PCGS Authenticates a "Specimen" Morgan Dollar

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

They literally re-write the dictionary every year. Early 19th Websters is nearly unrecognizable now!

 

I'm looking at my 1977 edition (1st, perhaps, since it doesn't specify) of the ANA grading guide as well as the 7th edition. Both say that the pre-1817 coins with proof-like characteristics are sometimes called "specimen strikings." I don't see anything that exclusively applies the term to those coins. There's also no mention of the accuracy of applying that term in that case, either. I suspect there were many rather specious claims to coins being actual "specimen strikings" that are far older than the TPGs. The glossary in both editions I have omits the term, as well.

 

Morgans, Lincolns, and ?

 

Indians!

 

Regardless of the definition of the word
" Specimen" , the pictured coin is definitely
a beautiful coin. Amazing that it survived all
these years. The previous owners must have
known that it is special. I just hope that it
remains in the holder and does not suffer the
same fate as the "1893-S" or the collection
of King Farouk.

From the pictures my opinion is that this coin
is as close to being a Proof coin as one can get.
The only thing holding it back is the lack of
squared rim.

 

I couldn't agree more. A different term should have been used to define those "special" coins minted after 1816. That said, any collector buying a specimen labeled coin dated after 1816 should realize that it is different from those minted from the earlier period. The english language is full of words with more than one meaning.

 

Alls i know is this coin doesn't come much better

 

I imagine it comes from the PCGS grading standards. If so, then you really can't argue that a grading service you say changes with the wind with regard to this term can have their definition used as the standard. They could have just as easily included other coins made at Philadelphia and branch mints with the same characteristics, but it would have become a far more complex explanation to put in a glossary, as they would have to be differentiated from proof-like business strikes. Even so, I don't see any exclusivity in their definition.

Ignoring coinage made after 1967 (i.e., modern gimmick finishes) for the moment, we can look at what's a proof coin and what's not:

Proof: Specially prepared dies, polished planchets, authorized to be produced as collector coins separate from those produced for commerce, produced on a special press (which could be a medal press, or a differently tuned production press).

Normal business strike: None of the above proof characteristics.

This leaves 14 different combinations of die, planchet, press, and administrative preparation that fall in between, regardless if they were made before or after 1817 (28 if you include that date). What should each be called? Should there be a separate term in each case? Some should be, and are lumped in with normal business strikes, such as when a spent proof die is used for general production. For the other 13, it would be a nightmare to keep each term straight, and it makes more sense to realize that if at some time "specimen" was exclusively reserved for the early proof-like special strikings, it was a short-sighted, and insufficient definition.

 

This is a good discussion.

 

No, they don't. The PCGS definition says it's used on those coins, but not to the exclusion of others. The ANA definition is even more open-ended, citing a common use for the word.

Because it's an inadequate definition of the word, as I have said and demonstrated.

I wish to have terms that represent all coinage, and if research reveals that terms and definitions are inadequate, they must be refined. SMS, ceremonial strike, and presentation piece merely represent the context of the manufacture of coins, and don't provide information as to method of manufacture. If you look at the four traits I outline above, those coins fall somewhere between business strike and proof coins.

Not true. Terms can, do, and must evolve to become more useful.

If the mint started producing reflective collector coins using an open collar on a screw press and methods that are not consistent with being a strictly proof coin, would you need to come up with a new word for this because of strict adherence to 1817 in your interpretation of the definition of specimen? If so, you would probably be nearly alone in using this term. If not, then the 1817 cutoff date becomes meaningless.

Perhaps, but it would appear they got it right. They had previously graded this coin MS65PL or MS65DMPL. It is by far the finest known of the die pair, and an obviously special coin. The thing I think they screwed up was the context in which it was made. I've been told more information in confidence by a respected numismatist who will be releasing it soon that will make this coin even more interesting.

 

I interpret the definitions differently. In the period ending in 1817, a Specimen has a particular definition. Outside that period, it was a term not yet defined.

Since this is possibly a specially struck piece that was presented to a dignitary, it certainly sounds like the term is exact and should be extended to this special coin. I’m happy they did, to the extent of what I gleaned from the press release.

 

Interesting. I thought it was Buffalo nickles but Indian cents makes sense too

 

Doug, I don't really know how to define Specimen. That's one of the reasons I wanted to have this conversation.

If you don't consider anything after 1817 to be a specimen strike, then what would you call something specially struck between 1817 and 1964? There were special strikings that weren't proofs and weren't business strikes - they were somewhere in between. Presentation strikes? Or some other term?

My biggest problem with the current Morgan under discussion is that the coin just appeared, looks really nice, and they call it a specimen. To me, a Specimen should be well documented and with some evidence that it was a special strike, beyond "it just looks unusually nice." The same applies to pre-1817 coins, such as that nonsense so-called specimen 1794 dollar.

 

This is similar to the 1922 Grant Centennial Half dollar that NGC certified Specimen 65 in 2004. The coin had not been previously reported.

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/197/