1855 Large Cent, is this a proof ?

dcarr

I think it is. A speculative purchase on my part.

https://ebay.com/itm/304264917079

Coin Finder

I don't know, but that would be cool for you if it is.. what makes you think it is? The squared off rims?

MFeld

My guess is no. One of the images gives hope, but the others don’t. A couple of other considerations: 1) I’ve seen quite a few business strikes with impressive rims; 2) The seller is listed as an authorized PCGS dealer and likely would have already tried the coin if he thought it to be a Proof.

Broadstruck

Not the best photos to judge from yet looks like a business strike which might be chemically recolored.

ricko

Really nice coin and I can see why it might be thought a proof. Let us know what you think once the coin is in hand. Cheers, RickO

logger7

Stranger things have happened, good luck if you bought it and submit it.

Any coin worth nearly $100 I get graded if I am going to sell it.

BillJones

I have never seen one that was that sharp. Here's a certified Mint State example. This one is graded MS-64, Brown.

It's really impossible to say yea, or nay from a photo for something like this. I do think that the color has been enhanced. If is a Proof, it will come back as one with an "*".

jesbroken

Most proofs that I have viewed photos of had an upright spur off the dentil directly below the first 5. This diagnostic, if so, would preclude this from a proof. I hope I'm wrong, but regardless I do not feel you have risked any money. That coin should grade high, in my opinion. Best of luck.
Jim

FlyingAl

It’s close, an in hand look would be needed for certainty. Best of luck!

jesbroken

Does it have a sharp edge rather than the normal rounded edge?
Jim

CaptHenway

I don't think so. The stars on the left look a bit weak.

lkenefic

Interesting... Here's the Coinfacts image of a proof showing the spur off the dentil that @jesbroken refers to. Not all proofs have the spur though. The OP's coin has a hint of one, but I wouldn't hang my hat on it...

https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1855-1c-slanted-55-bn/1994

robec

Skyman has a slanted 1855 large cent graded MS65RB. It also has the spur off the dentil.

Maywood

JMHO, no. Just a dipped, recolored, sharply struck Mint State example judging from the seller images.

lkenefic

Here's a close-up of the Coinfacts image... the spur seems to be more pronounced on the Proof. Did they recycle PF dies after so many strikes for use on business strikes?

messydesk

All proofs are either N-10 or N-11. All N-11 are proofs. Some N-10 are business strikes, and some of those are PL.

The proof on CoinFacts with the spike on the denticle (the brownest 64BN) is N-10, while the others are N-11. That coin also has weak left stars and weak lettering on the left reverse.

jesbroken

According to Grellman's die variety book, " OBVERSE: (DRN 3 5 4 5 6 8) Italic 55. Proof only. The only Italic 55 variety with the tip of the bust right of the tip of the peak of the 1."
So now I need to know which portion of the 1 is considered the peak, I have thought it was the very top of the center of the one and if so, then your 1855 is not a proof, but if the peak is the "snout" of the one then possibly. I would think it to be the top dead center of the one, but then I do not write books.
Jim

Edited to add: Why in the world did Grellman not place the dates on his drawings of the coins? Would have made a world of differences, in my opinion.

jesbroken

To make it a little easier. Here are the photos.
Jim

The_Dinosaur_Man

The dies match that of the Proof issue, quite closely too when compared to images on CoinFacts. This is either a high-end business strike or a mishandled proof. With so many nicks and scrapes, the coin has seen some better days.

dcarr

When I first saw the pictures I was "struck" by the sharpness of the detail. The seller's pictures were far from optimal. But I could tell that it was the N-10. As @messydesk pointed out, N-10 came both as business-strike and proof versions. N-11 is proof-only. So that was not a definitive answer. I decided that it was worth the gamble.

I received the coin and I have now examined it in-hand. When I took it out of the flip it was in, I immediately noticed that it was slightly sticky (due to a build up of PVC oil over the years). Fortunately, there was no PVC damage or etching of the surface. So I used some solvent to remove all oil. As expected, this changed the overall color to slightly more bluish. If I were to apply a new thin layer of oil, it would go back to being more brown in color. But I like it this way.

