It would mean a lot to me if I could reference a list of proof dates and check potential purchases against known varieties.
Empty Nest Collection
To clarify a mis-assumption by Analyst - I did not take the position that Analyst says I took about proofs being only accepted by known U.S. Mint records. My point about pre-1860's terminology regarding Proofs was at what timeframe they were first CLASSIFIED as such by Mint personel and records.
To restate- there were no proof coins made prior to 1854 according to Mint records and terminology.
Between 1851 and 1854 there was a lot of upheaval in the Philadelphia Mint. Director Patterson left in July 1851. He had been the Director since 1835 and specifically used the term "Master-Coins". Patterson was replaced by George Eckert, who lasted until April 1853. As far as I know, there are no records to indicate what he might have classified any specially struck coinage. Another Director, Thomas Pettit came in in April of 1853 and was in office for two months. Again, there are no documents relating to what he may have called anything special. Besides, because of the disruption this year, there were no specially struck sets of coins made in 1853. In June of 1853, James Ross Snowden was appointed. He had his hands full with making sure the weight reduction of the silver coinage was done properly (along with other things). The following year, when sets of specially struck coins were offered to collectors, they were termed Proof sets. I might add that these sets did not consist of all denominations being made at the Philly Mint.
The classification of Proof coins in American numismatics is what I was referrring to. It happened between 1854 and 1859, when Master Coins was officially last seen in U.S. Mint documents. As I also stated, there was an intermixing of these two terms coming from the Mint. However, coin dealers and cataloguers used the term Proof. Then again, there was basically one sale (1851 Roper) of notable numismatic content held in America prior to 1853 - and in fact, none of the items included in the Roper sale had any grades or classifying terminology whatsoever.
The reference by Mickley in 1852 about him receiving two Proof half dollars that came from coiner Franklin Peale, may have been the name that Peale used when he made "Proof" restrikes of the 1838 halves for Mickley that year. These had been made earlier as evidenced by Roper having one in his collection as well (p.10).
As I mentioned, the person who may have coined the phrase "proof" (pun intended) might have been George Eckfeldt, the foreman of the Medal Dept. He knew various formula's on how to make dies reflective, frosty, or have a matte (pickled) surface (this comes from reviewing a copy of his work ledger that has not been published). To call these specially struck early coins "proofs" (prior to 1854) is not technically correct, and that's the point that was being made, as today, we have come to accept a shiny, reflective surface coin to mean numerous things, with several different (albeit incorrect) names. Regrettably, the proper term of "Master-Coins" is not even in the numismatic vocabulary at this point. Amazingly, we don't even know where the term "Proof" originated from in regards to American coinage, and we have no precise defintions, perhaps the closest now being p.3 and 33 in the PCGS grading book which relates to a numerical grade and not the standards of what constitutes a proof coin (I did notice the "Specimens" in the early coinage sections).
I recommended that a committee be formed to address this issue (lack of precise definitions for early "Proofs" or "Master-Coins") when I wrote an article about the 1827/3/2 quarters that appeared in the Rare Coin Review several years ago. Nothing was ever accomplished, as it goes squarely against the accepted norms of today's coin industry. Oh well...
Firstmint seems intent on proving that proof coins as such do not exist prior to 1854 because the terminology
was not used. The following statement by analyst, used earlier in this thread, is correct and to the point:
I demonstrated how the existence of Proofs from the 1860s, which you acknowledge exist, could be used to prove the existence of Proofs from the 1840s. I did not then realize that, oddly, you seem 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.
There are some points left out by firstmint which are necessary to an understanding of the situation:
1) The old English saying – A rose by any other name is still a rose – applies perfectly here. What
Director Patterson - or Adam Eckfeldt – called such coins is irrelevant.
2) Franklin Peale spent considerable time in Europe, especially France and Britain, studying their coining
techniques. As Peale was a collector, he almost certainly met with leading numismatists in his spare time.
If firstmint had researched the English word “proof” he would have found that it had been used as early as
1650 by Peter Blondeau to describe specially struck pieces for examination. To make the point, however,
we use the records of the London Mint for 1764 in which we find Mint Smith Reuben Fletcher charging ten
shillings for “four pairs [of] shoulder dies for proof pieces for small coins.” That Peale would not have heard
the term “proof” from London Mint officials and/or British numismatists defies common sense.
3) The practice at the London Mint was very similar to that at Philadelphia. There a Mint official sold proof coins
on the side to supplement his income although in this case such coins were struck less often than in the U.S.
4) Proof sets as such were not offered until 1858 by Snowden, not 1854 as stated by firstmint. From 1854 to
1857 collectors obtained individual proof coins to suit their collecting tastes; in some cases proof coins of a
given denomination were not ready for some months into a new year.
5) As firstmint seems to insist on precise terminology for the period in question, then there is another problem
he avoids discussing. By his standards proof silver or gold coins do not exist prior to 1860 (except for the
1836 Gobrecht dollars) or minor proof coins prior to 1878. The reason for this? To be a coin a piece must be
delivered according to the law and these proof pieces were not. In 1877, for example, the copper-nickel five
cent proofs were struck but no official record was made of their coinage. Therefore, if firstmint insists that his
nomenclature for pre-1854 proofs is correct (i.e. they must be called “master coins”) that he must also admit that
there are no proof “coins” of 1858. Proof pieces yes, proof coins no. In point of fact even “master coins” is an
incorrect term if the legal niceties are observed.
