1883-O Morgan - seems different in some way.

[wdrob]

This coin is a bit beat and scraped up but the mirrors are very deep and the devices are frosty. It shows the DMPL on the printed out scale on both sides.

 

I know these are very common coins but for some reason this one just seems different from any other PL or DPL that I have seen in that there are not the regular die polish lines on it rather the lines that can be seen look like they are from the original planchet prep and not polishing the dies.

 

More than likely nothing but I thought I would throw it out there regardless.

 

The first and third mirrored photos are using one 60 watt regular light bulb that you buy these days curly fluorescent type) and the second and fourth set are using three Jansjo LED's.

 

White balance set one each scenario using 18% grey card.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Afterword]

Looks like a nice coin. I do not know Morgans, so I cannot comment as to anything being "different" about it.

[wdrob]

Looks like a nice coin. I do not know Morgans, so I cannot comment as to anything being "different" about it.

 

I don't know them very well either when it comes right down to it. I just found, as I look at this particular coin in hand and under the light that the die polish (if it is even die polish lines) seems to be deeper and smoother (almost as if they were extruded) than I have seen otherwise.

 

I still take that coin out of the cabinet about every two to three days, study it under the light, and reaffirm that it is indeed at the very least DMPL and then come away scratching my head once again.

 

It is not only the lines that seems different mind you, the way the stars are "embedded" rather deeply into the metal surface. I think a better description would be the crater that is surrounding the stars seems to me to show a very forceful strike. Not only there but on the reverse leaves as well. Deeply struck. Yet the coin does not have the sharpness of a proof (and I am well aware that only 12 or so were struck that year), however I was able to find a picture of one of those proofs on HA and the rim and the details on that coin were not "razor sharp" in my opinion either.

 

Now I notice that that the original picture I was looking at on HA is no longer there, however the diagnostics are still listed and I have found that the reverse matches when viewing it in Negative on all channels, it is actually easy to see the disconnected leaves in the olive clusters, the polish "notch" on the wing tip. Others I believe are there but am not entirely certain.

 

Out of the 12 known to have been minted only 3 to 5 have surfaced from what I have been able to ascertain.

 

Interesting, however I mainly threw this up there to see if anyone would come in and immediately say "That's not a proof -- I can spot one from across the street."

 

 

After I hit enter and viewed these photos I posted earlier I noticed that you can clearly see the diagnostics on the reverse without the need for a negative image. I wonder how many have noticed that they match up and just kept quiet.

 

 

2. On the second cluster of leaves on the left side, the bottom two leaves are noticeably thinner from excessive die polishing, the upper leaf on the third cluster is disconnected, as is the rightmost leaf on the fourth cluster.

3. A "notch" of die polish is on the upper right wing feather, close to the wing tip.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wdrob]

 

Here is the link to a page I threw together after taking several photos with my macro setup. I don't think many could care less but it is there for anyone that wishes to see.

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

The rims and weaker strike on the hair above the ear makes me think PL business strike and not a branch mint proof, if that is what you are asking.

[coinman_23885]

P.S. Regarding your branch mint proof question (other thread), take a look at Legend Numismatics's archived inventory listing. I know that have had branch minted proof Morgans before, but I am unsure of the specific date/ mint mark.

[coinman_23885]

OK. So it looks like Legend sold an 1893-CC branch mint proof and not the 1883-O.

 

PCGS Coin Facts estimates a total mintage of 12, including the Eliasberg coin that sold in 1997 at Bowers and Merena. The Eliasberg coin reappeared in a PF67 CAM holder in April of 2013 at Heritage, here. Per that Heritage listing, it is believed that all of the proof coins are VAM 11. Coin Facts also reports another example that sold in August of 1996. Maybe you could PM Mark Feld and see if he knows how to access that information.

 

VAM 11 Diagnostics: http://www.vamworld.com/1883-O+VAM-11

 

 

Here are other examples, without images from Heritage. Again, perhaps Mr. Feld could help you:

 

http://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1883-o-pr-64-ngc-sold-in-last-year-s-ana-we-are-pleased-to-offer-this-important-branch-mint-proof-again-in-this-year-s-sal/a/163-8040.s

 

http://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1883-o-pr-64-ngc-sold-in-last-year-s-ana-we-are-pleased-to-offer-this-important-branch-mint-proof-again-in-this-year-s-sal/a/163-8040.s

 

Finally, there is also a specimen striking in a SP64 NGC holder that sold in August of 1995. According the article, it could not be definitively attributed as a proof in the 1980s, but Heritage still opined it as a proof striking. This is the first I have heard of a possible third class of 1883-O coins, but I would be sure to look at that too just to rule out the possibility. I still think your coin is a normal PL 83-O, but it never hurts to check. Interestingly, the coin was also pedigreed/traced back to B. Max Mehl at some point, so again, perhaps Mr. Feld could be of help there too.