Here are some pictures with different lighting. It is a very difficult coin to capture. I looks much better to the naked eye than it does in any pictures. At most angles, some mint luster is evident. I don't think the coin has ever been cleaned or artificially colored. It does have scattered contact marks. But when rotated to just the right angle, the fields light up like a parabolic mirror.

FlyingAl

Those sure look like proof fields to me. Great pick up! Do you plan to send it to grade?

MFeld

@FlyingAl said:
Those sure look like proof fields to me. Great pick up! Do you plan to send it to grade?

I'd love to have guessed incorrectly. But the first set of images doesn't even hint at Proof to me and though the other two sets show reflectivity to the surfaces, it appears rather shallow.
The good news is that Dan has seen the coin in hand and knows coins. And I wish him the best of luck with it.

messydesk

Good luck with this one. The rims not being broad and flat have me thinking PL business strike, but who knows if our hosts will say PR62 or MS64BN PL (if BN can even qualify for PL)? Looks like the MS66BN coin on CoinFacts is an N-10 with proofy rims.

messydesk

@jesbroken said:
...
Edited to add: Why in the world did Grellman not place the dates on his drawings of the coins? Would have made a world of differences, in my opinion.

Actually, it would have been tedious to redraw the date everywhere accurately enough to show the differences shown on the pages with the date reference number diagrams. Once you get used to it, they're pretty easy to use. I had some common dates cross my desk recently and it didn't take long to attribute them. First, write down what you think the position code is, then those known obverses with the lowest mean squared error to yours, then go to the pages for the individual varieties. These were all XF-AU coins. Lower grades become less attributable fast.

dcarr

Here is one for comparison (note weak stars on left):

jesbroken

@messydesk
Thanks for the explanation. Help me out here, please, when Grellman says peak of the 1 which of the following points is he referencing, #1 or #2?
Jim

messydesk

@jesbroken said:
@messydesk
Thanks for the explanation. Help me out here, please, when Grellman says peak of the 1 which of the following points is he referencing, #1 or #2?
Jim

2

jesbroken

That makes sense for this coin, then. I could not find in his book where this diagnostic point took place at in relation to the number 1. Thank you. Just started last year enjoying the large and half cent varieties and have had a ball. Wish I had started 30 years ago.
Jim

FlyingAl

@MFeld said:

@FlyingAl said:
Those sure look like proof fields to me. Great pick up! Do you plan to send it to grade?

I'd love to have guessed incorrectly. But the first set of images doesn't even hint at Proof to me and though the other two sets show reflectivity to the surfaces, it appears rather shallow.
The good news is that Dan has seen the coin in hand and knows coins. And I wish him the best of luck with it.

I was always under the opinion that proof large cents were known for their shallow mirrors (proof example posted) but you could absolutely be right. This is a perfect candidate for grading IMO. and maybe one of those coins that could bounce between proof and MS with a crackout. I do also agree that Dan knows his coins!

davewesen

That is a nice coin. When I first saw the ebay pic, I suspected cleaned and retoned. Now that you have it and took off PVC the pics show at least PL but also shows rounded edges.

good luck

Walkerguy21D

A very cool and interesting large cent.
@MFeld, you should share this with Mark Borckardt at Heritage for his thoughts.

MFeld

@FlyingAl said:

@MFeld said:

@FlyingAl said:
Those sure look like proof fields to me. Great pick up! Do you plan to send it to grade?

I'd love to have guessed incorrectly. But the first set of images doesn't even hint at Proof to me and though the other two sets show reflectivity to the surfaces, it appears rather shallow.
The good news is that Dan has seen the coin in hand and knows coins. And I wish him the best of luck with it.

I was always under the opinion that proof large cents were known for their shallow mirrors (proof example posted) but you could absolutely be right. This is a perfect candidate for grading IMO. and maybe one of those coins that could bounce between proof and MS with a crackout. I do also agree that Dan knows his coins!

I've seen a good number of no-questions-asked Proofs, which exhibited deeply reflective surfaces and squared edges.

BenV

I don't know nearly enough about Large Cents to have an opinion, but I'll keep my fingers crossed for you! At the very least, it's a beautiful coin.