Holy Buy-me-a-house! Batman!!

lkenefic

I'm looking for a nice XF-AU 1853 Seated Liberty Quarter for my type set and came across this... dang near literally...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/204059726487?hash=item2f82e85297:g:eD0AAOSw3wJi6Yo5&amdata=enc:AQAHAAAAsMOqgxpHCfdm7DS8Yr4Fzb6XKfgPe1PmtCbSUis37cFyDhyWQhvwoDxMdBsYlRHGw2e5FHe32eSXan7nuTvNMbKLWv4rud9q3ZvRdvs1Aiun4h7EpnuzlGjhMfcis4Qo4PHO7wNt+Dd30lJh/33rEKiJKjbOQuGO/plmwlI1aNyuNJYD0Mr+6wAqAISBJwr9OQ2a4ZghU2gFqebuvlOBjDjwe8kY0iwHsF9bF8ryd0Uk|tkp:Bk9SR_LR8cjfYA

AdamL

Beautiful!
I've loved the Arrows and Rays design ever since my dad gave me a holed '53 quarter 25-30 years ago.

winesteven

Wow! I thought my Type Set coin for this slot looked good, but I now realize mine is like the knobby kneed buck tooth person compared to the OP true Beauty Queen! What frost!

Steve

291fifth

I wonder if the scratches on the obverse fields are on the coin or on the plastic?

tcollects

I wouldn't kick her out of bed, but she's been overdipped imho

ricko

Nice coin, but I am surprised at the grade with all those obverse field scratches. Cheers, RickO

Treashunt

@291fifth said:
I wonder if the scratches on the obverse fields are on the coin or on the plastic?

good question

winesteven

Is it possible those "scratches" can actually be so very light, and the photo just makes them look much worse than they actually are?

Steve

jclovescoins

not an attractive coin imho

Connecticoin

@Treashunt said:

@291fifth said:
I wonder if the scratches on the obverse fields are on the coin or on the plastic?

good question

paging @MarkFeld - How does a coin with scratches like that get 66CAM?

Batman23

I see those big scratches as die polish lines.

justmenutty72

Something’s amiss there🤔JMO

jmlanzaf

@Batman23 said:
I see those big scratches as die polish lines.

I don't.

If you look at where the shadows are on the stars and on the lines, the lines appear to be incuse.

2windy2fish

Really shocking grade with the scratches…

jmlanzaf

https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/1898957-054/66/

lkenefic

Interesting posts... I saw the lines on the second set of images and compared them to the cameo shot. They're definitely there, but they don't look nearly as prevalent in the cameo pic... artifact of photography? I'd love to see this piece in hand.

MFeld

@Connecticoin said:

@Treashunt said:

@291fifth said:
I wonder if the scratches on the obverse fields are on the coin or on the plastic?

good question

paging @MarkFeld - How does a coin with scratches like that get 66CAM?

My guess (and hope) is that some or most of those “scratches” are mint-made. If not, the answer to your question is “over-grading”.

oih82w8

It's ok, but proof coinage is really not my thing.

telephoto1

I see hairlines AND die marks, along with the general murky light tone of a dipped out coin but what concerns me are the halos around the stars... often indicative of some sort of cleaning in the fields leaving some original luster remaining around the stars.

MFeld

@oih82w8 said:
It's ok, but proof coinage is really not my thing.

That’s not just an example of proof coinage - it’s an exceptionally rare one and a one-year type. PCGS and NGC combined have graded only eight of them, with some of those almost certainly being duplicated.

Batman23

@jmlanzaf said:

@Batman23 said:
I see those big scratches as die polish lines.

I don't.

If you look at where the shadows are on the stars and on the lines, the lines appear to be incuse.

I always have a problem with photos and sometimes I see something as incuse and later look at same image and see it as raised. So I won't swear either way. But I was looking at how the lines seem to travel under the stars and not over them. Die polish is normally on the high point of the die which is the coin's field and does not scratch into the device details. Scratches normally skip over the stars/devices and leave scratches on the device and a gap next to the device where the scratching tool jumps from the device back to the field. Here I see scratches that appear to travel under the device and not over. That is why I suspect die polish for most of the scratches. There are a couple of damage marks in the field for sure but this is what I was talking about. If I am all wrong with my understanding of die polish please let me know.

