is this just prooflike or could it possibly be an impaired proof

fishteeth

I have owned well over 100 columbus halves in grade G-MS65 and realize that many times they come prooflike. I picked this coin out of a collection that
a local dealer purchased recently for 16 dollars. The coin obviously has hairlines, not as bad in person, looks very similar to a prooflike morgan I have in a PCGS 62 slab.
at first i just thought cleaned prooflike but after looking more and more just wanted to get some opinions.
The coin has some nice mirrors when tilted in the light and some really strong details. I have looked at the proofs on Heritage and they all appeared to have the little flange of
extra metal on the edge of the rim. Very obvious on the Obverse of this coin. The descriptions of the proofs all made note of designers initial being well struck, which this coin has.

My thought is that it is lightly cleaned prooflike business strike worth about melt, but it did come from a collection put together in the area of the exposition and thought I could at least show pics of a somewhat attractive half

coindeuce

Not an impaired Proof. Even an impaired Proof would not have the tiny "rolled over" feature of metal flow on the top outer edge of the left obverse rim. It would still have the knife sharp edge, and the devices would be much more crisp within the protected areas.

…

theres a vertical die scratch that goes through the middle sail on proofs.

fivecents

Isn't the Columbian the most common proof like commemorative?

crypto79

<< <i>Not an impaired Proof. Even an impaired Proof would not have the tiny "rolled over" feature of metal flow on the top outer edge of the left obverse rim. It would still have the knife sharp edge, and the devices would be much more crisp within the protected areas. >>



I thought the ``proof´´ Columbus halves were struck on normal coinage presses so the wire rim effect most likly would not be there.

RWB

A baking soda scrubbed shiny coin....nothing more.

PS: A fin rim is not indicative of a proof. Yes, the Columbian "proofs" were struck on a normal press.

MsMorrisine

<< <i>PS: A fin rim is not indicative of a proof. >>



can I nit pick for clarity's sake?


do you mean a wire rim is indicative that it is not a proof ??

Kove

Columbian proofs were struck on a normal press with polished dies. The "proofs" were struck multiple times, bringing up sharp detail that isn't seen on prooflike "business" strikes. The business strikes were only struck once. The overall sense of detail is the first indication of a proof. The multiple strikings also highlight a tiny die line between two ribs on the reverse sails (pictured below). This die defect is a key diagnostic for a "proof" Columbian half.

On the OP's coin pictured above, the ship's ribs and rigging, waves, and other details aren't sharp enough for a proof. The area where the denticles meet the rim is also not sharp enough for a proof. The photos aren't zoomed in enough to check for presence of the proof die marker on the sail.

Below are some Heritage images comparing "proof" on top with "PL business strike" on bottom. Easiest differences to note are the water detail and the rim-meets-denticles edge.

Proof (Heritage):


Proof Like Business Strike (Heritage):


Columbian Proof Die Marker

COALPORTER

<< <i>A baking soda scrubbed shiny coin....nothing more.

PS: A fin rim is not indicative of a proof. Yes, the Columbian "proofs" were struck on a normal press. >>



Did they strike them all at once in a seperate operation? Did they have Proof dies or just polished plancets? I read where the proofs were struck intermixed with non proofs. For example, they struck coin 1492 as a Proof.

dcarr

<< <i>A baking soda scrubbed shiny coin....nothing more. >>



I do not think the proof-like appearance on the coin in question
is due to a baking soda polish job.

Looks like polished dies to me, especially on the ship side.
Still not a proof, though - the date alone ("1893") is a good
indication that it isn't a proof.