1889 lib nickel-Proof or mint state. How do you tell?

TahoeDale

At a recent show, a good dealer asked my opinion on an 1889 lib nickel slabbed by NGC as MS 66--did I think it was MS, as described, or proof.

It did have proof-like surfaces. And we already knew that many of the 1889 nickels were minted using proof dies, but for circulation., with single not double strikings.

The coin was in a holder, so the rims could not be viewed fully.

So I went on a hunt. First to the ANACS table, where the 2 experts differed-1 proof and 1 MS.

NGC- MS

2 expert graders(also dealers) both MS.

The coin was sent to PCGS to cross to MS 66. It came back DNC, attributed as a Proof.

Now, will breaking out the coin prove anything re it's status? Are the rims determinative? Will the grading service know for sure if the coin is not encased in a slab?

michael

let me see it raw and then i can tell you for sure

jcping

The luster could be the first indicator between Proof and Business strike.

coinguy1

<< <i>The luster could be the first indicator between Proof and Business strike. >>

Oh, if only it were always that easy. Proof 1889 Liberty Nickels are often found dull/lackluster, to the point where they resemble lustrous business strikes.


<< <i>let me see it raw and then i can tell you for sure >>

If the major grading services can't do that with great consistency, I'd be surprised if you could - sorry.



Dale, if you're looking for a business strike, I'd recommend staying away from examples which are not immediately obvious as such.

Here is an image of one that has been certified by PCGS as an MS65 and which looks to be a "no-brainer" business strike:





On the other hand, here is one which has been certified by NGC as an MS66, but which does not look to be an obvious business strike:





I would happily sacrifice a bit of strike and flash, in order to end up with an obvious business strike, rather than aim for a sharper strike and more flash on an example that might or might not be a business strike.

jcping

Mark,

It is not very useful to check the strike (the completeness of the stars) to define "immediately obvious" of 1889 nickels. There are some very good strike (full stars) minit state 1889 nickels. Also, many folks who are working on high end sets insist to have good strike on stars, anyway

coinguy1

<< <i>It is not very useful to check the strike (the completeness of the stars) to define "immediately obvious" of 1889 nickels. There are some very good strike (full stars) minit state 1889 nickels >>

J.C, I agree with you. However, in the images I posted (and I understand that images don't necessarily show coins as they truly are), the first coin looks to be satiny, lacking in strike detail and non-PL. On the other hand, the second example imaged, looks to be fully struck and reflective. If I had to guess which was a true business strike, I'd definitely go with with the first one - how about you?

MrEureka

Has anyone ever seen an 89 proof nickel will full mirrors?

Has anyone ever seen an unquestionable 89 business strike with any PL characteristics?

TahoeDale

Mark,

Appreciate the images, and they do tell a tale.

In answer to some of the replies, Yes, I do have an 1889 Proof 66 NGC with mirrors, and compared it to the NGC MS66. No doubt the MS 66 is proof-like, but w/o the mirrors.

I also own another MS 66 NGC, which does not have any proof-like attributes. But it is similar to the 2nd post by Coinguy1. Fully struck, with somewhat dull/grainy surfaces.

I have viewed an NGC 67 in MS, which appears to be okay. But the full strike with all stars, and corn may lead one to believe it is also a proof. When proofs can be prooflike, or dull, where do you go when looking at fully struck nickels?

From The Complete Guide to Shield and Liberty Head Nickels, pg 50:

"There are 2 major factors needed to produce a sharply struck proof with a square rim/edge" 1)The degree of upset,or milling...not to be confused with reeding. 2)The degree of stamping pressure and the smoothness needed to squeeze the metal fully into every crevice in the dies."

It goes on to describe the result from one hard sharp blow (for business strikes) it would not normally fill the collar adequately to make the rim/edge square.

So, I think I will break out the coins( several MS and proof examples,) and report what I find.

coinguy1

<< <i>So, I think I will break out the coins( several MS and proof examples,) and report what I find >>

Dale, as interesting as that might prove to be, I'd strongly advise against it. If you are unable to get the coins re-holdered it might be very costly. Even if you can do so, it could result in a lot of effort, frustration and time.



<< <i> No doubt the MS 66 is proof-like, but w/o the mirrors. >>

To me, proof-like implies that the coin has mirrors, even if not particularly deep ones.

