1895 Morgan Proof Question (NGC Registry)

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by raider34, Aug 27, 2009.

?

Should the 1895 Proof be added to the 1878-1921 NGC Morgan Registry

  1. Yes

    2 vote(s)
    16.7%
  2. No

    10 vote(s)
    83.3%
  1. raider34

    raider34 Active Member

    Hey everyone, just got this email from NGC regarding including the 1895 Proof Morgan into the "1878-1921 Morgan Silver Dollar set"

    I voted NO simply because, the 1895 was a Proof strike and therefore doesn't belong in a business strike set. But I commented that I believe the coin should be added to the set as an optional "presentation piece" only, so it wouldn't be required, and no points would be awarded for it. I've seen the presentation coin used on a few sets and think it's the best option.

    So what does everyone think?

    Reason for the edit above - Since NGC just sent this link out to people who have a set in that group, I don't think they would want alot of other forum members voting in the poll.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    NO, proofs are not (and should not be) a part of business struck sets.
     
  4. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title] Supporter

    Exactly, none of the business strike examples of this coin are known to exist. If the 1895 should be added to the business strike Morgan set...then the 1964 Peace Dollar should be added to that set.
     
  5. Mark Feld

    Mark Feld Rare coin dealer

    I don't see any good reason why a Proof issue should be included in a business strike set.
     
  6. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Don't suppose it might be because there are those who say they are not Proofs ?
     
  7. Mark Feld

    Mark Feld Rare coin dealer

    "Not Proofs"? Doug, I don't understand your question/point. The only 1895 Dollars I have seen or handled (and it's been a fairly large number) have either been obvious Proofs, including those in original Proof sets, or examples which appeared to be impaired/circulated Proofs. If NGC includes 1895 Dollars in their registry sets, they will certainly be including Proofs, not business strikes, as their are no documented examples of the latter.
     
  8. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Mark my point is this. There are what, 880 known Proofs ? And mintage records show that there should be 12,000 business strikes - all for the 1895 Morgan. But nobody has ever seen one of those business strikes.

    Now you and I both know that there have been many articles written where it is beleived that 1 of 4 things happened- either the mint records are screwed up and there were no business strikes made, and all the coins were Proofs. Or - the mint records were screwed up and no Proofs were made, but that we have 12,880 business strikes out there which are very Proof Like. Or - the 12,000 business strikes were melted and that's why we never see any. Or - the 12,000 business strikes were never made to begin with and all we've ever had were those 880 Proofs.

    Now, to the best of my knowledge, there is no definitive proof that any of those 4 possibilities is true.

    Thus, perhaps the 1895 Morgan should be included in the business strike set. Note, I only said perhaps because I certainly can't prove any of those 4. Can you ?
     
  9. SwendiCoin

    SwendiCoin Junior Member

    I got the email too. I'm voting no.
     
  10. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title] Supporter

    Isn't there fairly strong evidence that the whole 12,000 was supposed to be melted shortly after mintage. Thus, there really shouldn't be any left (other than maybe a couple that escaped through other means). It sort of sounds like the 1933 Double Eagle and the 1964 Peace Dollar. If those are considered part of their respective registry sets...then I suppose the 1895 belongs with the business strike set.
     
  11. Mark Feld

    Mark Feld Rare coin dealer

    Doug, of the four scenarios you mentioned above, the first and last say the same thing - that no business strikes were ever produced and all we have is Proofs. So that leaves us with three possibilities, rather than four.

    And the second one (no Proofs were made, but that we have 12,880 business strikes out there which are very Proof Like) doesn't begin to fly, based on the appearance of the coins. They are every bit as Proof as any other date in the series and they don't look like deeply mirrored PL pieces, which would have a different surface texture, less impressive strikes and exhibit abrasions/bag-marks/contact marks, as opposed to hairlines that Proofs typically acquire. And, I have seen original 1895 Proof sets that have been intact since the time of issue. I will also add that Proofs tend to tone very differently from business strikes, and I have seen numerous toned Proofs that looked nothing like toned business strikes.

    All of the above aside and whatever the possibilities, there are no known business strikes, only Proofs. And personally, I don't believe they should be included in a business strike set.
     
  12. Mark Feld

    Mark Feld Rare coin dealer

    The 1964 Peace Dollars and all 1933 Saints, but one, are (currently, at least) illegal to own. If they were to be/are considered part of their respective registry sets, that would be silly. And those coins are business strikes, not Proofs.
     
  13. CrustyCoins

    CrustyCoins Twilight Photographer

    I'm in the NO camp. I think there should only be business strikes. Old time collectors may have filled the spot witha proof but that was then and things change.

    If they want to include the proof then create a new set that includes both business strikes and proofs (all proofs not just the 1895).
     
  14. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title] Supporter

    That is kind of my point. The 12,000 1895 Morgan's supposedly minted were business strikes but have never surfaced...the other 880 were proofs and they are the known coins (with a couple questionable exceptions). The 1895 business strikes are just as illusive as the 1933 Saint or the 1964 Peace.
     
  15. Mark Feld

    Mark Feld Rare coin dealer

    True, but at least the Saints and Peace Dollars were business strikes and would make theoretical sense in business strike sets. Not so with the Proof 1895 Dollars in a business strike set.
     
  16. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title] Supporter

    According to mint records there were 12,000 business strike 1895 Morgan's minted and later melted down...just like the 1933 Saint and the 1964 Peace.
     
  17. Mark Feld

    Mark Feld Rare coin dealer

    We know that. But what does that have to do with including Proofs (and not business strikes) in a business strike set?
     
  18. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title] Supporter

    My point is...the reason they would consider including the 1895 in a business strike set is because there WERE business strikes minted. Did any survive? Who knows, there have been unconfirmed reports. The only known examples are proofs but business strikes were minted. For that reason, there is some merit in including the 1895 in the set. I personally wouldn't and I voted not to...but I understand where they are coming from I suppose.
     
  19. Mark Feld

    Mark Feld Rare coin dealer

    If you think the 1895 should be included in business strike sets because ("who knows?") there might be business strikes of that date in existence, then include business strikes, not Proofs.:rolleyes:
     
  20. CrustyCoins

    CrustyCoins Twilight Photographer


    I saw this one coming a mile away. :D
     
  21. illini420

    illini420 1909 Collector

    If NGC or PCGS has never certified an 1895 as a business strike then it don't belong in the business strike set since no one could ever fill the hole. Proofs don't go in circulated sets, no exceptions (heck, I don't even like when people put proofs in type sets!!!).

    I don't have access to the pop reports but I'm guessing there have never been any 1895 Morgans certified as business strikes.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page