is this 1887 indian a proof?

darktone

Looks like one to me. What do you think?

CarlWohlforth

Looks like a great strike. The lettering is very nice. The rims don't look square enough, or do the tips of feathers and hair have quite enough details. I don't know any of the diagnostics for the proof dies so can't say for sure. My shoot from the hips guess is no, not a proof.

darktone

Thanks Carl. Here's another picture. It looks like it might have some cameo? In Rick Snows book it say's - "Many are carelessly made,with oil impressions in the fields, some not being struck twice! Some are oddly toned,"

CarlWohlforth

Well, Rick would know better than me, maybe he will pipe in. I do know there are many proof like MS coins from that era that show some frost in the devices.

I was at the Santa Clara show today and I viewed dozens of Proof Indians as well as many PL higher denomination coins. I'm just giving you my impression and it isn't based on any facts.

I did see a very interesting Buffalo nickel, I believe 1915. It was presented as an MS coin struck with proof dies. It was said to have diagnostics of the proof die. It sure did have an awesome matte proof look!

darktone

Thanks again Carl. Maybe Rick will be able to say for sure?

tightbudget

I would say no. The strike is good, but not sharp enough IMO.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

I don't see any reflectivity in those fields... I say no

Longacre

I don't know anything about these, but my initial reaction from an uneducated point of view is "no".

mozeppa

for sure...not a proof.

skier07

I don't know, it's impossible to tell from an image.

We all bag on TPG's, but this illustrates a perfect scenario where they can be helpful. I also realize they can be wrong too.


Bruce

EagleEye

Looks like it's not. Also the weakness on the T is not found on any proofs.

darktone

Thanks Guy's. Oh well it was to dream about for a night.

darktone

Here's a reverse picture of it. It does not look proof by the reverse. It does look like it was struck through grease though.