1883 IHC New raw proof! Added proof same lint mark same place from stacks auction. (Finally got grad

michiganboy

Alright lets talk about this.

LogPotato

The obverse lettering looks doubled. Is this common in the series. I only ask, since I am completely oblivious to this series.

MICHAELDIXON

Did you take that picture with your new lens?

TAMU15

Imho it doesnt look like a proof. but thats just me, not meaning any offense

B

commoncents05

The good thing is it is spot free, the bad news is the surfaces are completely stripped of their original mirrors. PR60 details, altered surfaces.

Edited to add: I'm assuming it's a proof because you said so, but I'm not convinced.

-Paul

lkeigwin

Not a fan.

Show us square-shot images. Why the crazy angle? Half the coin is out of focus.
Lance.

michiganboy

Nope did not take with lens.

The lint mark can be found on the headband past liberty as found on some of this years proofs, as far as the mirrors stripped I have not seen it in hand but seller has this way of taking photos that don't represent coin or color.

michiganboy

Sorry heritage photo turned out so small.

As far as proof goes its got a wire rim, well struck if you compare to MS65+ examples of this and the lint mark on head band, which lint marks are know on business strikes rarely. As far as the surfaces goes I have seen a lot of 19th century proof cents without mirror finish, that get numeric grades.

Buzzybest

I love the blue parts!

TomB

It doesn't look like a proof to me.

RYK

Staying positive, it is one of my favorite years for an IHC.

michiganboy

<< <i>It doesn't look like a proof to me. >>



The same lint mark can be found floating around the same spot on this years proofs, I would be hard pressed to believe it would also be on the BS especially when you consider it is suppose to be very rare to find them on Business strikes. I've seen three slabbed examples of this year with that lint mark, it is not found on all but with a mintage of 6,609 that is to be expected. Also the strong doubling on obverse of the letters.

kryptonitecomics

The picture makes it look like a Business strike......in hand or with a better picture we may say differently but even in the photos supplied the rims don't look square to me. The hair details and also the diamonds on the ribbon look softer than I am used to seeing on a Proof as well. Please post a better picture if possible once you get it.

michiganboy

Comparison of a MS67rd for strike

Tdec1000

Stay positive buddy but Im not seeing a proof either and I have handled many of them. Neat looking tone though.

michiganboy

Here is from stacks and bowers same lint mark same place

here is mine

here is link to stacks bowershere

devious

That leaves me curious, the mark that is. Someone explain that now. :-)

michiganboy

There is no explanation besides it was struck around the same time 9,609 proofs minted some have it some don't. You do the math, find me a BS with a lint mark and I'll so you rare occurance

TomB

That lint mark is pretty compelling.

michiganboy

Why can't I get a good job? Instead that lint marks pretty compelling? I do my homework and study, I wish you guys would give me some encouragement.

Edited out extra photos once I found the really good evidence one shown above. Left the BS MS67 for strike comparison still

Bochiman

<< <i>Why can't I get a good job? Instead that lint marks pretty compelling? I do my homework and study, I wish you guys would give me some encouragement.

Edited out extra photos once I found the really good evidence one shown above. Left the BS MS67 for strike comparison still >>



If you are happy with it, why do you NEED a "good job"?
Depending what you paid could be the difference between a "good job" and a "ummmm, ok...."

Coin looks cleaned/retoned, from your picture. If you can get it slabbed and graded by PCGS, then I will attribute that to your lighting and pictures. Else, going by the picture, I don't think they would grade it. So, if you paid even close to proof pricing, then you likely lost on it. If you paid very little, then you did "ok", if you are ok with a "problem" coin.

TAMU15

^ this.

OriginalDan

What ever happened with that proof set you sent in for grading?

michiganboy

<< <i>What ever happened with that proof set you sent in for grading? >>



1 1872 $1 USA PR61
2 1872 50C USA PR61
3 1872 25C USA PR62
4 1872 10C USA PR63
5 1872 H10C PR63
6 1872 5C USA PR65
7 1872 3CN USA PR64
8 1872 3CS USA PR63
9 1872 2C USA PR63RB
10 1872 1C USA PR63RB

Edited for regrades of proof set

mkman123

go send this in

I still wonder why you take so many chances and get raw coins vs already slabbed....

lasvegasteddy

sorry i'm late here
wow...you are on the ball here
bigtime congrats...finding a proof prancing around as a b/s....that has a kool factor in itself
way interesting that "lintmark" diagnostic
have you studied many books on these series you scout?
or is image studies and the ol hard knocks skool paying it's dividends?

