Options
(Updated with new pics.) Trade Dollar Nut, you are on a roll. How about this one?
Wabbit2313
Posts: 7,268 ✭✭✭✭✭
And others of course. TDN is undefeated from what I saw today. Must be inspired by the Olympics. This is for the Gold! (Well, maybe the Silver!)
I had to dig down deep in the archives for this one. SEGS holder. Sorry about the pictures, threw some quick light on it and grabbed the Rebel.
I had to dig down deep in the archives for this one. SEGS holder. Sorry about the pictures, threw some quick light on it and grabbed the Rebel.
0
Comments
PR53
Well struck BS at that.
<< <i>xf45 - but not a coin that is original >>
Wow, really? I can see downgrading possibly to a 50, but I think 45 is a bit too harsh despite the hairlines and splotchy toning. JMO anyway.
<< <i>Are we guessing the grade? If so, I'd say...
PR53 >>
I see what you are seeing Dan about the proof 53 but at the last sec I am going to guess AU50 but very very funny looking. The kind of coin I would expect to see marked AU+++++ in a 2x2 at a show and overpriced.
SEGS PR-60 cleaned. Makes me wonder how many proofs we see and never even think about it.
<< <i>SEGS PR-60 cleaned. Makes me wonder how many proofs we see and never even think about it. >>
Aha! I figured proof for two reasons. First, even though it looks like a weak strike, it's strong for a 77 but slightly worn. Second, take a close look at the toning, then compare it to the darkness and color of the toning you see on impaired proofs in the HA archives. The look of the toning pushed me towards proof vs. BS. My guess is that in hand, the fields are mirrored with hairlines.
Not sure how this is a 60, isn't that obvious wear on Lib's thigh?
I did a quick run through HA archives and the date position doesn't match the common obverse proof die for this year. Perhaps this is the less common die marriage? Or it could be a BS.
For example, compare the date positioning to this: HA
HA link
PCGS seems to show proof trade dollars more forgiveness in grading. It's possible that the OP coin would grade at PCGS, but would need to see in hand. Having said that I'm a little surprised the above HA coin didn't go genuine for cleaning.
Here's a few more impaired proofs with similar toning:
HA link
HA link
HA link
<< <i>Dan, have you found any of this date with comparable date positioning? >>
Good catch Stealer. A quick search on HA and coinfacts (about 12 coins) show a single die/date position and it doesn't match the OP coin. And here I thought I was all smart.
Segs called it a proof for some reason, even with that strike. Maybe it is prooflike? Maybe there was another obverse proof die used? Who knows.
<< <i>
<< <i>Dan, have you found any of this date with comparable date positioning? >>
Good catch Stealer. A quick search on HA and coinfacts (about 12 coins) show a single die/date position and it doesn't match the OP coin. And here I thought I was all smart.
Segs called it a proof for some reason, even with that strike. Maybe it is prooflike? Maybe there was another obverse proof die used? Who knows. >>
There are two, one (the more common) which accounts for all the HA ones and one much rarer which has slight doubling under 1 and 8 in the date. I can't seem to find one on HA though. QDB did say that there shouldn't be any proof surface in the eagle's claws for the rarer die marriage, but I don't see any evidence of that from the pictures. That's why I called it a BS.
From Bower's book:
Proofs:
1. Heavy date, double punched: Breen-5808.
Minute traces of double punching, particularly the 1 and 8. Only a small number of Proofs are of this variety.
2. Normal date: The variety usually seen. No Proof surface between eagle's claw and branch. (Do any have broken letters?)
