RWB

The value of proof coins did not increase much until the late 1940s and 50s. In earlier collection auctions it was normal to see long runs of original proof sets - sometimes in custom made cases - sell for just a few dollars over face value. Most of us wish we had a time machine and a bag of old cash.

A fuzzy, ordinary mirror-like proof coin. There's no contrast between field and relief, so it cannot be a "cameo" of any description.

"Grade inflation" can be absolutely proven and simultaneously absolutely disproven. There are no clear standards, hence anything can be whatever one wants.

Which is, without doubt, completely at odds with independent and objective "grading."

More fake junk.

Early master coins (i.e., mirror proof coins) were made for diplomatic use and exchange with museums in foreign countries. The famous 1834 proof sets were for diplomatic presentation. A few collectors wanted pieces too, and that began the Mint's active engagement with coin collectors. From 1858 forward mirror proof coins were part of the Philadelphia Mint's policy of supporting collectors. Medals were the largest portion of this from a revenue standpoint. Mirror proofs were struck from normal dies that had been hand polished to a mirror-like finish in the fields. These were hardened and used in a large medal press to strike the coins. Planchets were made in the ordinary way, and either selected for unmarred surfaces or polished with an emery wheel until they were somewhat mirror-like. This was not a deep a mirror as on the dies. Overall, it appears that about 30% of proof coins were rejected and either mixed with normal circulation coins, or melted. Larger coins had higher defect rates. Proof dies did not last very long - a thousand strikes, maybe more. This was due to the overpressure used in making the coins and tighter quality control than for circulation production.

I'll try to answer several of the questions in this post. Coins, like any manufactured product, were subject to quality controls that incorporated a range of acceptable pieces. Legal quality was tightly controlled and reviewed by the Annual Assay Commission - weigh and metal purity. Appearance quality - how the coins looked - was influenced by Treasury's production demand and administrative acceptability. Gold coins from Charlotte or Dahlonega Mints were nearly always of inferior appearance when compared to Philadelphia, but that was acceptable to mint directors -- it got American gold into American commerce. If we jump to New Orleans Morgan silver dollars, we find a similar situation. Introduction of the Special Assay check at Mint headquarters in Washington, added and independent review of nearly every delivery of gold and silver coin. This is where defective quality was most frequently identified and local mint officers encouraged to be more vigilant in their inspection. For New Orleans dollars, inferior quality was known about at headquarters, but deemed acceptable. The law required significant production of silver dollars and that overrode tighter quality control. Also, it was recognized that most silver dollars were not going into circulation - they merely clogged hallways and vaults.

Some of it. The NYAO impurity bits were not known with FMTM was written, and some other things were less well understood. The more we learn the more we understand, and the more we understand the more we know how much there is yet to learn.

Hoghead515 mentioned a key reason the coins from different mints were not identical - annealing of planchets. Goldfinger's comments about Morgan dollar quality revolve around this, and alloy purity. New Orleans was reopened in 1879 with inadequate equipment upgrades and old machinery. Their annealing furnaces were old and could rarely perform to maximum capacity. Mint HQ, however, insisted on dollar output that consistently exceeded the mint's annealing capacity. Thus, a large proportion of New Orleans coins were struck on planchets that were too hard. This caused early die failure and produced coins with substandard detail. Philadelphia used a lot of refined silver from the New York Assay Office. NYAO had intermittent problems with contamination of fine silver from multiple sources, and they were less consistently successful in producing silver bars of quality high enough for Philadelphia's coinage needs. Annealing planchets was not a problem, but "toughening" silver was. San Francisco' s new building in 1874 and upgrades to melting, refining and annealing equipment and processes allowed them to be largely independent of the other mints. Quality control was maintained internally and this included the purity of silver (and gold) for coinage. They also had an assay quality control cross check with Carson's mint that helped both mints better manage metal purity. In the 1870s Trade dollars and subsidiary silver from Philadelphia were also affected by attempts to use melted large coppers - cents and half-cents. After much arguing, it was determined that the old coppers were contaminated with heavy metals and nickel. This degraded gold and silver coins made with the old copper. The mint had to buy pure copper for coin alloy use from a company in Baltimore. (The copper came from the Lake Superior area.) Hope this clears up a few questions. All mint operations and processes were tightly integrated and adapted to equipment and local resources at each mint factory. This is why we cannot depend only on the appearance of a coin for technical variety and versions.

