RE: "Columbian Expo Doctor's 1892 Proof Set" 0

[RWB]

A thread by the above title appears on another message board. The thread implies that A physician who worked at the Exposition purchased an 1892 proof set at the Exposition. This is extremely unlikely. The Mint Exhibit was allowed to sell only the medals struck there and the two commemorative coins, plus a book by Evans on the Mint. The Exposition demanded a commission on all sales except the two commemorates, and the Mint was not about the sacrifice it's small profit on proofs.

The set, as described, is very nice and about typical for the year. It might have been delivered to the purchaser at the Expo closing in Autumn 1892, but it was probably not sold by anyone at the Mint Exhibit. The same conditions applied to the 1893 expo.

[e1cnr]

If the mint had an exhibit at the expo, isn't it possible that a purchase was initiated and delivered later? I was hoping to see a proof columbian expo

[RWB]

The Medal Clerk controlled proof coins and their sale via the Cashier. Sales were made only at the Philadelphia Mint or via mail. The other post implies the proof set was purchased at the Exposition [from the Mint display]. There was no means to handle payment or transfer, and no documentation to support that.

The reality is more likely: The Dr. had been on duty during the 1892 Expo. Saw the proof sets (2) and medals in the Mint display (after July 7) and ordered a set for himself by mail from Philadelphia. Note that quality of the coins in the set is NOT unusual - but their family preservation in pristine condition is.

[MarkFeld]

3 minutes ago, RWB said:

The Medal Clerk controlled proof coins and their sale via the Cashier. Sales were made only at the Philadelphia Mint or via mail. The other post implies the proof set was purchased at the Exposition [from the Mint display]. There was no means to handle payment or transfer, and no documentation to support that.

The reality is more likely: The Dr. had been on duty during the 1892 Expo. Saw the proof sets (2) and medals in the Mint display (after July 7) and ordered a set for himself by mail from Philadelphia. Note that quality of the coins in the set is NOT unusual - but their family preservation in pristine condition is.

How are you distinguishing “that quality of the coins” from “preservation in pristine condition”. When I see those descriptions, they seem synonymous to me.

[RWB]

The issue quality of proof coins was very high - few defects or marks. "Preservation" refers to what happens outside of the mint - cleaning, handling, etc. The stated coin grades indicate the family preserved the coins in nearly their original-issue condition.

[MarkFeld]

29 minutes ago, RWB said:

The issue quality of proof coins was very high - few defects or marks. "Preservation" refers to what happens outside of the mint - cleaning, handling, etc. The stated coin grades indicate the family preserved the coins in nearly their original-issue condition.

Thank you, now I understand how you distinguish the two, I will add that the post-production “quality” is subject to change, based upon how a coin is “preserved”.

[RWB]

Mark - Yeah, I sometimes tend to be too academically specific - as in my earlier comment.

[MarkFeld]

21 minutes ago, RWB said:

Mark - Yeah, I sometimes tend to be too academically specific - as in my earlier comment.

Roger, shame on you for being too specific in this industry.😉

[RWB]

OK. I'll do penance: I'll say three Hail Larrys, two Moes and one Curley.....and only pray for one new Mercedes-Bens.

[DWLange]

Just a minor correction that has no bearing on the coin discussion: Though it was intended for celebration in 1892, the World's Columbian Exposition was not ready to open until May of 1893.

[RWB]

Correct. On re-reading, my comment above is confusing.

(PS: We now have access to a group of US Mint letters and "show reports" from the 1893 Expo. They will soon be posted on the NNP and include transcriptions.)