1860 cent MS coin with Proof Dies? No matter how many times they tell me I'm wrong, I still think it

renomedphys

This is a coin that I bought as an MS coin in a PCGS MS65 holder. Granted. However, some days later, intrigued by shelf doubling in the last letters of AMERICA, I set out to discover whether or not this was an attributed die variety. Whichever MS coin I looked at, I was unable to match the diagnostics. Furthermore, I was unable to find even one other MS coin that had such an amazingly penetrating strike, right down to the last denticle. I mean, heck, the darn thing's proof-like. So I looked up the proof diagnostics, and there they were. All of them. I thought, AHA! It must be a proof. Nice score, as an MS65 proof 1860 cent usually rates about twice the value of an MS coin.

If this seems similar to you, I have posted about this coin before, here.

So, I sent the coin to PCGS, had them all take a hard look, and it came back MS. I figured it had to be a mistake, so I called, and had them have another look. After many weeks, I got the same news right along with a little note from David Hall stating simply that they think it is an MS coin, and that it doesn't even look like a proof to him. OK. Whatever.

So, I get the coin back finally in January, and bring it with me to the LB show. Not to fight about it. Just to submit it for True-View. While there, I talk to John Danruther and show him the coin. He says, "oh yes, I remember this coin." Seems that they passed around the coin and everybody had a look. He told me flatly that he thought it was a proof, as it was surely struck with the same dies, but the room concensus was that the coin had to be mint state. Something like 10 to 4. OK then. He told me that in his opinion, it was either a proof coin struck at the very end of the run, or perhaps an MS coin struck with proof dies, and one of the first ones of those at that.

Thing is, according to Rick Snow, no MS 1860's were struck with proof dies, or at least that he had not ever seen any. Others have suggested that the planchet was not specially prepared as with the proof type. I don't know, but to me, it still looks like a proof.

So, I get a true-view, and consequently, the coin shows up on the coinfacts page for 1860 MS cents. Here is a link to the uber-large photo of the coin:

1860 MS65

And a link to one with the same dies certified as proof:

1860 PR65

Edited to add it's picture:



Moreso, here are some cropped side-by-side photos of the key diagnostic areas. Make note of a particular diagonal die chip in the denticles above the second top serif of the M in AMERICA, and diagonal polish marks in the center of the shield.

The MS coin on the left, and the PR coin on the right, but how would you know?





So, I guess in the end, what I have here is an interesting conversation piece. I'm certainly not too upset. I think that as an MS coin, it's really a nice one, but there will always be the nagging feeling that the coin is really a mis-attributed proof. Of course, as a proof, it's not all that.

But then, neither is the PCGS proof. I mean seriously, have you ever seen such weak feathertips on a proof indian?

ModCrewman

IMHO - Pretty hard to argue those two coins weren't struck from the same pair of dies.

BigRick

"...He told me that in his opinion, it was either a proof coin struck at the very end of the run, or perhaps an MS coin struck with proof dies, and one of the first ones of those at that...

Then they need to pick one and designate it on the slab! Can't be both. Can't be neither.

BaronVonBaugh

You could try ATS.

CaptHenway

They appear to be from the same dies.

Just to play devil's advocate, are we sure that the one certified as a Proof is a Proof? It seems to have some scattered weaknesses.

TD

roadrunner

The rim on your "MS" coin appears much sharper than the "proof." The rim on th eproof shown has a more beveled appearance.

roadrunner

goodmoney4badmoney

<< <i>IMHO - Pretty hard to argue those two coins weren't struck from the same pair of dies. >>

renomedphys

<< <i>They appear to be from the same dies.

Just to play devil's advocate, are we sure that the one certified as a Proof is a Proof? It seems to have some scattered weaknesses.

TD >>


Yeah, right. But in it's defense, the key diagnostics mentioned in Snow's attribution guide are on both coins, namely mentioned above in the OP.

coolest

These two coins look like the same die to me.

But when I look at the whole coin my first thought is, MS.

GrumpyEd

No question they're from the same die.

Can't say for sure if either is a proof.

magikbilly

Hi,

Same dies, your coin appears to be a better strike? Did not strike me as a Pr coin thought hard to say from pics of course.

<<Yeah, right.>>

Now, I could swear I have heard "yeah, right" in the context of a proof/non-Proof discussion..... Hmmm..


Best,
Eric

Tdec1000

I would like to hear what Rick has to say about this coin. I believe it is a proof as well! Looks like a satiny one but a proof to me!

