Is this 1827 bust half really a proof?

[MikeInFL]

Your thoughts?

 

 

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=444&Lot_No=1682&type=

[stev32k]

Impossible to tell from a photograph, but PCGS says it's a proof and they guarantee it. However, that's a coin I would not consider bidding on without inspecting it in-hand. (unless it had a CAC sticker).

[MarkFeld]

Mike, having previously owned a different 1827 Proof Capped Bust half many years ago and examined the Heritage example in person, I believe it to be a Proof. As is often the case, the coin looks markedly different in hand than it does in the image.

[WinstonWare]

Proof CBHs were created using regular dies that were either brand new or freshly lapped. In either case, they were specially polished to create so called “proofs” or “specimen strikes.” They do exist but are extremely rare. Also, the dies from the “proofs” were returned to service right after their use. Therefore, a few coins from those dies would exhibit proof-like qualities but would be MS coins strictly speaking. I can’t say with any confidence whether this is a “proof” or a well struck “MS” coin, but I wouldn’t pay a whole lot extra for the PCGS designation.

[nwcs]

I have no idea but it sure is a beautiful coin

[MikeInFL]

For those of you who didn't read the Heritage description, this is essentially a unique coin -- the only proof 1827 known struck with these dies and the handful of other proofs (6?) are from another die variety.

 

FWIW, Breen's Proof Encyclopedia gives the following description, including an auction apperance:

 

Flat based fancy 2. Ov. 107. LM 9/67:255. (Lot 255 of Lester Merkin's Auction in Spt, 1967)

 

It also includes a picture of this coin. It looks to be untoned other than with the distinctive reverse streak, but Breen's photos are overexposed and black and white.

 

From the photos, this coin has a very different appearance from the other 1827 proofs (all O.121), incuding the Eliasberg 68 ($128k in 2004: http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=336&Lot_No=2078 )

 

 

And an NGC 64 at Heritage ($29.9k in 2001 : http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=275&Lot_No=5883 ):

 

[bsshog40]

Well I do know one thing, it sure is a fine looking coin!!!

[WinstonWare]

O.107 is R3 and O.121 is R4 according to Overton’s book. This coin may have been the first struck by the O.107 die pair but I would hardly call it unique… Just my view of the coins value…

[rexcat]

There’s one sweet little Bust half, maybe I sell my entire type set and go for it, eh?

 

I’m looking for a bust half and saw many at the ANA today and for sure you don’t find strikes like that on any of them, not even some really minty MS64/5s.

 

Bust coins were made in collarless dies on screw presses with dies made from crappy steel. I think much care had to go into producing the outstanding detail in this strike, I don’t think even a new die ran under normal production conditions of that time would make a coin this fine. To me this coin displays the same differences in appearance from its business stuck counterparts as seen in a later proof vs. mint state strike; the proof coin will always have the edge in detail and mirrored fields due to planchet preparation and multiple hits in the die.

 

This coin reminds me of branch mint proofs, really rare, really not well documented by the mint employees who produced. Makes them mysterious and expensive…

 

[Conder101]

I would think there might be some question as to whether or not open collar proofs were multi-struck.

 

Since the coin is unrestrained it will continue to expand with each strike of the dies creating stretching and distortion around the periphery. I would also expect to see some flattening and "damage" to the edges of details, especially around the edge because of the die not coming down precisely on register and from expansion displacement during the second or subsequent strikes. (Expansion displacement is caused by the dies coming together in the center first and the pressure there causing the con to start expanding radially before the edges of the die make contact with the coin.)

 

One way you might do an open collar proof would be instead of two strikes, add additional weight to the swing arm of the screw press so the dies come together with more force than is normally applied.

[James_OldeTowne]

The planchet preparation is paramount to determining whether or not an early coin like this is a proof. (I think "specimen strike" to be a better term than "proof", though.) I also believe the edge should be examined, under the assumption that special care would have been taken while the coin was run through the Castaing machine to ensure accurate, well-centered edges.

 

Images do pretty much nothing to help ascertain a coin's possible specimen status, but the strike of the referenced coin is exceptional. 1827s are known to occasionally be prooflike.