6) My personal view is that proof coins exist prior to 1860 (and 1854) and should be called as such even if this
does not meet firstmint’s insistence on some obscure point of language.
8) And one last point. In 1834 Adam Eckfeldt made out a bill for the two special diplomatic sets of coins. He called
them “coins of the U. States,” not “master coins.”
Denga
<< <i>......8) And one last point. In 1834 Adam Eckfeldt made out a bill for the two special diplomatic sets of coins. He called
them “coins of the U. States,” not “master coins.”
Denga >>
I thought that there were more than two such sets. Am I mistaken about the number and/or were others billed out at a different time? Thanks.
Try Coinfacts.
(Sometimes, ya gotta suck up to the host.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< ......8) And one last point. In 1834 Adam Eckfeldt made out a bill for the two special diplomatic sets of coins. He called
them “coins of the U. States,” not “master coins.”
Denga >>
I thought that there were more than two such sets. Am I mistaken about the number and/or were others billed out at a different time? Thanks.
Yes, you are correct. Two more sets were made in early 1835 but I was quoting the December
1834 invoice, not having the 1835 bill handy.
Denga
And, as denga pointed out, there were no such classifiers of any special striking for those sets - yet we freely call them proof sets today. It's not the big deal as certain people claim it to be. I am merely pointing out realistic terminology used in a contemporary timeframe; and if others don't wish to accept it, I have no problem with that, but it is simply not correct.
I'm not trying to prove anything other than terminology that was used by the Officials at the U.S.Mint. It is obscure only because we have ignored past reality. It's completely pointless to try and declare something that has no precise qualifiers and definitions. However, it would certainly benefit everyone if we, as numismatists at least made an attempt to do so. Until this happens, those who control the market will win by default, with whatever terminologyy they so choose.
I'm not debating the existance of specially struck coinage prior to 1854. We all know they exist, but by what terminology and classification should we label them today? If I simply went along with the popular, later classification and called them Proofs, then what do we have in a proper historical context - nothing, but more inaccuracies. Where does it stop?
I have not discussed any later proof coinage in my responses. In fact, I didn't address such later issues (post 1859) as it did not pertain to the topic of the thread. I don't believe in bouncing around the entire 19th century and making an apples to oranges, to anything else, comparison. It's not accurate to compare things decades apart in the 19th century; this is because of tecnhnology changes, personel changes, and other factors. That discussion and ideas were presented by others, not me.
In reviewing numerous 19th century auction catalogues, the proof sets from the Mint (in the paper wrappers) were indeed issued from 1854-on (see Wooward#71 sale, February 24, 1885, lots 891-922 as an example). There are other offerings throughout the realm of 19th century auction catalogues, and some, such as those obtained directly from the Mint by J. Colvin Randall (Woodward sale #78, p.43) who owned the largest stock of early proof sets (mostly 6-7 pcs.) can validate what I stated earlier.
This exchange of information in this thread is interesting, and it shows the background of people's research, but it will not change anything, as I also stated earlier.
To clarify another misconception coming from denga, in his reply above #5, he claims that I set standards for proof coinage - the things that some people misinterpret! Nothing of the sort was ever presented in my posts - and there is a huge difference between standards and terminology.
That's the problem - we don't have any standards!
To continue to try and make personal points of contention, with misinformation, putting words in other people's mouth, and self-promotional reasons, is not going to resolve anything in a positive way.
<< <i>I'm not trying to prove anything other than terminology that was used by the Officials at the U.S.Mint. >>
I think we can all agree that the term "proof" doesn't appear in Mint records prior to 1850. Or at least, that no one has found an example.
The problem is insisting that history be described in purely contemporary terms.
FirstMint <<It's completely pointless to try and declare something that has no precise qualifiers and definitions. However, it would certainly benefit everyone if we, as numismatists at least made an attempt to do so. Until this happens, those who control the market will win by default, with whatever terminology they so choose.>>
Whether or not a coin is genuine can be ambiguous as can whether or not a coin is uncirculated, there is no perfect definition that can be applied by non-experts to complex items. As for an attempt, that is the topic of this post. As for the other point in this quoted statement, rules that govern coin markets evolve gradually over time, and be influenced by the participants and readers of this thread.
FirstMint <<It's not accurate to compare things decades apart in the 19th century; this is because of technology changes, personnel changes, and other factors. That discussion and ideas were presented by others, not me.>>
I thought I made it clear, for new readers, in my last post that, in the first part of the thread, FirstMint and I debated, and, in the second part, I debated Denga and RWB. Moreover, Breen-s definition of a Proof applies throughout the 19th century and to British coins of the 18th century. It can, in theory, apply to coins minted throughout the world for the whole 19th century, though, of course, Proofs were not minted everywhere.
