Adrian, I'm partial to "toned" coins, but I must give this coin its' "props"...

dizzyfoxx

I have just spent five minutes just gazing at this absolutely incredible MOOSE!!! Yes, and I mean M O O S E!!!
This Barber Proof is beyond amazing and I can only imagine what it looks like in-hand. Just pure brilliance and to sum it up in the simplest terms...

JRocco

Hey Dizz, I do not like Barber coinage, but I think that that one is one of- if not the- nicest coin I have ever seen.

I find myself looking at that coin over and over myself also.

cheezhed

A rarified pop 1 Barber, what a coin!

jamesfsm

Dizzy-

Are you going to buy it? Looks like you found a new collecting interest.

poorguy

Thanks, I just re-imaged it yesterday.

rsdoug81

Yes. Dizzy, I think you have found a bona fide moose.

Ananconda, that is amazing!

ms70

I could see that being a hard coin to part with.

KentuckyJ

Nice coin.
No star?
I wonder what PCGS would grade it.

KJ

poorguy

<< <i>Nice coin.
No star?
I wonder what PCGS would grade it.

KJ >>



PR69CAM

SanctionII

Now that is a CAMEO Proof.

I wonder if anyone would ever, ever have the stones to crack this coin out and submit raw to try to get a "70" grade?

Further, I wonder if PCGS would ever cross the coin at a 69 grade (I doubt it)?

Further, has anyone ever seen any NGC 70 graded Proof or MS coin given a * designation (if so, what is the world is the thinking behind that)?

poorguy

We also handled the 1897 50c NGC PF69UCAM Barber Half. That's why the 1895 is the (Second) finest known.

dizzyfoxx

<< <i>We also handled the 1897 50c NGC PF69UCAM Barber Half. That's why the 1895 is the (Second) finest known.

>>



Brandon,

1921obsession

<< <i>We also handled the 1897 50c NGC PF69UCAM Barber Half. That's why the 1895 is the (Second) finest known.

(image) >>



That's the one I called "coin porn" elsewhere. Thank God I haven't seen an image of that quality of the Jack Lee MS69 Morgan - I don't know if I could handle it.

poorguy

<< <i>

<< <i>We also handled the 1897 50c NGC PF69UCAM Barber Half. That's why the 1895 is the (Second) finest known.

(image) >>



That's the one I called "coin porn" elsewhere. Thank God I haven't seen an image of that quality of the Jack Lee MS69 Morgan - I don't know if I could handle it. >>



I saw the PF69*UCAM Morgan at heritage before the Atlanta sale and it was a PERFECT twin to the 1897 PF69UCAM half we handled. It was a MONSTER!

1921obsession

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>We also handled the 1897 50c NGC PF69UCAM Barber Half. That's why the 1895 is the (Second) finest known.

(image) >>



That's the one I called "coin porn" elsewhere. Thank God I haven't seen an image of that quality of the Jack Lee MS69 Morgan - I don't know if I could handle it. >>



I saw the PF69*UCAM Morgan at heritage before the Atlanta sale and it was a PERFECT twin to the 1897 PF69UCAM half we handled. It was a MONSTER! >>



Holy crap, that PF69 even looked good at Heritage. I gotta win the freakin' lottery or something.

mnmcoin

Wow, I keep looking for the word COPY on the reverse!

morris <><

Bear

That the coin Adrian should use

as the prize in a give away contest.

Cockney

I think I need clean undies...................

mdwoods

Even DA cannot dispute the grandeur of this coin.

messydesk

Awesome coins. Not to pee in the soup, but I wonder what they'd have look like if never dipped.

Sandhawk

This coin is Ttthhhhuper Tthhpectacular!!! I'm feeling moist !!!!

braddick

<< <i>This coin is Ttthhhhuper Tthhpectacular!!! I'm feeling moist !!!! >>

Moist??

techeff

Very nice coin, but there's a reason why it isn't in a PCGS holder.

tradedollarnut

<< <i>

<< <i>Nice coin.
No star?
I wonder what PCGS would grade it.