MFeld

@Batman23 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Batman23 said:
I see those big scratches as die polish lines.

I don't.

If you look at where the shadows are on the stars and on the lines, the lines appear to be incuse.

I always have a problem with photos and sometimes I see something as incuse and later look at same image and see it as raised. So I won't swear either way. But I was looking at how the lines seem to travel under the stars and not over them. Die polish is normally on the high point of the die which is the coin's field and does not scratch into the device details. Scratches normally skip over the stars/devices and leave scratches on the device and a gap next to the device where the scratching tool jumps from the device back to the field. Here I see scratches that appear to travel under the device and not over. That is why I suspect die polish for most of the scratches. There are a couple of damage marks in the field for sure but this is what I was talking about. If I am all wrong with my understanding of die polish please let me know.

I strongly suspect die-polish lines - at least for most of what we’re seeing. And I have three reasons for my suspicion.
The first is that to me, most of it looks like die polish. The second is that even accounting for the possibility of liberal grading, if most or all of those lines are post-strike, I doubt the coin would have graded that high. And the third is that I’m virtually certain I’ve seen the coin in hand and that it exhibited conspicuous die polish lines.

Broadstruck

I'd rather have just a nice AU58 A/R's... & a house.

Herb_T

Did you buy it? 🤪

lkenefic

@Herb_T said:
Did you buy it? 🤪

...the house? Yes... last year!

FlyingAl

@MFeld @jmlanzaf

What about striations rather than die polish? The marks would have been on the planchet before the strike, but failed to strike out. This would explain the lines going underneath devices and also explains the grade, as well as the incuse appearance of the lines. Cases this extreme would be rare but not unheard of.

MFeld

@FlyingAl said:
@MFeld @jmlanzaf

What about striations rather than die polish? The marks would have been on the planchet before the strike, but failed to strike out. This would explain the lines going underneath devices and also explains the grade, as well as the incuse appearance of the lines. Cases this extreme would be rare but not unheard of.

I’d certainly be open to that possibility. I just don’t believe that most of what we’re seeing is post-strike.

jmlanzaf

@MFeld said:

@Batman23 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Batman23 said:
I see those big scratches as die polish lines.

I don't.

If you look at where the shadows are on the stars and on the lines, the lines appear to be incuse.

I always have a problem with photos and sometimes I see something as incuse and later look at same image and see it as raised. So I won't swear either way. But I was looking at how the lines seem to travel under the stars and not over them. Die polish is normally on the high point of the die which is the coin's field and does not scratch into the device details. Scratches normally skip over the stars/devices and leave scratches on the device and a gap next to the device where the scratching tool jumps from the device back to the field. Here I see scratches that appear to travel under the device and not over. That is why I suspect die polish for most of the scratches. There are a couple of damage marks in the field for sure but this is what I was talking about. If I am all wrong with my understanding of die polish please let me know.

I strongly suspect die-polish lines - at least for most of what we’re seeing. And I have three reasons for my suspicion.
The first is that to me, most of it looks like die polish. The second is that even accounting for the possibility of liberal grading, if most or all of those lines are post-strike, I doubt the coin would have graded that high. And the third is that I’m virtually certain I’ve seen the coin in hand and that it exhibited conspicuous die polish lines.

Some of them might be, but the presence of the shadows on the bottom of the stars would indicate a light source at the top. The stars are raised. Any raised lines would have shadows below while any incuse lines would have shadows on the upper side of the channel. A number of those lines (horizontal) show shadows on the upper side of the channel.

silverpop

instead of griping about the coin get the grading company to correct it

Goldminers

It is rare, but there are a lot of little pits, some rough looking surfaces on arms and fabric, several actual scratches, uneven rim, etc. $314,500 or offer is a big price. I would be surprised if it crossed at the same grade with our hosts.

