1827 10c GTG with a twist-REVEALED
LanceNewmanOCC
Posts: 19,999 ✭✭✭✭✭
for those that already know, please don't spoil the fun. 
we'll give this one a couple days.
a frosty 250k++ 
<--- look what's behind the mask! - cool link 1/NO ~ 2/NNP ~ 3/NNC ~ 4/CF ~ 5/PG ~ 6/Cert ~ 7/NGC 7a/NGC pop~ 8/NGCF ~ 9/HA archives ~ 10/PM ~ 11/NM ~ 12/ANACS cert ~ 13/ANACS pop - report fakes 1/ACEF ~ report fakes/thefts 1/NCIS - Numi-Classes SS ~ Bass ~ Transcribed Docs NNP - clashed coins - error training - V V mm styles -
11
Comments
its not an april 1 twist. fwiw
What is beautiful dime! Is that a proof? Details and rims look pretty sharp. Lots of flash and luster, bummer for the adjustment marks. 66+?
Yeah I agree proof 65/66 sweet specimen
"That's why I wander and follow La Vie Dansante"
Don’t know but it sure is purty!
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
Proof or Specimen....high grade...Wow!!
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
I'm here to hear about the reverse markings. Lovely coin. My guess absent of a details grade is 65.
Can I buy it??????????????????
A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.
A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
First time I saw it was in 1981. Can’t say I remember how I graded it.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
SP....I saw it before its current holder at I think at about one fourth the price a few years back. Its really lovely in hand. Very interesting variety and early experiment. The early mint process and improvements are one of my favorite subjects.
.
without blowing up the image, i can't say for certain. mint-made adjustment marks on dimes are not something i see so i'll lean towards planchet striations from when the metal stock was being rolled to the proper thinness considering just how uniform in depth, length and width.
Nice coin!
bumpiddy bump
Not only a proof but a special proof. Interesting. What is the back story on this one?
A couple of the marks I was seeing appear they could be clash marks which would support the 68 grade. I would like it better as a 67. Either way it is a great coin.
It’s a nice coin and obviously an early strike. With adjustment marks like that, I’d struggle to describe it as “specimen.” It sounds like a lot of marketing hype. Admittedly I haven’t seen it in hand though.
https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-30AX6/1827-capped-bust-dime-jr-10-rarity-7-vf-details-cleaning-pcgs
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Nice!
Is it really experimental, or just one of the first coins struck in a new way?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The highest grade for PCGs is SP 65 and that one sold for $40,800, this one is a much higher grade. Must be vary valuable
Sowho bought it, what's the back story on this piece, and a great piece it tis
No real grade limiting aspects to this coin in my opinion, just very minor stuff. Would totally agree with the grade.
A very nice coin... certainly special (SP)...Cheers, RickO
“SP” stands for “Specimen”, not “Special Proof” or any kind of Proof.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
BTW I love the coin, but the mint wasn't making proofs then no matter what the experts believe today. A special striking for a dignitary on polished planchets sure, but why would their be adjustment marks then?
Have you examined any of the Proof (Originals, not Restrikes) 1827 Quarters in hand?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Negative, just talking dimes. I understand that a coin may appear to be proof like. But the mint did not indicate any proofs were made and if a coin was made for presentation I do understand it would appear proof like. So one is free to call them whatever they want to but as a purist I rather call proof made issues that have the pertinent mint documentation genuine proofs and everything else either proof like or presentation pieces.
Fair enough.
Edited to add: It appears that unless there’s an official record, you don’t consider coins to be Proofs. At least that requirement eliminates guesswork regarding the intent of the coiner. And there’s no doubt that trying to infer intent can be a very slippery slope.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I think the coin is a specimen specimen, but its just an opinion as are many views and early master coins. I do think it was an experiment Andy, but of course they might have been made with some purpose in mind.
I am going to add something to the mix.
I have often heard experts offer up the following advice, along the lines that a proof has "the look", that certain look and that is what they go by in determining if a coin is a proof. So even if the minters had records signifying proof coinage was made in a particular year, the coin that one is inspecting isn't verifiably one of those proofs because it wasn't sold to us as a proof to us, but an assumption is made that the coin has that look of a proof and therefore is one of the proofs that were minted.
So if one takes that line of reasoning back to the time prior to mint records elaborating that proofs were coined one can use the same identification method, if it has "the look" its proof. And I have to agree that if a coin has "the look" prior to any mint records stating proofs were made, it must be a fact that the intent of the coiners was to make a very special coin, a proof even before the term was widely accepted simply because it has "the look".
With regards to the coin at hand here, the 1827, it doesn't have a look of a proof to me, but the obv does have a look of a special piece, so while to my eyes it isn't (relying off of the photos) what I would imagine a proof to look like, it is however special, the obv that is. So I don't mind the holder describing it as a special strike or a special presentation piece. I do wonder about the reverse, that side doesn't look special to me at all, and the adjustment marks only add to my interest and make me pause due to its late stricking.