Proof trade dollar diagnostics?

shirohniichan

I don't collect proofs at all, and I've never even looked at a proof trade dollar close up.

Does the trade dollar pictured here look proof or business strike?



Yeah, OK, it's a coin I have for sale. When I bought it, a trade dollar specialist said he wasn't so sure NGC was right in calling it MS.

Placid

Squared off rims not round. Shelf-step on the design edges from the extra strike.
That is what TDN told me anyway.

Elcontador

Shiro,

TDN is the one to ask. Look for hairlines; these are typically the grade-limiting features of proof coins, and on a large coin like this one, they are often severe, even in PF 64. The luster is also different on proof coins. Does the coin have a cameo / mirror look rather than cartwheel luster?

IMO, this is a business strike. I don't see anything resembling cameo, and the contact marks are where one would expect they would be on an Unc. Trade$. That being said, I can see why there may be some confusion, as the strike seems to be a bit better than normal; many early Trade $s were missing head detail.

tradedollarnut

All 1873 proofs have a die scratch thru Miss Liberty's gown into the bale of hay she is sitting on. This feature is not present in this coin.

One heck of a strike for a type I !!!!!

Placid

So does mine look like a proof? Its in a anacs ms holder.


This proof is in Heritages archives. I don't really see the scratch.

tradedollarnut

Neither of the MS coins illustrated above are proofs.

I once had an 1877 in a PCGS PF61 holder. It had flat stars and head and contact marks and was in my opinion a proof like business strike.

tradedollarnut

I checked the picture of my coin on my website:

1873 Proof

I could not see the die scratch in the picture, although I know it's on the coin because I looked for it previously. Here is the quote from Bowers' Trade Dollar Encyclopedia:

Note: So far as is known, Proofs of the varieties described above under nos. 1 and 2 are all from a common obverse die. There is a fairly deep die scratch extending straight from the bottom left segment of the bale, at an angle slightly upward through the folds of Miss Liberty’s gown, terminating in the waves of the sea. Although this prominent feature has been ignored for many years, it was mentioned by Lyman H. Low in the description of an 1873 Proof trade dollar in the R.T. Rose Collection Sale, September 9-10, 1909: "A distinguishing feature of this specimen is a well defined line (in the die) through the outer skirt of Liberty, extending from the cotton bale to water."

EVillageProwler

Even w/o TDN's diag, I was 99% certain that Shiroh's coin was simply a well struck MS. I can't tell about the ANACS coin; the pic isn't that good. The Heritage coin, to me, is also an MS coin.

As for TDN's 1877 in PF61, I've seen MANY PF Trades that are not sharply struck. Many later-date specimen strikings simply were carelessly made, much like the Mint products of today...

EVP

Placid

Any of these a proof?

tradedollarnut

EVP: 1880-1883 are somewhat common flatly struck, but I've never seen another 1877 that was not fully struck.

The coin in question was struck exactly like 99% of all MS 1877's except it was prooflike - however it lacked the fabric of a true proof.

EVillageProwler

Placid,

These aren't proofs! These are all EF45 MS coins!

Ok, seriously, these do look like proofs, but you didn't show their reverses. I've actually seen MS coins that look like them. I noticed that only 1 of them has the diag that TDN mentioned!

EVP

Placid

I am just trying to find the "die scratch" on the 1873 so I will know what to look for is all.

What one do you see it on?

EVillageProwler

The die scratch is on the 2nd coin you posted. Look at IN GOD WE, and then move your eyes up.

EVP

Placid

Ok thanks alot.
I think you mean the small scratch the goes into the top of the bale the part even with the top of the b in liberty.

tradedollarnut

The second proof pictured shows the die scratch very clearly. This scratch was also present on the Eliasberg coin, which I used to own.

The first coin pictured does not show the scratch and also shows a multitude of small contact marks on Miss Liberty. Either Bowers was wrong about all proofs having the scratch or the first coin is not a true proof. The contact marks make me wonder.

In my opinion, the third coin pictured is NOT a proof.

Placid

I see three possible scratches. What one?

EVillageProwler

In my opinion, the third coin pictured is NOT a proof.

The 3rd one looked the least like a proof to me as well. I think Legend had a 2-sided PL MS TD once. It looked like that. I've also seen other MS coins that look like that, mostly due to excessive die polishing. The devices were wonderfully frosted, giving the coin a nice cameo effect!

I've owned an MS Seated Dollar that looked like the 1st coin, and I think the Genaitis 1850 Seated Dollar (MS63) looks like the 2nd coin.

EVP

EVillageProwler

#3. And, can you edit the thread title to include a warning that there are seriously big pic to download?

EVP

Placid

Ok I get it now, thanks.

shirohniichan

Thanks for all the info. What confused me about my MS-61 coins is that 1) it's unusually well struck for an 1873 and 2) it has prooflike surfaces. All other 1873 T$'s I've seen have satiny luster.

BTW, it's an ex-keoj coin.

EVillageProwler

I value Keoj's opinion. I haven't seen the coin in person, and he has. Still, Keoj is only human...

I'll email him this thread.

EVP

shirohniichan

For the record, he said it "could be" a proof, not "probably was" a proof.

keoj

Hi Shiro:

Yup, I remember this coin. A couple of things - This coin is definitely a MS (not a PR). What was great about this coin was that it was very well struck for a 73. I don't recall the Proof comments that I made but as EVP point out, I'm human. I agree for the most part of TDN's comments.

1) 73's that are Proofs generally have the die scratch diagnostics in that is in the Miss Liberty's robes. Before I make this an absolute, I want to check a couple of references that I have. I seem to recall that not ALL proofs have that diagnostic. But, again, let me check before I commit myself.

2) As TDN points out, some PR's are tough to tell. 1876 is a particularly tough year. I've seen some MS coins in labeled as PR and PR's labeled as MS. Yes, and I've seen what I feel are bad calls in PCGS and NGC holders. There are a couple of things that I look at beyond the obverse and reverse fields:
- The rims - are they flat right to the edge or are they rounded
- The denticles - how good is the relief
- The reeds - are they even from the obverse surface to the reverse surface. This is a great MS to PR diag but unfortunately if a coin is in a slab, tough to tell.
- The other one that I look at on TD's is the beads in the Miss Liberty's headress. Are the distinct or not.

Even after all these some coins can be tough to tell.

Hope that helps. I'll get back to a few of you on the 73 Die Line Prrof diagnostic.

keoj

shirohniichan

Thanks for the additional info, keoj.

I think the 1876 II/II confuses people since every unimpaired one I've seen (um... 3 in all) have prooflike surfaces, and they're more common in PF than MS.

What made me wonder about the 1873, besides the mirrored fields, was the strong strike on Liberty's head/tiara. I'd never seen an MS 1873 struck up so fully there, so I had to wonder.

CalGold

For what it is worth, if you down load and enlarge the photo of TDN's coin the die scratch clearly shows as a raised line running at about a 30 degree angle from a point at which the bottom bail of hay meets the skirt to the waves of the sea above the ankle.

CG

lincolnSence

I wish this forum had more posts like this one. Thats why I initially joined here. Great info to all!

lathmach

Real nice looking coin. May just be a real early strike that gives it the proof like features.

Ray