How many proof Isabella commemorative quarters were made? 1 1

[RWB]

A collector wrote asking how many Isabella quarters were struck as proofs.

The straight answer is: -0-

[Heritage Auctions. 2020 April 23-24 & 26 Central States US Coins Signature Auction – Dallas #1314/Lot #4171.]

 All Isabella quarters, from first through 40,023^rd were made on the afternoon of June 13, 1893, using a standard toggle press. Coins #1-5 were struck by turning the press’ flywheel manually, something easily done with a toggle press and impossible with a hydraulic medal press. The cycle counter on the press was used to identify the 400^th, 1492^nd, and 1892^nd pieces, and these plus the first five were certified by Acting Superintendent Martin H. Cobb.

 A toggle press delivers the same pressure regardless of how it is actuated – manually, by steam, by electric motor, by a cavalcade of trained ants, etc.

Edited October 20, 2021 by RWB

[EARLY-COMMEM-HUNTER]

“Authorized: 40,000

Coined: 40,000 + 23 assay

Melted: 15,809

Net Mintage: 24,191”

“It appears that 103 of these were proofs: the first 100 and nos. 400, 1492 and 1892.  That gives us 24.088 business strikes in addition to the 103 proofs.” (Swiatek & Breen, 1990, p.115).

 

Swiatek, A. & Breen, W. (1990). The Encyclopedia of United StatesSilver & Gold Commemorative Coins 1892-1989. Arco Publishing, Inc. NY.

* Not to be duplicative, but here’s my recent business strike Isabella acquisition. I simply adore this piece. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by EARLY-COMMEM-HUNTER

[VKurtB]

Uh, oh. Weasel word warning. “It appears”. Danger, danger Will Robinson.

Weasel words from Swiatek and Breen. Whodathunkit.?

[RWB]

EARLY-COMMEM-HUNTER - 

Thanks for the added information. Newer research makes the reference you gave largely obsolete.

On 10/20/2021 at 12:20 AM, EARLY-COMMEM-HUNTER said:

“Authorized: 40,000. Coined: 40,000 + 23 assay

These are the only two statements that are accurate.

PS: Very nice example of an Isabella quarter !

Edited October 20, 2021 by RWB

[Just Bob]

On 10/20/2021 at 9:34 AM, RWB said:

EARLY-COMMEM-HUNTER - 

Thanks for the added information. Newer research makes the reference you gave largely obsolete.

These are the only two statements that are accurate.

PS: Very nice example of an Isabella quarter !

Is there an accurate record of the number of pieces melted?

[RWB]

On 10/20/2021 at 12:44 PM, Just Bob said:

Is there an accurate record of the number of pieces melted?

The quantity sent from the Chicago Sub-treasury to Philadelphia for melting was 15,809. They had been mislabeled "uncurrent coins" and thus became bullion. Journal entries show they were destroyed. However, there is more to the story and it turns out that although 15,809 were melted that is not the quantity actually destroyed. The rest of the story will be in my research article about restrikes, novodels, pattern distribution, etc.

The total number of Isabella quarters that actually were distributed, one way or another, is close to 40,000.

Edited October 21, 2021 by RWB
correct spelling

[Mohawk]

Yet another mythical numismatic beast debunked!!! It's an interesting coin, but the mother of the Spanish Inquisition has no place in my collection.  She would have had me burned at the stake.  

Edited October 21, 2021 by Mohawk

[RWB]

Curiously, there was no specific use for the proceeds. The May 4, 1894 report on Isabella quarters shows that at least $3,000 was paid to artist Anders Zorn for a portrait of the president of the Board of Lady Managers, Bertha Honore Palmer. There is no explanation of how this personal portrait, presented to Mrs. Palmer, furthered the goals of the Board.

Edited October 21, 2021 by RWB

[RWB]

Here's the 1893 portrait of Mrs. Palmer - certainly not the puffy matron usually depicted.

