Options
What is the most "controversial" Branch Mint Proof?
planonit
Posts: 525 ✭✭
I won't get into this but I have always been "skeptical" of a few of NGC's BM proof Morgans.
I have plans....sometimes
0
planonit
Posts: 525 ✭✭
Comments
Hoard the keys
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore...
No need to argue the definitions, since we won't reach a consensus.
Just use your head when buying the coins. Can't tell the difference between a great DMPL "CC" Morgan and a slabbed "Proof"? The Proof is probably not for you. Can't decide if an 1838-O Half Dollar is PL or Proof? Who cares? Just buy it. Can't decide about a "Proof" 1839-O Half Dollar? Maybe you should be thinking about what a PL would be worth.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
'84-CC
Proofs: 3 known
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Probably all of them.
Or 1876-CC dime:
http://www.coinlink.com/News/u...-dime-to-be-auctioned/
1894-S dimes.
Coin Facts
'84-CC
Proofs: 3 known
I'm surprised they say that. They are certainly undocumented. Probably specially made for a collector upon request.
I saw an 1892-O Morgan that was a proof. Everything was there. Strike, surface, rims, etc. Of course it's undocumented so PCGS would never call it a proof.
Free Trial
This.
Probably all of them.
Or 1876-CC dime:
http://www.coinlink.com/News/u...-dime-to-be-auctioned/
1876-CC twenty cent pieces.
1894-S dimes.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
This.
Probably all of them.
Or 1876-CC dime:
http://www.coinlink.com/News/u...-dime-to-be-auctioned/
1876-CC twenty cent pieces.
1894-S dimes.
No-sorry it was a BF. edited out.
Breakdwon: "38-O half. The one that started it all..."
There are fewer than a dozen 1838-O halves known. As Mr. Eureka implies, since all are so rare, whether any one is a Proof is not a crucial consideration. It would be wrong IMO, however, for a dealer to charge a premium for an 1838-O that he claims is not a Proof. IMO, all 1838-O halves are definitely not business strikes. Some fulfill Proof criteria more so than others.
Bob 1951: "Or 1876-CC dime:
Proof 1876-CC Dime - Auctioned 01/08 "
I appreciate such citations, even if put forth with skepticism.
I stand by my position that the 1876-CC dime cited therein is definitely a Proof. Other Specimens are different from this one, which is really very much like a Philadelphia Mint Proof.
AstroRat: "1876-CC twenty-cent piece? Did you mean 1875-S twenty-cent piece?
When I saw the title of this thread, the first coins to come to my mind were 1875-S 20c pieces. Unfortunately, it has been many years since I have carefully examined a gradable representative of this group. I will try to find my notes from past eras. In any event, I remember them to be intriguing. Does anyone here recollect specific 1875-S 20c pieces of this group?
Bob 1951: "1894-S dimes"
There is no doubt in my mind that 1894-S dimes are not business strikes. They are very dissimilar from 1893-S, 1895-S and 1896-S dimes, of which I have examined many. Although 1894-S dimes are not exactly like P-Mint Proofs of the era, Proof is the right term to describe them. They just about qualify.
Condition Ranking of 1894-S Dimes, with Recent Histories
Well,there you go.The post right above mine is the "some."
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
"1894-S dime is thought to be a proof striking by some. .. Well,there you go.The post right above mine is the "some."" ??
PCGS, NGC and CAC all regard at least some 1894-S dimes as Proofs. At NGC, all submitted 1894-S dimes are or were listed as PROOFs. PCGS and NGC have been certifying 1894-S dimes as Proofs since at least 1990, though PCGS has used the Specimen designation on a couple 1894-S dimes in the interim. Clearly, David Hall, Mark Salzberg and JA have all examined them and determined that they are not business strikes. Multiple finalizers at PCGS and NGC must have as well.
*The James A. Stack, Eliasberg duplicate 1894-S dime was PCGS "Proof-66" (not SP) in 1990, NGC Proof-66 before March 2005, and put back in a PCGS holder between 2012 and 2014 with the same PR (not SP) designation.
The current 1894-S dime PCGS CoinFacts page refers to the Chicago-Simpson 1894-S as "SP65BM" rather than as "PR65BM." This could just be a data entry error. When I saw this coin in 2005, it was in a PCGS holder that referred to it as a Proof ("PR65") not 'SP'! It was later certified as Proof-66 ATS. I have not seen its current PCGS holder.
Although the PCGS CoinFacts site indicates that the Kagin-Feigenbaum piece was PCGS certified as "SP-64" when it was auctioned by Stack's (NY) in October 2007, my recollection is that it was then PCGS certified as a PROOF not as a Specimen. I attended that auction and my review of the sale of that dime then appeared on CoinLink.com
http://www.coinlink.com/News/us-coins/1894-s-dime/
insightful10@gmail.com