Could This 1885 Nickel Be a PO1 at PCGS?

moosesr · August 20, 2004 4:13AM

Link

Charlie

DesertRat · August 20, 2004 4:14AM

It's entirely possible

ziggy29 · August 20, 2004 4:16AM

Looks like nothing but a LOT of wear, no problems that would bodybag it...if the date can be positively identified. I'm not certain it isn't an 1895 (though it does look more like 1885). And if they couldn't tell for sure, they wouldn't slab it.

DominusDeus · August 20, 2004 4:29AM

hrm... FR2, shot PO1.

LanLord · August 20, 2004 4:33AM

Isn't the brown junk on that some sort of corrosion? And shouldn't that BB the coin?

GoYankees · August 20, 2004 4:36AM

I have a pcgs 1886 FR02 and it looks VG compared to that 1885.

Yes, definitely a PO1 if not BB'd IMO.

GoYankees · August 20, 2004 4:41AM

My 1886 looks like this 1885 which is FR02 IMO.

1885Link

paigowjohnny · August 20, 2004 4:51AM

I think it would get BB for corrosion

poorguy · August 20, 2004 4:53AM

FR-02. The date is too readable.

kamehameha00 · August 20, 2004 5:11AM

<< <i>FR-02. The date is too readable. >>

Colorfulcoins · August 20, 2004 5:40AM

Reverse is solid PO01. Obverse is a weaker FR02. Since PCGS weights the obverse more than reverse, I'd say probably not. While my photo sucks, here's my 1884 which is slabbed as PCGS PO01....compare the obverses:

Could This 1885 Nickel Be a PO1 at PCGS?

Comments

Leave a Comment