1881-O Class III Branch Mint Proof - Does it Exist?

I'm aware of its' existence, but very little else.

Just for audience clarity, a "Class III" coin is one believed to be a proof, as it demonstrates the sharp, square rims, frosted surfaces and mirror finish of a true Proof. A "Class II" is a known Proof of unauthorized mintage, and a "Class I" Proof is authorized.

Zee, Thank you for the concise, informative, educational comments.......To keep things clear, the planchets were the responsibility of the branch mints, however the dies were only made, then, in Philly, correct? This would also leave the re-polishing of the dies to the branch mints also. Not Philly.

My answer would be (as I stated earlier) that this would depend upon your definition of BMP.



Correct, and DMPL is what I feel many folks misidentify as BMP.... they are one and the same animal.



Correct.



The term "fresh dies" (to me) has nothing to do with gouges or pitting, but rather a recent state of polishing or basining..... Many dies, but not all, were highly polished prior to initial use.



Again, your definition of "defective" would come into play..... many dies exhibit features that are less than the optimal level of mint desirability...... The degree of these defects constitute collector desirability.



Many times, certain features on a coin are not die specific, but rather press oriented..... I really don't see anything 'cautious' about considering that a "fresh" die might be in any state of "deterioration".



Very common stuff..... There are many dies of this common year that are so similar as to be indistinguishable from the next die.



I'm not impressed with the opinions and claims of dealers.



Sounds as if you have already bought it.... You might proceed by posting pictures to get comments of those who might give you honest answers and opinions.

Let me say this one thing in closing...... The terms PL and DMPL are degrees of sensationalism attached to specific coins due to their level of clean shiny fields and frosty devices, and I consider both terms to be misnomers.... 'Strike' is an integral factor in a proof coin, eclipsing the mere degree of reflectivity a coin might display.

Objectivity quickly blends into subjectivity in determination of Proof, DMPL, PL, and non PL..... experience will be your best guide.... short of that, get the unbiased opinions of the Morgan folks here (rather than the claims of a dealer whose interest lies in selling you the coin).

The guy that gave it the eye test is a very well respected dealer in Irvine CA and was referred to me by a PCGS rep in Newport beach, CA.

I didnt buy it... my Grandmother gave it to me... here's a few pics I took a while ago in my back yard with my LG Env Touch, no tricks... Not too revealing and it's meant to be that way... This coin IMO needs someone skilled in the ways of conservation so it may take its rightful place among the 81-O's. It needs a light "non proof field altering" dip that will remove what I think is PVC or oxidation from the album it was in.. Nt sure.

Anyone serious about taking a look at it can stop by any time in Corona Del Mar. Tell me what we could do and if it sounds good ill cut you in or maybe I'll just keep it.

Thank You for the remarks and your good memory...

a few more pics for you guys... ear doubling, and rust patches between eagles right facing talons and feathers and shoulder neck. The rust might not be too evident due to scan but in person it is evident. Not sure if its a good or bad thing but it's there...

Wow... Alladin. I'm not sure which is worse. Your spelling or your disposition.

Your reply, which was so eloquently put together, procreates how very, very intelligent you are. For some reason you seem threatened by what I am trying to accomplish, for if you truly believed in what you say, you would not need to waste your time telling me what you think. Right? Or are you trying to look cool in front of your friends?

Have you EVER seen THE 1884-O Class III BMP? (yes there is an 1884-O as well)

Can you tell me how many times a class III BMP is struck?

As for the Big Show... and the people I was introduced to, they had far less knowledge about BMP's than I had hoped. Before some people even look at the coin they have decided it couldn't be...

When I presented them with the coin, referred it's BMP characteristics, they passed me off to some guy who was supposedly THE foremeost expert on BMP's who then pointed me towards the 1879-O's (which are a class I and were authorized as proofs with plenty of documentation) and told me that my coin should look like them. Then the real kicker, he asked me if I had any paperwork or documentation supporting my claim and if I didn't I should do some research and find some.

There were some actual open minded people there, who did find the coin especially unique... unfortunately they didn't know the secret hand-jerk to get he go-ahead from the powers that be.

HOW BOUT THEM APPLES?

Is there a BETTER WAY TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE?

Sometimes some of us blend beer or wine with our online activities JD.... please don't take these instances personally.

As for the filler between the denticles.....

The space between the denticles actually is the die face..... it actually is the field...... when the die impacts the planchet, a the die field receives a certain amount of wear....... this wear is often more pronounced where the die field is at its narrowest (weakest), and at the device drop offs..... this is why the very small devices such as the lettering of 'In God We Trust' are sometimes broken on the die and appear on the coin as a fill.... this is also why the wear to the field between the denticles appears as though there is metal dust or metal overflow between the denticles.

A newly polished die will not only transfer as a cleaner, brighter coin field, but will square the die's device drop offs of the field to give the die a sharper imprint in the planchet.

The 'filler' between the denticles is not really a build up of anything, but actually a breakdown or wear down of the die field.... the die field is the relief (or highest portion of the die), while the devices (denticles, stars, lettering, eagle, wreath, Liberty head, etc), are depressions in the die field.

Beautiful DMPL reflectivity (such as your coin exhibits), is the product of highly polished dies and planchets, and I have little doubt that this was no accident..... Routine coin production would not warrant such a high degree of beauty, but die polishing was the responsibility of individuals, and some folks surely went overboard while others only did the job halfway.

I think that I mentioned before that dies were basined prior to initial use with polishing plates, and the main reason for this was to achieve the the proper radius (convex curvature) to the die, but side effects were smoothing and polishing of the die field, and sharpening of its device drop offs.

Proof coins are created using highly polished dies, properly annealed and highly polished planchets.....The New Orleans mint had neither the medal press to strike proofs, or the annealing capabilities to soften complete planchet production thereby resulting in hard planchets appearing as weak strikes.... Polishing planchets to a higher state required extra time in the riddler, annealing the planchets required extra time in the oven, and time is one thing that the N.O. mint didn't have to spare.... the mint was not created to match production levels dictated by the Philadelphia mint.

I believe that yours may have been a coin that was struck with the intent of being as proof like as possible... possibly a presentation piece..... It was struck only once though, despite the illusion caused by what I believe to be metal displacement in the dentilces.