To illustrate a concept, I wish to repeat, <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.>
RWB-s suggestion above that there should be different definitions for pre-1858 and for later Proofs is not helpful. As I mentioned more than once, Proofs in the 1840s for Liberty Head gold coins and Liberty Seated quarters and halves, are extremely similar to Proofs of the 1860s for corresponding coins. While there are some exceptions, these Proofs from two different decades are extremely similar. Moreover, there is widescale agreement regarding which are Proofs and which are business strikes. I honestly believe that coin experts who have spent a lot of time viewing 19th century Proofs would not consider my point in this paragraph to be controversial or even debatable.
Coinosaurus – <<Breen was not stupid. He was probably smarter than all of us put together. If he believed something, there was a good reason for it. That does not mean that he was always right, or that documentation verified [all] his belief[s]. >>
Of course, Breen made mistakes. Sometimes, he listed coins as Proofs though he never saw them, and did not provide an explanation, and, other times, he was under pressure to state opinions that he may not have really believed or been sure about.
Breen's discussions of the concept of a Proof add up to more of a definition than anyone else has put forth. His encyclopedia on Proof coins, which was published in 1977, remains, by far, the only worthwhile book relating to the topics in this thread. Despite its many flaws, it is a much more solid and more powerful book than most collectors realize.
The basic definition of a Proof does not change over time and does not stem from the archives of the Philadelphia Mint. As Denga points out in a recent post, Proofs were minted in the UK in the 1700s. I maintain that I have seen a British Proof coin dated in the 1600s. In the 19th century, many Proofs were minted in several European nations and in Latin America, and a quite a few elsewhere in the world. While some coins are borderline cases, in terms of Proof status, and others are inherently ambiguous in this regard, a large number of 19th century Proof U.S. coins (from the 1820s onward) and from Europe and Latin America are clearly Proofs in the opinions of advanced experts in Proofs. David Akers catalogued Pittman's world coins as well as Pittman-s U.S. coins. Although I missed the Pittman 3 event, my impression is that most of the 19th century world coins that were identified as Proofs by Akers are so in the opinions of pertinent experts.
Please consider again one of the statements that I put forth earlier in this thread in a different, though very relevant context, <In 1821, personnel at the U.S. Mint knew how to manufacture Proofs that had very strong Proof characteristics. In every decade from the 1820s until the beginning of the 20th century, though not in every single year, there were produced a significant number of Proofs of very high striking quality, which is a concept different from grade. I am almost certain that Akers, Jeff G., Dave Wnuck and many others would all agree with me on this point. [This conclusion] is consistent with Breen's published research.>
For Brilliant Proofs (as opposed to Matte or Roman-Finish Proofs), the same definition applies to coins of more than two centuries, and, with some adjustments, to Proofs of the present day as well.
Unfortunately, such a definition can never be fully communicated in words. Analogously, because someone cannot fully explain how he is authenticating coins does not mean he is not authenticating them. There is no definition of an authentic coin that enables readers to authenticate coins; even so, there is a real difference between genuine coins and fakes. Certainly, there is a real difference between Proofs and Non-Proofs.
Proof 1876-CC Dime
Turtle Rock Proof Dimes
Proof 1907-D Double Eagle
<< <i>...... In every decade from the 1820s until the beginning of the 20th century, though not in every single year, there were produced a significant number of Proofs of very high striking quality, which is a concept different from grade. I believe that JD, Jeff Garrett, Dave Wnuck and many others would all agree with me on this point.... >>
I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "'significant number", but, at least in the first few decades beginning in the 1820's, I would be surprised if the individuals you mentioned, or many others, would agree with your above statement.
In reference to the ceaseless tirade by Analyst, I would like like to state that proper terminology of Proof and Master Coins of the early 19th century was not the issue at all.
The blatant use of historical events by numismatic researchers to explain coinage that may or may not have been especially made for any purpose other than regular coinage, was the objection which I raised.
If there ever gets to be a committee or group formed to outline specicifc standards for 19th century specially struck coinage, then perhaps, Analyst would be invited to participate where his remarks might be considered.
Thank you PCGS for providing this forum.
Coinguy1 -- <<I am not sure precisely what you mean by <significant number> but, at least in the first few decades beginning in the 1820s, I would be surprised if the individuals you mentioned, or many others, would agree with your above statement.>>
Those have been reading this thread since its inception know that some of the other participants have, (1) questioned whether pre-1858 Proofs exist at all, (2) have implied that supposed pre-1858 Proofs are so ambiguous that there cannot be a definitive determination by experts in the field as to whether they are Proofs (like the difference between a 67 and 68 grade to paraphrase one participant), or (3) suggested that, as no one can consistently distinguish Proofs from Non-Proofs, collectors will be misled or cheated outright in the absence of historical documentation. As I have worked so hard to dispel these notions, and explain that a significant number of of pre-1858, including pre-1840, Proofs definitely exist, I am disappointed that CoinGuy1 did not support my effort in this regard and declare that a significant number can be definitively identified as Proofs as he is a widely respected grading expert and I hope he is very knowledgeable about the characteristics of Proofs as well. Plus, I am trying to make clear that the same definition of a Proof applies to coins for the entire 19th century and for some foreign coins from earlier times.
