Early Proofs and "Specimen" strikes

[MikeKing]

I posted this question accross the street but I thought it would be good discussion over here. This inquiry is with respect to the current Stack's auction (you can go to thier site).

 

I'm not familiar at all with Bust Half Proof strikes. And the only time I ever heard the use of 'Specimen' was with an 1811 1/2 cent and still don't really know whether to believe any of it.

 

e.g. the 1820 Proof Half Dollar (lot 1044) has flattened stars. Now I know these are 19th century proof strikes, but wouldn't the stars have been completely detailed with a real proof??? The 1818 Proof has completely detailed stars, why not the 1820?

 

 

another example:

the 1827 Specimen Striking (lot 1067)

(they admit it was called a PROOF in a prior sale of theirs)

They say "..clearly this coin was made as a specimen and not intended for circulation..."

How do they know?

Dies were polished all the time.

In this coin, the stars are drawn out to the periphery, a clear sign of die wear.

 

If it was a 'Specimen', wouldn't they have used a newer die?

 

 

There are plenty more examples like this in the catalogue.

 

Any input to help me understand this?

[WinstonWare]

I have seen one NGC PL bust half, but never a true “proof.” I can tell you that in his book on Bust halves Overton never mentions “proof” coins, although I’m only through 1817

[WinstonWare]

Here is that NGC PL Bust I was talking about.

[okbustchaser]

Specimen coins were made to order for honoraries or for worker's friends. They really are not proofs as most understand the term today. The planchets were usually polished but no extra care seemed to take place with the dies themselves.

 

In the 1830's there were actually a few proofs struck for special people (Mickley for example). Here is one. (NOOOOOOT MINE!!!!--photoes from Sheridan Downey auction)

 

[MikeKing]

Winston, thanks for that link...another picture I can save for study!

 

Jim, TDN mentioned accross the street that the die state wasn't the issue and that is was all about how the dies were polished (if I got it right). So what was the big difference between the specimen strikes and the proofs? And why would they use worn dies for specimen strikes?

[okbustchaser]

Specimens were (at least from what I have read and heard) were "made to order" whenever anyone with the pull to get one (either political pull or friendship) showed up at the mint and asked for one. The mint worker would sellect a planchet, shine it up, use whatever die pair happened to be in the press and then hand the recipient his brand new coin. It wasn't until the 30's that proofs (as collector coins) came to be minted using specially polished dies and planchets.

[okbustchaser]

Should have added that the die state didn't really matter in creating a speciman--luck of the draw as to which set of dies were currently installed in the press.

[MarkFeld]

I believe that the term "specimen" is often applied to coins that look somewhat different/special, but for which there is no official documentation that Proofs were produced. In other words, the term can serve as a means of distinguishing certain coins, but in a CYA fashion.

[MikeKing]

So, I'm assuming that for PROOFs back then that they didn't use multiple strikes and therefore the flat stars?

[MarkFeld]

So, I'm assuming that for PROOFs back then that they didn't use multiple strikes and therefore the flat stars?

Mike, for many, one of the requirements for a true Proof is that the coin have been struck more than once. A lot of this is semantics and acting as if the intent of the coiner was known, when in many cases that's impossible.

 

My general rule of thumb is that even an early Proof should be obvious as such, and that if you have to make excuses for it, it's best to be extremely cautious. There are many pretenders, but very few of the "real thing".

[numismatica]

I think that some of the early coins that are listed as proofs are really just early strikes off of recently lapped dies. I have owned fully P/L halves that look like some of the proof halves that have sold in the past few years. Some of the so-called proofs have bounced between major auctions with different designations; some say proof, others say specimen, some say "could be". BTW, the word "specimen" was coined by Stacks when they cataloged some of the "special" coins in the Starr collection in 1992. I read that in the recent Stacks catalog of the Byer's collection of early halves.

 

Just because a coin is not technically a proof, even though it sure looks like one, shouldn't mean that it is worth less. It's the same coin regardless of "official" designation. A fully p/l early quarter is rare. Whether it was made intentionally or not in a special manner is irrelevant....at least to me. Unfortunately, people put too much weight with the opinions of TPG's and that will affect the value. I have seen an early proof half sell for tons of money because the auction company called it a proof. In the next auction, the cataloger did not agree and said it may be a proof, but not sure. The selling price was much less.

 

Here's an 1849 half that I just purchased. Sorry for the images, but you may get the idea that this is a fully P/L coin that is a real headlight when hit with light at the right angle. It is not a proof, but simply a coin that came off of a freshly lapped die. Researchers agree that a freshly lapped set of dies (from early days at Mint....not today's Mint) would lose the reflectiveness after 50-100 strikes. That's why early P/L coins are scarce, if not very rare in some cases.

