NEW Ex-Benson Barber 10c PCGS PR63 COLOR - Opinions Sought

magikbilly

Hi All,
what do you think of my new 1906 Proof Barber 10c? I am replacing my 1892 PR63CAM with this in my 10c type set. The 1892 can be seen below for comparison. Which do you like more? I think the 1906 is way more attractive in terms of color, obviously fully original and has half the mintage - only 625 coins. I also think it will look better next to my icon coin It was originally lot 589 in the Goldberg sale:

"Lot 589
1906. PCGS graded Proof 63. Dark toning on this one that matches the 1905 just offered. Faint hairlines on the reverse, and certainly at the high end of the 63 grade category. Estimated Value $225-275.
From the Benson collection and purchased from James Macallister on March 31, 1944 as part of a set from 1858 to 1915 for $195.00"

I look forward to your opinions

Best,
magikbilly


1906 PCGS PR63 - ex-Benson, mintage 625


1892 PCGS PR63CAM - mintage 1,245

mgoodm3

Looks nice. Have it in hand yet?

magikbilly

Hi,
waiting patiently. The photo as seen is apparently quite accurate I can't wait! I added a scan of my 1892 for comparison.

Best and thanks,
Billy

mgoodm3

Personally I like the 1892 better from the pics. I'm a sucker for cameo and mirrors.

magikbilly

Hi,
yes, the cameo is attractive on these coins, but I am one for the tone - and I think the '06 will go nicely with the '41. The 1892 CAM pop is also obviously much lower than a Brill. PR 1906 - but then the 1906 is so darn pretty...

Billy

dorkkarl

sorry, but the 1906 looks sickly to me. many of the benson coins were awful.

the 1892 is considerably better.

K S

ColonialCoinUnion

I like the look of the '92 better. Why the desire to replace it?

prooflike

I like the cameo a whole lot more too...

BillJones

I prefer the 1892. I think that you will find that it is a bit cloudy, going by the photo, but it still has a lot of eye appeal for the PR-63 grade. Usually they are dipped out.

The milk spots on the 1906 kind of turn me off, but there are a lot of collectors who prefer the blue color.

BigD5

I like the 1892 coin better. That 1906, though more colorful, is a touch too "splotchy" for my tastes.

magikbilly

Hi All,
thanks for the responses
Well, why I wanted to replace it;

Colonial - The toning on the 1892 in not exactly what I wanted, but as I wasn't seeing too many attractive 63's I bought it - it is a fine coin. The toning on the 1906 is much deeper and more colorful - and I prefer the splotchy look (look at my icon). The blue is very strong as well.

Dorkkarl - I saw your posts re Benson coins - I will have to see this in hand obviously, and it is returnable

Bill Jones - the 1892, which is already in my collection, is not cloudy at all. Quite the opposite. I just feel it is a little too bright next to my 1880 PR64.

And, for what it is worth, I imagine the first year of issue 1892 was saved in some number, and I understand Cameos don't command that huge a premium in this grade for that year. The 1906 was minted in far less numbers - about half as much; 625 - while not a Cameo I think it has stronger eye-appeal (to me). I have seen a number of 1892's, and many were much nicer - I have not seen many 1906 at all, and what I have seen is usually dipped out as noted or has cheek damage or hairlines. I'd rather have (IMHO) a strong deeply toned Brill Proof 1906 with less overall mintage than a first year issue that is Cam and is 63 but has many more higher grade brothers and sisters (esp in CAM). PCGS has slabbed abt 30 CAM 1892 10c, and all but 1 are in much better condition than this. In a nutshell, I just love the look of the 1906 - I think the eye appeal is stronger and the originality more...intense.

I appreciate the opinions, and will take all into account when I look this one over.

Best,
Billy

BillJones

<< <i>Bill Jones - the 1892, which is already in my collection, is not cloudy at all. Quite the opposite. I just feel it is a little too bright next to my 1880 PR64. >>



I know what photoes can show that is not there. I just purchased a 1942 Walker in NGC PR-67. The coin was a nice display of original colors, but when you photo it, it looks cloudy, which is not the case in person.

magikbilly

Hi Bill,
I just love PR Walkers. But there again, I seek out the nicely hazed/colorful coins. Not mirror obstructed, but toned/hazed. Like the 5c in my new Jeff set linked below - most hated the 1941 - I love it beyond belief. Beauty is in the holder....I mean the eye of the beholder...

Best to you and thanks,
Billy

vega1

I also prefer the 1892, I'm less of a fan of the kind of toning that exists on the 1906 though. I just love cameos. Anyone should be very proud to have two such beautiful coins in their collection.

gemini12398

I like that 92 cam, like toning and cheek looks clean

David

magikbilly

Thanks

but when the smoke clears, I will own only 1 of these 2

Best,
Billy

Dave99B

Very nice Barbers. The '06 is much much nicer. Super ORIGINAL too. Benson knew his material.

That's a great upgrade in my book, both in "look" and mintage.

Thanks for taking the time to share,

Dave

magikbilly

Hi,
Thanks I think so too. Here it is "in context" with my other 10c. I think it looks nicer in conjunction with the others in my little "type set" than the 1892 - a scan of which is at the bottom. And so few made.

Best and thanks to all for the opinions
Billy



1880 PCGS PR64, 1906 PCGS PR63 Benson, 1941 PCGS PR65, 1950 PCGS PR67


1892 PCGS PR63CAM

lordmarcovan

Looks very nice, and I can understand you wanting to match it with your icon coin, I suppose.

They're both sweet, but I like the CAM much more, though.

I used to own a really nice PR63 CAM 1898 half with a Benson pedigree.

ultradmpldollars

I like the 92 more...

TomB

None of your pictures are showing up for me.

As for the Benson pedigree, it is my opinion that Benson was not a numismatist. Rather, Benson had the money to buy a ton of coins, many of them previously cleaned and/or dipped, and then stuck them away and ignored them for decades. The resulting toning shot many of the prices through the roof for coins that had been previously abused. The 1906 in question may very well be one of these previously abused coins if it is described as having hairlines.

Dave99B

Sheesh Tom, you make it sound like Jerry Benson collected circulated rolls of '64 Kennedy's!

Dave

TomB

I think he put away rolls of accented hair Kennedys.

Your images are now coming up and, based upon the single obverse image of each coin, I think the 1892 is far nicer than the 1906. No question about it. As for matching the rest of your dimes, well, I would take the nicer coin anyday rather than compromise.

magikbilly

Thanks for all the opinions.

I will certainly taken all advice into consideration. I am still where I was when I wrote this post however. I think the 1906 is a knockout and, unless there is hairlining or other damage as mentioned (and bearing in mind it is a 63), I will likely prefer this over the 1892. They need to be compared in hand - and I doubt it will take long to make up my mind. One will yell "Hey! Over here stupid!!"

Best,
Billy

PS - no, most of my coins don't talk to me....unless I listen real hard.....

Casey

That's a tough one. I love blue toning, but really like the 92 also.