New Record Coin Price? Are Branch Mint Proofs Real?

I sell on ebay, and the idea of collecting offers is something that hadn't occurred to me before. I'll have to try it on some items...

Maybe PCGS and/or ANACS have already seen the coin and said "'We don't think it's a proof, have a nice day".

Chances are pretty good that this coin has been submitted several times over the years and most likely came back in MS plastic each time. (Don't get me wrong, it is a very nice coin.)

The owner eventually got the "proof" result he wanted with an NGC submission.

What changed? The coin sure didn't!

So this fact is determined at the whim of the creator. Does that go for all creators? Or just the big ones? If you privately commission proof coins from a mint yourself, like nohope did here with the CCF coins, what happens if you don't think the finished product is proof (like this coin) but they tell you it is, what then?

Sorry, but in my opinion, you can't base a fact on the opinion of random different people. There has to be a definition or it will always be open to interpretation.

PCGS hasn't certified a branch mint proof?

I asked my friend Mark about it and he thinks it's Proof. Gerry Fortrain has also examined it extensively and concluded the Obverse die used was unique and the reverse die is one known. Interesting, from Heritage photos I retract my call on the look of the coin, the rims and denticles are very pronounced, not really visible in the ebay photos.

Mark directed me to this video made a few years ago on this very coin. Mark is the senior cataloger at Heritage, and I respect his knowledge greatly. He's a friend and a scholar of numismatics extraordinaire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJsiPIfZ4KU

Here is the original Heritage Auction link from the 2016 Auction where it was hammered at $47,000

https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-seat...auction-info

There are a few MS67 examples in PCGS holders but I can't find any that sold recently, August 15th being the last one. MS66 in PCGS have sold in the $1800-$2400 range and PCGS price guide says $8500 for MS67. No 1891-O dimes have been certified above MS67 by either NGC or PCGS.

That data considered, someone still paid a hefty premium for this coin in 2016, but in 2014 it sold for an amazing $129,250 also through Heritage.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-seat...ction-120115

What I find stranger yet, both auction lots are accepting offers on the coin. Does that mean the original seller in 2014 sold and bought it back in 2016? Maybe they decided to put it up with no safety net, saw it selling really cheap and bought it back. That does happen in auctions, but usually a consignor will have a minimum sell price in place to prevent that from happening.

So do I think it's a Branch Mint Proof now?

I'm still leaning towards no but no with a very BIG maybe, I trust Mark's judgement and he has had this coin in hand several times for a length of time, and he thinks it most likely is a proof.

I wouldn't spend over a $100K to find out (if I could play at those levels). I certainly wouldn't go in at $10 million, but as Bobby said the current owner is just fishing for offers. Which absolutely makes sense from a business point, since the same owner is also accepting offers through the Heritage site as well.

Interesting coin, something I would not have looked at so closely with out this thread coming up, and possibly bypassed altogether if I didn't know this was a unique coin, so thank you for pushing me to educate myself on this piece. Spent some time re-reading various articles and books on branch mint proofs.

Sharkman, it is the lack of mint documentation that causes skepticism with this piece, and rightfully so. However, there are records from the mint that other denominations were struck as proofs that year at that mint. NGC would have been very thorough authenticating this piece, considering the guarantee implications.
The 1893-cc branch mint proof that I posted earlier came with both mint documentation and an extensive provenance that confirms what it really is.
From the auction description......
This is what is known as a "Class 1" Branch Mint Proof, a coin where there is official mint documentation of the occasion of striking; an honor shared by only the 1879-O, 1883-O, and 1921-S Zerbe. While no one knows for sure how many were struck, the estimate of a dozen goes back to the days of Wayte Raymond, when he theorized these were struck to commemorate the closing of the famed Carson City mint. Over the years, numismatic scholars have expanded on the diagnostics that identify these few 93-CC Branch Mint Proofs, including Wayne Miller who wrote in his 1982, The Morgan and Peace dollar Textbook, describing one of these Proofs: "Although some cameo contrast is evident especially on reverse, this coin is more brilliant than cameo Proof. The fields are deeply mirrored and the strike is very bold. The piece is an obvious Proof at first glance." Most known examples were struck from the VAM-2 die pair, whose diagnostics include traces of recutting on the right side of the 3 in the date, some short die cracks that connect six obverse stars on the left and 3 on the right. A key diagnostic is the downward-right tilt of the CC mintmark. The estimated mintage figure of 12 was repeated by Walter Breen, who enumerated four known examples. In the 2001 Stack's Catalog of the Vermeule Collection, the cataloger enumerated five: Amon Carter; Norweb; Eliasberg (called a "Deep mirror prooflike Gem, Possible Branch Mint Proof); King Farouk; and the Wayne Miller "1972 discovery" coin. Today, the total certified population (includes duplicate submissions, crossovers, etc) list 20 graded between PCGS and NGC in all grades and designations. We know, for a fact, over the years certain coins have been regraded, crossed over and perhaps their owners have yet to return the old inserts, making for a messy Population Report and Census data from the services. While the November 2001 Vermeule catalog does not list a previous pedigree, it is possible that like the FINEST KNOWN 1893-S Morgan dollar that immediately followed this coin, it was obtained directly from the mint, or from the person who did so. In the last decade, there have been four examples graded by PCGS and one NGC coin sold in auction: The Amon Carter coin, sold in our December 2014 auction, graded PCGS PR64 CAC (now a PR65); a PCGS PR64 CAM CAC that sold in August 2011; and this coin, which last sold in the 2012 ANA auction. The Greensboro coin, which was called a Branch Mint "Specimen" struck from a different set of dies (VAM-3, rather than VAM-2), graded SP65 by PCGS sold in the 2013 Central States auction. An NGC PR66 CAM also sold in July 2013.

As far as this coin I suspect that there is a difference of opinion by the TPGs and CAC for what it should be designated as. Lack of a CAC sticker doesn't mean they don't think it's a proof as I don't believe they've stickered any 1804 dollars, but not believing it's a proof could be the reason why it didn't sticker.

This is the type of coin in today's market that would greatly benefit from being crossed to PCGS and sent to CAC especially since you would then quell the doubt by being able to show they're in agreement. I suspect that it was tried and didn't cross but I have no knowledge of any attempt and that's just an opinion guess.

As far as mint records, they really can't be counted on as definitive for the majority of the countries existence, that's true for most if not all records really. Some have been lost or destroyed, others never made, others fabricated etc. there's numerous areas where reality and the records don't match up.

I learn towards the not a proof side but I've never seen it in hand and all you can do is go by the look of the coin for what the final conclusion is. Of course that complicates it as where does an MS DMPL become a proof and so on.

Now all that said this seller is using the coin in a smart way. It's clearly getting a ton of looks and you can bet some of those looks are being converted into sales on other items. Whether or not the coin ever sells or is bought back by NGC it will eventually pay for itself if it hasn't already from a marketing standpoint




Yes, if it's completely indistinguishable it then becomes real. It wouldn't be accurate to call them both fake because no one and no process can tell the difference.

To some of your other points is an error not an error because the mint didn't intend to create an error?