SP70 VS PF70??? 2 2

[Sandon]

   No 1880-S Morgan dollar has ever been designated a "proof"!  NGC has certified 1,989 pieces as "deep mirror prooflike", while PCGS has certified 2,967 pieces as "deep mirror prooflike", totaling 4,956 grading events. These two services combined have also graded 16,185 pieces of this issue "prooflike". Many older coins of some issues struck for circulation were made with mirror surfaces and often frosted devices.  They are not proofs, which were specially struck using specially prepared planchets, special equipment, and multiple strikes and were then specially handled to avoid abrasions. They usually have other characteristics, such as squared off (not beveled) edges and a different "look". The next time you have an opportunity to do so, compare a Morgan dollar designated "deep mirror prooflike" (usually an early "S" mint like the 1880-S) with an actual Philadelphia mint proof. You should perceive significant differences in the surfaces and strike, as well as the usual absence of bag marks on actual proofs.

   The only branch mint Morgan dollars that have been recognized by some numismatists as "proofs" per the deluxe "Red Book" (and as to which there is documentation confirming that proofs were authorized and issued by the mint), are very rare examples of the 1879-O (4 known, said to have been struck to commemorate the reopening of the New Orleans mint), 1883-O (12 said to have been struck, 2 certified), 1893-CC (10 to 12 said to have been struck to commemorate the closing of the Carson City mint) and 1921-S "Zerbe" proofs (5 known; called "specimens" or "special strikings" by some numismatists).

   There are controversies regarding some Philadelphia mint issues of the nineteenth century that were issued in relatively small numbers for circulation and also as proofs, often from the same dies.  In these cases, it is often the circulation strikes that are more valuable, yet many circulation strikes are prooflike, while some proofs are satiny, not mirrorlike! Many pages could be written about these controversies.  Recent issues made specially for collectors are an entirely different matter, as proofs and other special strikings are always distinguishable from circulation quality coins. They are best referred to by the names given by the mint, not as "specimens" or as "proofs" when that was not the name used. Sorry, it doesn't matter what you think they look like!

[bsshog40]

So these are in the proof registry slots but are not MS or Proof. Here's one of mine.

[Errorists]

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/28/2022 at 7:21 PM, Errorists said:

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/3212/US-proof-coins/#:~:text=defined mirror surfaces.-,The first gold coins struck by the US Mint that,superb with completely original surfaces.

Truly regrettable discovery. Who'd've thought the Error guy would show up in tow with a treatise on the matter ready to fling it, unannounced into the faces of Forum naysayers? As a certifiable coward, I am going to do the only responsible thing and wait until he is who is learned in such matters is afforded an adequate interval with which to peruse this arcane matter adequately and is ready to launch forth ex cathedra to bring mere peons like me up to speed.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Quintus Arrius
Introduce an element of gratuitous grandiosity.

[Errorists]

On 11/28/2022 at 6:41 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Truly regrettable discovery. Who'd've thought the Error guy would show up in tow with a treatise on the matter ready to fling it, unannounced into the faces of Forum naysayers? As a certifiable coward, I am going to do the only responsible thing and wait until he is who is learned in such matters is afforded an adequate interval with which to peruse this arcane matter adequately and is ready to launch forth ex cathedra to bring mere peons like me up to speed.

In actuality it's a MInt State Proof.

[Sandon]

    I happened to have my 1997 "Botanic Garden Coinage and Currency Set" handy and scanned the obverse side of the panel with the coins. These sets are the sole source of the special 1997-P nickels now designated "Specimen" ("SP") by grading services.  As you can see, the mint referred to the 1997-P nickel as "uncirculated" and as a "matte finish or mint state Jefferson 5-cent piece" and explained how the special finish had been created. The mint never described these coins as "specimens", "proofs", or "specimen proofs"!

[Errorists]

On 11/28/2022 at 7:24 PM, Sandon said:

    I happened to have my 1997 "Botanic Garden Coinage and Currency Set" handy and scanned the obverse side of the panel with the coins. These sets are the sole source of the special 1997-P nickels now designated "Specimen" ("SP") by grading services.  As you can see, the mint referred to the 1997-P nickel as "uncirculated" and as a "matte finish or mint state Jefferson 5-cent piece" and explained how the special finish had been created. The mint never described these coins as "specimens", "proofs", or "specimen proofs"!

I like the term frosted as opposed to sand blasted. It sounds better.. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/28/2022 at 5:33 PM, Sandon said:

NGC added to the confusion with the "SP" ("specimen") designation instead of simply using the mint's already confusing "Enhanced Finish" nomenclature. Since it wasn't issued by the mint as a "proof", NGC hasn't given a "proof" an "SP" designation.