[Mohawk]

Quote

There is no explanation of how this personal portrait, presented to Mrs. Palmer, furthered the goals of the Board.

It looks like the so called "Age of Abuses" started much earlier in the Classic Commem series than is typically recognized, I'd say.

[VKurtB]

On 10/20/2021 at 8:54 PM, Mohawk said:

Yet another mythical numismatic beast debunked!!! It's an interesting coin, but the mother of the Spanish Inquisition has no place in my collection.  She would have had me burned at the stake.  

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[Mohawk]

On 10/21/2021 at 2:27 PM, VKurtB said:

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

I love me some Python......Life of Brian is my favorite.  And that would have definitely happened to me in Isabella's Spain.  My love of The Life of Brian would likely have made that situation even worse.

Edited October 21, 2021 by Mohawk

[Henri Charriere]

@Just Bob   you certainly know how to get to the bottom of things.

The figure provided by the OP is not entirely inaacurate. Fifteen thousand eight-hundred and nine were officially melted.  Then one day, I showed up Stack's and the gentlemen, after checking several references, pronounced it a fake as no proofs, or for that matter, prooflikes, were minted thereby confiscating it and either forwarding it to the Secret Service to be dstroyed, or doing it himself, after-hours. Consequently, I believe it safe to say such coin is no longer extant. no

[EARLY-COMMEM-HUNTER]

I’m curious and will have to inquire with our host as to whether or not they’re still recognizing the proof. Also curious as to what diagnostics they’ve been using in their determination. I’ve seen a few NGC proof Isabella’s recently that are in “newish” style slabs so if they have ceased the recognition I’d gather it’s a decision reached somewhat recently. 
 

edited to add:

I’ve been thinking on this post since it was posted because I’ve been under the belief proofs did exist for many decades now.  Surely some you learned gentlemen are more enlightened on early proof practices than I am and could explain to a fella.  I have been under the belief that early proof were made with acid dipped and/or polished dies.  Therefore, no extra pressure would have been necessary and that proofs would have been made by using these prepared dies and simply striking the piece a few times?

Examples: (Photos used as educational fair use.)

Edited October 22, 2021 by EARLY-COMMEM-HUNTER

[VKurtB]

On 10/22/2021 at 6:44 AM, EARLY-COMMEM-HUNTER said:

I’m curious and will have to inquire with our host as to whether or not they’re still recognizing the proof. Also curious as to what diagnostics they’ve been using in their determination. I’ve seen a few NGC proof Isabella’s recently that are in “newish” style slabs so if they have ceased the recognition I’d gather it’s a decision reached somewhat recently. 
 

edited to add:

I’ve been thinking on this post since it was posted because I’ve been under the belief proofs did exist for many decades now.  Surely some you learned gentlemen are more enlightened on early proof practices than I am and could explain to a fella.  I have been under the belief that early proof were made with acid dipped and/or polished dies.  Therefore, no extra pressure would have been necessary and that proofs would have been made by using these prepared dies and simply striking the piece a few times?

Examples: (Photos used as educational fair use.)

So what would they have done? Just smack # 400, #1492, and #1892 twice each? It defies credibility. Maybe all that exists are PL’s and not PF’s. 

[RWB]

On 10/22/2021 at 7:44 AM, EARLY-COMMEM-HUNTER said:

I’m curious and will have to inquire with our host as to whether or not they’re still recognizing the proof. Also curious as to what diagnostics they’ve been using in their determination. I’ve seen a few NGC proof Isabella’s recently that are in “newish” style slabs so if they have ceased the recognition I’d gather it’s a decision reached somewhat recently. 
 

edited to add:

I’ve been thinking on this post since it was posted because I’ve been under the belief proofs did exist for many decades now.  Surely some you learned gentlemen are more enlightened on early proof practices than I am and could explain to a fella.  I have been under the belief that early proof were made with acid dipped and/or polished dies.  Therefore, no extra pressure would have been necessary and that proofs would have been made by using these prepared dies and simply striking the piece a few times?

