RWB

This Coin World article excerpt might be typical of the facts: Coin World “Mysterious Proof 1893 Isabella quarter sold” · By Steve Roach · Published: Nov 11, 2014, 2 PM Stack’s Bowers Galleries’ Oct. 30 Rarities Night auction held during the Whitman Baltimore Expo was led by the 1853 Collection, but also included a variety of other numismatic items with fascinating stories. Here is one of three coins from the auction we're profiling in this week's Market Analysis. The lot: 1893 Isabella Commemorative quarter dollar, Proof 65 Cameo The price: $9,400 The story: The 1893 Isabella commemorative quarter dollar is the only quarter in the classic 1892 to 1954 commemorative series. Consensus is that just over 100 Proof versions were minted and distributed, although the lack of official U.S. Mint records on the issue has left researchers in doubt on many points. Walter Breen wrote that the issue was “shrouded in mystery.” The limited Proof production seems to have enjoyed a decent survival rate and examples turn up at auction with some frequency. This one, graded Proof 65 Cameo by Numismatic Guaranty Corp., is one of just two that have been designated as either Cameo or Deep/Ultra Cameo by NGC and it sold for $9,400. The price might be considered a bargain, as another NGC Proof 65 example without a Cameo designation brought $15,275 at a Heritage auction earlier this year.

Look for gold behind the bar....

Bertha Palmer donated two Isabella quarters to the Mint Cabinet, but there is no mention of "proof" versions. A collector wrote to the Mint asking to buy a proof Isabella quarter. The reply, if any, have not been located. Elwood Iron Works, General Foundry and Machine Works Elwood, Ind. May 8, 1893 To the Superintendent of the Mint I enclose you a receipt from the board of “Lady managers” of Worlds Fair which certifies that I have paid for and am entitled to one of the “Isabella Souvenir Coins” I have been informed by the Numismatic Bank of Boston that by sending at any time during the year of issue an extra amount I might secure what Numismatists term a “Proof” coins. I am very desirous of getting a “proof” of one of these quarters and enclose a quarter to offset expense. If this amt. will not cover expenses I will send more. Will you kindly advise me in this matter and oblige very much, Ed. W. Stevens [NARA RG104, Entry 1, Box 181] I don't recall what Taxay has to say, but none of the "standard" commemorative catalogs give a source for their information....As became popular, they all merely copied without asking for verification. All of this begs the question of "Are there really any legitimate proof Isabella quarters?" US Mint and newspaper articles are silent or mention use of a toggle press. In 1893 the only presses used for proof coins were the old screw press, and a new hydraulic press which was available in the spring. Further, just because a coin is shiny or has a sort of mirror-like field does not mean it is a proof --- it might superficially look like a proof, but to be a legitimate proof coin it MUST have been made on one of the two presses mentioned above. That a proof-like coin would be mistaken (or deceptively described) is not unusual. One has only to look at the massive mess of "branch mint proofs" and early "proof coins" to get some idea of the limitless imagination of the "looks-like experts." Our mechanical and process information is much better than back in the old days. We have a much greater ability to separate the real thing for the mass of "looks-like" imitations. This is partly why I insist on documentation, and clear physical conformity to original standard when examining any claim of an unusual "proof" "specimen" or other oddity.

These are absolutely valid -- nay, critical thoughts and they deserve careful examination. The earliest Numismatist mention is an August 1828 ad by John Zug: Individual proof coins are mentioned in coin club articles beginning in about 1933 and from then into the 1970s What I've seen in early commemorative catalogs/lists, even from Max Mehl back in 1937, do not mention proofs or anything unusual:

Why not simply admit the pejorative terms in my original post were identical to those in the ANA article, and then move on to something that does not appear more like a personal vendetta? You are one of the hobby/business top people in many distinctions, so support those rather than beating a non-issue into mush.

Mark, All of the terms you complain about are in the ANA article, and more strongly worded than my post. There was nothing misleading or irresponsible in my post. It is your false accusation that is clearly irresponsible and misleading, and now you are trying to wheedle out of getting caught. The original post provided the source of the information, but you did not bother to read the ANA article until after I posted a copy. I admit to having a low opinion of Zerbe. That was developed over a period of several years during which his name kept coming up in negative reports from various Mint and Treasury officials covering several decades. But, I had nothing to do with ANA Board's decision and was not aware of it until my issue of The Numismatist arrived. It was, however, a pleasure to see the Board take positive action. Maybe they can eventually do the same for counterfeiters.

Good! They are all essentially "MS-70", will never be otherwise, and are little more than shiny crow-bait. (Yeah, the 2 I ordered have shipped, but I don't expect much from the "mush Mint."

Few of the truly meritorious ANA members of the past were/are well known - simply because the publilcity goes to sellers/deep pocket buyers, and not the meaningful "doers." (As to sarcasm --- Zerbe was not trusted by Treasury or San Francisco Mint officers. That is in the PPIE files at Treasury. He was a tireless promoter IF he got his "pot of gold." The ANA leadership, not wishing to deal with truth or investigate before investing, was happy to demean the organization by attaching Zerbe's con to the ANA's coin award. I'm also curious about why the Awards Committee should look for "funding sources" for such a long-established award. It's not as if there's a fat check to accompany the Five'n'Dime certificate.)

