Is there much of a difference whether your coin is considered a PR or SP?
Not to me- just curious really- and it has been confirmed that if crossed to a CACG holder it would carry a PR designation.
It is not the difference between the MS and PR. Would the SP have been more accurate?
That’s above my pay grade because I have only seen a handful of these HRs, but it clearly looks quite different from the MS examples I’ve seen, and NGC previously holdered this coin as a PR68.
Is there much of a difference whether your coin is considered a PR or SP?
Not to me- just curious really- and it has been confirmed that if crossed to a CACG holder it would carry a PR designation.
It is not the difference between the MS and PR. Would the SP have been more accurate?
I believe the SP is the most accurate designation for something like this.
All HR's were struck in the same way - they received 3 blows from a medal press with annealing in-between strikes. By all means, this characterizes all HR's as proofs, but we preclude that because they were meant to circulate. It's an all or nothing designation - if one is PR, they all are.
However, with a coin like this where it seems special care may have been taken to preserve an early strike of the HR dies for some purpose (perhaps presentation) then SP may be warranted. I cannot be sure of the Mint's intention when they struck this particular coin.
Is there much of a difference whether your coin is considered a PR or SP?
Not to me- just curious really- and it has been confirmed that if crossed to a CACG holder it would carry a PR designation.
It is not the difference between the MS and PR. Would the SP have been more accurate?
I believe the SP is the most accurate designation for something like this.
All HR's were struck in the same way - they received 3 blows from a medal press with annealing in-between strikes. By all means, this characterizes all HR's as proofs, but we preclude that because they were meant to circulate. It's an all or nothing designation - if one is PR, they all are.
However, with a coin like this where it seems special care may have been taken to preserve an early strike of the HR dies for some purpose (perhaps presentation) then SP may be warranted. I cannot be sure of the Mint's intention when they struck this particular coin.
Very good observation.
Many of my 1942 1 cent patterns, whether J-2054 or J-2060, have been graded by PCGS and NGC as either or both PR or MS over the years depending on the day of the week. Mass confusion as they could not agree on whether such patterns were PR or MS as they were experimental strikes either at the Philly Mint in the case of the zinc plated steel J-2054 patterns or by outside vendors in the case of the brown phenol plastic molded patterns in the case of the J-2060 patrerns. When NGC and later, PCGS agreed to a SP designation that seemed the wisest solution to mass confusion.
Same with the 1856 FE cent? Perhaps the early version of the 1856 FE cent should be a SP, not a proof?
Is there much of a difference whether your coin is considered a PR or SP?
Not to me- just curious really- and it has been confirmed that if crossed to a CACG holder it would carry a PR designation.
It is not the difference between the MS and PR. Would the SP have been more accurate?
I believe the SP is the most accurate designation for something like this.
All HR's were struck in the same way - they received 3 blows from a medal press with annealing in-between strikes. By all means, this characterizes all HR's as proofs, but we preclude that because they were meant to circulate. It's an all or nothing designation - if one is PR, they all are.
However, with a coin like this where it seems special care may have been taken to preserve an early strike of the HR dies for some purpose (perhaps presentation) then SP may be warranted. I cannot be sure of the Mint's intention when they struck this particular coin.
Very good observation.
Many of my 1942 1 cent patterns, whether J-2054 or J-2060, have been graded by PCGS and NGC as either or both PR or MS over the years depending on the day of the week. Mass confusion as they could not agree on whether such patterns were PR or MS as they were experimental strikes either at the Philly Mint in the case of the zinc plated steel J-2054 patterns or by outside vendors in the case of the brown phenol plastic molded patterns in the case of the J-2060 patrerns. When NGC and later, PCGS agreed to a SP designation that seemed the wisest solution to mass confusion.
Same with the 1856 FE cent? Perhaps the early version of the 1856 FE cent should be a SP, not a proof?
It's tough for patterns. Ultimately it comes down to whether or not the coin was struck by a medal press.
Experimental pieces on a toggle press are MS. If they're done on a medal press, they're PR.
For the plastic and glass patterns, well throw an SP on them and call it good. They're really neither MS or PR.
I have no idea for the 1856 cent - I haven't done much research on them. If they're from toggle presses, then MS. If they're medal press products, PR.
Is there much of a difference whether your coin is considered a PR or SP?
Not to me- just curious really- and it has been confirmed that if crossed to a CACG holder it would carry a PR designation.
It is not the difference between the MS and PR. Would the SP have been more accurate?
I believe the SP is the most accurate designation for something like this.
