Is this a proof?

Barry · February 25, 2003 4:38AM

Is this a proof?
Opinions appreciated. Thanks.

sinin1 · February 25, 2003 4:43AM

I would guess no - and the right obverse field looks like it has been cleaned (or lots of hairlines)

It also looks like there is some rub -> AU55?

I am by no means an expert and do think it has nice tone,

relayer · February 25, 2003 4:45AM

The reverse looks like a proof, but the obverse looks like a business stirke?

Barry · February 25, 2003 5:46AM

The coin is in a slab (ANACS), and yes it is cleaned. However, I'm not sure that I agree with their designation of the coin, which is why I'm asking Proof vs. Business strike. I'll tell you what ANACS said after a few more replies.

tsacch · February 25, 2003 6:02AM

i would like to see the coin in person to lay money on it being a proof.

t

lathmach · February 25, 2003 6:06AM

High grade business strike 1863 dimes are often prooflike.
On the proofs, according to Breen, the last A in America should have the top portion (the triangle) filled.
That doesn't appear to be the case on this coin you have pictured.
That is certainly a nice coin. My 1863 dime is a harshly scrubbed VG.

Ray

By the way, that picture down below is me.
I'll spare all you and take it off in a day or so.

Barry · February 25, 2003 6:18AM

Ray,
Where in Breen does it say that about the filled A? My Breen only has a couple of lines on p. 316 about the 1863.
Thanks,
Barry

rwhite · February 25, 2003 6:20AM

P/L Business Strike. (though its hard to tell from the scan as you cant see the mirrors)

geb209 · February 25, 2003 6:23AM

You can tell whether it is a business strike or proof by the position of the "1" relative to the lines in the shield. Unfortunately, I don't have my materials in front of me to give you the specifics.

lathmach · February 25, 2003 6:58AM

geb209....the 1 in the date is in the correct position for the business strike 1863. ( The left side of the flag of the 1 is just right of the point of the shield)

Barry.... go to page 120, "Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins". (This is NOT the big black Breen book, this is the book on proofs)

Ray

Barry · February 25, 2003 7:05AM

Thanks Ray. I don't have that book. Regarding the position of the 1, I believe it's in the same place for all 1863's, as only 1 die pair was used for both business strikes and proofs that year.

geb209 · February 25, 2003 7:45AM

Opps, you are correct; only one die pair was used.

Followup question: I assume that the proofs were struck first, right?

Barry · February 25, 2003 10:53AM

I would assume so, but don't know for sure.
BTW, ANACS calls the coin Unc details, cleaned-corroded, net AU-50. When I got the coin, I thought it might be a Proof. As you probably know, it this date, buseinss strikes are worth more than the Proofs, so just want to be sure I'm getting what I paid for.

sinin1 · February 25, 2003 10:59AM

I lovely coin - the corrosion, is it on the reverse under the ribbon/bow/wreath?

You could always crack it out and submit it to another lesser service and get a higher number

homerunhall · February 25, 2003 12:21PM

The scan looks like a circulation strike to me.

Barry · February 25, 2003 8:38PM

Thanks much, again, especially the opinion from "da man" :.)

Sinin1 - I don't see any corrosion either. I've seen several dimes in holders which ANACS calls corroded, and don't see the corrosion.

Is this a proof?

Comments

Leave a Comment