Columbian Commemorative half dollars- Prooflike Coin Question- video/pictures added
NumisOxide
Posts: 10,997 ✭✭✭✭✭
How scarce/rare are prooflike examples for each year? Also are there any dmpl examples known?
1892 Prooflike? R-?
1893 Prooflike? R-?
0
Comments
According to the PCGS pop reports, there are a total of 5 1892 in PL and no 1893 in PL.
For 1892 it's not rare at all, I have 5 from NGC. 4 are unc details though. Don't think I've seen any for 1893.
I don’t know how rare but when I was a kid I had a roll of circulated Colombian halves that I used to love to play with their 19th cen dates.
so when got older I got the two dates to have as a reminder. I chose PL and toned examples and it was much harder to find the 93 although one popped up in a month or two. That isn’t as rare as other coins that have taken years to find. Even still it doesn’t have the cameo effect that the 92, the 93 has just the flash. Enjoy, they really pop in the double holder
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Call Julian 😉
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Interesting. I picked up a nice 1893 PL example with nice mirrors not too long ago. Will take pics and post her this evening
Heres a video I took.
https://youtu.be/KMUUi6MQDN4
Gorgeous color on those two, Crypto!
NGC 63PL
Shortened video.
nice video - I wonder if a California proof / altered surface
Thanks it was very hard to capture the mirrors. Not sure what a California proof is?
Heres the old sellers pics.
It doesn’t look like enhanced surfaces in the video to me. However, it doesn’t look PL, either, just semi-PL.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don't see anything in hand that says altered surfaces. Has hairlines that remind me of proof coins in the PR63/64 grade.
Cell phone shots.
nice coin but hairlines on a business strike is not a good thing
I don't disagree. Hairlines on any coin is not a good thing, proof or business strike but I didn't mean it to be a positive thing. I meant it as a comparison for those who can't see it in hand. If you ever seen low end proof coins, PR60-64, the slight hairlines in the fields.
Ahhhh rusty staples nuuuu
Finally got around to sending this one. I also sent another 1893 which looks atleast MS65. An 1876 pl dime and 1877-CC dime that was previously graded by ANACS photo cert MS62/64. It's an economy submission so might be awhile until I post the outcome.
It'll come back as either very low MS (60 or 61) with no PL, or cleaned, depending on how bad the hairlines are. Just my guess.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
The video makes the surfaces looked dulled from being altered by something like jeweler's rouge, but the images make it appear a bit hairlined. Either way, I don't see it as PL from what is given.
Besides that, who the heck shoots a coin on a pillow case and moves it around that way. Hold the dang thing by the rims and rotate it under the light!
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
It’s more overly processed than legitimately PL
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
That's no pillowcase dude! Lol It's actually a piece of a cotton shirt that I cut up to use to put on the desk to not scratch the coin. Plus, didn't want to get finger grease on the coin. I promise I'll do better next time sir...
Not sure why people say it looks altered. 🤔 I do appreciate the feedback though.
The PL coins were struck just after the proofs using the same proof dies. Given the deep polishing of the dies for the preceding proofs, there are some very eye-catching PLs out there, even a few DPLs. As I understand it, the 1892 Columbian dies were repolished for the 1492nd and 1892nd coins, so there are a lot of PL and semi-PL coins out there.
I've bought and sold dozens of graded PL Columbians over the years (all of them in NGC holders). After viewing the video, this coin doesn't quite have the "flash" that the typical PL will exhibit. I've handled lowly 61PLs and 62PLs with plenty of hairlines that also had plenty of natural flash. These surfaces seem duller than they should be, although without seeing it in hand, it's hard to say more.
Great observation, Mark. How do you tell the difference? Bowers says most 1905 Lewis and Clarks are prooflike. PCGS says NONE while NGC says 23. I don't believe you can tell from a picture.
Great info! Thank you.