All HR's were struck in the same way - they received 3 blows from a medal press with annealing in-between strikes. By all means, this characterizes all HR's as proofs, but we preclude that because they were meant to circulate. It's an all or nothing designation - if one is PR, they all are.
However, with a coin like this where it seems special care may have been taken to preserve an early strike of the HR dies for some purpose (perhaps presentation) then SP may be warranted. I cannot be sure of the Mint's intention when they struck this particular coin.
Very good observation.
Many of my 1942 1 cent patterns, whether J-2054 or J-2060, have been graded by PCGS and NGC as either or both PR or MS over the years depending on the day of the week. Mass confusion as they could not agree on whether such patterns were PR or MS as they were experimental strikes either at the Philly Mint in the case of the zinc plated steel J-2054 patterns or by outside vendors in the case of the brown phenol plastic molded patterns in the case of the J-2060 patrerns. When NGC and later, PCGS agreed to a SP designation that seemed the wisest solution to mass confusion.
Same with the 1856 FE cent? Perhaps the early version of the 1856 FE cent should be a SP, not a proof?
It's tough for patterns. Ultimately it comes down to whether or not the coin was struck by a medal press.
Experimental pieces on a toggle press are MS. If they're done on a medal press, they're PR.
For the plastic and glass patterns, well throw an SP on them and call it good. They're really neither MS or PR.
I have no idea for the 1856 cent - I haven't done much research on them. If they're from toggle presses, then MS. If they're medal press products, PR.
I did not know that. Did toggle press existed in the 18th century when they determined early Federal coinage to be SP?
For that matter I do not even know what a toggle press is. LOL
After seeing all the lovely examples posted here, I just had to add one to my collection! Bass coin Specimen designation (one of only three designated as such by PCGS and the only one with CAC approval) My question for the forum- will CACG call this a proof or a specimen?
Very nice and photogenic looking coin you got. Did you get it from Legend? If so I would not be surprised as Laura and George have great eyes for their discriminating clients.
Is there much of a difference whether your coin is considered a PR or SP?
Not to me- just curious really- and it has been confirmed that if crossed to a CACG holder it would carry a PR designation.
It is not the difference between the MS and PR. Would the SP have been more accurate?
I believe the SP is the most accurate designation for something like this.
All HR's were struck in the same way - they received 3 blows from a medal press with annealing in-between strikes. By all means, this characterizes all HR's as proofs, but we preclude that because they were meant to circulate. It's an all or nothing designation - if one is PR, they all are.
However, with a coin like this where it seems special care may have been taken to preserve an early strike of the HR dies for some purpose (perhaps presentation) then SP may be warranted. I cannot be sure of the Mint's intention when they struck this particular coin.
Very good observation.
Many of my 1942 1 cent patterns, whether J-2054 or J-2060, have been graded by PCGS and NGC as either or both PR or MS over the years depending on the day of the week. Mass confusion as they could not agree on whether such patterns were PR or MS as they were experimental strikes either at the Philly Mint in the case of the zinc plated steel J-2054 patterns or by outside vendors in the case of the brown phenol plastic molded patterns in the case of the J-2060 patrerns. When NGC and later, PCGS agreed to a SP designation that seemed the wisest solution to mass confusion.
Same with the 1856 FE cent? Perhaps the early version of the 1856 FE cent should be a SP, not a proof?
It's tough for patterns. Ultimately it comes down to whether or not the coin was struck by a medal press.
Experimental pieces on a toggle press are MS. If they're done on a medal press, they're PR.
For the plastic and glass patterns, well throw an SP on them and call it good. They're really neither MS or PR.
I have no idea for the 1856 cent - I haven't done much research on them. If they're from toggle presses, then MS. If they're medal press products, PR.
I did not know that. Did toggle press existed in the 18th century when they determined early Federal coinage to be SP?
For that matter I do not even know what a toggle press is. LOL
Toggle presses are the standard presses the mint used starting in the mid 1830s I believe. Screw presses were used before that for everything from MS to PR coinage, which makes telling those two apart for early coinage incredibly difficult.
In 1907, toggle presses are basically the same design as the very famous coin press #1 from Carson City (if not exactly the same). Medal presses were operated by hydraulics at high pressures and slow speeds and yielded very different results.
Toggle press:
Update: up until about 1894 the proofs were struck on screw presses. The difference between MS and PR coins would then be the toggle vs. screw press for coins before 1894, and toggle vs. medal/hydraulic press after 1894.
