A little help with grading please! 1880 Nickel

coolest

Can anyone tell me if this coin is a business strike or a Proof?
This coin was purchased in an ANACS AU55 holder.
It looked problem free so I cracked it out and send it to PCGS. It came back PF53. Seeing nothing about the coin that looks Proof, I again cracked it out and sent in bank to PCGS. This time it came back PF50. Can they be sure it’s a Proof or are they just playing safe at my expense?

Thank you in advance for any useful information.

Please look at the photos.

www.s264.photobucket.com/albums/ii162/NaturalWonderPhoto/1880rev.jpg
www.i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii162/NaturalWonderPhoto/1880obv1.jpg

This coin was purchased in an ANACS AU55 holder.
It looked problem free so I cracked it out and send it to PCGS. It came back PF53. Seeing nothing about the coin that looks Proof I cracked it out again and sent in bank to PCGS. It came back AU50. Can they be sure it’s a Proof or are they just playing safe at my expense?

STONE

ziggy29

Ouch. This hurts to look at. This is an expensive lesson to learn. Sorry to hear this.

When a coin is MANY times more valuable in MS than in proof, never, never, never resubmit a coin in an MS holder through crackout.

I can't tell, but these are words to live by, whether an 1880 nickel, an 1870 3CS, an 1884 3CN or other coin which is much more common (and cheap) as a proof. If there is any doubt, the TPGs are tending to cover their butts and call it a proof.

doh

Pics aren't showing up for me, but it's pretty safe to say it's a proof. There are many more proofs floating around than business strikes of that date and PCGS said it was a proof twice. That sucks, man.

Edited: Okay, I can see the pics now. Nice looking coin...I'd send it back to ANACS.

pepupek

Okay, dumb question, but how would anyone know that this is a proof? Deeper strike?

howards

Telling 1880 proofs from business strikes is difficult, doubly so from just photos. From what I can see, I think your coin is a business strike. I could render a better opinion in person, but it's still an opinion - the only guy who knows for sure is the guy who struck the coin, and he's not talking.

However, TPGs will definitely err on the side of caution and call coins proofs if they are not sure. They don't want to be on the hook to honor their guarantee if they put business strike on it and someday later a definitive way to attribute 1880s is found.

Walkerguy21D

Tough situation, and a tough call. The dentils look sharp and some appear to show some doubling, which favors the proof classification. However, strike doubling could do this as well, and the weak upper shield lines and weakness on some leaves tends say business strike.

CarlWohlforth

Personally I would have guessed AU 53 or AU 55. But I don't know any die characteristics for this date. The graders at PCGS probably do and know this is a proof. The strike is very good as you can see all the stars are very well struck. However the upper part of the shield isn't fully defined. There are several well struck biz strike nickels so simply going by strike is simply guessing.

This is another reason why I would not crack out a coin unless I was a super expert on the particular series and date. We get disappointed with failed crossovers and we second guess the reason why it failed to cross.

sinin1

I would guess circulation strike from photo


is that a scratch going from top to bottom to the left of the 5
on the reverse, or something on the holder it is in?

robkool

AU55... Business strike coin.

Elcontador

Don't even bother trying to guess from an image. Late date PF Shield Nickels are DULL. I have an 1881 in PF 5. You need to have seen many Shield Nickels in hand, both PF and MS in order to distinguish between the two of them. Strike is not a tip off, because unlike with Liberty Nickels, a PF has a full lt corn and star detail, while high end MS Lib Nickels almost always lack this detail.

I also have two Shield Nickels in MS 66. They have far more eye appeal than my 81 in PF 5. One possible tip is that most high -- but not all -- business strike coins have die cracks. Many of these die cracks jump out at you, but the TPGs don't downgrade the coin because of this. I have not noticed this on PF coins.

seatedcoins

Ow I would have guessed business strike. I just don't see the surface as being proof-like even if it were dull.

Sunnywood

The entire 1880 issue, business strikes and proof, were struck from two obverse dies, Breen-2515 and Breen-2516. Both dies produced business strikes AND proofs, so neither obverse die is diagnostic for the business strike (or proof) format. Research is still being done on the reverse dies, to see whether specific die pairings can be linked decisively to the business strikes.

The business strikes struck from Breen-2516 (the "dropped 8" die) tend to be satiny. They look like MS coins. Conversely, the business strikes from Breen-2515 are semi-prooflike (when they are seen in uncirculated condition). Therefore the Br-2515 business strikes cause more trouble in identification at the unc. level.

The Br-2515 die developed a die chip rising from the denticles at 7 o'clock during its life. However, even this die chip is not diagnostic of business strikes, as the die was later repolished and used to strike more proofs.

The coin in question here is from the Br-2516 die, and appears to me to be a business strike. It lacks the spine on the ball that is characteristic of the Br-2515 obverse, yet the dropped 8 is not obvious from the photo. The dropped 8 became less obvious during the lifetime of the die.

Complicating matters further is the squareness of the edge. The grading services will often refer to the edge to determine whether the coins are MS or PR. Proof coins should, in theory, exhibit thicker, squarer rims. Further, in theory one would expect to see vertical striations on the edges, characteristic of the use of a proof collar. More often than not, this is the sole basis on which AU 1880 nickels are characterized as circulated proofs.

However, in practice I have found these diagnostics to be inconclusive for 1880 nickels. I have even speculated that the entire mintage was struck using the proof collar. More work needs to be done measuring and photographing the edge conditions on no-questions high-grade MS pieces. One reason I am skeptical about the proof collar is that for 1879 and 1881, one rarely sees AU proofs. So why would there be so many for 1880? I think there is still a bit of confusion as to what belongs in an MS holder.