A dealer told me "SP" stood for Special Proof !!!   

[Just Bob]

What a waste of time and bandwidth. 

[NewGuy1]

On 11/28/2022 at 8:40 PM, Errorists said:

I like the term frosted as opposed to sand blasted. It sounds better.. 

I like frosted flakes better  sounds like where the errorist is trying to move this post   brings up a topic and then talks in circles when really smart coin people are trying to help.  Guess it takes all kinds on these pages 

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/28/2022 at 8:59 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

A dealer told me "SP" stood for Special Proof !!!   

It could have been worse: Special Pattern, Special Planchet (specially-prepared, of course) or plain Special.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/28/2022 at 5:53 PM, Errorists said:

Some of those old coins are graded proof.

No, they are designated PL or DMPL but should NEVER be called proof unless they were recipients of polished dies and/or a special striking process.

As an example, you have a big debate on whether or not some of the MCMVII High Relief Saints are "proofs."  NGC said (not SAYS) YES, PCGS has consistently said NO.  Note I said "said"..... as NGC no longer (apparently) uses the designation but the ones in the past maintain the Proof designation and can be marketed as such.

The pros and cons are discussed in Roger's Double Eagles book.  Despite being on the no-proofs side, he gave equal time to the other side.  Kudos ! 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/28/2022 at 7:21 PM, Errorists said:

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/3212/US-proof-coins/#:~:text=defined mirror surfaces.-,The first gold coins struck by the US Mint that,superb with completely original surfaces.

Right, but those coins were STRUCK as proofs not some changed striking process that enhanced their finish (maybe) and were then CALLED proofs.

BTW, how did you get the paragraph to highlight in purple ?  Made it easy to find what you were quoting ! 

Edited November 29, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/28/2022 at 5:53 PM, Errorists said:

Some of those old coins are graded proof.

The coins in the article you cited that ARE proofs....yes.  But I think readers of this thread may think you were referring to regular business strike Morgans that just are PL or DMPL.  Those are NOT proofs.

The gold coins in your article, yeah, I guess those are.  Not an expert but Jeff Garrett is credible on gold. 

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/28/2022 at 8:24 PM, Sandon said:

.... The mint never described these coins as "specimens", "proofs", or "specimen proofs"!

This is key; @RWB has maintained from the outset, that this was an official non-Mint related term [and likely yet another clever, catchy marketing ploy engaged in by TPGS].  On the NGCX continuum, such coins would dwell, without comment, in the 9 to 10 range.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/28/2022 at 8:40 PM, Errorists said:

I like the term frosted as opposed to sand blasted. It sounds better.. 

I think the Mint creates these bogus "finishes" whenever they need to give a boost to sales. 

I mean, if they used them going forward it's one thing....they introduce them...say they're being "tested"...then we never see them again for the most part. 

Mint Official #1: "Hey, sales suck....time to introduce another of our 'special finishes' on the coins and tell them they better hurry before they are all gone, you know, like McDonald's McRib." 

Mint Official #2: "Best thing is to look at the clowns on the coin forums arguing about these finishes in a few years !!" 

Edited November 29, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/28/2022 at 9:17 PM, Just Bob said:

What a waste of time and bandwidth. 

Respectfully, it is easy to dismiss an entire thread----not even a day old, after one studiously decides he is unwilling to venture an answer.  What's your take on this most pressing issue of the day?  Enquiring minds want to know!

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/28/2022 at 7:24 PM, Sandon said:

   No 1880-S Morgan dollar has ever been designated a "proof"!  NGC has certified 1,989 pieces as "deep mirror prooflike", while PCGS has certified 2,967 pieces as "deep mirror prooflike", totaling 4,956 grading events. These two services combined have also graded 16,185 pieces of this issue "prooflike". Many older coins of some issues struck for circulation were made with mirror surfaces and often frosted devices.  They are not proofs, which were specially struck using specially prepared planchets, special equipment, and multiple strikes and were then specially handled to avoid abrasions. They usually have other characteristics, such as squared off (not beveled) edges and a different "look". The next time you have an opportunity to do so, compare a Morgan dollar designated "deep mirror prooflike" (usually an early "S" mint like the 1880-S) with an actual Philadelphia mint proof. You should perceive significant differences in the surfaces and strike, as well as the usual absence of bag marks on actual proofs.