After seeing all the lovely examples posted here, I just had to add one to my collection! Bass coin Specimen designation (one of only three designated as such by PCGS and the only one with CAC approval) My question for the forum- will CACG call this a proof or a specimen?
Very nice and photogenic looking coin you got. Did you get it from Legend? If so I would not be surprised as Laura and George have great eyes for their discriminating clients.
I have purchased coins from Laura but not this one!
Is there much of a difference whether your coin is considered a PR or SP?
Not to me- just curious really- and it has been confirmed that if crossed to a CACG holder it would carry a PR designation.
It is not the difference between the MS and PR. Would the SP have been more accurate?
I believe the SP is the most accurate designation for something like this.
All HR's were struck in the same way - they received 3 blows from a medal press with annealing in-between strikes. By all means, this characterizes all HR's as proofs, but we preclude that because they were meant to circulate. It's an all or nothing designation - if one is PR, they all are.
However, with a coin like this where it seems special care may have been taken to preserve an early strike of the HR dies for some purpose (perhaps presentation) then SP may be warranted. I cannot be sure of the Mint's intention when they struck this particular coin.
You left out a key ingredient, The planchets are specially prepared for Proofs.
I always like to know the history of my coins and thanks to FlyingAl for chasing down some of the history- the link below is the Heritage auction description when the coin sold as an NGC PR68*
“This coin's proof pedigree traces back to the legendary Captain Andrew North Saint-Gaudens gold set, which, according to the research of Burdette, possibly originated from the personal collection of Chief Engraver, Charles Edward Barber. The set has been heralded as "the rarest set of gold coins in the world," and won the blue ribbon for "Excellency of Exhibit" when it was displayed by Stack's at the 1956 ANA convention in Chicago. It consisted of seven double eagles, including two Ultra High Reliefs, and four eagles, all in simply remarkable condition and encased in a custom-made leather box. The set remained intact, housed in private collections, until NERCG purchased it in April 1980 for $1 million and distributed the pieces to various collectors. The High Relief Wire Edge proof, as well as its proof Flat Edge counterpart, was purchased from NERCG by Harry W. Bass, Jr. at the New York Metropolitan coin show that same month, and remained in that famous collection until Bowers and Merena auctioned it in November 2000.”
Is there much of a difference whether your coin is considered a PR or SP?
Not to me- just curious really- and it has been confirmed that if crossed to a CACG holder it would carry a PR designation.
It is not the difference between the MS and PR. Would the SP have been more accurate?
I believe the SP is the most accurate designation for something like this.
All HR's were struck in the same way - they received 3 blows from a medal press with annealing in-between strikes. By all means, this characterizes all HR's as proofs, but we preclude that because they were meant to circulate. It's an all or nothing designation - if one is PR, they all are.
However, with a coin like this where it seems special care may have been taken to preserve an early strike of the HR dies for some purpose (perhaps presentation) then SP may be warranted. I cannot be sure of the Mint's intention when they struck this particular coin.
You left out a key ingredient, The planchets are specially prepared for Proofs.
I think the extra annealing between blows will count for that.
Is there much of a difference whether your coin is considered a PR or SP?
Not to me- just curious really- and it has been confirmed that if crossed to a CACG holder it would carry a PR designation.
It is not the difference between the MS and PR. Would the SP have been more accurate?
I believe the SP is the most accurate designation for something like this.
All HR's were struck in the same way - they received 3 blows from a medal press with annealing in-between strikes. By all means, this characterizes all HR's as proofs, but we preclude that because they were meant to circulate. It's an all or nothing designation - if one is PR, they all are.
However, with a coin like this where it seems special care may have been taken to preserve an early strike of the HR dies for some purpose (perhaps presentation) then SP may be warranted. I cannot be sure of the Mint's intention when they struck this particular coin.
You left out a key ingredient, The planchets are specially prepared for Proofs.
I think the extra annealing between blows will count for that.
What about the special treatment the dies receive?
Is there much of a difference whether your coin is considered a PR or SP?
Not to me- just curious really- and it has been confirmed that if crossed to a CACG holder it would carry a PR designation.
It is not the difference between the MS and PR. Would the SP have been more accurate?
I believe the SP is the most accurate designation for something like this.
All HR's were struck in the same way - they received 3 blows from a medal press with annealing in-between strikes. By all means, this characterizes all HR's as proofs, but we preclude that because they were meant to circulate. It's an all or nothing designation - if one is PR, they all are.