i for one am glad you stumbled in here...as firey as you can appear or come across...i love it
please update us too

if there's a crown for finding the most unattributed proofs...something tells me...you will not only earn it...but wear it proudly
hehehe
class i love it

pretty example

DHeath

Its really cool that you identified a coin struck with a proof die based on a die marker. That suggests you are demonstrating all the right instincts. Best luck.

abitofthisabitofthat

<< <i>Why can't I get a good job? Instead that lint marks pretty compelling? I do my homework and study, I wish you guys would give me some encouragement. >>



I will offer some encouragement. It seems that you enjoy hunting for proof coins that other mis-attribute as business strikes. Sounds like a fun take on the hobby. Study die characteristcs, hunt through tons of raw coins, find something that others have missed. Cherrypicking numismatics at its best. Just plain fun hobby. I have found a few myself, although I don't specifically hunt for them.

I will also offer some constructive criticism. Almost by definition, the proofs that you will find with this strategy will be impaired in some way. If a coin had full mirrors, and was un-messed with, it would be obvious as a proof to everyone else. Hunting for coins that are not immediately recognizable as proofs will mean hunting for impaired coins. Not that there is anything wrong with that. The thrill of the hunt is, IMO, a good part of the fun in this hobby.

I liked this post better than some of your others. Your previous posts seemed to indicate that you were pursuing this strategy to make 'make a quick buck' by recognizing proofs (nothing wrong with that, either) but when some folks pointed out issues with the coins, your replies were a bit combative.

This post leaves the money out, and focuses on the coin's diagnostics. "Good job".

crypto79

<< <i>

I will offer some encouragement. It seems that you enjoy hunting for proof coins that other mis-attribute as business strikes. Sounds like a fun take on the hobby. Study die characteristcs, hunt through tons of raw coins, find something that others have missed. Cherrypicking numismatics at its best. Just plain fun hobby. I have found a few myself, although I don't specifically hunt for them. >>



I agree with you and I think it is a proof too.

Broadstruck

MrEureka

The same lint mark can be found floating around the same spot on this years proofs,

Are you sure that it moves around? Looks to me like the lint mark is raised, which would mean that the lint created a permanent impression on the die at the time it was hubbed. In that case, all coins from this obverse die would exhibit exactly the same lint mark in exactly the same place.

lkeigwin

Good work, michiganboy.

Coinfacts has a couple more '83 proofs with the lint mark diagnostic. The mark appears in the exact same spot, as you would expect.
Lance.

Bruceswar

interesting coin to say the least. Congrats!

TwoSides2aCoin

I'm positive there is no proof that it's lint.

michiganboy

<< <i>The same lint mark can be found floating around the same spot on this years proofs,

Are you sure that it moves around? Looks to me like the lint mark is raised, which would mean that the lint created a permanent impression on the die at the time it was hubbed. In that case, all coins from this obverse die would exhibit exactly the same lint mark in exactly the same place. >>



Well maybe it doesn't move around but in the other ones I've seen it look different, But in the same spot. But as Ikiegwin's posted pic and mine it can be exactly the same. I have also seen slab proofs of this year without it, the mintage was 9,609 so I'm sure the dies we're preped more then a few times.

Casman

Good Job

michiganboy

"liked this post better than some of your others. Your previous posts seemed to indicate that you were pursuing this strategy to make 'make a quick buck' by recognizing proofs (nothing wrong with that, either) but when some folks pointed out issues with the coins, your replies were a bit combative. "

That is interesting that you got that from my other posts because I've always said in them when people start telling me how bad I'm gonna do cash wise that I'm not a dealer and these are for my collection. The only reason I've mentioned what I paid before is because I always get that response from somebody in one form or another and have been combative yes, I am sorry for that. The reason I 've been like that is I study hard, try to share and get chit. I like posting here but like I stated its a hooby to me and yes I like finding unattributed proofs and yes now I try to buy them for a price below what I think I can get back out of them, but not because I'm trying to make a quick buck, but because I am trying to learn the market. I have not really ever sold anything, except really when I traded up for that proof set.

michiganboy

<< <i>I'm positive there is no proof that it's lint. >>

Bayard1908

<< <i>Why can't I get a good job? Instead that lint marks pretty compelling? >>



Saying the lintmark was compelling was a concession that you are almost certainly correct that the coin is a proof.

Despite the fact that you didn't recognize the congratulatory nature of that post, it sounds like you are rapidly maturing as a collector, both in your expertise and in your relations with other collectors.

michiganboy

<< <i>

<< <i>Why can't I get a good job? Instead that lint marks pretty compelling? >>



Saying the lintmark was compelling was a concession that you are almost certainly correct that the coin is a proof.

