"Branch Mint Proof" Morgan dollars
1 1

43 posts in this topic

216 posts
7 hours ago, mumu said:

Here's as close as I can get. I paid $59 for this one on ebay.Not an amazing strike but better:

crescent1.jpg

crescentrev.jpg

crescentslab.jpg

Nice $59.00 coin! Not to eye appealing though! From many forums eye appeal goes a long way..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,452 posts
17 minutes ago, Mason254 said:

Nice $59.00 coin! Not to eye appealing though! From many forums eye appeal goes a long way..

That blue flame crescent is very appealing to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,143 posts

Determining if a coin is a legitimate proof or not is completely unrelated to its "grade."

As for the earlier comments about "branch mint proofs," documentation validating ANY special coin made at any mint except Philadelphia is rarer than the coins so claimed. It's curious that Wayne Miller made claims of documentation, but failed to present it -- why?

Any legitimate proof coins made with mintmarked dies had, by mechanical definition, to have been struck at Philadelphia. No other mint had the required equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
442 posts
On 6/5/2019 at 11:42 PM, mumu said:

That blue flame crescent is very appealing to me.

Same here.  I'm usually very blind to Morgan's but that crescent color is nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
886 posts
14 hours ago, RWB said:

Determining if a coin is a legitimate proof or not is completely unrelated to its "grade."

As for the earlier comments about "branch mint proofs," documentation validating ANY special coin made at any mint except Philadelphia is rarer than the coins so claimed. It's curious that Wayne Miller made claims of documentation, but failed to present it -- why?

Any legitimate proof coins made with mintmarked dies had, by mechanical definition, to have been struck at Philadelphia. No other mint had the required equipment.

By "mechanical definition" Roger I assume you are referring to a medal press or other means of bringing up tonnage needed to strike such proof coinage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,143 posts

Yes. A proof is more than shiny. It was created with specific equipment in a clear deliberate process. By understanding the process, one can then recognize differences in equipment, methodology and other factors that go into determining of a coin is a proof. Most proof coins are obvious by superficial appearances. But, any mintmarked candidate MUST be examined with extreme skepticism -- that is, force the coin to prove it is a deliberate proof. Similar caution is required for anything called a "specimen" or 1964 SMS or any other money-promoted invention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,143 posts

Nice 1879-O and has details of a proof -- if so, it was made in Philadelphia. The Engraving Department made sample coins from new design dies, and with the New Orleans Mint ready to open it's possible one or more sample coins were struck as "best quality" examples to be shipped to the new mint.

 

Is the mintmark doubled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,587 posts
On 6/14/2019 at 7:23 AM, RWB said:

Nice 1879-O and has details of a proof -- if so, it was made in Philadelphia. The Engraving Department made sample coins from new design dies, and with the New Orleans Mint ready to open it's possible one or more sample coins were struck as "best quality" examples to be shipped to the new mint.

 

Is the mintmark doubled?

I thought it looked O over CC

6850E93F-6C76-456B-8A8A-409D6448A550.jpeg.8b27e22537d0759d40f3af6ae192fe51.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
370 posts
On 6/3/2019 at 3:24 AM, Mason254 said:

About to send in for attribution CAC as BMP! I know most say it's just a common date no need in having it slabbed but it may not be so common if it slabs as a branch mint proof 

20190515_022042.jpg

20190515_021856.jpg

6685F7B5-08B9-4BA7-8569-4BA79B92FDDC.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,143 posts

Travis - Mason's 1885-O is not only a common date, but has poor detail and absolutely no trace of proof coin characteristics. The other two coins have been polished to death and are not, and never were, proofs. They have also been ruined as collectible coins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1