Poll: Is this 1873 3CN a proof or bus. strike?

Rob41281

i won this off the bay maybe a month ago. in the auction and on the 2x2 it was called a proof. is there anyway to tell? heres different pics of the coin. first are the pics from the auction, then my pics.


Sellers auction pics.






my pics

seateddime

BS to me on first guess but I don't know the dies on these coins. Someone should know this.

itsnotjustme

I voted business strike. I am not an expert on these, but I do belive the hair detail should be complete on a proof. Look at the lower hair curls north east of the 3. Far from complete.

keets

these can be hard to judge. regarding the strike and what looks to be either weakness or wear, you'll have to first rock the coin to see if there's full luster at the spots. i have a nicely toned coin that was weakly struck from polished diea, the central numeral detail is almost flat, yet there's full luster and PCGS graded as MS62. the pitting on both sides looks to me like unstruck planchet flaws from a weak strike and not circulation marks, mainly because they are in isolted areas where they wouldn't typically be found and look like and almost look like corrosion.

i think it's a weakly struck Mint State issue that came from polished dies.

bhartman35

I'm going to guess business strike, only because that seems to be the consensus. I'd note, though, that the hair could simply be worn, rather than weakly struck. I don't think that's a good indicator of whether or not it's a proof. Your example does have the line after the A in "AMERICA" that seems to be on the example PCGS uses in their price guide. On the other hand, "LIBERTY" seems a little weak, and since that's not on a high point of the coin, that seems indicative of something less than a proof strike.

JMHO.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

business strike... the strike is too weak for a proof

MikeInFL

My sense is it is a business strike. Never seen a 3CN proof with that light of a strike on the dentils and it is even a bit lightly struck centrally....Mike

michael

bs

michael

and quite a sexy good looking mamma jamma
with a fundemendial reason to rise in opportunity and demand bs

if i do say so myself

NumisOxide

I'm gonna go with BS.

roadrunner

I would have said proof, as 3 cent nickels have some of the most poorly made and weakly struck proofs of the later 19th century.
Very deep mirrors, polishing in recessed areas, full detail on vertical lines on reverse, wide rims, square dentils.

These are always a tough call when the strike or planchet quality is not there.

roadrunner

dpoole

I agree with RR. I think it's a proof. Planchet flaws and weakly struck, but a proof.

It has a "Closed 3" style in the date, where the balls of the 3 are close together. A couple of the BS dies have the closed 3 as well, but there also is "Longacre Doubling" on the ICA of AMERICA, the closed D style in United and evidence of punch denticle errors and denctile restrikes on the obverse, hallmarks of the proof die used for the year.

Lots of variations and verible looks among the proofs for the series! Manufacturing was more hit and miss then, and they had trouble adjusting to the new and harder copper-nickel composition. Neat!

WoodenJefferson

The sellers pics show PROOF all the way, yours show more or less what the coin looks like in hand. The fields on the reverse have that late 1900th Century look to them, so I go with proof.

123cents

Looks like a business strike to me.

Mark

Rob:

Your pictures are excellent. According to my very expensive book, The Ultimate Guide to U.S. Three Cent Nickels (about 500 poorly written but incredibly detailed pages, with pictures sometimes very good and sometimes very poor) I guess that your coin is MS. I say "guess" because the pictures of MS coins are much too small to make any reasonable comparison. And the details about the MS dies is too poorly organized to be certain. But the proof's pictures are more reasonable and it seems as if your coin doesn't match. In particular, there is no picture nor discussion of a proof with enough polishing to cause the crossbar in the "T" in United to be separate from the downstroke. And all the proofs are said to display a "closed top of D" whereas your coin seems to have a "knife edge top of D." But unfortunately there is no discussion of what the "D's" look like on the 3 MS dies the author has identified and discusses. Your coin also seems to have doubling on the last A in America. The book says that the "ICA" on all proofs shows doubling but, once again, there is no discussion about either PR or MS coins with doubling on only the last A. Finally, the book asserts that there was one die used for proofs in 1873 (the book apparently does not believe that there are any 1873 open 3 proofs) and that this die, a closed 3 (like your coin) had the 3 slightly doubled. Your pictures are so good that I think your coin does not show the doubling on the 3. But I could be wrong--perhaps a larger picture of the 3 will show doubling inside the 3, "slightly below the top loop."

I guess the bottom line is that based on this book, the coin is most likely MS. But I sure would not stake much on this conclusion. I also would not stake much on attempts to determine whether the coin is PR or MS from the strength of the strike. In 1865, it might be possible to use the strength of the strike to deterine whether a 3CN is MS or PR. But by 1885 this difference was almost non-existent. Your coin, an 1873, probably should be from a year that still has most proof coins better struck than most MS coins, but who knows if there aren't exceptions.

I hope this is helpful. If you are interested in 3CNs, I can pm you with details about the book I used. However, I am not 100% sure that the book is worth the price.

sinin1

I think a lower grade proof
the letters and denticles look really pronounced


the following is a PCGS Proof 58







Teletrade sale