According to NGC, one of the proof diagnostics for the 1892 Columbian half dollar is a double parallel line behind Columbus's neck (I believe they're die polish marks). However, that same diagnostic was found on an 1892 business strike, which leads people to believe that the proof dies were used on business strikes (if it was, my guess is that it began with the 1,893rd strike). Anyway, I thought I'd check one of my 1893 Columbian half dollars, since there weren't any known proof diagnostics available or at least none that's reported. And, low and behold, I found two parallel lines in the same area, in relief. These lines are more pronounced in-person than what my photos show (images taken through non-NGC graded slab). If they are the same lines, then does this mean that the 1892 proof dies were at least briefly reused for 1893, too?? AFAIK, it hasn't been reported. Or maybe they're not the same parallel lines - I'm not 100% sure, but that's quite the coincidence if it happened to show up in the exact spot. Thanks in advance!
The first two B&W images are identical but different die states. You are probably correct that the Proof die was used for business strikes. Cannot tell from the light angle if they are the same on the '93. Nevertheless, very often when polish lines are identical on identical designed coins of different dates (in this case 1892 & 1893 undated obverse) they turn out to be Die Polish on the Master Die and appear on all the dies made from it. If you take a close-up with the same white balance (LOL...inside joke), magnification and orientation of the first two images of the '92, we can probably tell. You have the coin so you should be able to do it without posting an image.
I haven't seen it on my other 1893 Columbians, though that's only a relatively and extremely small sample size. However, NGC seems to make it important enough to make a point about it, so that leads me to believe that it may be on a particular die that's been polished. Here's the coin zoomed out:
Anthony Swiatek, in his book Encyclopedia of the Commemorative Coins of the United States, mentions no 'markers' in determining proof Columbians. He does, however, relate that when examining raw coins, "one should be certain the beaded border is fully rounded and sharply struck on both sides. Should a section display any flatness on either side, it will only be an early-struck proof like coin. Next, observe the coin's striking details. Sharp definition should be observed on Columbus's hair and ship's rigging and planks. This uncommonly well-defined sharpness will not be present on the business strike or the collector issue". He goes on to say that the wire edge rim is not a determiner of a proof coin as he has observed many proof like coins with wire rim edges. He does elude to the fact that proof dies may have been used to strike business issues.
I'm thinking of cracking it out of the holder and submitting it to PCGS. But, IIRC, PCGS no longer certifies proof 1893 Columbian halves since original documentations don't support a technically true proof strike, even though they have certified at least one in the past. In which case, I may go with NGC for the grading since they're adamant with what they consider proof coins. Though, 1893 has proof diagnostics that aren't reported anywhere on the interwebs, so it may solely be based on the qualities you mentioned - be it sharp edges and sharpness of strike, as well as mirrored fields. However, my example is definitely not a proof strike, though I guess there's a chance that it could be a proof-like strike from what I can make out through the plastic. My aim is to get the TPG to confirm, record, and even state on the label that this 1893 business strike came from an obverse 1892 proof die.
So, I cracked it out of the non-PCGS, non-NGC slab... Do you think that this coin is a PL, or a proof?? Probably not a proof strike but worth sending it in either way... It's the same 1893 coin in the original post, which has what I believe to be the proof die diagnostic from the 1892 Columbian half. I think that this potential proof-like state reinforces my thoughts that this coin was struck from the 1892 proof die. The mirroring is much clearer and easier to see in-person than from my pics. Based on the PL requirements, it measures up. Though maybe not so much in say 5-10% of the surface due to haziness.
That second photo.......you can really see the mirrored surface........really. I can see where you're coming from now. Close up of some deniticles please, Mr Demille.
Here's a closeup of the denticles on the reverse, and edges look sharper / more squared than on my other Columbian halves:
I wish Mr. Swiatec was a member here.........If I were to make an determination, I'd say proof, but I honesty lack experience and knowledge to make that assessment......
NGC also quit spanning Columbians as proof so it will come back PL. I have a coin that is in a PL holder that I believe to be a PR (my opinion) but it is in a PL holder.
PCGS does not either, I don't know about ANACS but as of the time being you can pretty much only get the PL designation.
OK, as I was filling out PCGS's online submission form, there was no choice for the proof version. However, they do have a proof record - they have graded in the past and have a unique number assigned to a proof version, though they no longer allow further submissions. That said, I sent them a bunch of research that I had. One of which is this article below from the American Journal of Numismatics, Vol 27-29 in 1893, where the numismatists give a first hand account of the coin. Of particular interest is the very last paragraph, where the numismatists working for the Journal seem to agree that the proper classification for the coin is one of "medallic or commemorative" status. This is important because it relates the coin directly to the proof-like medals of the time, and distinguishes it from the circulation strike coins. What's interesting is the remarks on the "low relief" nature of the devices. As the very first commemorative coin, it's my opinion that numismatists expected something similar to the relief heights seen on European commemoratives or medals, as it's referenced a number of times elsewhere that these Columbian "souvenir" coins were thought to not circulate but rather be kept as collection pieces. Couple this with the momentous celebration of the 400th anniversary founding of America at the Chicago World's Fair, and the case for a proof strike is more compelling. This event called for a coin spectacular enough to coincide with the novel and grand display of electricity and the Ferris wheel attraction invented for the occasion. Even the tickets were made of paper money quality! If that's not quite enough, one only needs to look at uncirculated examples of either the Isabella quarter or the Columbian half dollar. They all have sharp edges and are well struck. Some have frosty devices, and others have proof-like fields or even pass deep mirror proof-like testing. Therefore, we know that the dies were specially prepared for the Chicago World's Fair. And, these souvenir halves were struck by hand using medal presses, which have higher pressures - are the results of this higher pressure strike essentially the same as the double strikes on proof coins? If so, what is the practical difference between the medallic strike of the Columbian half dollar and Isabella quarters, and standard proof strikes of the time?
I am not a expert in this area but Anthony Swiatek's reference book Encyclopedia of Commemorative Coins is a good resource for commemorative coins