In the statement that Coinguy quoted, I am trying to explain that there is a consensus among experts that, not just a few like the pieces in the King of Siam Set, but a substantial number of pre-1840 coins are definitely Proofs and they are not that much different from Proofs of the 1840s, 1850s, 1860s, and onward. Sure, in terms of Proof status, some coins are inherently ambiguous and others are borderline cases. Even so, there are a substantial number of definite Proofs. I am NOT talking about a few unexplainable pieces, or curiosities.
A significant number means that I am talking about hundreds of pre-1840 Proofs in existence, and hundreds more dated in the 1840s. Add up all copper, silver and gold Proofs dating from 1821 to 1840, including those in museums. Certainly, it would be easy to count more than one hundred, and there would be at least a few for most years. Branch Mint Proofs, in contrast, are a different matter, as there are very few in the whole 19th century. One could argue that the Proof 1844-O Eagle and the Proof 1876-CC dime are anomalies. They are unique in their own respective categories. Moreover, I am referring to Proofs that were struck, more or less, in the years in which they are dated. The Proof silver dollars of 1801, 1802 and 1803 are novodels and were struck in an unknown time period. Part of my point is that the topic of pre-1840 Proofs does NOT primarily refer to anomalies, restrikes or inherently ambiguous coins.
At least two of the people who contributed to this thread would doubt that there are indisputable Proofs of 1821. I have discussed the Proofs of 1821 with JD, Jeff Garrett and Dave Wnuck. Ask them. Moreover, in the BD book (Whitman, 2006), JD says, <<The Proof [1821 BD-1 Half Eagle] in Bass is identical in almost all respects to the Proof of this variety in the Smithsonian Institution [... which ...] has been part of the earliest known COMPLETE Proof set ...[p. 383, very bottom of page]>>. While Proofs are not the focus of the BD book, JD does mention Proof Quarter Eagles and Half Eagles of several dates prior to1840. For example, JD states, “the Smithsonian 1826 Half Eagle is the FINEST early Proof gold coin among their examples in [Proof] format. Waldo Newcomer also owned a Proof of this variety, ... its location is currently unknown [p. 397]>>. For purposes here, the plain 4 1804 Eagles could be thought of as Proofs of 1834 or 1835, as these were struck in 1834-35. They are indisputably Proofs.
Among pertinent experts, Jeff Garrett is probably the toughest in terms of granting Proof status to a coin. In the Garrett-Guth encyclopedia of gold coins (which I do not have in front of me now), I believe Garrett lists a few definite Proof gold coins from the 1820s, more than a few from the 1830s, and many from each of later decades, though 1915. Undoubtedly, there are others that he has never seen, or seen so long ago that he does not fully remember them. If Garrett calls a gold coin a Proof, then it is likely that almost all other experts will do so as well.
As for the pre-1840 dates for which there are no known Proof gold coins, there are often Proof silver coins. For most years in the 1820s, definitive Proof half dollars exist. There are, too, dimes and quarters of several years in the 1820s. Please read my article on the Turtle Rock dimes.
In the Eliasberg and Pittman collections, there were a large number of pre-1840 copper and silver coins that were catalogued as Proofs. Of course, I am not saying that each of these is an indisputable Proof. Many pre-1840 coins in both collections, though, are indisputable Proofs. For almost every year from 1821 to 1840, at least a couple very convincing Proofs, of at least one denomination, could be identified, from coins that are pedigreed to Eliasberg or Pittman,just two collections. The Norweb family, James A. Stack and Floyd Starr also collected pre-1858 Proofs, including a good number of pre-1840 Proofs. In terms of individual coins, there is minimal overlap (in most cases none) among these five collections, and they all had amazing, very convincing pre-1840 Proofs. Also, there now is a West Coast collector who specializes in pre-1840 Proof gold coins and has a substantial number of coins that most experts would regard as definite Proofs with strong Proof characteristics.
As an aside, I note that most Proof quarters of the 1830s are of superb striking quality with very strong Proof characteristics. The half dimes of the 1830s that have been called Proofs, in contrast, are often controversial. I did not say that there exist a significant number of Proofs of every denomination of every year. I said that there exist a significant number of definite Proofs, of at least one denomination of most years, from the 1820s onward. I refer to striking quality rather than the mere presence of mirror surfaces, which may also be found on Non-Proofs. Hopefully, it is also clear that, when identifying Proofs, I am, in this thread and in general, referring to the physical characteristics of the coins, regardless of whether there is any historical documentation.
Coinguy, please understand that I do not wish to pin myself down with exact numbers here as it would take considerable additional research to come up with accurate estimates of extant early Proofs. Consider that published information includes errors, controversial coins, mistakenly certified coins, and multiple listings of some individual coins. Plus, quite a few early Proofs are in museums or other long-term holdings.
As I have spent so many years viewing and thinking about 19th century Proofs, interviewing pertinent experts, and studying the few key texts that exist, I ask the readers to carefully consider my post of Wed. 02/17 at least, and, hopefully, earlier posts as well. There is much more agreement regarding the nature of Proofs than critics suggest, and it is logical for the same definition to apply to multiple time periods, Mints and nations. I do not expect everyone to agree with me. I just wish for collectors, dealers and researchers to give my position on this topic more consideration than it has received so far. Thank you.
