A legitimate "Specimen" or "Special Strike" coin 0

[RWB]

Collectors are likely familiar with my persistent objections to the use of words such as "Specimen" or "Branch Mint Proof" or "Special Strike" on TPG labels. These terms are usually meaningless and not supported by anything other that blind guesses and silly tall tales. However, there are coins which are legitimately entitled to be labeled "Specimen" or "Special Strike." Here is one of them. Notice not only the quality of the coin - sharply made and carefully handled - likely struck from new dies, but that it is accompanied by a document attesting to the coin's manufacture. Signatures on the letter match other routine correspondence for the signatories.

[J P M]

Very nice, Now was that a freebee ? 

[RWB]

On 2/27/2024 at 11:55 AM, J P M said:

Very nice, Now was that a freebee ? 

Unknown. Recipients and the coiner, Tarbell, were prominent Colorado citizens.

(Tarbell and others at the mint got into very hot water when one of the gold coins sent for the Annual Assay Commission failed. Much of the early gold coinage had to be melted and recoined.)

[J P M]

 I would think this nickel would be a true SP coin . It was made for the 225th Anniversary set with a mintage of 210,402

[Zebo]

On 2/27/2024 at 10:41 AM, RWB said:

Collectors are likely familiar with my persistent objections to the use of words such as "Specimen" or "Branch Mint Proof" or "Special Strike" on TPG labels. These terms are usually meaningless and not supported by anything other that blind guesses and silly tall tales. However, there are coins which are legitimately entitled to be labeled "Specimen" or "Special Strike." Here is one of them. Notice not only the quality of the coin - sharply made and carefully handled - likely struck from new dies, but that it is accompanied by a document attesting to the coin's manufacture. Signatures on the letter match other routine correspondence for the signatories.

So what about the sixth?

[Henri Charriere]

On 2/27/2024 at 1:09 PM, Zebo said:

So what about the sixth?

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  None of the evidence produced is compelling or conclusive.  I have seen measurably sharper, stronger and well-defined strikes displayed on the leading topics and threads on this Forum -- notably on the finely fluted horizontal lines on Shield nickels and the vertical lines defining the numerals of the CuNi III-cent pieces, of yore. These, are tame by comparison.

How is this coin any more Special than any contemporary First Strike? Obverse: the hair due East of LIBERTY (which is by no means strongly struck) is weak and flat.  Reverse: the outstretched wings of the eagle display feathers that are not well-defined.  The horizontal and vertical lines of the shield are not sharply delineated.  The tail feathers are not sharply struck; I have seen better on older Morgan dollars. (I have studiously avoided mention of the coin forwarded to the Annual Assay Commission which failed to pass muster during the Trial of the Tryx.)

As regarding the letter and signature, the branch mint Director's title is inexplicably missing.  Who was his superior?  The Foreman's participation could easily have been enlisted -- or commandeered.  What subordinate would refuse to sign a letter if directed to by his superior?  (Many a Notary Public has been compromised in the past; the presence or absence of that person's seal and signature is of no moment.) This letter was produced in a vacuum, and continues to reside in one.

If the coin were a freebie, it was not authorized. As to the sixth, seventh and eighth strikes, at what point does the term "Specimen" or "Special Strike," cease to be meaningful and continue to be awarded?  Who's to say these were not but another in a long line of late-nite Mint shenanigans?  

I find inadequate conclusive proof and rule in favor of plaintiff without prejudice to renew.  SO ORDERED.

(Posted at the discretion of Moderation.)

[RWB]

On 2/27/2024 at 12:52 PM, J P M said:

 I would think this nickel would be a true SP coin . It was made for the 225th Anniversary set with a mintage of 210,402

Unfortunately, this is common modern stuff where the whole production is called something special. I refer to true historical pieces.

[RWB]

On 2/27/2024 at 1:09 PM, Zebo said:

So what about the sixth?

I don't know. Could it have ended up in the Philadelphia Cabinet? (It does not appear in Comparette's 1914 "CATALOGUE OF COINS, TOKENS, AND MEDALS.") Possibly the Coiner? He gave one to his brother, why not himself.

A "big deal" was made of striking a few 1905 bronze tokens and donating one to the state archives. But nothing mentioned about DE #6 or any of the first coins....quarters made Feb 15, 1906.

Edited February 27 by RWB

[zadok]

On 2/27/2024 at 2:55 PM, RWB said:

Unfortunately, this is common modern stuff where the whole production is called something special. I refer to true historical pieces.

