Could this possibly be a proof? Please explain why or why not?

dizzyfoxx · March 24, 2006 11:46PM

...Here are some various images. It just seems to have an amazingly strong strike/details and has an incredible and lustrous and almost textured "look" to it in-hand. Thanks in advance for your opinions...

JRocco · March 24, 2006 11:52PM

Hey Dizz. It is not a proof. The first thing I always look at is the area where the fields meet the rims. Picture them from the side. Imagine you are standing ON the field, the field was the floor and the rim was the wall. If the place where the floor meets the wall looks like it is a 90 degree angle ( like an L ) then it has the characteristics of a proof. If the area where the floor meets the wall looks like the floor is curved up to join the wall ( like a C ) then it has the characteristics of a business strike. Hope this helps.

Shamika · March 24, 2006 11:54PM

Typically, when I see thread titles like this, my first answer is "no". But the L in Liberty is so strongly detailed, it is worth consideration. Still, other letters are not squared off enough to indicate proof status.

roadrunner · March 24, 2006 11:55PM

Not imo. The rim doesn't seem square at all or wired, reverse letters look too rounded. Lots of hits on the rim which tends to be a sign of handling or jostling...something that matte proofs did not go through. Appears to have too much cartwheel luster as well in the top photos. If shown separately the top photos look like all business strike, but the lower photos seem to impart the general look of a matte proof. Once again, photos can say what you want.

roadrunner

cohodk · March 25, 2006 12:02AM

Here are a few 1913 proofs for comparison.

dizzyfoxx · March 25, 2006 12:14AM

<

<< <i>

>>

>

Dave, I absolutely

the look of this coin.

What is its' grade?

CarlWohlforth · March 25, 2006 12:20AM

When I saw the photos I instantly knew my guess is no, not a proof. The rim isn't square enough. The miniscule dings and imperfections on the rim probably would not be there on a proof. The lettering isn't square enough. The strike is good but you can't make out every hair in Lincoln's beard like you can with a proof.

More people would know what proof 1913s Lincolns look like if they weren't being hoarded by a couple of forum members.

At least those forum members can take great photos and are willing to share the photos.

Russ · March 25, 2006 12:46AM

Russ, NCNE

DickyBetz · March 25, 2006 5:05AM

John,

It is definitely not a proof. The area where the fields turn into the rim is too rounded. On proofs it is squared and the rims are wide and distinctly squared off also. I also think that this one has too much luster and not enough of that "sand-blasted" look that proofs have.

messydesk · March 25, 2006 5:10AM

The reason that the business strikes of the matte proof years look so nice is that the hub was new then. Compare with 1968 which looks like crap in comparison, and you might be inclined to mistake a nice business strike 1913 for a proof at first glance,