Again, please read my post just before this one, above coinguy1-s comment.
Proof 1876-CC Dime
Turtle Rock Proof Dimes
Proof 1907-D Double Eagle
<< <i>Analyst, quoted by Coinguy1 -- < ... In every decade from the 1820s until the beginning of the 20th century, though not in every single year, there were produced a significant number of Proofs of very high striking quality, which is a concept different from grade. I believe that JD, Jeff Garrett, Dave Wnuck and many others would all agree with me on this point. ... >
Coinguy1 -- <<I am not sure precisely what you mean by <significant number> but, at least in the first few decades beginning in the 1820s, I would be surprised if the individuals you mentioned, or many others, would agree with your above statement.>>
Those have been reading this thread since its inception know that some of the other participants have, (1) questioned whether pre-1858 Proofs exist at all, (2) have implied that supposed pre-1858 Proofs are so ambiguous that there cannot be a definitive determination by experts in the field as to whether they are Proofs (like the difference between a 67 and 68 grade to paraphrase one participant), or (3) suggested that, as no one can consistently distinguish Proofs from Non-Proofs, collectors will be misled or cheated outright in the absence of historical documentation. As I have worked so hard to dispel these notions, and explain that a significant number of of pre-1858, including pre-1840, Proofs definitely exist, it is harmful for Coinguy to question whether a significant number can be definitively identified as Proofs as he probably knows that these can be. Plus, I am trying to make clear that the same definition of a Proof applies to coins for the entire 19th century and for some foreign coins from earlier times.
In the statement that Coinguy quoted, out of context, I am trying to explain that there is a consensus among experts that, not just a few like the pieces in the King of Siam Set, but a substantial number of pre-1840 coins are definitely Proofs and they are not that much different from Proofs of the 1840s, 1850s, 1860s, and onward. Sure, in terms of Proof status, some coins are inherently ambiguous and others are borderline cases. Even so, there are a substantial number of definite Proofs. I am NOT talking about a few unexplainable pieces, or curiosities.
A significant number means that I am talking about hundreds of pre-1840 Proofs in existence, and hundreds more dated in the 1840s. Add up all copper, silver and gold Proofs dating from 1821 to 1840, including those in museums. Certainly, it would be easy to count more than one hundred, and there would be at least a few for most years. Branch Mint Proofs, in contrast, are a different matter, as there are very few in the whole 19th century. One could argue that the Proof 1844-O Eagle and the Proof 1876-CC dime are anomalies. They are unique in their own respective categories. Moreover, I am referring to Proofs that were struck, more or less, in the years in which they are dated. The Proof silver dollars of 1801, 1802 and 1803 are novodels and were struck in an unknown time period. Part of my point is that the topic of pre-1840 Proofs does NOT primarily refer to anomalies, restrikes or inherently ambiguous coins.
At least two of the people who contributed to this thread would doubt that there are indisputable Proofs of 1821. I have discussed the Proofs of 1821 with JD, Jeff Garrett and Dave Wnuck. Ask them. Moreover, in the BD book (Whitman, 2006), JD says, <<The Proof [1821 BD-1 Half Eagle] in Bass is identical in almost all respects to the Proof of this variety in the Smithsonian Institution [... which ...] has been part of the earliest known COMPLETE Proof set ...[p. 383, very bottom of page]>>. While Proofs are not the focus of the BD book, JD does mention Proof Quarter Eagles and Half Eagles of several dates prior to1840. For example, JD states, “the Smithsonian 1826 Half Eagle is the FINEST early Proof gold coin among their examples in [Proof] format. Waldo Newcomer also owned a Proof of this variety, ... its location is currently unknown [p. 397]>>. For purposes here, the plain 4 1804 Eagles could be thought of as Proofs of 1834 or 1835, as these were struck in 1834-35. They are indisputably Proofs.
Among pertinent experts, Jeff Garrett is probably the toughest in terms of granting Proof status to a coin. In the Garrett-Guth encyclopedia of gold coins (which I do not have in front of me now), I believe Garrett lists a few definite Proof gold coins from the 1820s, more than a few from the 1830s, and many from each of later decades, though 1915. Undoubtedly, there are others that he has never seen, or seen so long ago that he does not fully remember them. If Garrett calls a gold coin a Proof, then it is likely that almost all other experts will do so as well.
As for the pre-1840 dates for which there are no known Proof gold coins, there are often Proof silver coins. For most years in the 1820s, definitive Proof half dollars exist. There are, too, dimes and quarters of several years in the 1820s. Please read my article on the Turtle Rock dimes.
In the Eliasberg and Pittman collections, there were a large number of pre-1840 copper and silver coins that were catalogued as Proofs. Of course, I am not saying that each of these is an indisputable Proof. Many pre-1840 coins in both collections, though, are indisputable Proofs. For almost every year from 1821 to 1840, at least a couple very convincing Proofs, of at least one denomination, could be identified, from coins that are pedigreed to Eliasberg or Pittman,just two collections. The Norweb family, James A. Stack and Floyd Starr also collected pre-1858 Proofs, including a good number of pre-1840 Proofs. In terms of individual coins, there is minimal overlap (in most cases none) among these five collections, and they all had amazing, very convincing pre-1840 Proofs. Also, there now is a West Coast collector who specializes in pre-1840 Proof gold coins and has a substantial number of coins that most experts would regard as definite Proofs with strong Proof characteristics.
