Featured Chapman and Zerbe proofs

For all the previous talk about Chapman and Zerbe proofs, I thought it might be appropriate to post really fine examples of both, and provide a bit of information about two unique 1921 Morgan Dollar issues. Both are extremely rare, and at this moment, there are one of each for sale, by a very reliable source. These coins do not normally appear on the market often, and any Morgan collector should be familiar with them.

The Chapman Proof was struck by the US Mint, as a special issue. It was not a regular issue of the mint, but intended for noted Philadelphia coin dealer, Henry Chapman. An invoice exists, showing a private sale to Chapman, for 10 proofs, although actual mintage is probably closer to 20 coins. It is a fully struck coin, with extremely bright proof surfaces, 16 berries on the wreath, and distinctive striations by the letters “UN AM” on the obverse. The obverse has die striations by the letters “RICA.” Here is the current example for sale:




The Zerbe proof is more of a misnomer. It appears to be a highly brilliant business strike, as opposed to a genuine proof. The appearance is that of a Prooflike coin, with brilliance, but not the true proof strike. They were struck as a private issue for numismatist Farrah Zerbe, who was allegedly disappointed that the coin was struck on a Morgan pattern, as opposed to the newer Peace Dollar pattern.

Reportedly, 20 were struck, but apparently, there may be as many as 200 genuine issues. Breen’s description of the die markings are as follows: “Obv. Small die scratch up to r. from left tip of serif of left upright of second U in UNUM to border. Left base of first 1 above center of dentil, r. base of second 1 slightly r. of left edge. Central details far sharper than on regular uncirculated pieces. Rev. Very faint recutting visible on left upright of T in UNITED. Horizontal die file marks plainly within ribbon bows and at left and right of them; vertical die file marks at inner berries nearest to left base of N and T in UNITED. Eagle's breast feathers unusually sharp. Brilliant proofs as in 1904 and earlier years, carelessly made..."

Here is the currently marketed Zerbe specimen:



I hope this provides some information on 1921 Chapman and Zerbe special Mint issues.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nice writeup, thanks. But I thought you were done with Morgans

 

The 1921 "Zerbe" coins are no longer believed to have been special strikes. They were specially selected business strikes. As such, a mintage number doesn't really mean anything. Be that as it may, they are special looking coins, since one doesn't normally see 1921s this way. The die pair for the Zerbe coins is VAM 1AG, and the die markers are documented there. It is a D1 (17 berry) reverse. I would not trust Breen's description of these. The die markers for the Chapman proofs are not as thoroughly documented on VAMWorld, but it is believed that the obverse of VAM 3BV was used with a different D1 reverse for them. Curiously, the population of Chapman proofs is much higher than the supposed mintage.

The only coins that are special strikings for Zerbe are the 1921-S Zerbe coins. It was this issue about which Zerbe was disappointed not to have received Peace dollars. Die markers aren't documented on VAMWorld for this one. The coin that Heritage sold in January does not have photos sufficient for seeing these markers. Going in the opposite direction would be possible, however. There are some markers visible on the obverse that could be matched to another coin that may be attributable. The VAM 17 obverse may have been used, but I have not been able to corroborate this, and there are likely several 1921-S obverse dies that match the description of VAM 17.

 

Thanks for the additional information regarding Zerbes and Vam die markers. You are correct—the Zerbe coins are not real proofs; the are Prooflike business strikes. They are still beautiful coins, and quite distinctive looking, albeit not worthy of a true “proof” designation.

 

Thanks Morgandude for the added information. I too have not stopped buying Morgan's. Good luck

 

I don't understand why the Chapman Morgan got a grade from NGC, let alone a PF65. Is it because it was a "Chapman Morgan"? In my earliest attempt at collecting coins, I bought a 1904 Liberty Head One Ounce Gold Double Eagle a while back. It was sent to NGC for grading. It came back UNC DETAILS OBV SCRATCHED. The "Chapman" Morgan had scratches too and it got a PF65. Why the preferential treatment of coins.

 

That is ridiculous. The coin is not damaged in any way. Morgan proofs have striations. It got the grade it deserves.

 

Right!

 

Nice examples and thanks for the read.

 

From the photo, we can't tell the nature of the line across the cheek. It might be a raised die polishing line, it might be a very fine hairline that caught the light just right.

 

Sorry, but you‘re comparing apples (PF silver coin) and oranges (business strike AU coin).

If a coin receives a straight grade or not depends mainly on how severe a scratch is. And as mentioned in a previous post, the „scratch“ on the Chapman Proof appears to be rather a hairline.

But I agree that the grading services tend to be more lenient when grading rare coins.

 

It is interesting about the line(s). I need to find a way to expand the picture of my double eagle, to see which line(s) NGC were referring to. It must be something serious to get a "Details" from NGC. I thought about cracking it and sending it to PCGS or ANACS. Maybe they can enlighten me. NGC wouldn't even respond to my questions.

 

NGC and PCGS will not give detailed explanations of grading decisions as part of their service. I don't think ANACS will, either, and if ICG does, it's because you will have sent it to @Insider 's attention. If you want an explanation of a details grade, show the coin, and not just a picture of it, to another collector or a dealer for their opinion.

 

All of which are still just opinions.

 

Sort of. A statement like, "This coin didn't grade because there is a scratch across the cheek that is too severe," is an opinion, but it contains the observation, "there is a scratch across the cheek," which is not an opinion and is more informative than what you'd get from a TPG.

 

Then, what you are saying is, a TPG will only give you that the coin is real and a grade. No explanations are given. Right?.

 

Correct. You are hiring their services to grade, encapsulate, and authenticate. You’re not paying for their rationale, or any explanation.

 

Yuk! I guess that's the reason I only but from the Mint and certified coins. However, I do like to follow coin talk threads... to learn from the best, and thanks to all.

 

A fairly interesting discussion could be had, but in general, would be of no value, because I am certain that you have observed pieces that the "observation" by a TPG was not fact or informative, and the scratch was something else, not to mention "too severe" is an opinion.

But, I understand your point.

The market decides the ultimate opinion, anyway, not you or I.

 

of which only one of the three is fact and not an opinion: the encapsulation.