As membership continues to decline along with ANA's value to collectors, maybe the award should be reevaluated, not just in name but in purpose.

Here's the 1893 portrait of Mrs. Palmer - certainly not the puffy matron usually depicted.

Curiously, there was no specific use for the proceeds. The May 4, 1894 report on Isabella quarters shows that at least $3,000 was paid to artist Anders Zorn for a portrait of the president of the Board of Lady Managers, Bertha Honore Palmer. There is no explanation of how this personal portrait, presented to Mrs. Palmer, furthered the goals of the Board.

Well done and of broad interest in American numismatics.

KurtB makes a good point about the shady side of the hobby/business. Part of the naming discussion should include whether this is an ANA-only award concept and thus possibly bear the name of an ANA member, or if it is to be a more expansive Numismatic award given by the ANA. Back when the award was initiated, the core of American coin collecting was within the ANA, so it was logical that the honor go only to a member. But that has changed and ANA is, at best, a peripheral organization with almost no influence in the hobby or business. To me, the question then has two parts: What should be the nature of the award, parochial or cosmopolitan? Plus, should be award be titled as an honor for a distinguished ANA member? If yes, then who? If named for an individual, I feel that no one involved in business-end should be considered. There are too many shady sides to the business that, like Zerbe's behaviors, would bring the award into disrepute. Eliminating all dealers, etc. presents a problem because they are the ones with the highest name recognition - but, we must then go back to the definition/nature of the award. Is it desirable to attach a person's name? I've often suggested Eric P. Newman, but my approach is biased since I worked on his biography and had free access to all of his papers and records. There might be someone else.

Read the original notice before complaining. Apology accepted, Mark.

All sorts of things in that little "sweet tin." Read the BBC article below. [Photo by Morton & Eden] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-58982457 Notice the two continental dollars, Libertas bronze medal and possibly other rarities still in the box. A treasure for someone with deep pockets.

A notice published in the October Numismatist states that at a January 19, 2021 meeting of the ANA Board, the name of huckster, fraud, and briber Farran Zerbe was (at last !) removed from the association's highest honor. We can only hope that the ANA Board will attach the name of some truly distinguished and honorable deceased member to future editions. [See Numismatist, October 2021, page 67.] Yours truly has long complained to any who would listen of the irony of having a shyster's name on this, or any, ANA award, and is pleased to have uncovered a fine selection of Zerbe's deceptions, lies, and hoaxes while researching American numismatics.

The quantity sent from the Chicago Sub-treasury to Philadelphia for melting was 15,809. They had been mislabeled "uncurrent coins" and thus became bullion. Journal entries show they were destroyed. However, there is more to the story and it turns out that although 15,809 were melted that is not the quantity actually destroyed. The rest of the story will be in my research article about restrikes, novodels, pattern distribution, etc. The total number of Isabella quarters that actually were distributed, one way or another, is close to 40,000.

It appears you have the gold value in the piece. Plus, it's an interesting conversation starter at a local coin club.

EARLY-COMMEM-HUNTER - Thanks for the added information. Newer research makes the reference you gave largely obsolete. These are the only two statements that are accurate. PS: Very nice example of an Isabella quarter !

Dolphins represent the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. They are the allegorical boundaries over which Liberty extends her shield of protection. The reverse was unchanged from the original as used in 1916.

In that case, there's a lot of money to be made by deceptive means.

A collector wrote asking how many Isabella quarters were struck as proofs. The straight answer is: -0- [Heritage Auctions. 2020 April 23-24 & 26 Central States US Coins Signature Auction – Dallas #1314/Lot #4171.] All Isabella quarters, from first through 40,023rd were made on the afternoon of June 13, 1893, using a standard toggle press. Coins #1-5 were struck by turning the press’ flywheel manually, something easily done with a toggle press and impossible with a hydraulic medal press. The cycle counter on the press was used to identify the 400th, 1492nd, and 1892nd pieces, and these plus the first five were certified by Acting Superintendent Martin H. Cobb. A toggle press delivers the same pressure regardless of how it is actuated – manually, by steam, by electric motor, by a cavalcade of trained ants, etc.

The following linked thread popped up on another message board. It is interesting that nearly all of the information presented is incorrect. /Signed/, "Exasperated" https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1065114/1916-hermon-macneil-pattern-design-standing-liberty-quarter 1. The dolphin design was not McNeil's "original." (That idea was promoted by a deceased Florida SL quarter dealer, and discredited 20 years ago.) 2. This design was from August-September 1916 and was approved by Secretary McAdoo for use. The inept mint director, vol Engleken, did not understand that and kept the old original for production. 3. The photo of the bronze cast (with the border) is not correctly credited although the poster copied it and the caption. 4. The photo of the bronze cast in the third post is incorrect. The reverse shown was NEVER paired with the dolphin obverse. 5. The definitive information source is the book Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921, where all of the available information is collected, examined and presented. This includes an explanation of the new design and reasons for submitting it. Opinion: The imitation in the OPs post is awful.

and the football team certainly looks good !

Well, that's great to see an honest jeweler, and even more so that they responded to your request. Send them a big Thank You!