Is this 1884 CC in a GSA holder a proof strike?
goldfixer21
Posts: 102 ✭✭✭
Here are pics
1
goldfixer21
Posts: 102 ✭✭✭
Comments
Same response as your other post. Nope. Carson had no equipment to make proof coins and did not make any -- ever.
The die(s) were polished to remove surface damage so it could continue in use.
Appears banged up and about MS-60 or 61 tops.
For some reason my other post disappeared. I have 2 of these in the shop, one has a matte background on both obverse and reverse, this one has a mirror background on both.
No I don't see it. It will need to look like a mirror on both sides to rec Proof like on the holder.
Hoard the keys.
No. Look at images of Morgans that are certified proofs---you will see a difference. Start with the rim--it will be better defined(squared off) on a real proof.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
That would mean this was probably struck soon after a die polish?
1884-CC PL and DMPL coins are somewhat common, actually.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
RE: "That would mean this was probably struck soon after a die polish?"
Anywhere from 1 to several hundred. Depends on how deep the polishing was and how long it lasted given planchet surfaces, etc. There is no solid way to quantify except by measuring the mirror depth (relative reflectivity).
Maybe Prooflike
Successful Trades: Swampboy,
Are the parallel lines under the wing die polish lines, and appearing to be the only ones visible, would they mean that the coin could have been in the last of the "several hundred" minted after die polishing?
If not, what could cause that artifact?
I think those are just reflections. The pics were taken through the plastic GSA holder
Here's a newb question: Are those marks under the "right" or "left" wing. It it referred to from the viewer's perspective or the bird's?
not even close to a proof
BHNC #203
According to PCGS, there are Proof 1893-CC Dollars.
Not a proof CC... and the above posts list why.....That coin does not even approximate a proof strike...Cheers, RickO
nice coin
RE: "According to PCGS, there are Proof 1893-CC Dollars."
That might be correct. They were produced at the Philadelphia Mint not the one at Carson, Nevada.
Weren't PL coins referred to as "branch mint proofs" back in the old days?
Collector, occasional seller
Some were "marketingly" confused with the intention to obfuscate. Most people are a little more circumspect today, and even willing to challenge the "received wisdom of Wally the God" and our "Holy Father Ford, Jr." (Hmmmm...if Ford was a "Jr." then does that make him a messiah as the son of something? well, too 'philological' for my poor cranium."
No. The coin does not look like a proof.