3 Cent Nickel, does the toning/dirt on this bother anyone?
BECOKA
Posts: 16,961 ✭✭✭
Hello,
I am trying to decide if this coin will look better in person. This pics are not so bad but I am woried that the lines of toning will be dull in person. I know it is not dirt but hopefully it will draw attention. Any comments? I would like to add a decent 3 cent piece to my type set.
I am trying to decide if this coin will look better in person. This pics are not so bad but I am woried that the lines of toning will be dull in person. I know it is not dirt but hopefully it will draw attention. Any comments? I would like to add a decent 3 cent piece to my type set.
0
Comments
The 1883 is a farily low mintage year in the series. If you are going for a date collection, you should consider this piece, because it might be a while before you see another one. BUT if you just want the type, I'd look at something more common like an 1865 or 1881. You can easily find those dates without the toning that seems to bother you on this piece. My own taste runs toward "white" coins without the toning on Nickel Three Cent Pieces.
3CN are hard to find with natural spot-free surfaces -- that's what makes finding a nice one that much better.
Pass on this coin -- you can do better...Mike
A fine historical example of a better date.
I would like to own it.
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
<< <i>I was going to say I liked the strike but didn't particularly care for the toning. I really like cameo proof coins so would prefer a PR 66 Cameo. But, hey, that is just me. >>
I was thinking about the cameo also. It would be a nice plus.
So so far it looks like about 50/50 on the toning and a ding for no cameo.
Getting closer to a decision.
<< <i>Now what if I said this was a PF67 coin. Throw out some thoughts on this. >>
I still like the coin. I still wouldn't mind owning it. I wouldn't pay 67 money for it because I don't think it grades that high.
Which coin would you rather have? This 66 or your 67?
I'd take a clean 66 over a splotchy 67, but that's just me. What matters is what YOU prefer....Mike
The original poster said they were looking to add this as their example of the type. While I agree with you the date is sexier, for a type set I tend to gravitate to eye appeal rather than rarity, and the coin in question just does not do it for me.
In type collecting, if I can get a slightly better date without too much of an increase in price, so much the better, but not at the sacrifice of eye appeal, and particularly not for an example of the type. If the 1883 looked like the 1885, I would take it in a second, but it doesn't.
But that's just me, and I freely admit I'm a bit off my rocker.
Take care...Mike
p.s. I'd rather have the 1885 business strike too, you wanna trade?
and this coin has been dipped so it has changed the color of the striations in the planchet
the dipping along with the striations on this proof coin and the grade of proof 67 make this a no brainer pass coin for me
and for me with the dipping and striations the eye appeal is
<< <i>I have trouble with that coin in a PF 67 slab.
Which coin would you rather have? This 66 or your 67?
I'd take a clean 66 over a splotchy 67, but that's just me. What matters is what YOU prefer....Mike >>
I agree and am leaning toward this type of look for a proof 3 cent piece now. Like you mentioned before this is for a type set and I am looking for a great example as I will not collect the whole series. I am not looking for rare dates so the example should be easier to find.
<< <i>I would leave it as is I like it. >>
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire