GTG on some fun copper(57 flyer and 1904 IHC)

JGnumismatics · March 29, 2015 3:37AM

Hey guys,

Grabbed this out of a local auction today curious on your thoughts......MS?......Proof.....AT?
-Interestingly on the 57 flyer, there is no crazy toning on the rim at all, and I was told whether correct or not that with AT surfaces typically the rim will be the same color as well if indeed AT

Any comments, criticisms, or questions are encouraged
Thanks

Jake

Boosibri · March 29, 2015 3:43AM

I wouldnt touch either but the 1904 sure looks proof to me. The 1857 is AT in my book.

BillJones · March 29, 2015 3:51AM

Both have been cleaned and have unnatural surfaces. The 1904 is probably a Proof, and it would have been neat to have seen it before someone "improved it." The was high grade before it was also cleaned and turned pink.

Both coins are just a shame. If they had only been left alone.

Sonorandesertrat · March 29, 2015 3:52AM

<< <i>Both have been cleaned and have unnatural surfaces. The 1904 is probably a Proof, and it would have been neat to have seen it before someone "improved it." The was high grade before it was also cleaned and turned pink.

Both coins are just a shame. If they had only been left alone.

>>

DoubleEagle59 · March 29, 2015 4:01AM

1904 pr64 or 65 Cameo

1857 Unc details

TopographicOceans · March 29, 2015 5:44AM

PR63 - Cleaned
Damaged UNC Details

291fifth · March 29, 2015 7:54AM

The 1904 looks like a proof. It has probably been dipped at some point.

The 1857 appears to be cleaned and retoned, which is unfortunate since it is very well struck. The color just looks odd.

mirabela · March 29, 2015 8:05AM

General agreement here. The IHC is a proof, may or may not have problems ...

The Flyer has great detail, but the color is just wrong.

luckybucks · March 29, 2015 8:15AM

It is hard to say for sure from scans if either coin was doctored. The IHC is obviously a proof. The flying eagle is unc, but I would want to research that toning (which IMO is nice looking) to find if it is natural or artificial.

I personally stay away from artificially toned coins.

JGnumismatics · March 29, 2015 8:17AM

Thanks guys!!!

At this point,

The 1904 will be sent out for grading and the 1857 off to ebay!!

Thanks for the opinions

Broadstruck · March 29, 2015 8:21AM

The 1904 IHC is Proof and was recently dipped.

The FEC is cleaned and re-toned.

golden · March 29, 2015 11:39AM

<< <i>General agreement here. The IHC is a proof, may or may not have problems ...

The Flyer has great detail, but the color is just wrong. >>

darktone · March 29, 2015 11:47AM

I am not so sure the 1904 is a proof. I have had several 1904's with a proof like look. I think this was polished.

WaterSport · March 29, 2015 11:50AM

The 1904 is definitely polished..and frankly, I would be surprised if it was a proof. JMHO.

WS

OldIndianNutKase · March 29, 2015 2:05PM

The 1904 used to be a high grade PR IHC which was dipped to make a much more valuable RD. It will be graded Details, Questionable Color.

The 1857 has been enhanced in the past but does have a nice look, but maybe too nice for a 160 year old coin. Sending it to EB may have been your best move as there will be someone who will put it in their Dansco and care less about certification.

OINK

lasvegasteddy · March 29, 2015 2:31PM

the F.E. is strange to me
the eagle has a proof effect or it is one
with the feathers coming off of a mirrored body...just remnants of feather tips
isn't the body and wings usually covered in flow lines to feather tips...not mirror body with feather tips rising off of it

is it a proof?
or is it even genuine mint product?

just something about it stands out

the IHC
color is hard to read or call from this image...i have no opinion on it other then it looks to be proof

relicsncoins · March 29, 2015 2:54PM

They look like the typical raw coins sold by a certain ebay dealer with three words in their name and southern being one.

darktone · March 29, 2015 9:55PM

The flying eagle is polished too

lkeigwin · March 29, 2015 10:26PM

The FE has certainly been messed with. PCGS might call it altered surfaces, questionable color, or improper cleaning. (Because the rim is not the same color as the rest of the cent doesn't mean it's not AT.)

The IHC is also damaged. It looks cleaned/polished in the pictures. Sad.
Lance.

ricko · March 30, 2015 12:45AM

I would call the IHC a proof.... dipped. The FE has been dipped and is recoloring...IMO, the color has been 'assisted'... I have done that in one of my experiments (coin never left my possession)..... Cheers, RickO

crazyhounddog · March 30, 2015 3:41AM

Sorry to say they are both problem coins. The Indian looks to be polished, and that's a crime. The flyer has a beautiful strike, really hammered but I'm afraid it has been cleaned and retoned also. what a shame.

ad4400 · March 30, 2015 3:45AM

Not a copper or proof collector but my first reaction was that the 1904 screamed polished. I would heed the other comments on the FE as well

BillJones · March 30, 2015 4:05AM

<< <i>Thanks guys!!!

At this point,

The 1904 will be sent out for grading and the 1857 off to ebay!!

Thanks for the opinions >>

I don't think that the 1904 cent will grade. I know I won't grade it. It as a totally "wrong" look. It was dipped recently and such coins are often very unstable. If the dipping solution has not been properly removed, the coin could literally turn to dust.

Many years ago I saw two Proof Indian cents that a major retail coin company had in a PCGS PR-65 Red slabs. Both coins had been completely eaten up by the stuff someone had used to make them red again. The coins were unrecognizable and were a total loss.

Even if the dipping is done correctly, the coins are very vulnerable to spotting and re-toning. The "virgin metal" under the toning which is now exposed is very prone to those problems.

GTG on some fun copper(57 flyer and 1904 IHC)

Comments

Leave a Comment