TahoeDale

Mark,

No problem for me in cracking them out. As you already know, I am one of the multiple coin submitters to the TPG's, and they do as I wish ( Ha Ha, just kidding)

No, I am not going to do it. But I have another thought.

Submit the MS 66 and 67 NGC coins to NGC for re-grading, along with 2 definite NGC 66 proofs. Ask them to compare the strikes, surfaces and rim edges, and depending on the results, guarantee the differences for the MS coins that turn out to be proofs.

I would like to have photos of the rims/edges to accompany the return of the coins. Any chance of that occurring?

coinguy1

<<Any chance of that occurring? >>

My guess would be extremely slim. From what I recall, unless they have changed their policy, they will not accept comparison coins for grading or re-grading purposes. That procedure could easily box them into a corner they do not want to be boxed into.

I think you have a much better shot with respect to the imaging of the rims/edges.

TahoeDale

Mark,

Thanks. I am bringing the coins to Baltimore, and we will continue the discussion.

MFH

Dale,

I have this date in both MS & PR and they are both graded NGC 65, however they are at the bank and I can't do a ready exam. I remember specifically that the PR had decent mirrors and the MS was just that, a true MS coin.

These coins are in my 1889 Proof & Mint Sets which havn't seen the light of day in years.

TahoeDale

I'm at the Baltimore show, and have decided, after getting differing opinions from 5 dealers, to submit the 3 MS coins(66,67,&67) to NGC for designation, with a detailed note concerning the possible proof condition of each.

A preliminary review by an NGC grader indicated that one of the coins is probably a proof, but a detailed exam out of the holder will be necessary.

I will report the results when I get them.

coinguy1

<< <i>A preliminary review by an NGC grader indicated that one of the coins is probably a proof, but a detailed exam out of the holder will be necessary. >>

Dale, is it the one that the other dealer and I both thought was most likely to be a proof?

PS - please let me know how the weather is when you get home.

TahoeDale

Mark,

Yes, it was the one you and the other dealer decided was probably a proof--the MS67 with a little gold toning.

He was undecided on the blast white one, but believed the MS 66 was MS.

As to my request for images of the rims/edges, he said that would not happen.

For the weather, it makes no difference what is is when I get home. It will be nice when you get there!

Sunnywood

For some three-cent and five-cent nickel issues it is nearly impossible to determine the striking format, even out of the holder. I was lucky enough to participate in an intense round-robin of e-mail exchanges involving John Dannreuther, Dave Bowers, Bob Julian, and fellow shield nickel enthusiast Howard Spindel. The purpose was to nail down the striking history of 1880 shield nickels including an evaluation of all known dies and pairings, as well as their respective life cycles. There were virtually no diagnostics or particular die pairings that could be said unequivocally to be proofs or business strikes. John Dannreuther is planning a more thorough study of emission sequences based on minute characteristics that help to determine which of any two coins was struck earlier (from the same die).

Bottom line: square edges, surface quality, and die diagnostics are not enough. Sometimes the only determinants of non-proofs are poor strike and the presence of die cracks. Interestingly, due to the low mintage of 1880 nickels, there is none known with die cracks, although a die chip on the Breen-2515 obverse exists and is NOT dispositive of proof status.

Coincidentally, I also have an 1889 Lib nickel that is a similar conundrum. My records show only that it came from a Superior auction on 9/23/02. I believe it was in a PCI MS67 holder, and was catalogued by Superior only as "MS67. Superb!" It has nice toning, possibly of questionable origin. I sent it to PCGS, and it came back as a proof, but body-bagged for the toning. I sent it to NCS to remove the toning, but they said they could not "conserve" it. I sent it to NGC for an opinion, and they offered none. I still have the coin. It still has the toning, and I still don't know what it is. I wasted money sending it to PCGS, NCS and NGC. None of them had any idea what to do with it. I should have complained and refused to pay their fees.

Best,
Sunnywood

CarlWohlforth

Personally I would prefer the full stars of a well struck nickel be it MS or Proof. I want details! Of the two coins Mark posted images of I prefer the second. I like deep mirrored fields, but, more importantly, I like the good strike. I can think of lots of proof coins with good strikes but poor mirrors.

I don't like breaking coins out of their holders as I see a low upside/downside ratio in doing that. Sunnywood might agree... or not. Anyway I would not have cracked the coin he has...