history of proof coins

hey guys. so this is a topic i have long questioned and finally decided to find the answer. i was wondering about when the us started minting proofs and what series did not have proofs. he oldest proof ive ever seen at a show was like early 50's. but i have seen some proof mercury dimes on the internet. and rec ently heard about an 1883 proof gold piece. and then i have never seen or heard of a proof morgan or peace gut their are pl and dmpl coins. are pl and dmpl coins just coins with proof like qualities but it cant be determined whether it is a true proof or not? and what year were proofs began? were there chunks of years where proofs were not made?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think the first proof coins (in the US) were produced in the 1830's or 1840's (definitely in the silver dollar series).

I love old proof coins from the 1800's, as they often acquire very interesting color and toning patterns.
My oldest proof coin is this 1862 Liberty Seated Half Dollar.



Modern Proof Sets started in 1936 and ran through 1942. Then started again in 1950.

Before that Proof coins were sold individually or in a short set like the proofs from 1909 through 1916, when the proof penney and nickel was sold by the mint as a short set in tissue paper for 8 cents (can you believe it!)

 

Haha. Awesome dollar wing. There was also ihc proofs correct?

 

The Mint started selling Proof coins to the general public in 1858. Here is my example from 1859.

 

Nice proof Quarter, Hobo!

Correct OldSilver. I have one proof Indian Cent in my small collection.

 

At Summer Seminar this year John Dannreuther, a leading numismatic researcher, gave a short talk to our grading class about proof coins and he said he has spent the past few years researching in depth early proof coins and he plans on publishing a book about them. When this book comes out, I know I personally am getting it because there honestly is not alot out there about early proofs.

 

I started a thread a while ago on this same subject. I was surprised how far back they went.

 

It also depends on your definition of proof. There are coins called Specimens because you can tell they were specially struck and specially cared for. This is extremely close to proof. I recall a Chain Cent was graded as a specimen.

I think Doug is right about 1814 were the first proofs struck. I believe the 1838o half was the first branch mint proof. These were made for presentation pieces to foreign governments, (King of Siam proof set), and for local officials on special occasions, like the opening of a mint, etc. All proofs before 1858 like Hobo said are very rare.

 

I agree doug. I believe a proof is any coin made with specially prepared dies and planchets in order to make the coin have above average mirror like luster

 

I am a little lower I guess than your threshold. I would say any coin that was taken special care of in striking would be a proof. In yoru definition, it has to be a special die. To me, striking a coin on a flan that was specially chosen, and struck on new dies on purpose, would be a proof. In 1793 they didn't have the luxury of dies only for proofs, so that coin was struck from new "business strike" dies. The planchet is also remarkably superior to most others of the issue, so I would assume it was picked out special.

Given these assumptions, I would say the 1793 cent was a proof, and therefor the first cent struck in the US was a proof, (it was an Ameri. variety). The problem with MY definition is that most of the time it would be unprovable that a coin was struck special ON PURPOSE. Therefor, its not a workable, every day definition for most collectors. I would even argue proofs were made in ancient times, as there are certain issues that have perfect flans and are struck multiple times from fresh dies as special presentation pieces.

Chris

Edit: Btw Doug, would the coin necessarily need to be struck more than once? I am simply asking, how would you feel about a definition that simply said, "The coin is struck from the best dies, the best flans, and struck as well as the mint is capable, with the intention of creating a special coin"? To me that is bottom line what a proof is supposed to be, the best example the mint is capable of, regardless of methodology. If this includes multiple strikings in certain periods to distiguish them, that is fine, but I simply think someone should not get locked in to how they make them today versus how they may have been produced in the past.

 

By that definition the SMS (Special Mint Set) coins of 1965-1967 would be Proof coins (which they are not).
By that definition coins for yearly Mint Sets would be Proof coins (which they are not).
By that definition Uncirculated versions of Commemorative Coins would be Proof coins (which they are not).

 

were the 1857 flying eagle proofs not made for the public? just curious, as i've never heard that they were for gifts or for the public.

 

Interesting discussion. I guess I am more along the lines of the definition in Wikipedia:

"Proof coinage means special early samples of a coin issue, historically made for checking the dies and for archival purposes, but nowadays often struck in greater numbers specially for coin collectors."

That is more my view. I just think that a "proof" does not have to be the way they are made today necessarily.

 

Well an artist's proof is not inked twice, most other "proofs" are simply early impressions taken when everything is as good as it will be. Who put in the definition of "polished dies", "polished flans", or even "multiple strikes on a hydraulic press"? Is then a hand struck coin INCAPABLE of being a proof? Is proof limited to modern minting machinery? How about if a mint was incapable of holding a planchet perfectly still, so that multiple strikes would damage a coin, is that mint prohibited from having proof coinage?

I understand the modern manufacturer of proofs, I am just going back to where the term came from, and asking if pre-modern factories who were incapable of manufacturing that way were in fact prohibited from describing their absolute highest quality coinage as "proofs". I am not trying to make up my own definition of "proof", just asking if it HAS to be the same manufacture method as today.

To be honest, it simply seems people have changed the definition of "proof" to fit the way they are made today, rather than me making up a new definition. The word "proof" comes from "artists proof", simply early trials to "prove" the process, and archive the result. These are made every day still.