Proof Isabella Quarter? What Do You Think?
poorguy
Posts: 4,317 ✭
Ok. First of all, don't look at the horrible toning. That's not why I'm posting this coin. I'm posting it for discussion on whether it is a proof or not. The color looks obviously artificial but again, that's not the point and this coin can hopefully be saved by NCS. Please just try and concentrate on the facts below:
103 proofs were originally minted, the first 100 coins made and numbers 1492 and 1892 that were struck. There are prooflike specimens out there that exhibit deeply reflective surfaces but have the striking detail of a non-proof example. The true proofs feature extra-sharp detail in the central areas and most notable the line of yarn over the woman's thigh on the reverse. In business strike examples this area is notably weak on most examples and the line tends to blend into the woman's thigh. A characteristic of a proof example is the line being continuous over the thigh. The Queen's hair is fully detailed and the embroidered garments are not in the least bit mushy in appearance as most business strikes exhibit. The rims will be very sharp and the letters are crisp and completely struck up on a proof. Even the best struck business examples may show some weakness in at least one of these areas. One last key area to look at is the small triangular area between the fist holding the distaff and her arm in the center of the reverse. Some business strike prooflike examples have this but ALL proofs must have this area deeply mirrored.
PCGS has certified 4 proof Isabella quarters while NGC has certified, I believe, 31 or so.
From this information and the large image provided, what would you conclude regarding this Isabella Quarter. It is hard to tell with a photograph, that the triangular area on the reverse mentioned above is in-fact deeply mirrored.
Very Very large image.
Here is an example of a fairly well struck business strike.
103 proofs were originally minted, the first 100 coins made and numbers 1492 and 1892 that were struck. There are prooflike specimens out there that exhibit deeply reflective surfaces but have the striking detail of a non-proof example. The true proofs feature extra-sharp detail in the central areas and most notable the line of yarn over the woman's thigh on the reverse. In business strike examples this area is notably weak on most examples and the line tends to blend into the woman's thigh. A characteristic of a proof example is the line being continuous over the thigh. The Queen's hair is fully detailed and the embroidered garments are not in the least bit mushy in appearance as most business strikes exhibit. The rims will be very sharp and the letters are crisp and completely struck up on a proof. Even the best struck business examples may show some weakness in at least one of these areas. One last key area to look at is the small triangular area between the fist holding the distaff and her arm in the center of the reverse. Some business strike prooflike examples have this but ALL proofs must have this area deeply mirrored.
PCGS has certified 4 proof Isabella quarters while NGC has certified, I believe, 31 or so.
From this information and the large image provided, what would you conclude regarding this Isabella Quarter. It is hard to tell with a photograph, that the triangular area on the reverse mentioned above is in-fact deeply mirrored.
Very Very large image.
Here is an example of a fairly well struck business strike.
Brandon Kelley - ANA - 972.746.9193 - http://www.bestofyesterdaycollectibles.com
0
Comments
<< <i>Prooflike business strike is my WAG. The dentils show some weakness and don't look like a proof to me....Mike >>
Take a look at this NGC PF64 example: Heritage coin
The weakness on the reverse, I'm assuming you are talking about, is also present on the certified proof. My suspicions are that this area on the denticles is consistently struck this way and not weak.
The area I was referring to was from 7 to 9 o'clock on the obverse. It could be an effect from the color.
Please understand my comments were complete a WAG. I have NO experience with proof commemoratives, but the look of the dentils was far different from proof circulating coinage of the time, a seated or Barber coin for example, and thus the comment.
It is also worth noting that the Heritage proof doesn't show a particularly strong thread on the obverse.
From what I gather, proof attribution of these coins is a crapshoot at best. Breen mentions the width of the rims being wider, and the sharp inner and outer edges of the rim as additional diagnostics. Personally, I would never buy a proof of this issue because of the difficulty of attribution...Mike
It actually does look pretty strong to me from what I gather from the not so good heritage image. I see a continuous line that barely catches the light the way they shot the coin.
That area on the obverse looks in-hand like it's the toning. I don't see any weakness. On the reverse though, on the denticles from 7oclock to 5oclock are flattened a tad but are completely separated and look very similar to the denticles on the certified proof example.
I'd send it, as is, to PCGS and not lose the toning via NCS.
If you're insistent on going for the proof status, the question to be asked is why NGC? If it's because they have done over 30 to less than a handful by PCGS, it seems to, just one guy's opinion, that in itself diminishes the designation if it should get it. If you're going to to for the pot at the end of the rainbow, I'd try PCGS first.
I've little doubt you will get very strong money for the coin absent it being a proof.
<< <i>I think you have a very nice, stong, strike and a solid Isabella but, IMHO, it's not a proof. It might go MS66 but it will be a very PQ MS65.
I'd send it, as is, to PCGS and not lose the toning via NCG.
If you're insistent on going for the proof status, the question to be asked is why NGC? If it's because they have done over 30 to less than a handful by PCGS, it seems to, just one guy's opinion, that in itself diminishes the designation if it should get it. If you're going to to for the pot at the end of the rainbow, I'd try PCGS first.
I've little doubt you will get very strong money for the coin absent it being a proof. >>
I agree with your entire post. The only reason I would send it to NGC was so that NCS can remove that horrible toning which I feel is AT. I would want to get the coin in a PCGS holder because of their strict policy on proofs. However, who is to say that all of the proofs NGC has holdered aren't proofs. There were 103 made and a pop of 30 at one service shouldn't scare anybody. Maybe PCGS isn't holdering actual proof examples when the should be and NGC is simply holdering them properly.
As was said earlier, I would never buy an Isabella proof. I believe there are too many encapsulated as proofs that are not proofs.
If I had your coin in hand to compare with my Isabellas listed by NGC as prooflike, I could be more exacting in my decision. My MS63-64 prooflike Isabellas all appear to me to be business strikes.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think you have a very nice, stong, strike and a solid Isabella but, IMHO, it's not a proof. It might go MS66 but it will be a very PQ MS65.
I'd send it, as is, to PCGS and not lose the toning via NCG.
If you're insistent on going for the proof status, the question to be asked is why NGC? If it's because they have done over 30 to less than a handful by PCGS, it seems to, just one guy's opinion, that in itself diminishes the designation if it should get it. If you're going to to for the pot at the end of the rainbow, I'd try PCGS first.
I've little doubt you will get very strong money for the coin absent it being a proof. >>
I agree with your entire post. The only reason I would send it to NGC was so that NCS can remove that horrible toning which I feel is AT. I would want to get the coin in a PCGS holder because of their strict policy on proofs. However, who is to say that all of the proofs NGC has holdered aren't proofs. There were 103 made and a pop of 30 at one service shouldn't scare anybody. Maybe PCGS isn't holdering actual proof examples when the should be and NGC is simply holdering them properly. >>
Please understand that I have nothing bad to say about NGC or NCS. I've used both and been happy with each. All I was trying to say was that since you want to go for the home run (get the proof designation), given the lower numbers by PCGS, it would seem to me, IMHO, that the real score would come from getting it from PCGS. NGC's population, I'm sure is valid, fair and just. At the same time, given the lower pop number, I would think PCGS would get you the max $$$ from the anticipated designation.
in hand sight seen could might be different but i doubt it