...one person's historical is another's ho hum...the only thing the letter documents is the smoke that is being blown u know where...if produced as indicated then the coin's chronology is established n the only thing "special" about these particular coins is that they received "special" handling, much the same as other "branch mint proofs" n "specimen" coins...these coins n other such coins produced at all of the mints with or without "historical" accompanying letters would be more accurately described as "presentation" pieces....

[Fenntucky Mike]

First, what a fabulous coin with accompanying documentation.

This coin reminds me of the first and last T1 & T2 ASE's, all were specially handled, documented, numbered, etc.. I don't believe any of the ASE's were given a SP designation and I'm not sure that this DE should be labeled SP either. It should be documented accordingly as the 4th coin struck and be a wonderful center piece in most collections. It was not specially struck in a manner differing from other DE's made for circulation, or with different dies, or produced for mint inspection, testing, or any other mint function that we know of, and giving this coin a SP designation may only help to broaden the inclusion of other coins graded as such. I agree that it should receive some sort of special descriptor and "presentation" piece seems fitting, along with the notation of being the 4th coin struck.  

[RWB]

Understood. However, the letter attests to its being made for some special purpose and the coin is clearly "nicer" than others. They did not have any better equipment, although a die could have been polished. There weren't other options at a regular mint. Only Philadelphia had the ability to do really special things. To my skeptical mind, this coin has documentation supported by appearance to justify an individualized moniker. On appearance alone, it would not qualify. (It sold for over $400,000.)

[Henri Charriere]

On 2/27/2024 at 5:29 PM, RWB said:

Understood. However, the letter attests to its being made for some special purpose and the coin is clearly "nicer" than others. They did not have any better equipment, although a die could have been polished. There weren't other options at a regular mint. Only Philadelphia had the ability to do really special things. To my skeptical mind, this coin has documentation supported by appearance to justify an individualized moniker. On appearance alone, it would not qualify. (It sold for over $400,000.)

[Enquiring minds would like to know if it was gaveled off raw with appertunences (paperwork attesting to its good character) or certified, and if the latter, the grade it was assigned.]

[Zebo]

On 2/27/2024 at 2:56 PM, RWB said:

I don't know. Could it have ended up in the Philadelphia Cabinet? (It does not appear in Comparette's 1914 "CATALOGUE OF COINS, TOKENS, AND MEDALS.") Possibly the Coiner? He gave one to his brother, why not himself.

A "big deal" was made of striking a few 1905 bronze tokens and donating one to the state archives. But nothing mentioned about DE #6 or any of the first coins....quarters made Feb 15, 1906.

I would not put it past the Coiner and possibly why he didn’t document it. This reminds me of the first six Sydney sovereigns that were struck and documented where they went (or to who). The last year of operations for the Sydney Mint. 

Edited February 28 by Zebo

[Mike Meenderink]

I'm not buying into the whole "got to have papers" to be a "real" Specimen or Special Strike coin since many of the early Proofs (proof dies) and Specimen coins (first strike) were struck on demand for many well-heeled collectors of the day as well as falling into the hands of mint employees' family and friends. I agree having the paperwork would be nice if it accompanied an actual coin(s) but barring that I don't see the point. Only recognizing the coins look and surfaces as Specimen or Special Strike due to it having accompanying paperwork would hinder your ability to categorize the coins. The coins are designated that way because they exhibit characteristic(s) which set them apart from other coins of the same mint run. These characteristics and /or outcomes are either planned or not planned by the mint ie: SMS coins verses BS strike SP coins. Its more about the look of the coin. IMO

[J P M]

On 2/27/2024 at 2:55 PM, RWB said:

Unfortunately, this is common modern stuff where the whole production is called something special. I refer to true historical pieces.

I agree there is mostly hype on graded coins like ASE.s. This SP is however something different in my opinion. I can see this coin will just have to wait a hundred years to be a historical special production.

[Henri Charriere]

The letter is somewhat unusual. However, it is the coin that makes the letter distinctive.  It would have had to have accompanied the coin, physically, in an unbroken chain of custody since the date of minting to meet RWB's exacting standards.  If it were placed in an envelope along with the coin (presumably sheathed in an appropriate protective holder) with a stamped wax seal, that would satisfy most numismatists. It is possible, however, RWB would contest the evidence.  A great deal can transpires over one hundred years.  Who sealed the envelope, when, where and who witnessed it?  The preponderance of the evidence suggests credibility but you cannot equate that with conclusive proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to admire that kind of tenacity.

