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

magikbilly · November 11, 2004 12:08AM

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

coolkarma · November 11, 2004 12:58AM

Magikbilly,
Well, I like the 1892 Cameo with nice subtle color better

However, I agree the 1906 is nice and goes well with your icon

Numismanic · November 11, 2004 2:23AM

Your 1906 dime looks great. The blue toning frames the portrait very nice.

lava · November 11, 2004 4:14AM

I like the `92 better. The cameo looks much sweeter to my eye. Color is intriguing, but so are ink stains, and intrigue does not equate with beauty. I would keep the `92.

Strat · November 11, 2004 12:58PM

I think your 92 is a much better coin, with superior eye appeal, plus it's a cameo.

michael · November 11, 2004 1:41PM

i like both coins but i know and understand the colored 1906 especially so the blue colors are impossible to get great photos of and i bet in person it is a killer so for me you made the right choice with the 1906

but i would keep the 1892 also as it is a close photofinish second now all you need is a non cameo proof barber dime for your mini proof barber dime type set you got the cameo the colored and now you need the brilliant a super set with two super great coins to start WILD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

michael

magikbilly · November 11, 2004 2:05PM

Hi Michael

,
thanks to all for the responses!

Well, why I wanted to replace the '92 with the '06;

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.

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

the silver Benson Proofs seem to have escaped at least some of the hairlining.

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. I think I am going to keep the 'o6

Best,
Billy

agentjim007 · November 11, 2004 11:54PM

I like the 1892 better. I am sure the photo of the 1906 is not accurate it looks AT in the photo.

magikbilly · November 12, 2004 12:43AM

Hi,
that is the photograph from the Goldberg Benson auction catalog. Most all of the Proofs in that run had this type of toning and this appearance in the catalog - some had more direct target toning. Assuming of course this is not havily hairlined like some Bensons, I think this will be a beautiful, original low mintage coin. Bensons (good ones) are known for incredible toning. I think the photo is a glare-on photo; like my icon coin. Does that look AT too? It is not.

Best,
Billy