   The only branch mint Morgan dollars that have been recognized by some numismatists as "proofs" per the deluxe "Red Book" (and as to which there is documentation confirming that proofs were authorized and issued by the mint), are very rare examples of the 1879-O (4 known, said to have been struck to commemorate the reopening of the New Orleans mint), 1883-O (12 said to have been struck, 2 certified), 1893-CC (10 to 12 said to have been struck to commemorate the closing of the Carson City mint) and 1921-S "Zerbe" proofs (5 known; called "specimens" or "special strikings" by some numismatists).

   There are controversies regarding some Philadelphia mint issues of the nineteenth century that were issued in relatively small numbers for circulation and also as proofs, often from the same dies.  In these cases, it is often the circulation strikes that are more valuable, yet many circulation strikes are prooflike, while some proofs are satiny, not mirrorlike! Many pages could be written about these controversies.  Recent issues made specially for collectors are an entirely different matter, as proofs and other special strikings are always distinguishable from circulation quality coins. They are best referred to by the names given by the mint, not as "specimens" or as "proofs" when that was not the name used. Sorry, it doesn't matter what you think they look like!

Really great post, Sandon, learned alot.  

You know, when you see a super-informative post in a thread like that... I wish we could "star" it or something and then have all the special posts appear in an Information Thread or be linked from somewhere on the website.

Unless someone personally saves a thread via PDFs or cuts-and-pastes key information/posts into Word (like I actually do with Saints).....the information is lost.  Not only does it probably have to be re-typed by someone at a future date, but others who might want that information have to request it.  Imagine if we had a Super Thread with key information on various coins, striking issues, counterfeits, etc.  

Maybe we can discuss if this is feasible with the NGC Mods.  In the meantime, I'll keep saving via PDF and Word. 

Edited November 29, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/28/2022 at 9:36 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think the Mint creates these bogus "finishes" whenever they need to give a boost to sales. ....

Failing that, they can fall back on First Strikes, Early Releases, etc., or go the private route by unveiling "Sealed Gold Vault Bricks containing the only State Gold Bank rolls known to exist with the exclusive State Restricted Design and each loaded with rarely seen U.S. Gov't issued Buffalo Nickels layered in valuable 24 Karat Gold by National Mint and Treasury," a paid advertisement I intend to critique before the year is out.

[Errorists]

On 11/28/2022 at 8:28 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Right, but those coins were STRUCK as proofs not some changed striking process that enhanced their finish (maybe) and were then CALLED proofs.

BTW, how did you get the paragraph to highlight in purple ?  Made it easy to find what you were quoting ! 

I don't know how that happened. I thought it was reading my mind. Perhaps, AI??

[zadok]

On 11/28/2022 at 7:24 PM, Sandon said:

   No 1880-S Morgan dollar has ever been designated a "proof"!  NGC has certified 1,989 pieces as "deep mirror prooflike", while PCGS has certified 2,967 pieces as "deep mirror prooflike", totaling 4,956 grading events. These two services combined have also graded 16,185 pieces of this issue "prooflike". Many older coins of some issues struck for circulation were made with mirror surfaces and often frosted devices.  They are not proofs, which were specially struck using specially prepared planchets, special equipment, and multiple strikes and were then specially handled to avoid abrasions. They usually have other characteristics, such as squared off (not beveled) edges and a different "look". The next time you have an opportunity to do so, compare a Morgan dollar designated "deep mirror prooflike" (usually an early "S" mint like the 1880-S) with an actual Philadelphia mint proof. You should perceive significant differences in the surfaces and strike, as well as the usual absence of bag marks on actual proofs.

   The only branch mint Morgan dollars that have been recognized by some numismatists as "proofs" per the deluxe "Red Book" (and as to which there is documentation confirming that proofs were authorized and issued by the mint), are very rare examples of the 1879-O (4 known, said to have been struck to commemorate the reopening of the New Orleans mint), 1883-O (12 said to have been struck, 2 certified), 1893-CC (10 to 12 said to have been struck to commemorate the closing of the Carson City mint) and 1921-S "Zerbe" proofs (5 known; called "specimens" or "special strikings" by some numismatists).

   There are controversies regarding some Philadelphia mint issues of the nineteenth century that were issued in relatively small numbers for circulation and also as proofs, often from the same dies.  In these cases, it is often the circulation strikes that are more valuable, yet many circulation strikes are prooflike, while some proofs are satiny, not mirrorlike! Many pages could be written about these controversies.  Recent issues made specially for collectors are an entirely different matter, as proofs and other special strikings are always distinguishable from circulation quality coins. They are best referred to by the names given by the mint, not as "specimens" or as "proofs" when that was not the name used. Sorry, it doesn't matter what you think they look like!

...operative words here..."recognized by some"....