PCGS Authenticates a "Specimen" Morgan Dollar

Sounds like an early strike from fresh dies. What makes it a so-called "specimen?"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

From reading the article that's what it sounds like, one of the first coins struck from the brand new die.

 

I have no dog in this fight, but if someone insisited I not call it a Specimen, I'd call it an Experimental Strike, since the mint was likely testing it out before going "all in," putting the dies into full service.

 

The term "Experimental Strike" attempts to establish the context of the coin's striking, not the coin itself. This context could just as easily be a "ceremonial strike" or "presentation piece."

Last night I put together a spreadsheet of the 16 different combinations of die preparation, planchet preparation, authorization, and production I mentioned earlier and tried to fill it in with examples and what to call them (proof, business strike, specimen). Only one is proof, because the table was based on defining what a proof coin was. Several are business strikes, including die adjustment pieces (normal dies, normal planchet, no special authorization, special non-standard production), which could be in the context of "experimental strike." A few combinations make no sense, and several fall into the "specimen" gray area. I sent the table to John Dannreuther for comment, because I filled it with questions and assumptions that he'll be able to correct and answer in his sleep. I'll post what I get from him.

 

The problem with the term specimen is that it's already a non-numismatic word with a clear definition - "an example of something such as a product or piece of work, regarded as typical of its class or group". To then say that specimen coins only exist within a certain time period seems arbitrary.

To me, a specimen is a coin specially produced for limited distribution to serve as an example of a coin prior to its official production. A specimen can be a proof, it can also be a pattern. The intent of a specimen is informal, unlike with a presentation piece.

For example, the Hungarian 1867B 10 Krajczár was a pattern, but special examples were struck to give to all the members of Parliament prior to the coin being produced. The design was slightly changed and the mint mark was also changed for the business strike produced in 1868. This coin is a pattern specimen. Likewise, examples of the 1868KB 4 Krajczár were also produced as specimens, in-between production of the patterns and the business strikes, which are much closer to the business strikes (minor die differences) than to the pattern dies. They are neither patterns nor proofs, and are not official business strikes either. What term would you call them, Doug, if not specimens?

 

Great informative discussions for all sides. Thank you all for that.

Could the term “specimen-like” be used for the simplest terms?

Or Just create another symbol much like the star with NGC to designate almost cameo or great eye appeal. But used for coins “on another playing field.” Maybe use an exclamation point rather than a star after the grade.

MS-68 !

 

Link to the thread on the PCGS forum: https://forums.collectors.com/discu...ifies-1st-known-1878-s-specimen-morgan-dollar

 

At one time, Kevin Flynn, the author of several
books, was in the process of writing a book on
early proofs and specimen strikes (pre 1857).
He might be able to shed some light here.
Regarding the 1878-S, it might have been a
special strike for a friend or visiting dignitary.
Some events were not written about in the local
press.

 

Well, "to me" in that I primarily deal in Austro-Hungarian material and as that is how the term is used numismatically to describe those coins, it is what I am used to. My examples above were rhetorical - they are both considered to be specimens.

I'm not sure about the rest of the world markets, but my educated guess is that they are very similar to Austro-Hungarian as I've seen a fair amount of world specimens. Defending a narrow US definition of specimen because that's the way it's been done, is a tenuous position. Clearly the TPGs do not agree with you.

 

Agreed. Those are clearly not specimens. Like you said; a marketing gimmick. However, you lose me at the Morgan. It seems perfectly reasonable to refer to that as a specimen.

 

Think of it as an exception. They need a term to describe the coin. They can't just put "cool coin, bro" on the label. What would you have them call it?

 

In the case of the SMS coins, the manufacturing process is not that of proofs, neither is it that of normal business strikes. The mint stopped making proof coins and started making coins that bore much in common with the pre-1817 specimen coins, even though they weren't made on a screw press.

The SP designation, rather than MS, indicates that it is not graded the same way as a business strike, which is an important distinction to make, as those who collect clad coinage surely know. If you don't like saying "specimen," then say "special strike," which also starts with SP.

But if we're being bound to a term that you say has been cast in stone forever, why do we call proof coins made before 1854 proofs, when the mint itself didn't use the term until then? Why don't we have the term "master coin" anymore? Why are patterns considered to be coins of experimental design, composition, and/or manufacture when the mint once used the term for what we now call proofs?

 

I think that part of the problem we are having with your argument is that you aren't giving us an alternative. There are clearly coins which exist in a special category, and we have a perfectly acceptable name for them - but you don't like that name. If you can't come up with something else to call them, we'll keep calling them what we've been calling them. Other than that, we're just going around in circles now, and aren't going to get anywhere.

And I think we can all agree that the SMS are not really "specimens", even if they are "special."

 

The term first strike comes to mind.