Not a proof 1833 bust dime
OKbustchaser
Posts: 5,539 ✭✭✭✭✭
This is a JR-9 die marriage. The 1833 dime proofs were all the JR-2. Someone goofed...someone else is gonna goof.
Just because I'm old doesn't mean I don't love to look at a pretty bust.
1
Comments
Auction is gone.
url has been edited in OP. First attempt did not extend to second line.
If what you say is true, it's not a proof, is PCGS liable for any loss incurred with the coin? That is of course, the slab is authentic. Grading is an opinion, is method of manufacture also an opinion? Or will PCGS just give it the catch all "label error"?
DPOTD-3
'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
Don
It is my guess that this was a coding error on PCGS's part...in which case "mechanical error" should be reasonable.
Sucks to be the buyer, but this is why people should do their own attributions rather than depend on others.
How many people have the ability to attribute themselves? Most collectors would say that's why they pay for, and rely on, PCGS' expertise.
DPOTD-3
'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
Don
So learn how to. It's not that difficult. Until you can don't buy 5 figure coins that are barely 3 figure coins if you're wrong.
It would have been called a "master coin" in the early 1830s. The item pictured does not meet the quality of a contemporary master coin.
I have no reason to doubt your attribution, but often early proofs were made from more than one die marriage,
because mint records (letters) indicate they were made "on demand" by polishing available dies.
So there is some chance that JR-9 proofs exist.
(It seems more likely that someone at PCGS goofed, but knowledge that proofs are known for one particular die marriage is technically not enough to rule out other proof die marriages).
P.S. I find it entertaining in the auction that in different places the seller says:
"10 known", "5 known" and "mintage 10".
They haven't exactly got their story straight....
The JR-9 marriage is a combination of 2 previously used dies---the 3rd use of the obverse after JR-6 then JR-8 and the 3rd use of the reverse die after the 1834 JR-3 then the 1833 JR-7. It's highly unlikely that any proofs would have been made to order from these worn dies when new ones were available.
I agree it seems like a poor choice of dies for proofs.
But the 1838 V-10 half dime PR-67 was struck with a reverse die that was crumbling pretty badly (left of MERIC),
so the mint did use imperfect dies for proofs sometimes.
Wow... I find it hard to believe that PCGS would make such an error on a coin that rare/expensive. Cheers, RickO