Not Exactly a Proof Coin
In 2016 numismatic researcher Robert W. Julian uncovered an unusual letter dated April 13, 1874, from U.S. Mint Superintendent James Pollock to Mint Director Henry Linderman:
Sir
Your letter of the 11th inst, requesting me to send you twenty five trade dollars, has been received.
I have this day sent you by Express twenty five semi-proof trade dollars, value in silver coin twenty seven 50/100 dollars ($27 50/100) which you can remit in a manner most convenient for yourself.
Very Respectfully,
Jas Pollock
Superintendent
Julian was understandably interested in the Philadelphia Mint superintendent’s use of the term “semi-proof.” He theorized that the appellation could refer to either “regular planchets struck with proof dies” or “proof planchets struck with regular dies” and concluded that “the second option is more likely.”
Since Pollock’s letter came to light, researcher John Dannreuther and several independent scholars have studied the existing 1874 proof Trade dollars. This group eventually identified a collection of coins that Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) and Numismatic Guaranty Company (NGC) identified as proof that meet Julian’s second theoretical criteria for semi-proofs. These coins-—fewer than 10 of which are known—are easily identified because they lack a period after the word FINE on the reverse.
The mint used polished dies to strike these coins. However, they exhibit a different fabric than typical proof Trade dollars. True, they are well-struck and have the broad, square rims that are generally associated with proofs. However, their fields are slightly more concave than ordinary proofs. Also, their mirrors don’t have the same depth as other 1874 proof Trade dollars. These features are consistent with Julian’s hypothesis that the mint may have struck proof planchets with regular dies. And, interestingly, in addition to the group of coins currently identified as proofs, researchers have identified obvious circulation strike Trade dollars from the same dies.
Somewhere in the Middle
Although circumstantial, this evidence points to the “No Period” 1874 proof Trade dollars being the “semi-proofs” that Pollock sent to Mint Director Linderman. Their fabric falls somewhere between proof and circulation strike. However, this fabric is special enough that third-party graders consistently identified them as proofs. Their survivorship is consistent with a mintage of 25 pieces. (As I write this article, I can account for seven or eight examples.) Also, the dies from which they were struck produced circulation Trade dollars.
If this identification is correct—and I suspect it is—how should we classify these coins? Currently, the 1874 “No Period” proof Trade dollar is an unrecognized variety. It does not appear in any authoritative text. While PCGS and NGC routinely recognize these specially made examples as proofs, this designation doesn’t seem appropriate. An SP designation (which, in this case, could be an abbreviation for Specimen, Special Strike, or even Semi-Proof) would be more appropriate.
Until these classification issues are resolved, the 1874 “No Period” proof Trade dollar will continue to fly under the radar. This unsung rarity may be one of the great sleepers among U.S. silver dollars.
A version of this article appears in the February 2024 issue of The Numismatist (money.org).