Opinons wanted.

Placid

Link

Does this coin look problem free?
Has anyone bought from the seller?

MastaHanky

The coin looks very unnatural, as if it's been whizzed. Also, those parallel streaks on the obverse indicate at least some kind of brushing or cleaning. I'd stay away.

JD

Picture looks a little rough...personally, the toning doesn't look right but I'm sure that has more to do with the scan/picture than the coin itself. Is that a rim ding at 9-10 o'clock?

lordmarcovan

I don't know the seller, but the name sounds vaguely familiar (that's neither a good or bad thing- I don't really know who they are).

The coin has a number of hairlines which might or might not be "problems"- after all, early proofs did not come in plastic capsules- they were out in the open, and collectors of the day kept 'em in cabinets which allowed them to slide back and forth, acquiring hairlines. Some hairlines are to be expected on your average early proof, as a proof coin's surfaces are more delicate than those of a business strike.

That particular coin seems to have a little bit of mishandling above and beyond the normal cabinet friction, however. It might or might not bodybag or net grade upon submission to a major grading service, but that's a gamble- at very best, I would say it would come back graded PR60 or PR61 on a lucky day. As to the color, it's hard for me to say.

While my impression of it is not 100% negative, my personal take on the situation is that a low-end proof could probably be had in a slab for the same or not too much more money, with a bit of looking. I am automatically leery of raw coins in that price range. Sure, there are plenty of wonderful and valuable coins that aren't in plastic holders, but there are also plenty that can come up and bite you in the butt later with hidden "issues". I'd pass on that one, just for that reason.

FC57Coins

I agree with the opinions thus far and would add that the toning looks a little bit like what I've seen on retoned coins. This leads me to wonder of a long ago cleaning. For the price and the coin you're getting I would say that its at least worth having it in your hand and giving it a good close look. Not many of these puppies around!

Frank

dorkkarl

i'd call it PR-55 - PR-60, but the seller is entitled to his opinion, especially considering (1) he provided a good image & (2) 100% no-questions return.

however, i think it is a common proof date, & the price sounds a little strong to me. i'd think $300 is more reasonable.

have not knowingly bought from this seller.

K S

MAULUMALL

I have bought from these guy's before and had no problem.These were slabed coins.1995 ddo cents.NGC ms68rd.If I'm not mistaken I paid $70.00 all told.

darktone

It's hard to tell if there is any eye appeal from the picture. And there does appear to be some hairlining but I had one once that had some heavy raised die polishing lines. This coin looks very close to one I sold a few months ago in a ICG ms62 holder that was also dated 1870. I got $350 for that one on ebay. I see the seller has listed this several times starting at $500 and working his way down to $425 maybe in a couple of weeks he will have it listed even lower? mike

beelzebud

Ive seen this coin relisted before, and looks to me from what I can see, to have too many hairlines and what looks like some light rub on the breasts and possibly the thigh. But, this is not the best digital image I have seen (I work in pre-press industry) so I could be wrong about the rub. But one can definitely see what is going on in the fields of the coin. I dont believe its die polishing. JMHO.

Bill

coinguy1

JS,

This is meant for you and anyone else who contemplates buying expensive, non certified coins (in effect, sight unseen) on Ebay or elsewhere. Why, on earth, would you take a risk like that? There are plenty of certified coins available, in many cases, at levels as attractive as the uncertified ones.

In most cases, there is probably a very good reason that these uncertified coins have not been holdered by a major grading service. Among them - problems such as cleaning, altering or questionable toning. Or, perhaps the sellers just want to try to offer the coins at grades higher than the grading services would certify them at.

You are going against the odds and asking for trouble and a bad deal, I presume, due to being tempted by what might appear to be a good deal.

I hope you and others will not take offense at my comments. Over a period of many years, I have seen buyers of uncertified coins get more terrible deals than I would like to remember.

Coulport

That is more than cabinet friction.
It is hairlined and cleaned all to he_ l.
PF53 at best.

BobbyD

Looks like it has been cleaned.
BobbyD

MAULUMALL

Ya know I gotta agree with coinguy on this.

mdwoods

Over a period of many years, I have seen buyers of uncertified coins get more terrible deals than I would like to remember.

Coinguy1 is right on with this comment. Take it from someone who learned the hard way. (more than once, my skull is thick). mdwoods

CalGold

Ditto what others have said. Looks very harshly cleaned with substantial impairment to the mirrors both obverse and reverse. In addition to obvious hairlines on the obverse, there appear to be contact marks. Liberty's head may not be fully struck, but it could be a poor scan. And look at the reverse at 4 o'clock!

Most hairlines usually do not show up on scans and photos of nice coins in the 63 and 64 grade. When you see scads of them and the seller doesn't tell you that they are scratches on a holder--you can only imagine what the thing looks like in real life.

And besides all that it is ugly.

CG

dorkkarl

whether you decide to buy certified or not, if your just looking for a proof type coin like this, no question that you can find nicer examples for that $.

K S

Placid

Thanks, I was not considering buying it btw, I just wondered what would cause those really long parallel straight lines like that.
Cabinet fricton or hairlines from cleaning seem to be the most popular answers.
Thanks.

coinguy1

JS - I did not assume that you were considering it but felt that your post raised an important issue to discuss. Thanks.