Q. David Bowers
I offer these population estimates: MS-60 to 62, 5,000,000 to 8,000,000; MS-63, 1,000,000 to 2,000,000; MS-64, 200,000 to 400,000; and MS-65 or better (per current standards), 20,000 to 40,000.
Lustre varies from dull to frosty. Those that are frosty are apt to have dull areas on the higher points, particularly the face of Miss Liberty.
Prooflike coins: Prooflike coins are scarce in relation to the overall mintage of 1921, but on an ab-solute basis are easy to find. Probably, tens of thou-sands exist. The data from the certification services inform us that numerous DMPL coins also exist, but many of these are not what I would call DMPL. It is popular to offer certain of these as "Zerbe Proofs." Wayne Miller suggested that a hairlined (from in-complete polishing) Proof die was used to make business strike dollars. Be careful when buying a PL or DMPL of this date. Thomas K. DeLorey is one of several experts who agree with me that these "Zerbe Proofs" are, in fact, prooflike business strikes.'
Die rotation: VAM-3 is known with the reverse die misaligned 45° from the normal orientation. Examples exist in Mint State.
Proofs: In my opinion, true Proofs with deep mirror surfaces are exceedingly rare. The situation is obfuscated, however, by a profusion of prooflike coins from hairlined dies sold as "Zerbe Proofs," or with other nomenclature. Walter H. Breen and I dif-fer in our opinions in this area; he considers more coins to be Proofs than do I. As related under 1921- S below, "Zerbe Proofs" are supposed to have S mintmarks! However, Breen recalls a conversation he had with Wayte Raymond in 1951, who told him that Zerbe had Proof 1921 Morgan dollars (of this hairlined finish style) made at the Philadelphia Mint to accompany the 1921-S "Proofs" he already owned.
Mike Carter in his monograph, The 1921 Morgan Dollars: an indepth study, commented as follows: "We must keep in mind that these coins are not Proofs in the real sense of the term, but presentation strikes." This statement tells it all, and should be underlined by users of this book, who contemplate paying very high prices for such pieces. In fact, I have underlined it for you.
In 1921, Henry Chapman went to the Mint and had some mirror-surface Proofs struck to his order. This was done clandestinely by or for George T. Morgan, chief engraver, who had a little "rare coin business" going on the side.' Walter H. Breen reported that he has seen "the bill of sale for 10 Proofs, Morgan to Chapman."2 The original production of mirror-type Proofs must have been very small, perhaps just 15 in all (10 to Chapman, five to Ambrose Swasey; for Swasey, see below). They were not officially sold by the Mint, nor were any Proof sets made that year.
In Thomas L. Elder's sale of the C.W. Stetson and other collections, December 4-6, 1924, Lot 1954 consisted of a 1921 Morgan dollar described as follows: "Brilliant Proof. First I have met with in this condition." The buyer was Henry Chapman, who paid $5.75. It seems unusual that Chapman would have paid $5.75 for a Proof, which was a very strong price for any Proof Morgan dollar. Of course, there is the strong possibility that Chapman was still holding a stock of them and sought to pay $5.75 at auction to increase the value of those he already had. It is worth noting that Thomas L. Elder, certainly one of the most informed dealers of the era, apparently had not seen a 1921 Proof earlier.
In connection with the preparation of this book, Walter H. Breen said the following concerning 1921 mirror-surface Proofs:
On the five Proofs Engraver Morgan sold to Ambrose Swasey, 6/4/21, and the 10 Morgan sold to Henry Chapman a week later, a short line points from rim to third star, and ends about 1 mm away; two die polish lines up from rim to first 1; hollow around Morgan's initial M (from overpolished die). Reverse dash between right star and wreath, touching neither; another, fainter, slanting up from left upright of I(CA); a third between S(T) and I of In, touching neither; faint scattered die striations around UN AM RICA.