As an aside, I note that most Proof quarters of the 1830s are of superb striking quality with very strong Proof characteristics. The half dimes of the 1830s that have been called Proofs, in contrast, are often controversial. I did not say that there exist a significant number of Proofs of every denomination of every year. I said that there exist a significant number of definite Proofs, of at least one denomination of most years, from the 1820s onward. I refer to striking quality rather than the mere presence of mirror surfaces, which may also be found on Non-Proofs. Hopefully, it is also clear that, when identifying Proofs, I am, in this thread and in general, referring to the physical characteristics of the coins, regardless of whether there is any historical documentation.
Coinguy, I do not mean to sound rude. I did so much work, however, to write my last post about the topic of the definition of a Proof, and you have sidetracked me and the readers into a discussion of the number of pre-1840 Proofs in existence. We both know that it would take years of research to come up with fair estimates, especially since published information includes errors, controversial coins, mistakenly certified coins, and multiple listings of some individual coins. Plus, quite a few early Proofs are in museums or other long-term holdings.
As I have put so much time into this thread, and spent so many years viewing and thinking about 19th century Proofs, here, I ask the readers to carefully consider my last post at least, and, hopefully, earlier posts as well. There is much more agreement regarding the nature of Proofs that critics suggest, and it is logical for the same definition to apply to multiple time periods, Mints and nations. I do not expect everyone to agree with me. I just wish for collectors, dealers and researchers to give my position on this topic more consideration than it has received so far. Thank you.
Again, please read my post just before this one, above coinguy1-s comment.
Proof 1876-CC Dime
Turtle Rock Proof Dimes
Proof 1907-D Double Eagle >>
You made a statement pertaining to the number of Proofs from each decade beginning in the 1820's and included the word "significant" . I responded "I am not sure precisely what you mean by <significant number> but, at least in the first few decades beginning in the 1820s, I would be surprised if the individuals you mentioned, or many others, would agree with your above statement". I didn't ask you to do the research required to come up with "fair estimates" of how many Proofs there are from each decade. Presumably, you already had some idea as to the minimum number extant when you made that statement. And now you have explained it, for which I thank you.
While you apparently didn't mean to be rude, I feel that you were, in your unfair use of "out of context" and "side tracked". And for calling it "harmful" for me to have posed the question I did, while at the same time attempting to put words into my moth with your "As I have worked so hard to dispel these notions, and explain that a significant number of of pre-1858, including pre-1840, Proofs definitely exist, it is harmful for Coinguy to question whether a significant number can be definitively identified as Proofs as he probably knows that these can be".
<< <i>Take a look at Realone's thread about a new dealer. renomedphys has an 1803 $1 PCGS PR66CAM in one of his replys. >>
The Proof 1801, 1802 and 1803 Dollars were struck decades later than the dates they bear.
Greg,
It is very difficult to understand your definition for the word "debate" as you seem to apply it to portions of this thread. A debate is based on a solid background of relevant material, and evidence to back up claims. You presented and continue to present, little more than name dropping, exaggeration and insinuation. No points are earned for whining about how much time you took to write a post, or the number of thoughtless comments to other posters.
You’re a smart guy. Your event and auction summaries are clear and well written. You can accomplish more, if you wish. All the best to you.
<<While you apparently didn't mean to be rude, I feel that you were, in your unfair use ...>>
I apologize to Coinguy1 for my tone in a couple of passages. I thank CoinGuy1 for quoting my response to his point in its entirety. CoinGuy1 is correct that I should have given an indication, in my next to last post, of the meaning of -a significant number.- It was very late and I was very tired. Moreover, I was really hoping that people would focus on my previous post, that of Wed. 02/17 4:18 PM, in which I addressed the topic of a definition of Proof that applies to the entire 19th century and to some foreign coins from earlier eras. Walter Breen indicates that his definition applied to British coins of the 18th century and possibly to some in the 17th century as well. Coinguy1, since maybe you have carefully examined a significant number of pre-1840 Proofs, while you were working as a grader, I was hoping for your help.
I hope that all will read the following two edited paragraphs from my (while very tired) Th. 02/18 2:28 AM post in question,
<Those have been reading this thread since its inception know that some of the other participants have, (1) questioned whether pre-1858 Proofs exist at all, (2) have implied that supposed pre-1858 Proofs are so ambiguous that there cannot be a definitive determination by experts in the field as to whether they are Proofs (like the difference between a 67 and 68 grade to paraphrase one participant), or (3) suggested that, as no one can consistently distinguish Proofs from Non-Proofs, collectors will be misled or cheated outright in the absence of historical documentation. As I have worked so hard to dispel these notions, and explain that a significant number of of pre-1858, including pre-1840, Proofs definitely exist, I am disappointed that CoinGuy1 did not rise to the occasion and declare that a significant number can be definitively identified as Proofs as he is a widely respected grading expert and I hope he is very knowledgeable about the characteristics of Proofs as well. Plus, I am trying to make clear that the same definition of a Proof applies to coins for the entire 19th century and for some foreign coins from earlier times.