[RWB]

RE: "I'm not buying into the whole "got to have papers" to be a "real" Specimen or Special Strike coin since many of the early Proofs (proof dies) and Specimen coins (first strike) were struck on demand for many well-heeled collectors of the day as well as falling into the hands of mint employees' family and friends."

This is a common confusion created by conflation of limited information and speculations. However, the "specimen" or "special strike" pieces I refer to were produced as mementos or souvenirs of some event or person, AND documented as such. The objection is TPGs giving these "different looking" coins a special label without documentation or explanation. Lots of coins from ordinary dies look "different" depending on when they were struck during the life of a die, and other details such as planchet hardness. While early strikes might "look different" they are entirely ordinary and were not specially made. (I've examined coins in the CT State Collection - Mitchelson. Many of these would immediately be given some special label by the TPGs -- Yet, we have clear documentation that they are just ordinary coins made from fresh dies, and were part of routine distribution to Museums and major collections of the time.)

Early Master Coins were made under varying circumstances, and we have written records of some of their manufacture. The same applies to some restrikes of circulation coins, and pattern pieces. Master Coins were provided at face value to anyone who asked for them and would wait for the Chief Coiner to get around to it. (This is a continuing research project - but much remains to be investigated.)

[zadok]

...after reading all of the various comments posted so far, one would surmise that true "specimen" coins r only those that were documented as such n that if they were not struck at philadelphia mint on special planchets on certain presses n by certain set standards then all such "specimen" coins r just normal circulating coins struck at certain times n with a documented purpose...basically its not how the coin was struck its why the coin was struck n did someone write it down...everyone can come to their own conclusion on this...i for one deem it pure b******t....

[gmarguli]

On 2/27/2024 at 7:41 AM, RWB said:

Collectors are likely familiar with my persistent objections to the use of words such as "Specimen" or "Branch Mint Proof" or "Special Strike" on TPG labels. These terms are usually meaningless and not supported by anything other that blind guesses and silly tall tales. However, there are coins which are legitimately entitled to be labeled "Specimen" or "Special Strike." Here is one of them. Notice not only the quality of the coin - sharply made and carefully handled - likely struck from new dies, but that it is accompanied by a document attesting to the coin's manufacture. Signatures on the letter match other routine correspondence for the signatories.

So there is documentation stating that this is the 4th one coined and discusses who coined it. I fail to see how this is a Specimen. How is the fact that Moffat fed 6 blanks into a press with new dies any different than Joe Mint Worker feeding 60,000 blanks into the exact same press after installing a new die? 

You disparage calling early strikes Specimens (see 1964 SMS coinage), yet take an opposite opinion here. Makes no sense. It's the same thing.

[Zebo]

On 2/28/2024 at 4:23 PM, gmarguli said:

So there is documentation stating that this is the 4th one coined and discusses who coined it. I fail to see how this is a Specimen. How is the fact that Moffat fed 6 blanks into a press with new dies any different than Joe Mint Worker feeding 60,000 blanks into the exact same press after installing a new die? 

You disparage calling early strikes Specimens (see 1964 SMS coinage), yet take an opposite opinion here. Makes no sense. It's the same thing.

I tend to agree with the above. As in my example at the Sydney Mint (above) where the first six coins were documented before the closing of the Mint in 1926, they are not specimens. The first went to the Royal Mint in England, the following five to well known collectors who all but one I believe donated the coins to museums in Australia. Even on the event that the Queen fed in the blank (in England), it is not considered a specimen strike - so why should the double eagles be specimens?

[J P M]

Ok so now instead of having a written letter of documentation. In the 21st century we do have paper documentation in these small plastic holders all together with the coin and a website for further information on the same coin. I normally blank out the serial numbers on the coins but I felt if people want to look up the SP coin on-line It would be easier.

Edited February 28 by J P M

[zadok]

On 2/28/2024 at 4:23 PM, gmarguli said:

So there is documentation stating that this is the 4th one coined and discusses who coined it. I fail to see how this is a Specimen. How is the fact that Moffat fed 6 blanks into a press with new dies any different than Joe Mint Worker feeding 60,000 blanks into the exact same press after installing a new die? 

You disparage calling early strikes Specimens (see 1964 SMS coinage), yet take an opposite opinion here. Makes no sense. It's the same thing.

...amen, amen, amen...u have smitten the nail head...the coins in question r not anymore specimens than that collected in little jars once per year at ur dr's office...the real thing everyone should note is the inclusion of the word "legitimate" in the title, legitimized by whom?...once again arbitrary imposition by mr. obtrude...apparently coins can be specimens based on the reason they were struck as long as accompanied by a note or a hall pass...yet bona fide branch mint proof-like presentation coins obviously differentiated from normal strikings r dismissed because of the lack of annotation in the archives...laughable.... 