These are absolutely valid -- nay, critical thoughts and they deserve careful examination.

The earliest Numismatist mention is an August 1828 ad by John Zug:

Individual proof coins are mentioned in coin club articles beginning in about 1933 and from then into the 1970s

What I've seen in early commemorative catalogs/lists, even from Max Mehl back in 1937, do not mention proofs or anything unusual:

Edited October 22, 2021 by RWB

[RWB]

Bertha Palmer donated two Isabella quarters to the Mint Cabinet, but there is no mention of "proof" versions.

A collector wrote to the Mint asking to buy a proof Isabella quarter. The reply, if any, have not been located.

Elwood Iron Works, General Foundry and Machine Works

Elwood, Ind.

May 8, 1893

To the Superintendent of the Mint

I enclose you a receipt from the board of “Lady managers” of Worlds Fair which certifies

that I have paid for and am entitled to one of the “Isabella Souvenir Coins” I have been informed

by the Numismatic Bank of Boston that by sending at any time during the year of issue an extra

amount I might secure what Numismatists term a “Proof” coins. I am very desirous of getting a

“proof” of one of these quarters and enclose a quarter to offset expense. If this amt. will not

cover expenses I will send more. Will you kindly advise me in this matter and oblige very much,

Ed. W. Stevens

[NARA RG104, Entry 1, Box 181]

I don't recall what Taxay has to say, but none of the "standard" commemorative catalogs give a source for their information....As became popular, they all merely copied without asking for verification.

All of this begs the question of "Are there really any legitimate proof Isabella quarters?" US Mint and newspaper articles are silent or mention use of a toggle press. In 1893 the only presses used for proof coins were the old screw press, and a new hydraulic press which was available in the spring. Further, just because a coin is shiny or has a sort of mirror-like field does not mean it is a proof --- it might superficially look like a proof, but to be a legitimate proof coin it MUST have been made on one of the two presses mentioned above.

That a proof-like coin would be mistaken (or deceptively described) is not unusual. One has only to look at the massive mess of "branch mint proofs" and early "proof coins" to get some idea of the limitless imagination of the "looks-like experts." Our mechanical and process information is much better than back in the old days. We have a much greater ability to separate the real thing for the mass of "looks-like" imitations. This is partly why I insist on documentation, and clear physical conformity to original standard when examining any claim of an unusual "proof"  "specimen" or other oddity.

Edited October 22, 2021 by RWB

[RWB]

This Coin World article excerpt might be typical of the facts:

Coin World “Mysterious Proof 1893 Isabella quarter sold”

·        By Steve Roach

·        Published: Nov 11, 2014, 2 PM

Stack’s Bowers Galleries’ Oct. 30 Rarities Night auction held during the Whitman Baltimore Expo was led by the 1853 Collection, but also included a variety of other numismatic items with fascinating stories. 

Here is one of three coins from the auction we're profiling in this week's Market Analysis.  

The lot: 1893 Isabella Commemorative quarter dollar, Proof 65 Cameo

The price: $9,400

The story:

The 1893 Isabella commemorative quarter dollar is the only quarter in the classic 1892 to 1954 commemorative series. Consensus is that just over 100 Proof versions were minted and distributed, although the lack of official U.S. Mint records on the issue has left researchers in doubt on many points. Walter Breen wrote that the issue was “shrouded in mystery.”

The limited Proof production seems to have enjoyed a decent survival rate and examples turn up at auction with some frequency. This one, graded Proof 65 Cameo by Numismatic Guaranty Corp., is one of just two that have been designated as either Cameo or Deep/Ultra Cameo by NGC and it sold for $9,400. The price might be considered a bargain, as another NGC Proof 65 example without a Cameo designation brought $15,275 at a Heritage auction earlier this year.

Edited October 22, 2021 by RWB