 

The 1849 imaged below has full reflectivity in ALL areas of the flat plane of the coin. Even in the flat spots between the shield lines on the reverse. The images are of poor quality due to the fact that I have not yet purchased a new coin-camera. The coin has been cleaned lightly......AND it circulated a bit, hence the hairlines. The reason I am showing it is it applies to this conversation regarding early proofs/specimens.

 

The first pic shows the coin head-on. The next pics were imaged when rotated at a slight angle.

 

[Hoot]

"Just because a coin is not technically a proof, even though it sure looks like one, shouldn't mean that it is worth less. It's the same coin regardless of "official" designation. A fully p/l early quarter is rare. Whether it was made intentionally or not in a special manner is irrelevant....at least to me. Unfortunately, people put too much weight with the opinions of TPG's and that will affect the value. "

 

Great point.

 

Another thing to consider is that there were several workers in the early Mint who were amply familiar with what could be done in the production of coinage, including the process of creating brilliant proofs, which had been around for a long time. Henry Voigt and Adam Eckfeldt, both expert machinists and coiners, were among those who put the Mint on the map, so to speak. They were yoked by limitations of machinery, tenuous supplies of raw materials, and time, so the production of special coins, like proofs, was a low priority in the fledging Mint.

 

I tend to agree that the so-called "specimen" strikes of pre-1836 are coins that came from freshly prepared or lapped dies and, perhaps, from polished planchets. (1836 was when Director Robert M. Patterson, trained in the coinage techniques of Europe and hell-bent on creating superior U.S. coinage, implemented the production of the seated Liberty with flying eagle reverse dollars. These dollars were struck in high relief with mirror-like fields. There was a flush of proof coinage that followed, e.g., the proof half cents of 1840-49.) Some of these early "specimen" coins may also have been struck more than once to bring out the fullest details, but all of this is conjecture. There are no records or evidence that have come from scholarly sources that directly reference such processes.

 

As a trivial example, I have looked closely at the "specimen" 1794 dollar. Although it may be the dollar coin of the year that has characteristics of being at the front of the line in the emission sequence, there are simply too many gaps of time, place, and chain of custody to make claims to any greater status than it's a fabulous coin (and it is a fabulous coin!). There's nothing to suggest that the 1794 "specimen" dollar or any other early "specimen" coin was intentionally struck as a proof. Big deal - great coins are great coins.

 

Hoot

[MarkFeld]

BTW, the word "specimen" was coined by Stacks when they cataloged some of the "special" coins in the Starr collection in 1992

Dennis, I heard that term LONG before then, including its use/discussion in Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of US and Colonial Proof Coins.

[GAB]

Here is an NGC image (for technical analysis more than "show") of an 1836 Bust Half Specimen. It is an OBVIOUS proof in hand !

 

It should be noted that there are so few of these proofs - pre 1850 - that there is very

little known about them - and very little research done on them. In 1836, there are known

proofs from at least 6 varieties - presumeably using the same die as the coins for circulation of those varieties.

 

There were believed to be at least 8 proof sets made for presentation to dignitaries in the 1830's, but only 1 of these is recorded in researched mint records - the 1834 King of Siam set. Check out this auction catalog listing: (thanks to Brad Karoleff from JRCS)

 

W. Elliot Woodward sale May 17-21 1864.

 

Lot 362 1836 Splendid proof set, containing the pattern flying eagle dollar,

half dollar, quarter, dime, half-dime and half cent, six pieces in all

brilliant proofs, except the half dime which, though proof , is not

brilliant; the first proof set of this date ever offered for sale. As a

set, of extreme rarity.

 

Price realized $42.50.

 

A few lots later an 1847 set brought $45. and an 1848 sold for $50!

 

GAB

[numismatica]

BTW, the word "specimen" was coined by Stacks when they cataloged some of the "special" coins in the Starr collection in 1992

Dennis, I heard that term LONG before then, including its use/discussion in Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of US and Colonial Proof Coins.

 

Mark, you must be reaaaaaaaaly old.

 

I can't argue with you on your point. I was quoting the Stack's claim from the recent Byer's catalog. Of course their claim is somewhat biased. Maybe they just meant that they were the first to use the term in an auction catalog?

[MikeKing]

I seem to remember Breen using the term also, and I'm a lot younger than Mark

[MarkFeld]

I seem to remember Breen using the term also, and I'm a lot younger than Mark

Hey, that's two old age barbs in a row in this thread!

[MAULEMALL]

Hey dennis and Hoot, Excellent Posts,Thanks

[RUSS BEGA]

Just because a coin is not technically a proof, even though it sure looks like one, shouldn't mean that it is worth less. well has anyone ever heard of the Zerbe proofs? they are not technically proofs but they are give a proof designation on slabs

 

Russ