Mysterious 1946 Dollar. Mint State Or Specimen?

to the CCF!

I agree with smallcentguy. The ROI could be huge.

I'm on the fence as far as SP vs MS.
Looks MS in the last pic yet the certificate calls it Proof.
Hopefully dollarman will give his opinion.

I've been discussing this one with the poster for a while now..

Initially I was on the fence, and at one point called it a really nice mint state, but upon comparing it to images of other coins, I'm leaning heavily towards specimen.

1946 specimen dollars are a tricky animal, many of them come with a less proof-y finish than other years.. The Pittman sale mentions this exact problem a couple times.

There are one or two specimens in the Pittman sale described like this, as having a satiny nearly unc look..thede Pittman examples likely originated from a mint employee named Maurice Lafortune, so there would be no doubt as to their strike type.

When I last looked through Heritage archives, I came across several uncirculated coins with proof like qualities, as well as several specimens.. the coin posted here matches with the specimens much better than it does with the mint state coins I saw.


The coin posted here has a very interesting finish to the fields..very deep in reflectivity and a hammered appearance in the detail. The canoe detail is also impeccable. On top of this, The rims are quite thick and well struck.. what seals the deal for me here though, is the pattern of die burn on the king is virtually identical to most known specimen strikes for this issue, as well as other issues in the specimen dollar series. Less lustrous 1946 circulation strike dollars appear to have good cameo and more mirrored fields than the posted coin.. But lack specimen characteristics, they also tend to have less die burn than specimens.

I'll also note the pebbled texture of the fields is similar to a 1946 specimen dollar I once owned, which was off of different dies, but had a similar overall look, but perhaps was a bit more reflective.

Luckily I've been able to see videos of this coin, It has some minor hairlines on the reverse, as well as some minor disturbances in the field on the obverse.. with that said, it lacks any high point friction or bag marks, or rim dings...all of which you'd expect on a circulation strike, even in 64.

The quality of the coin's preservation reminds me of a specimen that likely spent time in an original mint case with the rest of the set, and acquired a touch of contact and some hairlines from other pieces in the set shifting around once or twice. This would also explain the fingerprint on the reverse, as the coin was probably dipped in its lifetime with the fingerprint being left after the toning from the specimen box was removed.

Whoever owned the coin back in the day with that certificate probably also had much better insight to its origins, so I trust the specimen Attribution.


For this coin to be a circulation strike, look like that, and have virtually no contact associated with the type of storage and handling a circulation strike would get..just feels too unlikely to me.

IMHO, specimen. Caveat, photos are sometimes not accurate indicators.

I am leaning towards a superb Early mint state business strike .
There is a real possibility that the piece WAS struck from a
Refurbished obverse specimen die. The reverse appears to have a
very minor weak strike issue at the centre of the Canoe .
The pebble like surface (coin #2) does show up on 1946 Dollars fairly often.
Years ago a prominent Canadian Dealer had two 1946 Dollars
graded as MS64 in old 2 Letter ICCS Holders . They were very similar
in appearance to the OP coin .
A theory that might be plausible , the above coin was struck and caught
by hand , thus the minimal amount of marks.
Back in the day it was not unheard of to let a visitor or dignitary to the
RCM to hand strike and catch a coin that was then either presented or
purchased .
That said , sure is a beautiful 1946 Dollar in this post!

Some alternative shots: