1866 Shield Nickel Plus?--NEW PICS

drei3ree

What do you think? It's in a blue PCGS PR65CAM holder...does it have a good shot at plus? Thanks




The lines/blur at 6oclock (both sides) are on holder.

ricko

A beautiful coin, however, solid for the grade, IMO. Very nice specimen. Cheers, RickO

llafoe

That's a pretty coin... I'd hate to be a grader at PCGS. The only distraction I see is the weak dentil molding at 6:30 on the reverse. The cameo doesn't show in your photos.

coinguy1

Assessing most coins accurately and consistently from images is extremely difficult. In the case of Proof coins, it is usually impossible. For all we know, the coin in question could deserve a 63, 64, 65 or 66 - there is no way to determine whether it merits a plus.

drei3ree

<< <i>Assessing most coins accurately and consistently from images is extremely difficult. In the case of Proof coins, it is usually impossible. For all we know, the coin in question could deserve a 63, 64, 65 or 66 - there is no way to determine whether it merits a plus. >>



Coinguy1 -- I agree. Probably is meaningless to ask for photo-grade estimates, but I thought maybe someone would point out a flaw that I hadn't considered...

Thanks for taking the time to post.

drei3ree

<< <i>That's a pretty coin... I'd hate to be a grader at PCGS. The only distraction I see is the weak dentil molding at 6:30 on the reverse. The cameo doesn't show in your photos. >>



IIafoe--Heritage photos. I haven't held the coin, but thought it should be worth the 2875 (includes BP) I paid. Guess that makes me a gambler (or a fool).

IrishMikey

Yes, I think it has a good shot -- very few spots, nice look.

coinguy1

<< <i>Yes, I think it has a good shot -- very few spots, nice look. >>

There looks to be staining at the upper left portion of the horizontal shield stripes and possibly on the lower reverse. Equally or more importantly, the grade of Proof coins is, far more times than not, limited by the extent of hairlines, which are rarely seen in on-line images.

quickwing

I would love to find any MS that is even close to the reverse here. Except for the slight mussyness (is that a word) near the center, the rays are hammered. Excellent horizonal shield lines. Very nice proof.

drei3ree

quickwing--Thanks. Thought you'd consider an 1866 "modern crap."

IrishMikey

<< <i>

<< <i>Yes, I think it has a good shot -- very few spots, nice look. >>

There looks to be staining at the upper left portion of the horizontal shield stripes and possibly on the lower reverse. Equally or more importantly, the grade of Proof coins is, far more times than not, limited by the extent of hairlines, which are rarely seen in on-line images. >>



Yes, I agree that hairlines are the main problem with 19th century Proof coins, but this
coin is already in a 65 holder, so I think we can make a quick assumption that any
hairlining is minor and unobtrusive. At this point, spotting should be the main difference
between a 65 and a 65+.

drei3ree

<< <i>That's a pretty coin... I'd hate to be a grader at PCGS. The only distraction I see is the weak dentil molding at 6:30 on the reverse. The cameo doesn't show in your photos. >>

guitarwes

The bigger the pics (in this case) the worse the coin looks, especially proof coins.


Are the stars above C and E in CENTS and under U and T in UNITED slightly recut?

drei3ree

<< <i>Are the stars above C and E in CENTS and under U and T in UNITED slightly recut? >>



Yes, and the 5. I believe it to be a frequent occurrence with the 1866 proof.