<In the statement that Coinguy quoted, I am trying to explain that there is a consensus among experts that, not just a few like the pieces in the King of Siam Set, but a substantial number of pre-1840 coins are definitely Proofs and they are not that much different from Proofs of the 1840s, 1850s, 1860s, and onward. Sure, in terms of Proof status, some coins are inherently ambiguous and others are borderline cases. Even so, there are a substantial number of definite Proofs. I am NOT talking about a few unexplainable pieces, or curiosities. ... Part of my point is that the topic of pre-1840 Proofs does NOT primarily refer to anomalies, restrikes or inherently ambiguous coins.>
Proof 1876-CC Dime
Turtle Rock Proof Dimes
Proof 1907-D Double Eagle
<< <i>CoinGuy1 <<[Analyst] made a statement pertaining to the number of Proofs from each decade beginning in the 1820's and included the word "significant" . I responded "I am not sure precisely what you mean by <significant number> but, at least in the first few decades beginning in the 1820s, I would be surprised if the individuals you mentioned, or many others, would agree with your above statement". I didn't ask you to do the research required to come up with "fair estimates" of how many Proofs there are from each decade. Presumably, you already had some idea as to the minimum number extant when you made that statement. And now you have explained it, for which I thank you.>>
<<While you apparently didn't mean to be rude, I feel that you were, in your unfair use ...>>
I apologize to Coinguy1 for my tone in a couple of passages. I thank CoinGuy1 for quoting my response to his point in its entirety. CoinGuy1 is correct that I should have given an indication, in my next to last post, of the meaning of -a significant number.- It was very late and I was very tired. Moreover, I was really hoping that people would focus on my previous post, that of Wed. 02/17 4:18 PM, in which I addressed the topic of a definition of Proof that applies to the entire 19th century and to some foreign coins from earlier eras. Walter Breen indicates that his definition applied to British coins of the 18th century and possibly to some in the 17th century as well. Coinguy1, since maybe you have carefully examined a significant number of pre-1840 Proofs, while you were working as a grader, I was hoping for your help.
I hope that all will read the following two edited paragraphs from my (while very tired) Th. 02/18 2:28 AM post in question,
<Those have been reading this thread since its inception know that some of the other participants have, (1) questioned whether pre-1858 Proofs exist at all, (2) have implied that supposed pre-1858 Proofs are so ambiguous that there cannot be a definitive determination by experts in the field as to whether they are Proofs (like the difference between a 67 and 68 grade to paraphrase one participant), or (3) suggested that, as no one can consistently distinguish Proofs from Non-Proofs, collectors will be misled or cheated outright in the absence of historical documentation. As I have worked so hard to dispel these notions, and explain that a significant number of of pre-1858, including pre-1840, Proofs definitely exist, I am disappointed that CoinGuy1 did not rise to the occasion and declare that a significant number can be definitively identified as Proofs as he is a widely respected grading expert and I hope he is very knowledgeable about the characteristics of Proofs as well. Plus, I am trying to make clear that the same definition of a Proof applies to coins for the entire 19th century and for some foreign coins from earlier times.
<In the statement that Coinguy quoted, I am trying to explain that there is a consensus among experts that, not just a few like the pieces in the King of Siam Set, but a substantial number of pre-1840 coins are definitely Proofs and they are not that much different from Proofs of the 1840s, 1850s, 1860s, and onward. Sure, in terms of Proof status, some coins are inherently ambiguous and others are borderline cases. Even so, there are a substantial number of definite Proofs. I am NOT talking about a few unexplainable pieces, or curiosities. ... Part of my point is that the topic of pre-1840 Proofs does NOT primarily refer to anomalies, restrikes or inherently ambiguous coins.>
Proof 1876-CC Dime
Turtle Rock Proof Dimes
Proof 1907-D Double Eagle >>
Thank you for your apology - I appreciate it.
I am currently out of town at an airport and have a bad headache, so am going to keep this relatively brief. As a collector, grader and a dealer outside of the grading room, at various times, I have seen/examined (and owned a few) coins from as far back as the 1830's which were as convincing as Proofs, as are examples from the 1850's and onward. So, too, have I examined a number of examples from the 1820's which I felt the same way about, though that number was probably much smaller. When it comes to coins struck prior to the 1820's, as a general rule, I feel differently, at least off the top of my head.
A small number of particularly well made early Proof's which seemed to speak for themselves at the time I saw them and quickly come to mind now are: Bust Half Dimes from 1829 and 1834; Bust Dimes from 1831 and 1834; Bust Quarters from 1834 and to a lesser extent, an 1838 (Norweb?) that I owned and sold as a PR65 and which eventually ended up in a PR68 (cameo?)holder); Bust Half Dollars from 1834 and 1836. There were also a small number of equally convincing Classic Proof Quarter Eagles and Half Eagles, among others.
To all of the participants in this thread - thank you. I have enjoyed it immensely.
