If it walks like a duck and swacks like a duck.....

lathmach

It's a proof.
It's not a business strike struck from proof dies. The seller is knowledgeable enough that he knows the business strike is rare while the proof is no rarer than any other proof of that era and is misleading those reading the ad by saying there were business strikes coined from the proof dies of the 1873 no arrows closed 3 type.
There weren't any business strikes coined from these proof dies in 1873.
These proofs are found frequently impaired as many were put into circulation.
This said, can anyone tell me why it's easy to distinguish this as a proof?
(nevermind the square rims when answering)
1873 Closed 3 Quarter no arrows

Ray

tjkillian

How well the stars/devices are struck? Even if a MS coin were struck from proof dies, it would not be as well struck as it is struck only once? The stars are way too perfect?

Tom

JD

Has it been cleaned? If not what causes it to tone just around the stars, date and other raised edges?

LanLord

Although I can't see any in the image, perhaps a close-up look at the coin might reveal some die polish marks that were made between every few pressings. These sometimes left "lint" marks around the devices on the proof. Just a thought.

sadysta1

what's with denticles below the date?

jhar

It looks like it might have been cleaned. It's strange to have those dark areas around the devices on the coin.

dakra

Just wanted to make sure my lingo is right...Proof's were considered specimen's back then?
Is it just me or does that coin appear to be cleaned?

-Dave

coinguy1

lathmach,

I looked at the images and agree with you. So, I contacted the seller. Follwing is what I wrote to him and then the qucick reply I received from him. I must say, I respect the way he handled it, even if I do have a different opinion about the coin.

Dear seller,
While you talk about the raity of this date compared to other business
strikes, such as the 1879, the coin imaged in your listing looks like an
obvious (though somewhat impaired and/or cleaned) proof and not a business
strike. You have an excellent Ebay feedback so I will presume this is an
honest oversight. However, your listing is quite misleading under the
circumstances.

Sincerely,
Mark


I don't really agree. I state clearly (I think) that ALL
closed-3 quarters were struck with retired proof dies. Once
rubbed, there is no way ever to know whether the coin
was originally a proof or a BU. The issue is worth
$50.00 in XF. ANACS looked at the coin for me at a show:
said they would merely slab it AU58 because "any one
who says they can tell a proof from a BU once rubbed,
is kidding himself..." Paul

dorkkarl

the status of such coins will always be debated, i suppose. "specimen" is not the correct term - these would be called "proofs". you'll frequently find quarters and halves from the 1880's, and dimes from the 1860's "incorrectly" attrib'd as "proofs". i say that in quotes because, again, it's a debatable topic.

K S

agentjim007

how 'bout taste like a duck? Hmmmmmmm duuuuck

Dog97

The seller lists it as a closed 3. He is selling a common impaired Proof as a very rare Biz strike coin. I know its a Proof because all Proofs were closed 3 in 1873 except fot the type 2 which were open 3 but had arrows by the date. I must be missing something though because if it wasn't for the squared rims I wouldn't suspect it being a Proof.

braddick

His feedback is "666".
That speakith to me.

lathmach

The diagnostic characteristic most easily found for the proof 1873 closed 3 is on the reverse of the coin.
If you look at the shield on the reverse on the left side just below the lowest horizontal shield line, you'll see a die cut crossing the two radius lines that make up the left side of the shield.
This die cut is only on this proof die.
This die was used to mint only proofs from 1872 thru 1879.
1880 was the last year this die was used, and in this year only was it used to mint both proofs and business strike coins.

Ray

lathmach

<< <i>what's with denticles below the date? >>



I believe that's just damage to this coin. That is not a characteristic of this variety.

Mark Feld: Neither anyone from ANACS or any other grading service would have told the seller that they cannot distinguish a rubbed proof from a business strike. This just reinforces my feelings that he is intentionally misleading potential buyers.

The coin is cleaned, but that has nothing to do with whether it's proof or business strike.

Ray

Conder101

The seller is claiming they struck 212,000 coins from retired proof dies (The reverse die of which was used to strike proof quarters for 8 more years. I think not. (I looked for the engraving line on the back scan but was unable to see it.) And Lathmach is right, there is no way the ANACS people would tell him they couldn't tell a proof from a business strike in that condition. If it was worn down to Fine maybe, and if the die cuts were still visible they would still identify it as a proof. Also why would they strike the no arrows closed three from proof dies? At the start of the year that was the regular design and the mint had already been making business strike dies with that design for the branch mints, why would they not make them for Philadelphia as well? The guy is blowing smoke.

coinguy1

Ray and Condor101, you guys make good points. Maybe the guy doesn't really believe in what he says, after all. Too bad - I hate the thought of someone doing that, though, unfortunately, I suppose it's not that unusual. Hopefully no one will get taken.