KJ >>



PR69CAM >>



Wanna bet?

lasvegasteddy

is it just me or does that etching seem to fall off the coins profile?

poorguy

<< <i>is it just me or does that etching seem to fall off the coins profile? >>



It's just you.

poorguy

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Nice coin.
No star?
I wonder what PCGS would grade it.

KJ >>



PR69CAM >>



Wanna bet? >>



Have you even seen this coin in person? Kind of hard to make that assumption from an image don't you think?

coinguy1

<<<< Nice coin.
No star?
I wonder what PCGS would grade it.

KJ >>



PR69CAM >>



Wanna bet? >>


<<Have you even seen this coin in person? Kind of hard to make that assumption from an image don't you think?>>

Actually, Brandon, it's quite easy (and a very good % play/bet) to make such an assumption, regardless of how wonderful the coin might appear. I'm not certain, but I don't think PCGS has graded ANY PR69 Cameo's of that type.

tradedollarnut

Have you even seen this coin in person? Kind of hard to make that assumption from an image don't you think?

I don't need to see the coin to know that the odds are heavily in my favor - no matter what it looks like. According to the pop reports, PCGS has never graded a Barber Half PR69.

You'd best save your money for something with better odds ....

CTcollector

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Nice coin.
No star?
I wonder what PCGS would grade it.

KJ >>



PR69CAM >>



Wanna bet? >>



Have you even seen this coin in person? Kind of hard to make that assumption from an image don't you think? >>



I am with TDN on this. There are none currently for type at that grade at PCGS and I would have to imagine if one was to be graded that high, it would be original and not dipped/conserved.

lsica

<< <i>I don't need to see the coin to know that the odds are heavily in my favor - no matter what it looks like. According to the pop reports, PCGS has never graded a Barber Half PR69. >>



*IF* there were actually a significant quantity of actual PR69 and near miss PR68 Barber halves out there, *and* if PCGS was consistently NOT grading those coins as PR69, THEN you could say the "odds were heavily in (your) favor". Since that isn't true, I'd be leery about predicting PCGS's potential grade on that piece based on a "statistical analysys" instead of an actual observation and study of the coin.

fc

nice coin.
and what i am finding out about this hobby, is that nice
coins cost a lot of money.

more money than your average joe will ever have to spend
on a coin.

hobby of kings...

tradedollarnut

<< <i>

<< <i>I don't need to see the coin to know that the odds are heavily in my favor - no matter what it looks like. According to the pop reports, PCGS has never graded a Barber Half PR69. >>



*IF* there were actually a significant quantity of actual PR69 and near miss PR68 Barber halves out there, *and* if PCGS was consistently NOT grading those coins as PR69, THEN you could say the "odds were heavily in (your) favor". Since that isn't true, I'd be leery about predicting PCGS's potential grade on that piece based on a "statistical analysys" instead of an actual observation and study of the coin. >>



I wouldn't be - that'd be the safest bet I've made in a long time. And it's more about knowing PCGS than knowing anything at all about the coin.

coinguy1

<< <i>IF* there were actually a significant quantity of actual PR69 and near miss PR68 Barber halves out there, *and* if PCGS was consistently NOT grading those coins as PR69, THEN you could say the "odds were heavily in (your) favor". Since that isn't true, I'd be leery about predicting PCGS's potential grade on that piece based on a "statistical analysys" instead of an actual observation and study of the coin. >>

I disagree. PCGS has seen and evaluated more than enough amazing quality Proof Barber half Dollars by now. Since they have failed to grade any of them PR69, odds are stacked against the coin in this thread (or any other example, for that matter) being graded such. It should/would have to be noticeably enough better than all of the others for PCGS to assign such a grade.

No matter how wonderful a given coin might be, any time you bet that it will receive a grade that hasn't been awarded to one of that type, you're bucking the odds, big-time.