True mirror Proofs are exceedingly rare. Scott's Comprehensive Catalogue, published in 1971, estimated that seven to nine are known and priced them at $5,500. An example (with some handling marks) in the Rothert Collection Sale, November 1973, Lot 405, fetched $1,900. Wayne Miller's realized $2,420; Norweb's $4,840.
In 1992, Michael Saum showed me a highly pol-ished "Chapman Proof' dollar, a coin which I con-sidered to be an authentic mirror surface Proof. When the coin was held at an angle to a single light source, the obverse and reverse are both flatter (not slightly concave) than typical brilliant Proofs of the 1878-1904 era, with distortions in the mirror fields from the pressure used to put the design on the die, almost like a meniscus on a surface of water. No die striations or polish lines were seen, unlike so-called "Zerbe Proofs." On the reverse, extending diagonally upward to the left from the left side of the I in AMERICA is a minute raised die line. The coin conformed to the Breen mirror Proof criteria given above.
In my career I have handled only two or three mirror Proofs. The historical record of such Proofs, as evidenced from appearances in auction catalogues and price lists, is valueless, as the majority of pieces were, in my opinion, prooflikes, not mirror Proofs.
The matter of "Zerbe Proofs" may never be settled to everyone's satisfaction. Opinions differ widely.
"Infrequent reeding": Some 1921 dollars with 17 berries in the reverse wreath were made from collar dies with 157 grooves instead of the usual 189; these are called "infrequent reeding" or "wide reeding" varieties."
Caveat emptor: Beware of paying high prices for "Zerbe Proofs," even if accompanied by letters or certificates. In my opinion, many if not most are prooflike, not Proof.
Varieties
REDESIGNED DIES: SHALLOW RELIEF
Business strikes:
1. 17 Berries in wreath: Van Allen and Mallis Reverse D-l. Breen-5704, VAM-l, 3, 12, 13 (the last three with certain reverse features tripled). Extra berry appears like a period to the left of center near the top of the wreath (at the base of the topmost leaf cluster) on the right side of the coin. Top arrow feather joins olive branch at the middle talon of the eagle's right (on observer's left) claw. Many minor positional varieties. So-called "Zerbe Proofs" are of the VAM-l variety.
2. 17 Berries in wreath, infrequent reeding: Van Allen and Mallis Reverse D-l. VAM-2, 4 (with N of IN low, and doubled at top). Style as above, but with 157 reeds instead of the normal 189. Reverse often rotated very slightly from the normal alignment. Mike Carter estimated that between 400,000 and 1,000,000 of these were minted.
Note: This infrequent reeding variety does not exist with 16 berries in wreath; earlier listings in VAM and elsewhere were in error.
3-4. 16 Berries in wreath: Van Allen and Mallis Reverse D-2. Top arrow feather joins olive branch between the right and middle talon of the eagle's right (on observer's left) claw. Breen-5705, VAM-3; Raised round dot(s) in field, Breen-5706. Common per VAM, not so common per Jeff Oxman. A fasci-nating discussion of these dots, thought by Van Allen and Mallis to have been made by a hardness testing tool, is in VAM, p. 125. Dots, which occur in various sizes, also exist on D and S dollars of this date. Jeff Oxman suggested that these dots are not from a hardness tool at all, but resulted from poor die steel;'
The dots were probably NOT made by a hardness testing tool, as VAM suggest. In the first place, there are literally too many dots on too many varieties, some varieties showing more than one dot. What would the point be? Look at the photo of VAM-87, and it hardly looks like the product of a hardness tester. I believe it more likely that poor quality die metal was the culprit. ... The metal was apparently infused with gas bubbles. Wherever the metal was sliced across a bubble, the result would be a spherical indentation on the die face. When coins were struck from such a die, the coins would have what appeared to be a raised dot corresponding to the indentation in the die surface. What is compelling about this line of argument is that the dots are so randomly placed on the dies.
Proofs:
1. Mirror Proof issue: Discussed in detail above.
Exceedingly rare. Perhaps only 15 were struck. Sometimes called "Chapman Proofs," as opposed to prooflike (in my opinion) "Zerbe Proofs."