 

http://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1884-o-specimen-ms-64-ngc-the-1884-o-is-listed-in-wayne-miller-s-reference-on-dollars-on-page-212-under-the-heading-other/a/139-7506.s

[wdrob]

Thanks for all the help Kenny.

 

Yes I have exhausted all those avenues save Mark Feld and there is no interest there on my part. If one were to click the link to my website page there are close up macro of the coins known diagnostics and even Miller had mentioned that the one definite example he looked at (definite ?) "with partial square rims on the reverse" so I am of the opinion that any of those BMP's are not going to exhibit some of the normal proof characteristics.

 

He did also say "The strike is very bold" -- yet he was also looking at one that had no bag marks or had not seen circulation or other extreme mishandling. When I look at detailed photos of this one it is not only the hair above the ear that is lacking but there is evidence of wear throughout the highest areas, more apparent on the obverse and the head/hair region.

 

There was, until a few days back, a larger picture of that coin on Heritage Auctions. I regrettably did not save the image and now it has seemingly disappeared (if it was even HA in the first place). The only photo left is a smaller, lower resolution photo which I have included over on my sight as a reference.

 

I have many photos of the subject coin and all in native resolution (high resolution 5 Mb +) and in many different angles and lighting conditions. Possibly I will contact Wayne Miller (just found he has a web site today and contact info) and send him a CD with all the High Resolution photos on it for him to view since this coin seems to have the diagnostics listed by him in that HA catalogue write up.

 

I appreciate the time you have taken Kenny. Very much!

 

 

*** I just noticed that link you had in your post was the sale I was looking for Kenny. Thank you. That is the image and coin I was referring to. Now I a can use that to better understand the items 1 and 4 in the diagnostics.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

...there are close up macro of the coins known diagnostics and even Miller had mentioned that the one definite example he looked at (definite ?) "with partial square rims on the reverse" so I am of the opinion that any of those BMP's are not going to exhibit some of the normal proof characteristics.

 

Now that is interesting. So I wonder if there really is any distinction in the "specimen" example that NGC graded and the branch mint proofs that have been graded and labeled as proofs.

[wdrob]

Well I think I know what is going on now. I think the earlier examination in 1995 when the description mentions:

 

Numerous diagnostics were recorded in 1995 when we studied the Anita Maxwell branch mint proofs, and this was subsequently published in the October 9 issue of Coin World. The most easily seen diagnostics are on the reverse, where several leaves seem to "float" on the lower left portion of the wreath, an effect caused by excessive die polishing. This vigorous die polishing gives the 1883-O proof dollars an appearance that is distinctly different from a Deep Mirror Prooflike business strike.

 

As I look at this one that is in PCGS plastic and a much larger image, I see proof all over it -- however, you might notice that the complete separation has not taken place on that coin of the olive leaves on the left 2nd, 3rd, and 4th clusters. There does not seem to be the "floating" effect that is described on the others and which my example exhibits.

 

Wayne Miller's description, I believe is that not of a Proof but a DMPL that was struck from the very same dies as the proof and in the early stages thereafter, so these other purported proofs, for example the one that was sold by HA for approximately $6k in 1978, may just be DPL's:

 

Herbert Bergen Collection (Coin Galleries, 1979). In that sale it was described as a gem prooflike rather than a gem proof. However, this had no effect on the price realized in that sale, as Julian Leidman bought the coin for $6,500 with Jim Halperin as the underbidder.

 

So essentially I am being confused by two entirely different coins and their descriptions.

 

This is interesting actually. I am getting closer to realizing when this piece was struck. I am starting to understand why I think it looks "odd".

 

 

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

A proof would be fully struck. Yours is not. Yours is not a proof.

[wdrob]

A proof would be fully struck. Yours is not. Yours is not a proof.