Best,
Sunnywood

Frankcoins

Since experts disagree on so many of these, especially when the same dies were used for proofs and business strikes, Grading these "Possible Business Strike" or "PF55 or AU55" would be more realistic.

howards

<< <i>Since experts disagree on so many of these, especially when the same dies were used for proofs and business strikes, Grading these "Possible Business Strike" or "PF55 or AU55" would be more realistic. >>



I think that would guarantee that the coin would sell for the proof price, even when the coin is a business strike. Also, I think it's a way for the TPGs to weasel out of making a call that they need to learn how to do.

howards

<< <i>The dentils look sharp and some appear to show some doubling, which favors the proof classification. >>



No, that doesn't help. All later date shield nickels show doubled dentils - it's in the master hub.

lope208

Great post Sunnywood! Very informative.

Mowgli

I bought a raw 1880 in Baltimore last year from a very knowledgeable dealer. I had a PhD numismatist look at it and he wasn't sure. A collector who specializes in shield nickels knew the diagnostics well enough that he thouht it could be a business strike. All three people I talked with said that the diagnotics couldn't prove it wasn't a business strike. It was stupid for me to buy it raw so I gave it to ANACS at the show - my first and only submission to a TPG. It came back AU58 (with problems). It will stay in that holder forever. I also decided to forego collecting these in business strike because it was too hard to tell the difference and why would anyone pay that much of a premium for something you cannot see? The good part of the story is that by purchasing it raw I paid considerably less than it is worth in that holder - stupid luck.

ziggy29

<< <i>I bought a raw 1880 in Baltimore last year from a very knowledgeable dealer. I had a PhD numismatist look at it and he wasn't sure. A collector who specializes in shield nickels knew the diagnostics well enough that he thouht it could be a business strike. All three people I talked with said that the diagnotics couldn't prove it wasn't a business strike. It was stupid for me to buy it raw so I gave it to ANACS at the show - my first and only submission to a TPG. It came back AU58 (with problems). It will stay in that holder forever. I also decided to forego collecting these in business strike because it was too hard to tell the difference and why would anyone pay that much of a premium for something you cannot see? The good part of the story is that by purchasing it raw I paid considerably less than it is worth in that holder - stupid luck. >>

Wise move to keep it in the holder when it has a non-proof designation. There is just way too much risk to ever resubmit through a crackout. That's financial Russian roulette.

One of my part-time collecting endeavors is an AU set of 3CNs. I already have an 1886 in PF-50 since it's a proof-only issue. Part of me wants to have all business strikes where possible, but because I want to put the coins in an album I'd have to crack coins out, and there's no way I'm buying the 1882-85 or 1887 as a slabbed business strike (at 3-4x the cost of a similar slightly impaired proof) only to crack it out. So I suppose I'll be looking for impaired proofs, say PF-50 to PF-55, on these dates -- much as I'd like to go for business strikes, the financial risk is too great. I could take an AU 1884 or 1885 3CN and crack it out -- and immediately lose $1000 in resale value because the market will then assume it's a proof. No thanks.

[I still have the 1886 in the ICG slab (accurately graded) because there's no hole for the proof-only issue in my album. Ditto for 1877 amd 1878.]

tradedollarnut

I also decided to forego collecting these in business strike because it was too hard to tell the difference and why would anyone pay that much of a premium for something you cannot see?

that seems like a very wise philosophy.

All this uncertainty seems to be what drives the price of the obvious business strikes upward - which then drags the not so obvious ones with them...

coolest

Some great info thanks.

Let me add a few more comments:

If this is a Proof coin then the planchet must have been polished and it should also have a strong rim. In this coin there is no indication that the planchet was polished, even in the most protected areas, and rim is very weak, it is well rounded. If it is Proof it is the wekest rim I have ever seen.

Also, it looks like a small die scratch on the obverse, left of the date, between the dull side of the arrowhead and the feathers of the second arrow. Is this mark seen on the Proof strikes?

Frankcoins

<< <i>Also, I think it's a way for the TPGs to weasel out of making a call that they need to learn how to do. >>


Weaseling is better than attributing it incorrrectly because it's the financially safe thing to do.

stephunter

Here is an interesting point on the reverse die of what is considered by Ngc to be the business strike coin. In the 2006 Heritage Long Beach auction there was lot #586, an 1880 shield nickel graded by Ngc as MS65 (Auction #408 - Lot 586). The listing describes the coin as Breen-2516 with the dropped 8 variety that Breen mistakenly called a proof only, and further went on to say that "there is no question that business strikes exist for this variety..." If you read on you will see how they describe the reverse die; "The reverse of this business strike example has a raised die defect or lump located just below the bottom right serif of the secont T in STATES. The die lump is obvious if you look at the pictures.

And furthermore, for what its worth, as I look through the archives in Heritage of the mint state coins sold, the ones with the die lump appear to have the surfaces of business strike coins whereas the coins without the die lump look very proof to me. I had an anacs graded VF30 coin that I crossed to Pcgs as VF35 and it had the die lump also.

Coinosaurus

Ugh. If even Sunnywood can't tell if an 1880 is proof, then there is no hope

tradedollarnut

Call 'em ALL circ strikes and then the proofs will be rare.

IGWT

The difference between an 1880 5c business strike and a proof is thinner than a razor's edge. Or, maybe a better analogy would be to say that the difference is less than exists between a PR69 and a PR70 SAE. And, as for the "obvious business strikes" that command ungodly prices, all I can say is that appearance does not necessarily reflect the intent of the coiner.