[RWB]

On 2/28/2024 at 4:23 PM, gmarguli said:

So there is documentation stating that this is the 4th one coined and discusses who coined it. I fail to see how this is a Specimen. How is the fact that Moffat fed 6 blanks into a press with new dies any different than Joe Mint Worker feeding 60,000 blanks into the exact same press after installing a new die? 

You disparage calling early strikes Specimens (see 1964 SMS coinage), yet take an opposite opinion here. Makes no sense. It's the same thing.

Because the coin's quality is better than conventional pieces, and there is documentation stating the unusual circumstances of its manufacture, the combination enables a distinctive identifier. Either paper or coin without the other, is just ordinary. There is a vast difference between feeding 6 planchets into a press and pulling the coins out before the drop into the receiving box, and normal production of 80+ DE per minute. (Was the 6th planchet improperly struck and discarded? We don't know -- yet.

As for so-called "1964 SMS coins" the facts are so clear and simple that these are nothing but early strikes off normal dies and not made for ANY special purpose, than it strains credibility that anyone would fall for this con. I take exactly the SAME approach - but no one has produced anything to support the "1964 SMS" claim. There is nothing at all. Such is the power of a "lying label" and poor research by those certifying such junk.

[leeg]

On 2/28/2024 at 12:54 PM, RWB said:

RE: "I'm not buying into the whole "got to have papers" to be a "real" Specimen or Special Strike coin since many of the early Proofs (proof dies) and Specimen coins (first strike) were struck on demand for many well-heeled collectors of the day as well as falling into the hands of mint employees' family and friends."

This is a common confusion created by conflation of limited information and speculations. However, the "specimen" or "special strike" pieces I refer to were produced as mementos or souvenirs of some event or person, AND documented as such. The objection is TPGs giving these "different looking" coins a special label without documentation or explanation. Lots of coins from ordinary dies look "different" depending on when they were struck during the life of a die, and other details such as planchet hardness. While early strikes might "look different" they are entirely ordinary and were not specially made. (I've examined coins in the CT State Collection - Mitchelson. Many of these would immediately be given some special label by the TPGs -- Yet, we have clear documentation that they are just ordinary coins made from fresh dies, and were part of routine distribution to Museums and major collections of the time.)

Early Master Coins were made under varying circumstances, and we have written records of some of their manufacture. The same applies to some restrikes of circulation coins, and pattern pieces. Master Coins were provided at face value to anyone who asked for them and would wait for the Chief Coiner to get around to it. (This is a continuing research project - but much remains to be investigated.)

 

 

 

 

[Jason Abshier]

I always considered a Specimen coins first few stuck for approval . Before production before striking for circulation … either Piefort , Essai , pattern pieces a coin that wasn’t really meant for circulation at all or medals (Exonumia) I consider a specimen not everyone agrees with that term but it been beaten like a dead horse a time or two with everyone weighing in on what is really considered a specimen for not …

[Henri Charriere]

On 2/28/2024 at 7:12 PM, RWB said:

Because the coin's quality is better than conventional pieces, and there is documentation stating the unusual circumstances of its manufacture, the combination enables a distinctive identifier. .

RECONSIDERATION

Many years ago I was given a bit of advice that has held me in good stead for most of my adult working life:  "Never ask for a raise until after the boss has had lunch." I have tweaked that, as follows: Do not jump onto the Forum with a trebuchet until after you've had something to eat.

I have re-read this thread in its entirety three times and am inclined now to give Roger the benefit of the doubt. Certain phrases he has used resonate with me. I pay close attention because no member has ever claimed Roger has ever spoken with reckless abandon.

Some of his wording... "I refer to true historical pieces.... they [the Mint] did not have any better equipment.... To my skeptical mind...."  And, for me, the clincher, as excerpted at the head of this post above.  If I were on that jury as depicted in the 1957 classic, "12 Angry Men," Henry Fonda very likely would have changed my mind.  In real life, taking into consideration what Roger has written and the manner in which he wrote it, I see no agenda and no axe to grind. What I do see is a sincere attempt to objectively state the facts relying on a lifetime of research and experience framed in historical context.  Given the choice between being consistent for consistency's sake, or being truthful, I would choose the latter. If I lose my status of "Rising Star," so be it. On the matter of "Specimens" and "Special Strikes," I stand with Roger.