 

You make me laugh occasionally when you make a statement as if God himself had spoken, yet sometimes I have found that you may not have fully researched the particular issue in question and lump them in with what you have generally accepted as a proof on other series or year and mm.

 

I would not consider the coin listed at the end of this post to be a proof either however it was placed into a proof holder by our host. I will also point out that I have never claimed it was a proof. If you were to read ALL OF A THREAD FOR ONCE before responding you will see where I simply said that it looked odd and I could not pinpoint what it was about it.

 

My previous statement:

Yet the coin does not have the sharpness of a proof (and I am well aware that only 12 or so were struck that year), however I was able to find a picture of one of those proofs on HA and the rim and the details on that coin were not "razor sharp" in my opinion either.

 

However I do not expect you to respond again as it would seem you have a rather bad habit of performing "Hit and Run's" on threads that I am involved in. Never could quite figure the reasons for that other than what I outlined above; You are the Coin God and what you say is the final word and no more need be said.

 

Thank you Jason. I leave you with the above mentioned proof in a NGC proof Holder. Really Shard Details - huh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

A proof would be fully struck. Yours is not. Yours is not a proof.

 

You make me laugh occasionally when you make a statement as if God himself had spoken, yet sometimes I have found that you may not have fully researched the particular issue in question and lump them in with what you have generally accepted as a proof on other series or year and mm.

 

 

I never claimed to be a coin god or anything like that. I know more than some people; I don't know as much as some other people. I am here to teach and learn, and I try to do as much of both as often as possible.

 

You posted a coin and then started talking about proofs. I simply gave my opinion.

 

I simply said that it looked odd and I could not pinpoint what it was about it.

 

I don't see anything odd about the coin you posted. It looks like a semi-prooflike regular business strike. It looks perfectly normal from your pictures. That's why I had no idea what you were talking about with proofs and such.

 

My previous statement:

Yet the coin does not have the sharpness of a proof (and I am well aware that only 12 or so were struck that year), however I was able to find a picture of one of those proofs on HA and the rim and the details on that coin were not "razor sharp" in my opinion either.

 

Thank you Jason. I leave you with the above mentioned proof in a NGC proof Holder. Really Shard Details - huh?

 

 

I'm not convinced by that coin either. NGC certainly knows more than me, and they've seen it in hand. However, I'm usually highly skeptical of any so-called "Branch Mint Proofs." Most of them are legacys of Breen's imagination. Roger knows more, and I will defer to his experience in these matters.

 

However I do not expect you to respond again as it would seem you have a rather bad habit of performing "Hit and Run's" on threads that I am involved in. Never could quite figure the reasons for that other than what I outlined above; You are the Coin God and what you say is the final word and no more need be said.

 

When I see posts that require responses, I respond. When I feel like I can contribute something to a conversation, I post a comment. When I see a thread that I'm interested in, I respond. When I've already said all I feel that I need to say, I don't post. When I don't know something, I don't post. When I feel that posting further in a thread is going to be a waste of my time, I don't post any more. I'll let you decide which applies to each of your threads. I never claimed to be a coin god. I never claimed to know everything. Everything I post is my opinion; I have made that statement many, many times over. I don't feel the need to repeat that in every single post.

 

Sorry if you have problems with my posting habits.

 

I will not be posting again in this thread. I hope you have a good day.

 

[wdrob]

 

 

OK. Glad we got that settled.

 

Jason, I do not question your depth of knowledge for you have demonstrated many, many times (more than I can count) that you are one of the most knowledgeable Numismatists around here.

 

I am sure that you are exactly right in your opinion, however if you had read all the thread you would have seen that I was questioning the validity of other BMP's based on the diagnostics that they used in determining that the various other DMPL's were BMP's as well.

 

That is all. Nothing major. Enlarged photos on the the links provided would have given one a better understanding of why I said it looks odd along with comparison with other supposed BMP's.

 

Thank you for the response.

 

 

[wdrob]

 

Came back as a MS64+ PL

 

 

 

 

 

[Deniss2277]

Hi There Can you please look it to this coin ..I see you know more like the others..1883 o look to me like BM it's vam 11 have nitch on right wing. Seperetion clasters ..wide rim..thank you

Spoiler

 

 

[Deniss2277]

[Deniss2277]

[Deniss2277]

[Deniss2277]

[Deniss2277]

[Deniss2277]

[Deniss2277]