MFeld

@silverpop said:
instead of griping about the coin get the grading company to correct it

If a correction is warranted - and we don’t know that it is - I’m sure you know that it’s far easier and more enjoyable to gripe than to get a grading company to “correct” it.

JimTyler

He is accepting offers. Maybe he would take a nice condo.

lkenefic

@MFeld said:

@Batman23 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Batman23 said:
I see those big scratches as die polish lines.

I don't.

If you look at where the shadows are on the stars and on the lines, the lines appear to be incuse.

I always have a problem with photos and sometimes I see something as incuse and later look at same image and see it as raised. So I won't swear either way. But I was looking at how the lines seem to travel under the stars and not over them. Die polish is normally on the high point of the die which is the coin's field and does not scratch into the device details. Scratches normally skip over the stars/devices and leave scratches on the device and a gap next to the device where the scratching tool jumps from the device back to the field. Here I see scratches that appear to travel under the device and not over. That is why I suspect die polish for most of the scratches. There are a couple of damage marks in the field for sure but this is what I was talking about. If I am all wrong with my understanding of die polish please let me know.

I strongly suspect die-polish lines - at least for most of what we’re seeing. And I have three reasons for my suspicion.
The first is that to me, most of it looks like die polish. The second is that even accounting for the possibility of liberal grading, if most or all of those lines are post-strike, I doubt the coin would have graded that high. And the third is that I’m virtually certain I’ve seen the coin in hand and that it exhibited conspicuous die polish lines.

I have to admit... I'm learning a heck of a lot about die polish lines on PF coins! Thanks for the education! ... and I didn't even have to pay any "tuition"...

BillJones

Proof coins dated prior to 1858 are so rare, it's really silly to get picky about them if the eye appeal is decent from a distance. I would have no problem having that coin in my type set. It beats what I have.

Goldminers

I wonder if the die polishers at the Mint would be very proud of this obverse photo of their detail work on such a limited coin at the time, with a proof finish, they were involved with minting?

To me the reverse is the real beauty, and that result is exceptional.

Aegis3

If only the grading companies had a place that showed photos of multiple specimens of the issue; we could tell if those marks were on the coin or the die... Oh wait they do!

(They are (mostly??) die polish lines.)

dcarr

This exact same coin has sold at Heritage Auctions on three different prior occasions.

At least one different 1853 proof quarter has similar lines, but in different locations.
The lines are definitely incuse.

So I think it is possible that the lines are actually grooves that existed on the planchets before they were struck.

justmenutty72

This example below doesn’t carry the Cameo designation, but it’s obvious that there was a die clash. Looks like this particular example was struck with polished dies to remove clash marks but the initial polishing didn’t remove them all. The obverse die was subsequently polished again, which would account for the Cameo designation on subsequent coins. Just my opinion though
.
.

2windy2fish

To me the PR 64 example actually looks like die polishing lines as there multiple small lines going in generally the same direction…think wire brush…
The OP coin has a few going in random directions….
Whatever the cause of the lines may be, the kicker is the grade!
If you sent a 1964 proof quarter to PCGS with that much going on…what kind of grade would the coin get??

justmenutty72

@2windy2fish said: To me the PR 64 example actually looks like die polishing lines as there multiple small lines going in generally the same direction…think wire brush…
The OP coin has a few going in random directions….
.
.
The second polishing of the die would’ve gotten rid of the previous marks and replaced them with totally different lines. Perhaps a really fine grinding stone was used?? That could account for the marks in different directions and the Cameo effect. A fine grind stone will polish a die much smoother than any wire brush possibly could. I was a machinist for many years and I’ve seen and made marks like this on some of the hydraulic manifolds that I’ve machined.

MFeld

@2windy2fish said:
To me the PR 64 example actually looks like die polishing lines as there multiple small lines going in generally the same direction…think wire brush…
The OP coin has a few going in random directions….
Whatever the cause of the lines may be, the kicker is the grade!
If you sent a 1964 proof quarter to PCGS with that much going on…what kind of grade would the coin get??

If the “that much going on” was mint-made, the 1964 quarter would probably receive a similar grade.