Some of the (surprisingly few) 100% obvious early proofs that come to mind are an 1829 Small Planchet $5, the Eliasberg 1833 Quarter Eagle, an 1831 half dollar I had long ago, and all 1834-36 Crushed Lettered Edge half dollars. What makes these particular proofs different than most of the other early proofs out there is that their fabric is completely different than one would expect of a carefully made "first strike".
In other words, most (but not all) early proofs look like they could have been the first (or one of the first) coins off new, freshly polished dies. They may have received special care in production, they may have been intended as proofs, and they may indeed be "real proofs", but it's hard to know for sure. But the obvious proofs I mentioned cannot be mistaken for early business strikes. They look look like complete freaks.
None of which is meant to disparage the less-than-obvious proofs. The point is only that not all proofs are created equal.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
CoinGuy goes on to discuss <<well made early Proofs which seemed to speak for themselves>>! My guess is that these are coins that myself and other experts would regard as Proofs as well. There are more than a few convincing pre-1840 Proofs. Someone reading this thread might get the incorrect impression that such coins cannot possibly be identified or are subject to endless controversies. It is true that some pre-1840 coins, with reflective surfaces, are inherently ambiguous. A substantial number, however, are agreed upon as being Proofs by more than 90% of all pertinent experts.
Curiously, it seems from his last post that Mr. Eureka may be one of the other 10% in many cases and is taking a position that is markedly inconsistent with Breen’s definition and Akers’ approach.
Mr. Eureka <<Some of the (surprisingly few) 100% obvious early proofs that come to mind are an 1829 Small Planchet $5, the Eliasberg 1833 Quarter Eagle, an 1831 half dollar I had long ago, and all 1834-36 Crushed Lettered Edge half dollars. What makes these particular proofs different than most of the other early proofs out there is that their fabric is completely different than one would expect of a carefully made "first strike".>>
Mr. Eureka is likely to have seen most (or all?) of the pre-1840 U.S. coins that are catalogued as Proofs in the auctions of the following collections, which are landmark sales for early Proofs: Eliasberg (1982, ’96, ’97), Norweb (1987-88), Starr (1984?, 1992), and Pittman (1997-98).
Though my Pittman catalogues are not accessible to me at this very moment, I am certain that there were a substantial number of pre-1840 coins in the Pittman collection that Akers and Pittman himself clearly agreed are definitely Proofs. Here, I am putting my opinions aside, and referring to the pre-1840 Proofs that are in the PCGS Registry listings of the Pittman collection.
This registry lists Proof sets of 1831 and 1834, each including a Half Cent, a Cent, a Half Dime, a Dime, a Quarter and a Half Dollar. Additionally, from the Pittman collection, Proof Capped Bust quarters of the following dates are listed in the PCGS registry, 1822, 1828, 1831 (Large), 1833, 1835, 1837 and 1838. (I am here ignoring the Pittman 1827/3 and this date may require a separate discussion.)
Consider the Parmelee-Pittman-Gold Rush Collection 1833 Half Eagle that is PCGS certified Proof-67. Among the readers of this thread who have seen this coin, would anyone say that it is not a Proof?
Almost all of those that I just mentioned are coins that Akers, Pittman, and PCGS experts all agreed are Proofs, even including coins that are not PCGS certified. I am here using Pittman’s Proofs as examples to illustrate the existence of a rough consensus regarding pre-1840 Proofs. I have provided other evidence in earlier posts to this thread.
Mr. Eureka dissents, <<In other words, most (but not all) early proofs look like they could have been the first (or one of the first) coins off new, freshly polished dies. ... But the [very few] obvious proofs I mentioned cannot be mistaken for early business strikes. ...>>
While it is true that reflective first strikes, from new dies, have often been mistaken for Proofs, Mr. Eureka’s statement is very misleading and makes it more difficult for collectors to learn about the differences between Proofs and business strikes. Proofs need not be struck from new dies. Indeed, some Proofs were struck from dies that had considerable wear, especially reverse dies. More importantly, there are dozens of pre-1840 coins, which Mr. Eureka has seen, that are recognized as Proofs, not because they are shiny and reflective, but because they have physical characteristics of Proofs in addition to reflective fields. As a rough analogy, consider that Deep Mirror Prooflike Morgan Dollars are different from true Proof Morgan dollars, which may be less reflective than some of the prooflike Morgans.
Breen makes clear that, typically, business strikes were only struck once while pre-1840 Proof coins received -two to four blows-. <<The manufacture of unquestionable proofs appears to have begun on a consistent basis in [1821]. On these proof coins 2 to 4 blows from the dies in a screw press can usually be demonstrated, dies and blanks having first been polished>> states Walter Breen (1977, p. 39).
Of course, no expert can perfectly evaluate the Proof status of every coin that has at least some Proof characteristics. None of us will bat 1.000, so to speak, and it is not necessary to do so to be an all-star. Nonetheless, Proofs are conceptually and physically different. It is wrong to suggest that a prooflike first strike from new dies can be a Proof.
There is often a need to employ a glass with high magnification to form a meaningful opinion as to whether a specific coin is a Proof. For a coin to be a Proof, there must be evidence of a certain kind of relationship between the devices and the fields and/or there must be evidence of a certain kind of structure of the borders (usually dentils and rims). A pre-1840 coin that was struck only once is not a Proof even if it was planned to be one.