Does "Cointrackers.com" allow one to follow the trail left by every coin in the world, all the time? Do they have specialists who can follow the footprints of certain rare coins deep into the jungle and under the frozen snows of Antarctica? Do they track coins lost in shipwrecks, or coins lost at the beach, or the notorious Stella in a California landfill?

...Yep. Less traveling and better mileage on your electrons. (In Britain, the distance your car can travel on a liter of petrol is still called "mileage" although the kilometer is the standard unit of distance measurement. Should it be called your car's 'kilometerage' ...or ?)

I found no connection with the Mint Engraver during research for FMTM. There was also a plate engraver named Barber in Philadelphia. He made illustration plates for Harpers and several other magazines. Artist Thomas Eakins also made illustration plates sometimes from his own paintings. (See notes in Girl on the Silver Dollar.)

This would be something that could be done by one of the engineers at the Mint Bureau - but it's unlikely to happen. The US Mints no longer handle parting, refining or alloying. Blanks for clad and brass coins are cut from rolls of metal supplied by contractors. All the gold and silver planchets are bought from outside suppliers, subject to US Mint checking assays and XRF analysis.

Thank you for the nice comments. They are much appreciated. It was OK to use iron molds and tools as long as the iron was no mixed with the silver alloy. Since the melting point of iron was higher than silver or copper, this was not a problem. Iron caused silver and gold to be brittle and crack when rolled into strips. Other impurities with lower melting points were much more common - and a bigger problem - in coining metals than iron.

Zoins' original post is at: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1049266/george-morgans-lady-photography

.

[Try being more specific about what you are selling. I.e., Selling one (1) bla, bla, bla...and; One (1) bla, bla, bla. Both coins for $xxx. What form of payment will you accept? Insured postage paid.... or whatever terms of sale you might prefer.]

On this one, "FG" fell off 'cause the coin was upside down....

"Coin Dr." "Con Dr." or "Quack" - all the same dishonest people.

The middle name is from Zoins' post. Wikidoodle reports "Thomas." There are manufacturing entries for two photo medals shown in Entry 105 "Medal accounts 1861-88." One in in January 1877 and the other is February 1878. Both are similarly described as "Lambert's Photographic Process medal." 10 silver and 18 bronzed medals were bought by Thomas H. McCollin in 1877. Here's a link to the Lambert medal: https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/1877-photography-award-medal-cased-1877636863

Collector "Zoins" recently posted his photos of George Morgan's medal for the Photographic Society of Philadelphia. The records of this society are in the Eastman Museum: https://www.eastman.org/photographic-society-philadelphia-records Medal date is not evident. A check of US Mint Entry 105 "Medal accounts 1861-88" did not reveal any of these made at the Philadelphia Mint. The style seems to be 1880s, but more awkward than Morgan's usual work. The female figure is more slumped than graceful, and her elbows seem to be at different places on each arm. The figure leans forward if the exergue is level. The name "Morgan" appears to be below the horizontal line - although only the letters "GAN" seem clear in the photo. A photo of a different specimen has the full name visible. (Curious that it was not signed "Morgan f" as was common.)

Rev: Luster at right vs weak, smooth features at tail is a clear giveaway; add the phony mintmark, etc., etc. Obv has similar detail inconsistencies. This is the kind of garbage that is killing interest among potential collectors. The hobby really needs aggressive anti-counterfeiting action not babbling and blabbing. ANA, as the chartered agent of collectors, SHOULD be doing this - but the ANA Board got it's clothes from the same tailor as the Emperor's new suit.

"Miss Congeniality.....?"

Counterfeit from head to tail.

Another advantage to selecting 1795 --- you can have the quarter "made to order" by several of Alibaba's Forty Thieves!