However, with a coin like this where it seems special care may have been taken to preserve an early strike of the HR dies for some purpose (perhaps presentation) then SP may be warranted. I cannot be sure of the Mint's intention when they struck this particular coin.
You left out a key ingredient, The planchets are specially prepared for Proofs.
I think the extra annealing between blows will count for that.
What about the special treatment the dies receive?
Satin Proof dies never received any extra treatment.
Comments
I believe the SP is the most accurate designation for something like this.
All HR's were struck in the same way - they received 3 blows from a medal press with annealing in-between strikes. By all means, this characterizes all HR's as proofs, but we preclude that because they were meant to circulate. It's an all or nothing designation - if one is PR, they all are.
However, with a coin like this where it seems special care may have been taken to preserve an early strike of the HR dies for some purpose (perhaps presentation) then SP may be warranted. I cannot be sure of the Mint's intention when they struck this particular coin.
All HR's were struck in the same way - they received 3 blows from a medal press with annealing in-between strikes. By all means, this characterizes all HR's as proofs, but we preclude that because they were meant to circulate. It's an all or nothing designation - if one is PR, they all are.
However, with a coin like this where it seems special care may have been taken to preserve an early strike of the HR dies for some purpose (perhaps presentation) then SP may be warranted. I cannot be sure of the Mint's intention when they struck this particular coin.
Very good observation.
Many of my 1942 1 cent patterns, whether J-2054 or J-2060, have been graded by PCGS and NGC as either or both PR or MS over the years depending on the day of the week. Mass confusion as they could not agree on whether such patterns were PR or MS as they were experimental strikes either at the Philly Mint in the case of the zinc plated steel J-2054 patterns or by outside vendors in the case of the brown phenol plastic molded patterns in the case of the J-2060 patrerns.
When NGC and later, PCGS agreed to a SP designation that seemed the wisest solution to mass confusion.
Same with the 1856 FE cent? Perhaps the early version of the 1856 FE cent should be a SP, not a proof?
Many of my 1942 1 cent patterns, whether J-2054 or J-2060, have been graded by PCGS and NGC as either or both PR or MS over the years depending on the day of the week. Mass confusion as they could not agree on whether such patterns were PR or MS as they were experimental strikes either at the Philly Mint in the case of the zinc plated steel J-2054 patterns or by outside vendors in the case of the brown phenol plastic molded patterns in the case of the J-2060 patrerns.
When NGC and later, PCGS agreed to a SP designation that seemed the wisest solution to mass confusion.
Same with the 1856 FE cent? Perhaps the early version of the 1856 FE cent should be a SP, not a proof?
It's tough for patterns. Ultimately it comes down to whether or not the coin was struck by a medal press.
Experimental pieces on a toggle press are MS. If they're done on a medal press, they're PR.
For the plastic and glass patterns, well throw an SP on them and call it good. They're really neither MS or PR.
I have no idea for the 1856 cent - I haven't done much research on them. If they're from toggle presses, then MS. If they're medal press products, PR.
Experimental pieces on a toggle press are MS. If they're done on a medal press, they're PR.
For the plastic and glass patterns, well throw an SP on them and call it good. They're really neither MS or PR.
I have no idea for the 1856 cent - I haven't done much research on them. If they're from toggle presses, then MS. If they're medal press products, PR.
I did not know that. Did toggle press existed in the 18th century when they determined early Federal coinage to be SP?
For that matter I do not even know what a toggle press is. LOL
For that matter I do not even know what a toggle press is. LOL
Toggle presses are the standard presses the mint used starting in the mid 1830s I believe. Screw presses were used before that for everything from MS to PR coinage, which makes telling those two apart for early coinage incredibly difficult.
In 1907, toggle presses are basically the same design as the very famous coin press #1 from Carson City (if not exactly the same). Medal presses were operated by hydraulics at high pressures and slow speeds and yielded very different results.
Toggle press:
Update: up until about 1894 the proofs were struck on screw presses. The difference between MS and PR coins would then be the toggle vs. screw press for coins before 1894, and toggle vs. medal/hydraulic press after 1894.
All HR's were struck in the same way - they received 3 blows from a medal press with annealing in-between strikes. By all means, this characterizes all HR's as proofs, but we preclude that because they were meant to circulate. It's an all or nothing designation - if one is PR, they all are.
However, with a coin like this where it seems special care may have been taken to preserve an early strike of the HR dies for some purpose (perhaps presentation) then SP may be warranted. I cannot be sure of the Mint's intention when they struck this particular coin.
You left out a key ingredient, The planchets are specially prepared for Proofs.