<< <i>
<< <i>xf45 - but not a coin that is original >>
Wow, really? I can see downgrading possibly to a 50, but I think 45 is a bit too harsh despite the hairlines and splotchy toning. JMO anyway. >>
All coins are net graded for various attributes - unoriginal coins should be more severely penalized than original ones. The way I like to look at it is 'how much wear would have to occur to make this thing wholesome again'. IMO, circulation wear down to XF45 on this one.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>xf45 - but not a coin that is original >>
Wow, really? I can see downgrading possibly to a 50, but I think 45 is a bit too harsh despite the hairlines and splotchy toning. JMO anyway. >>
All coins are net graded for various attributes - unoriginal coins should be more severely penalized than original ones. The way I like to look at it is 'how much wear would have to occur to make this thing wholesome again'. IMO, circulation wear down to XF45 on this one. >>
I saw the PL surfaces and I bet they play out in hand esp by the devices better than the pic lets on, I maintain that I think it is a hammered BS coin with AU50 details
50% PL luster remaining with light high point rub. I do not think the hairlines and discoloration warrant a net grade but a details one which at that point it is AU details at 1/2 of AU retail not a problem AU market priced at XF money. It's not like it is a 78cc, common coins get treated harder by market pricing as one can easily go find a better one.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>xf45 - but not a coin that is original >>
Wow, really? I can see downgrading possibly to a 50, but I think 45 is a bit too harsh despite the hairlines and splotchy toning. JMO anyway. >>
All coins are net graded for various attributes - unoriginal coins should be more severely penalized than original ones. The way I like to look at it is 'how much wear would have to occur to make this thing wholesome again'. IMO, circulation wear down to XF45 on this one. >>
That is a fascinating point.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>xf45 - but not a coin that is original >>
Wow, really? I can see downgrading possibly to a 50, but I think 45 is a bit too harsh despite the hairlines and splotchy toning. JMO anyway. >>
All coins are net graded for various attributes - unoriginal coins should be more severely penalized than original ones. The way I like to look at it is 'how much wear would have to occur to make this thing wholesome again'. IMO, circulation wear down to XF45 on this one. >>
Hm, very interesting. I'll keep that in mind
So has anyone found an example of the first die marriage Bowers mentions?
Yes, it is way less cleaned than some I see. Plastic is also severly scratched. I'll snap a few more pics. I sure did not ever think of sending it in and PCGS grade it. I also do not want to lose the proof status. Also, coin has been in there a long time and maybe toning has forgiven it's past sins.
Pictures coming.
Thanks for all the input.
<< <i>Not exactly the same, but take a look at this one:
HA link >>
Wow, that has to be the poster child of grading gone terribly wrong. When you see it you can only think about all the 92's of our past, huddle in the corner for a while, then move on!!
She does not like her picture taken!!!
<< <i>Wabbit, how are the fields, mirrored? Does it look like a proof in hand? >>
Yes, but nothing like this!!! It is under all that black.
<< <i>Okay, now I'm convinced it's a BS, no mirrors to speak of. >>
I have proof coins with no mirrors at all. Some of my Barber dimes for instance. I should pop this sucker out, give her a bath and see whats under all that coal!
<< <i>
<< <i>Okay, now I'm convinced it's a BS, no mirrors to speak of. >>
I have proof coins with no mirrors at all. Some of my Barber dimes for instance. I should pop this sucker out, give her a bath and see whats under all that coal! >>
You should, if its a proof you have nothing to really lose. If its not then it don't belong in that holder
type2,CCHunter.
<< <i>Okay, now I'm convinced it's a BS, no mirrors to speak of. >>
Be careful, pictures and/or toning can hide mirrors well.
I still contend that the toning sure looks like the toning on many other impaired proofs out there. It's certainly a puzzling coin.
Edit: If you crack it out, the edges will tell us a lot.
<< <i>That isn't a die crack between uniteD--States is it? >>
Yes it is. Starts around the "I" and ends around the "E" in "states".
<< <i>
<< <i>Okay, now I'm convinced it's a BS, no mirrors to speak of. >>
Be careful, pictures and/or toning can hide mirrors well.
I still contend that the toning sure looks like the toning on many other impaired proofs out there. It's certainly a puzzling coin.
Edit: If you crack it out, the edges will tell us a lot. >>
Fair enough, but the die crack should be grounds to call it BS. Albeit there have been cracked proof dies before.
<< <i>Fair enough, but the die crack should be grounds to call it BS. >>
Yup! That's a key pickup for this coin.
Let the buyers know what? LOL. Just because you do not think it is a proof is no "proof" at all. If I were to sell it in the SEGS slab, or any slab, buyer is buying a coin based on someone elses opinion, not mine, or yours.
type2,CCHunter.