Despite the fact that you didn't recognize the congratulatory nature of that post, it sounds like you are rapidly maturing as a collector, both in your expertise and in your relations with other collectors. >>



Thanks Bayard, your right I did not realize that Is what Tomb meant, I'm trying my best to stick around and learn and share my experiances.

aus3000tin

<< <i>The obverse lettering looks doubled. Is this common in the series. I only ask, since I am completely oblivious to this series. >>



Why has no one talked about the obverse doubling?
It appears the other proofs posted have obverse doubling?
Is this common?

These are currently on ebay:

ebay

ebay

Thanks,

Chris

stealer

Is there any chance that the proof dies were retired and saw continued use for business strikes? That coin does not strike me as a proof...literally

@aus3000tin, that's not doubling that's observed, somebody can correct me if I'm wrong but since the lettering on smaller coins is often deeper set into the die, as the metal flows up it will create a sort of peak at the top of the lettering. Thus the doubling you're seeing is the metal at the bottom (closest to the surface of the coin) of the lettering. Sort of like the "doubling" often seen on gold dollars which has been dubbed "Longarce doubling". IMO it's probably not as readily observed on larger coins since the lettering is generally shallower and larger.

michiganboy

<< <i>Is there any chance that the proof dies were retired and saw continued use for business strikes? That coin does not strike me as a proof...literally

@aus3000tin, that's not doubling that's observed, somebody can correct me if I'm wrong but since the lettering on smaller coins is often deeper set into the die, as the metal flows up it will create a sort of peak at the top of the lettering. Thus the doubling you're seeing is the metal at the bottom (closest to the surface of the coin) of the lettering. Sort of like the "doubling" often seen on gold dollars which has been dubbed "Longarce doubling". IMO it's probably not as readily observed on larger coins since the lettering is generally shallower and larger. >>



There is usually a big chance once prof dies where done back then they where used to strike BS's, The only thing is that the lint mark is not found on all proofs even and lint marks are extremely rare on BS's.

SanctionII

Way to go Michiganboy

Nice eye to pick out this coin as a proof based upon the lint mark diagnostic.

Buzzybest

Ever consider collecting stamps? That might get you an "Atta boy" from someone here,but I'm not really sure either. I'm just bored waiting for the results of the $500 bank bag of halves.

stealer

<< <i>

<< <i>Is there any chance that the proof dies were retired and saw continued use for business strikes? That coin does not strike me as a proof...literally

@aus3000tin, that's not doubling that's observed, somebody can correct me if I'm wrong but since the lettering on smaller coins is often deeper set into the die, as the metal flows up it will create a sort of peak at the top of the lettering. Thus the doubling you're seeing is the metal at the bottom (closest to the surface of the coin) of the lettering. Sort of like the "doubling" often seen on gold dollars which has been dubbed "Longarce doubling". IMO it's probably not as readily observed on larger coins since the lettering is generally shallower and larger. >>



There is usually a big chance once prof dies where done back then they where used to strike BS's, The only thing is that the lint mark is not found on all proofs even and lint marks are extremely rare on BS's. >>


I would bet my money on this being a BS struck with retired dies. That is also not a lint mark since that would result in a depression as opposed to a raised mark.

michiganboy

Honestly Realone, Thanks! These questions are very valid, I can tell you two things yes sometimes proof dies where later used to strike business strikes, and lint marks can be found on BS but is considered very rare and unusual. The coin In question (mine) has these three things going for it, deep strike ( compare heritage photo I supplied ), Lint mark, and from my interpretation of sellers angled photos no luster i.e. smooth fields yet no real wear on coin. This is enough for me to say proof.

michiganboy

I would bet my money on this being a BS struck with retired dies. That is also not a lint mark since that would result in a depression as opposed to a raised mark. >>



Here is a your answer for the lint mark

In his own notes, Harry Bass wrote, "Raised lint circle on neck is diagnostic." There are two lint marks on Liberty’s neck, one in front of the curl, and the other behind the curl. Whether Mr. Bass meant "diagnostic" for Proofs or business strikes of this date is not mentioned. For a lintmark to appear raised the lint must have adhered to the master die, not to the working die.

Taken from here

Also if you do a search you will find lots of dealers refer to raised lint marks on proofs.

lordmarcovan

Purdy. A little impaired, perhaps, but purdy. Proof or MS (or AU, as the case may be), I like it.