Opinions on Proof Seated Dime

goyankeez

Lately I've been shopping around for any Proof Seated and Proof Barber Dimes. My goal is a PR-64 with cameo contrast. I found an 1875 PCGS PR-64 on ebay (just listed). I'm looking for opinions on how this coin looks compared to what the standard is. I've never purchased one of these before, so any information will be extremely helpful. Also, if anybody has an opinion on the seller, I would like to hear it. He does offer a return policy.

Thank You So Much for any responses.

1875 PR 64

wingedliberty

Excellent coin, go for it. Nothing to loose with a return policiy.


Brian.

stman

I do see what appears to be cloudy starting at elbow going across the field area.

Edited to add: I can't tell for sure but if the cloudy area in the field is dip residue I myself would stay away from it.

stman

Placid

I think I see fly specks on it. I don't like those if I can avoid it as they might become worse over time.

BSqr

placid,

could you explain the distinctive attributes of these "fly specks" you mentioned
what are they, where do they come from, etc... I am not familiar with this phrase

Thanks in advance

goyankeez

Would you say the coin was dipped? There doesn't appear to be any toning. (I'm not sure what a dipped coin looks like. )

I'll take any concerns that are brought up here and email the seller before I make a decision.

Thanks so far.

stman

Do you see the cloudy area I mentioned? I don't know if it's from dipping for sure. Could just be cloudy mirrors, could be there was some toning on it that went into the delicate surface,was dipped and thats the results. Or could be just the scan. I'm not trying to confuse you just trying to help and make you think about it.

If it were me just for that cloudy area if it's on the coin I would pass.
I know it's 64 but that looks to be a good size area for that small of a coin. And the problems always seem to be in right field . Then you need to check for hairlines etc. etc.

Stman

Placid

flyspecks,Minute oxidation spots on a coin, often caused by small dropplets of spittle from talking over the coin.

Sometimes they grow to look like this picture.

goyankeez

stman- I see what you're talking about on the coin. I'll ask the seller if it's on the coin or a reflection or smudge on the holder. I didn't notice that at first, and I thank you for pointing it out. You didn't confuse me, but made me think about it.

I don't know what a dipped coin looks like for sure. Since this coin is 125 years old and it appears white, I was wondering if this is an indication that it was dipped (the fact that it's white).

Placid- thanks so much for that example. I've heard of them (fly specks), but never saw a picture of what one would look like.

KoinKollector

<<Would you say the coin was dipped? There doesn't appear to be any toning. (I'm not sure what a dipped coin looks like.>

W/o a doubt this coin was dipped. You dont see many coins, if any, from the 1800s blast white, esp proofs. I dont see the coin as being a cameo, also the price is a lil on the high side. You should be able to get a nice cameo proof 1875 in 64 for @ 350 max. Id reccomend looking into getting a date from the 1880s, they are the most offen encountered dates in cameo/deep cameo.

Outhaul

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but when I enlarged the picture the reverse showed some cloudiness typical of a picture that has been digitally "airbrushed". The field right under "DIME" shows pixel cloudiness that extends slightly upward into the letters.

Cheers,

Bob

mr1931S

you should ask for a better photo before bidding...

if more pics not available,at least make sure they answer your questions...

no answers to my questions...no bid...my policy...

be a pain...

Elcontador

Haze like this on proof Seated & Barber coinage is not unusual. It's usually a cream / off white-color. It's okay if it does not appear distracting to you; otherwise steer clear. I saw the only PF 69 (NGC) Liberty Nickel, and it had some haze like you see on this coin.

As KK said, this coin definitely has been dipped. Nothing wrong with that if it was done properly, though on a coin as small as that one, you're going to have problems looking for tell-tale signs of residue (like those flecks mentioned in an earlier post).

Another problem is that an image won't show hairlines on proof coins, and this is usually a grade limiting feature. If it's in a 4 holder, hairlines definitely are there; the question is how bad are they? On a PF 64 Trade $, it often looks like someone took a roller-skate to the coin's surfaces.

Again, I agree w KK. This is not a CAM coin. You are apt to have better luck with a later dated (1880s) proof Seated -- or for that matter -- Barber Dime if you want the CAM designation. However, I wouldn't pay anything extra for these coins; there are plenty of them around.

roadrunner

Even at $425 this coin is probably too cheap. Expect to pay $500 or more for a nice orig toned piece with cameo contrast. I sold one to US Coins at the pre-ANA for $500 and you can be sure they would have sold it for $525-550. Seated dimes with eye appeal are too cheap at sheet levels. I don't see anything bad about the coin. The obverse looks to have a nice creamy texture to it. At under $500 I think any attractive proof seated type in 64 grade is cheap (dipped or otherwise). But do try to find a nice original piece if you can.

roadrunner

lordmarcovan

The Seated dime looks decent to me.

You mentioned Barbers, too. Get an eyeful of this one. (It ain't perfect, either, but the cameo contrast is awesome).

Dog97

I know it's just a 64 and 64s have problems but I would rather trade off & have a small tick or 2 than have a coin with large white areas all over the obv in the prime areas.