IHC Proof Characteristics

ajia

Looking through my Dansco's of IHC I noticed that these 3 had rather brilliant surfaces (under the toning) and pretty sharp strikes.
I don't know if the brilliance is coming from the toning, or if they're just nice strike, or if these really are proof IHC.
Are there any characteristics that distinguish proof strikes from business strikes?

These pictures don't do the reflection justice, but here goes.

TomB

One way to inspect these, aside from the level of detail throughout, is to look at the dentils. The coins you have imaged do not have sharp dentils throughout. Specifically, the 1884 at 12:00 on obverse, the 1887 at 2:00 on both obverse and reverse and the 1903 at 2:00 and from 5:00 to 7:00 on reverse. These coins appear to be business strikes to me and look like AU pieces.

ajia

Tom,

I was trying to get the color & luster from sunlight.
Because of this the coins were tilted a bit & (usually) the top & bottom, or sides were thrown out of focus a bit.
I will look at the denticles to see how sharp they are.

Has anyone here sent in IHC as proofs, and if so, was the brilliance of the coin the only give-away?

Augie

IrishMike

If you put a proof side by side with a mint state the square rims are a give away its a proof and easy to tell.

FPCoins

Christ, those are awful.

michael

no brainer (at least from the photos) NON proofs

in person inspection would 100% confirm either way

ajia

Now my coins are awful & I have no brain!

Thanks Guys for the input.

cullenbryant

i sure as heck like em'

cullenbryant

it's usc that sucks

Newmismatist

They look like business strikes, most likely cleaned (possibly polished), AU-ish and "re-toned"

No dis-respect to you, but not particularly nice IHCs

bhartman35

ajia:

I don't know if they're proofs, but they're definitely nice coins. Whatever grade they actually are, they're certainly great pieces to have in any collection.

And don't let the fact that you have a problem identifying the proof coins get you down. It's not always an easy call. Look for the thread about the proof 3-cent piece and how much discussion there was around that coin's status.

FPCoins

<< <i>Now my coins are awful >>



Sorry, that was more harsh than helpful. However look closely at the coins, especially the first two. While nicely struck they have some major problems, the surfaces are coarse almost corroded and the blotchy color is unnatrual.

As for proof IHCs look for square edges and mirrors on the fields. They pretty easy to pick out once you've seen a few.

Good luck!

ajia

Todd, Don't be 'hating', maybe Oregon St. will make it to the 'Bluebonnet Bowl' (for all you youngster, yes there really was a Bluebonnet Bowl, I believe in Houston Astrodome), or the Las Vegas bowl, maybe the Tidy Bowl.

As for the comments about the coins themselves, don't worry about the comments, they're only coins without feeling & those are you're opinions.
Pictures do tend to show off any flaws IMO, but I like them & that's what really matters to me.

I'll take a harder look to see if they're worth taking a chance on to submit.

Augie

IrishMike

ajia, I've been collecting them since Paul Hornung played at ND. Unlike Hornung those coins aren't all-american by any stretch. Just put them in a folder and let time work on them. They all appear to be messed with and you will be wasting your money by submitting them. I hope this was a nice enough analogy for you.

ajia

Wasn't Hornung the QB at Notre Dame?
Hey, too bad what happened to them in the 'SC game.......NOT!

kryptonitecomics

I had a similar experience trying to tell the difference and I overpaid by quite a bit for what I thought was a proof IHC.....I sent it to Rob Sirna and discovered that the coin was a cleaned Business strike.....it had purple fields on the reverse that looked like a prrof to me but it was a sign of the old cleaning...

.....by the way Ron.....if you find the coin please send it back to me.....it's been a few years and I promise to give it a good home if it finds it's way back to me