Possible Morgan Branch Mint Proof? 0

[Cointrader777]

I have an 1879-S Morgan Dollar that looks very much like these "Branch Mint Proofs" in this example exhibit I will attach. I would appreciate any information or feedback that I could get on this possibility. Thanks, Cointrader777

 

[Cointrader777]

I am going to try and upload a better image.

[RWB]

Nope. Only the Philadelphia Mint had the necessary equipment to prepare proof coins. If you coin is a legitimate proof, then it must look like a normal proof coin of the same year, and it must have been made a Philadelphia.

(The Philadelphia Mint occasionally made sample coins for use by the other mints when a new or revised design was introduced. This gave the other mints a "perfect" example by which to compare their work.)

[Cointrader777]

Thanks for the information RWB. I appreciate your insight.

[Just Bob]

There were many business strike Morgans, and other coins, that were minted using new or freshly resurfaced dies that resemble proof coins, by exhibiting mirrored fields and, sometimes, frosted devices. These are considered "prooflike" coins, but they are not actual proof coins.

 Basically, "prooflike" is a description of the finish of a coin, while "proof" is a method of manufacturing, and, as Mr Burdette has stated above, the branch mints did not have these same methods.

By the way, you might want to know that this is a matter of some contention, since the grading services actually consider some coins minted outside Philadelphia to be proof coins. Not everyone is in agreement on this subject.

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, Just Bob said:

There were many business strike Morgans, and other coins, that were minted using new or freshly resurfaced dies that resemble proof coins, by exhibiting mirrored fields and, sometimes, frosted devices. These are considered "prooflike" coins, but they are not actual proof coins.

 Basically, "prooflike" is a description of the finish of a coin, while "proof" is a method of manufacturing, and, as Mr Burdette has stated above, the branch mints did not have these same methods.

By the way, you might want to know that this is a matter of some contention, since the grading services actually consider some coins minted outside Philadelphia to be proof coins. Not everyone is in agreement on this subject.

It'd be less controversial if they described them as "Specimen", at least in the case of the 1894-S dimes.

Edited January 2, 2020 by VKurtB

[Cointrader777]

Thanks Bob!

[Just Bob]

50 minutes ago, Cointrader777 said:

Thanks Bob!

You have a nice looking coin, by the way. What grade did PCGS give it?

[Cointrader777]

Thanks...I got a PCGS MS64. Not to bad.

[RWB]

Disagreements between "proof" or "not proof" go back to coins dated in at least the 1810s. Questions about special strikings and "specimens" and other such labels have occasionally been based on non-existent local ceremonies or events. In the past many assumptions were built on guesses and wishes (and some on price boosting). Gradually those tendencies are diminishing and more attention is being paid to facts not day dreams. To be clear, all dies were made at Philadelphia, all mintmarks were applied at Philadelphia, and Philadelphia could strike any size coin or medal in any finish it wanted, for any authorized purpose. Thus, a mintmark on a "proof" coin tells us nothign about where the alleged "proof" coins was manufactured.

Additionally, there term :"specimen" is obscenely overused. My criteria is simply that there must be a documented reason for ANY special striking, and the alleged "specimen coin" must be clearly distinctive. A great many in the authentication community wrongly assume that all coins coming off dies are the same - when in reality the first 100 or so are distinctly different is sharpness and surface characteristics. (The Connecticut State Collection [Mitchelson] is the only clearly documented repository of true "first strike" coins from the early 20th century. Smithsonian has real "first strike" coins from the 1960s.)

There are some nuances to the whole situation, also. While it is true that only the Philadelphia Mint had the equipment to make a proof (or "master") coin, small size pieces - up to dimes and maybe quarters - could be made to look a lot like real proofs by careful doe polishing and manual operation of a large toggle press with small-coin dies installed. Mechanically this was possible, but was also a lot of trouble because presses of differing sizes used dies with differing diameters, shank lengths & diameters, and die chucks. It would have taken a lot of "fiddling" to make it work, and for no clear purpose.

Only the large flypress (screw-type) at Philadelphia and later the hydraulic presses installed there could handle multiple die sizes. It was not until 1899 that the Philadelphia Mint got a new Dill production coinage press that could handle any size die and feeder with only limited adjustment.

OK. Bored the socks off the dog....

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by RWB

[Just Bob]

48 minutes ago, RWB said:

To be clear, all dies were made at Philadelphia, all mintmarks were applied at Philadelphia, and Philadelphia could strike any size coin or medal in any finish it wanted, for any authorized purpose. Thus, a mintmark on a "proof" coin tells us nothign about where the alleged "proof" coins was manufactured.

 

 

This brings up something that I have never considered. 

Are you of the opinion that at least some of the coins that are  today considered "branch mint proofs" are actual proof coins- polished planchets and dies, specific type of press, higher pressure, multiple strikes - that were minted in Philadelphia, but with mint marks of the other mints?

[RWB]

First, another mechanical fact: proof coins of that era were struck once with a special medal press. No press of that era was capable of maintaining consistent dies-to-planchet-to-collar alignment beyond one blow.

Second we know from New Orleans Mint correspondence and others that Philadelphia occasionally sent out master or sample coins along with the first dies for a new design. These were intended as a quality control reference.

Third, although most so-called "branch mint proof" are not proof coins - just really nice production pieces - there are a very small assortment that seem to be extremely close to normal proof coins is all respects. They might best be called "Proofs made from "xxx" Mint dies." The others are not "specimens" or any other critter unless there is supporting documentation. However, of the small number of so-called "branch mint proofs" I've examined in detail, none have passed the basic test of matching in all respects legitimate medal press proofs. (This is, of course, very disconcerting to coin owners, who have bought a label but not knowledge, and to the 'authentication' who fail to use proven empirical methodology.)

Caveat - it is very difficult and expensive to do research required to authenticate and attribute the unusual coins we are discussing here. There is no central source; no convenient set of records; no time-tested set of definitions; and certainly no empirical database available to collectors. Much of the "received wisdom" is from the ancients, many of whom were happy to tell people what they wanted to hear, make a buck and vanish. Changes in technology and coining materials also changed the final product, and very few have more than a superficial understanding of this critical aspect of manufacturing coins. I'm probably sounding a little "PO'd" at the whole thing, and I shouldn't - it's getting better. But change is slow and there's no funding to reward people for doing the necessary research work.

Got to stop before I get a warning about using too many words, or too much opinion. :)

EMPEROR: Of course I do. It's very good. Of course now and then - just now and then - it gets a touch elaborate.
MOZART: What do you mean, Sire?
EMPEROR: Well, I mean occasionally it seems to have, how shall one say? [he stops in difficulty; turning to Orsini-Rosenberg] How shall one say, Director?
ORSINI-ROSENBERG: Too many notes, Your Majesty?
EMPEROR: Exactly. Very well put. Too many notes.
MOZART: I don't understand. There are just as many notes, Majesty, as are required. Neither more nor less.

[Peter Shaffer's -script for the film "Amadeus."]

Edited January 3, 2020 by RWB

[numisport]

Proof Morgans (from images) appear to have square rims like modern proofs have. Do these so called branch mint proofs have this attribute ?