So I decided to do some research on Morgan proofs, and this is what I've found so far: 1) 179 dentricles. 2) Wire edge. That's it. Since #1 is kind of difficult to do without some image mapping software, I decided #2 is probably the easier route. That said, what is a wire edge? Do they mean the flat rims that are present in modern day proofs?
Wire edge, also known as wire rim or fin, is the result of metal flowing against an insufficiently tight collar and being squeezed above it. It forms a very thin wire rim on the coin, almost knife-like. Most 1907 high relief double eagles have wire edges. The minority have flat or beveled edges, from the use of a different collar. The rare 1907 Indian eagle is known for its intentional wire rim, along with a unique surface due to the use of heavily polished dies (yielding a satiny surface with striations...it looks harshly cleaned). Morgan dollars do not have wire edges. Lance. [FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
A wire edge and finning are NOT the same thing. The wire edge St. Gaudens coins have that edge by design - it was intentional. Finning can happen on any coin and is purely accidental.
I prefer wire rim or edge and not fin. But the term has been used to describe a wire edge, perhaps too loosely. I don't get worked up about it. As for whether the wire rim of the St. Gaudens have that edge by design or not, you might read up on it. "[FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica]The Wire Rim and Flat Rim Double Eagle varieties resulted from the use of different collars. in the case of the Wire Rim variety, the collar was not sufficiently tight and the pressure of the repeated blows forced metal up where the edge of the coin meets the collar to form a very thin wire rim." PCGS Coinfacts[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] "There are two varieties, the flat rim and the knife-rim, which are also called the flat edge and the wire edge double eagle. The “wire edge” is actually a rim or flange around half or more of one or both sides of the coin. It was made when metal was squeezed between the collar and the die. Most researchers believe that the flange was made unintentionally since it caused problems in ejecting the coins as they were struck." US Rare Coin Investments "A so called Wire Rim protruded around the outer extremity in the coins, which resulted from excessive metal flow between the die face and collar during the striking process. Unlike today’s collectors who consider the Wire Rim to be a highly collectible variety, Mint officials considered it to be a striking deficiency. This "flaw” in the striking process was corrected around mid-December, and subsequent High Relief double eagles possessed what became known as a Flat Rim." Park Ave Numismatics Lance.
I don't deny that it was the collar used that caused the wire rim coins. But they chose that collar and used it. That is what makes it intentional. Now they may not have liked the outcome, I don't deny that either. But it's still entirely different from what is called finning. The wire edge coins have that wire edge all the way around the coin, it is uniform. A coin with finning does not. What's more, coins that have finning were struck with the very same dies and the very same collars as coins that do not have any finning. The only difference was that the striking pressure was adjusted higher, and/or a planchet that was a bit too thick got used. And when this happened it was then that metal was forced up between the collar and the edge of the die resulting in the fin. And as I said earlier, coins with finning only have the fin in some places. And the fin is not uniform. Never once have I ever seen or heard of one that had a fin all the way around the coin. You can say it's semantics if you want, but it isn't. It's proper terminolgy. It's kind of like calling a coin that has die abrasion marks a coin with coin die polishing marks. They are two entirely different things caused by two entirely different processes.
From Roger W. Burdette in his Renaissance of American Coinage, 1905-1908: “Efforts by Clark, Barber and others had resulted in almost complete elimination of the rim fin on the high relief coins and by December 20 Director Leach wrote to Barber, ‘I am more than delighted with the results you have obtained in preventing the fin.’ If RWB calls it a fin, and the Mint Director called it a fin, maybe we should let it slide? Lance.
And also from the Burdette book it was not a change in the collar that eliminated the fin, it was a change in the way the planchets were milled. (rest of the paragraph after what you quoted.) On the other hand the fin on the Saint-Gaudens eagle the fin was as a result of the design. See Burdette's book p111 letter from Barber to Superintendent Landis
So... from all the replies, I've concluded, the only way to tell a Morgan is a proof is by figuring out some program to count the dentricles...???
No, that is only one diagnostic. All the other standard diagnostics for Proofs still apply. Like squared, sharp edge rims; polished mirror fields; extra detail from being struck more than once. And in some cases there are specific die markers. If what is prompting your question is wanting to know how a collector can positively identify a Proof Morgan, in most cases they can't. But that is merely because very few collectors have the experience to do so. Many will misidentify a PL coin as a Proof because of the mirror like fields on a PL coin. And also because even ordinary business strike Morgans have frost on the devices. But there is a difference between mirror like and mirror. On genuine Proofs the reflectivity is greater. Also the luster is different on Proofs because not only did the Proof dies receive extra polishing but the planchets were polished as well. In short, about the only way you as a collector could ever convince anybody else (other than an expert) that your coin was a Proof would be to submit it to a TPG and have them confirm it.
I assume by 179 denticles, you mean the number of reeds, that is the number of reeds (lines) found on the edge of the coin? You can identify some proof Morgans by the number of reeds, but only for certain years. In 1885, '86, '91, '92, '93, and '94 the only Morgan dollars minted with 179 reeds are proofs. So for those years counting the reeds is an effective way of identifying a proof Morgan. But there are also years like 1879, '80, '81, and '82 where both proof and business strike Morgans were struck with 179 reeds. With these dates, counting the reeds isn't going to prove much. Also note the number of reeds for proofs isn't always 179, for instance the 1897 proofs all have 190 reeds, and for 1898 some proofs have 189 reeds, and others have 190. If you're looking to identify proof Morgans, all the info Doug mentioned above applies, I'd also add that the lettering on the coin will appear sharper with squared edges (compared to a business strike, with more rounded edges). There's not always a clear cut answer though, there have been a number of cases where one expert believes the coin is a proof, while others do not.
I was actually wondering more from a point of curiosity. I read somewhere that a small number of proofs accidentally entered circulation (through families of owners spending them?), and I was curious as to how those would be identified as proofs. The square lettering/details makes sense to me.
For the sake of education try this - buy yourself a single modern Proof, a quarter say. Then put it in your pocket with other change and carry it around for a month or so, never looking at the coin during that time. After that month examine that coin and see it you can still identify it as a Proof. You'll see it's not hard to do.
Are quarters soft enough to mimic wear on silver? I have a circulated proof nickel, so I know how those look. It's still clearly a proof. Should I just use a commem proof/unc as test subjects? Also, looking at the PR69/MS69 Morgans... the PR looks "chubby" compared to the MS. Is this an accurate observation or merely the photography? Another question (more general than just for Morgans): Does the reeding on business strikes ever resemble the reeding on proofs? I mean how the proofs have "sharp" reeding (where you can feel the edge of each slash).
Then you should realize what I mean - that any Proof, even if it has been in circulation, is still very obviously a Proof. Morgans are no different. Well I kind of get what you talking about. I mean I guess you could use the word chubby to describe Proofs in that since they are all struck at least twice they seem to have more relief than a business strike because all of the details are fully formed and have acheived their maximum relief. Sometimes it can resemble it on coins that were struck with fresh dies, but it will never quite be equal to it. A Proof always has a just a bit more of everything.