MrEureka

Proof 1860 cents are often shallowly mirrored, as are all other denominations of the year. (The cents probably have the greatest range of mirrors, though.) FWIW, I recently saw a proof 1860 Seated Dollar in an MS holder, so you're not the only one scratching his head.

magikbilly

Hi,

On your coin, in the larger image, what is on the M that is not on the Proof coin? The triangular thing. Also, very hard to see, but your coin seems to have a business strike quality in terms of the roundness of the letters etc. instead of the flatter Proof look.

Best,
Eric

sinin1

they do sure look similar


I see a difference near the letters RI where the two feathers meet
- the MS coin has a sharp 90 degree angle like a dam
- the proof coin blends together like a river running up a valley


if these 2 coins where struck from 2 new dies that were just made from the same master, they would look similar no?

MikeInFL

Have you considered the possibility that proof dies were used to strike business struck coins?

lordmarcovan

It sure is proofy looking. Beautiful.

keets

1. this problem came about from the Mint's habit during this period of striking business issues with used/retired Proof dies, an anomoly which has happened as recently as the 1950's and even accidentally in the late 1990's, correct??

2. i would trust David Hall's opinion on the matter more than the OP's or other members.

renomedphys

Somebody once told me, "to be proof, it has to be the total package. It's gotta have the specially prepared planchet. It's gotta have the diagnostics. It's gotta have the strike."

Pretty sure mine's got the strike and the diagnostics, but there's something about the planchet, I think, that separates it from other proof specimens.

CaptHenway

Boy, that large image coin is one I would be pleased and proud to own, but my gut reaction just doesn't say "Proof."
.
I don's suppose anybody had the foresight to photograph the edge before enslabbing the coin???? That might help.
.
TD

ChrisRx

My first impression was "MS."

It just has the MS look to it...

golden

As a 50 year collector ,my first and last reaction is a very nice MS coin.

MrEureka

2. i would trust David Hall's opinion on the matter more than the OP's or other members.

My money's on JD and Rick Snow.

Wolf359

Can't they designate the coin as a specimen? SP65?

TexasNationals

Is Rick around? I think that would solve this once and for all.

stealer

<< <i>Is Rick around? I think that would solve this once and for all. >>


Bump for Rick, inquiring minds want to know.

DoubleEagle59

Kind of a sidetrack, but along the same lines, isn't the Proof 1909vdb Lincoln die diagnostics, found on some business strikes?

Put another way, was the VDB proof die used for business strikes too?

MrEureka

I recently bought a raw 1860 Cent that I considered to be proof. Both PCGS and NGC then called it MS, maybe even more than once, before it finally went into a proof holder. Naturally, I sold it at that point.

EagleEye

1860's don't look like the typical proofs - 1862-1864. The 1860 Proofs usually have rounded rims, medium mirrors and shoddy strike. I have had many examples in MS holders later go into Proof holders. Most were graded early on when they attributed "by the seat of their pants". These didn't "quack like a duck" to them back then.

IrishMikey

<< <i>2. i would trust David Hall's opinion on the matter more than the OP's or other members.

My money's on JD and Rick Snow. >>


Exactly! JD has already seen the coin in hand. I assume that Rick has not yet had the opportunity. By
all means, give him the chance to take a close look at it. If both Rick Snow and John Dannreuther think
a given 1860 Indian cent is a Proof, then IT IS a Proof. PCGS would mot likely agree.

BigMoose

The 1860 Proof in my collection started out as an NGC MS66. I bought the coin because it was flawless and attractive, but the more I looked at it the more it looked like a Proof to me. I sent the coin to PCGS as a crossover and it crossed the first time as a PCGS PR 66. This was several years ago at a Central States Show in Columbus, Ohio.

renomedphys

Maybe I should try putting it in a double coin holder alongside my other 1860. It's a PR65CAM. That would be fun, although a little impractical when it comes to storage and display.

renomedphys

<< <i>

<< <i>2. i would trust David Hall's opinion on the matter more than the OP's or other members.

My money's on JD and Rick Snow. >>


Exactly! JD has already seen the coin in hand. I assume that Rick has not yet had the opportunity. By
all means, give him the chance to take a close look at it. If both Rick Snow and John Dannreuther think
a given 1860 Indian cent is a Proof, then IT IS a Proof. PCGS would mot likely agree. >>



By the way, Rick has seen the coin. His exact words: "I think it's a proof."

keets

2. I would trust David Hall's opinion on the matter more than the OP's or other members.
My money's on JD and Rick Snow.

well, the thing is that the only "money" involved with the trinity is thus far put up by PCGS. while it isn't a terribly expensive coin and at the same grade the difference between a Mint State and Proof isn't great, PCGS has stated an opinion(which might change) and valued the coin. unless you are emotionally tied to the coin, since RS and JD are convinced it's a Proof you should sell it to either one of them and then their "money" will be in play.

coolest

If you think that 1860 cent is confusing check out the 1880 Nickel
Proof or unc