Do branch mint proofs usually show up in coiners' notes or other Mint records?

[shirohniichan]

I know there were proofs of the 1875-S twenty cent piece but I have seen no official records thereof.

 

Are there any such records?

[MarkFeld]

I believe that in some cases there is documentation for branch mint proofs, and in others, not.

 

Of course, in the absence of that documentation, I believe that a grading company should err strongly on the side of caution. But, such is not always the case.

[jom]

I know there were proofs of the 1875-S twenty cent piece but I have seen no official records thereof.

 

Are there any such records?

 

What about the claims of Morgan dollar branch mint proofs? Were these real or was it some Walter Breen-like mis-attributions on proofs?

 

jom

[MarkFeld]

I know there were proofs of the 1875-S twenty cent piece but I have seen no official records thereof.

 

Are there any such records?

 

What about the claims of Morgan dollar branch mint proofs? Were these real or was it some Walter Breen-like mis-attributions on proofs?

 

jom

I believe that there are at least a couple of dates (1879-O, 1893-CC) with official documentation. In most other cases, "not so much".

[RWB]

Meaningful (i.e.: original) documentation is very sparse. FYI, a mintmarked "proof" could easily have been made at Philadelphia, but with great difficulty at on of the other mints--especially for halves and larger coins.

[DaveG]

I've read through the Mint Annual Reports from the second half of the 19th century and the first decade of the 20th century and I've never seen any references to branch mint proofs.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Meaningful (i.e.: original) documentation is very sparse. FYI, a mintmarked "proof" could easily have been made at Philadelphia, but with great difficulty at on of the other mints--especially for halves and larger coins.

 

How many "branch mint proofs" were simply struck on mintmarked dies at Philly?

[RWB]

No way to tell....

[shirohniichan]

No way to tell....

 

So unless we can track down official, contemporay documentation to the contrary, the 1875-S twenty cent pieces may well have been struck in Philly?

 

I see that 1855-S proofs are going to be in an upcoming Heritage auction. Unless we find documentation I guess they could have been Philadelphia products, eh?

[Conder101]

Could have been, but could have doesn't mean they were. And in the case of the 75-S twenty cent piece, the reverse die was later used to strike regular business strikes. those would not have been struck in Philadelphia. Of course it would still be possible to strike the proofs in Philly and then ship the die on to San Francisco. So without official records that state where they were produced you can't say with absolute certainty where they were made.

[DWLange]

Using the dies to strike proofs in silver would have required hardening them. Since the Mint didn't ship hardened dies to the branches for safety reasons (they could be intercepted and used for counterfeiting), the proofs of the 1875-S 20c must have been made at the SFM. This statement applies only to dies known to have been used later for currency pieces; dies not having such additional usage may have struck branch mint proofs at the PM.

[RWB]

The SF mint preferred unhardened dies so they could cut down the shank to fit their presses. They also wanted a different basin than Philadelphia. In the 19th century there was continual argument between SF and Phil about die hardening and Charles Barber wanted to send only hardened dies. The situation went back and forth until SF got new presses.

 

During the mid-1870s the SF Mint was usually – not always – being sent soft dies. In 1876 W. Barber even sent undated dies….!

 

The other mints received hardened dies.

 

[AegisIII]

During the mid-1870s the SF Mint was usually – not always – being sent soft dies. In 1876 W. Barber even sent undated dies….!

 

Hmm... Do any of our Seated Liberty experts know of different numeral fonts being used in 1876 for San Francisco vs. the other mints?

[RWB]

The designs and fonts were all identical - the SF Mint did not date dies or have permission to alter designs. The dateless double eagle dies were returned to Philadelphia.

[DWLange]

The SF mint preferred unhardened dies so they could cut down the shank to fit their presses.

 

You are correct, and I didn't take that into consideration. The SFM had to alter the 1861-S Paquet double eagle reverse dies, and it evidently was successful enough until receiving instructions to discontinue their use altogether.

 

That could explain another phenomenon I've observed about SFM coins: They sometimes have bolder rims than those of other mints. Examples that come to mind are the 1949-S dimes and 1937-S quarters. Both are seen with broader and deeper rims than the same coins from the other two mints. This became more noticeable after they were worn, the obverse typically being a grade higher than the reverse.

[RWB]

Amazing how pieces of info can connect...! Nice work David!

[AegisIII]

The designs and fonts were all identical - the SF Mint did not date dies or have permission to alter designs. The dateless double eagle dies were returned to Philadelphia.

 

Ok, thanks.

[shirohniichan]

Amazing how pieces of info can connect...! Nice work David!

 

Yea, verily.

 

Now I can draw a flow chart to see where branch mint proofs could have been struck.

 

Thank you!