1897 Proof Liberty Nickel

rhedden

Here's an 1897 proof Liberty nickel I recently purchased from David Lawrence. I'm pretty happy with it. The picture below it is the same exact coin from the Heritage archives, showing that it used to have some light toning and a fingerprint. In the year or so between the photos, someone cracked it, dipped it, and re-submitted it to NGC, where they got the same exact grade (not blaming DLRC for this, but someone out there did dip it, obviously). The coin has a heavier contact mark in front of Liberty's face and another smaller one above the wreath on the reverse that is not visible in the picture. I don't know why, but I feel that this coin was undergraded by a point despite the contact marks. There are no hairlines in the fields, and the Cameo is obvious. There are no carbon spots, and no hazy toning. It is a truly "Gem" proof with a couple of nicks. I'd like to hear others' opinions on this coin, especially dedicated Liberty Nickel collectors. If you don't have any idea what PR64 Liberty Nickels usually look like, then have a look at some dealers' websites; they usually have unattractive toning. I'd rather have this coin than a hazy one that is mark-free, but maybe others would disagree.

Ronyahski

I think it is properly graded. That mark is too distracting, looks like more chatter on the neck, and it has the look of a dipped coin. Also think I would have liked the coin better pre-dip. JMHO.

vega1

Looks like a finger print on the obverse pre-dip maybe?

Based on the picture, looks like a nice coin. I'm no expert, but I would agree that the marks in the field should keep it out of a 65 holder. My opinion only.

Myqqy

It's really hard to tell how the eye appeal has changed since the dip with the pictures.... and I'm wondering about the staying power of prints post dip. Do prints often return, since the oils that made the print might have permanently affected the metal?