Large cents - Identifying wild proofs?

1868LargeCent · February 23, 2014 10:16AM

I've been wanting to know how to know whether I've seen a lightly circulated proof later date large or half cent. The problem with them is, I would look at the rims, but ALL of them have a big square rim with a fin! And most of them tend to have razor strikes as well. Without the mirrors, are they just goners?

savoyspecial · February 23, 2014 10:50AM

there are other diagnostics and die markers specific to each date......Get a specialist book (Wright for middle dates is great)

1868LargeCent · February 23, 2014 11:54AM

I don't mean die markers, but just proof qualities that hold up to some circulation. On early wheats (MPL) I look at the rims, surface texture, and toning. On PL Morgans, I look at the rims again, and the strike helps. But them large cents, they all have such gorgeous rims!

1868LargeCent · February 23, 2014 1:01PM

A couple examples of how HARD this is:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1855-BRAIDED-HAIR-1C-PCGS-PR-64-BN-/201025488177?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item2ece0d8531

This is a proof? The strike is nice, but it lacks luster and the rims are HORRIBLE.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1856-in-Copper-Nickel-Judd-177-Breen-1-B-R4-Proof-Half-Cent-Coin-1-2c-/261354464209?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item3cd9f0a3d1

Other side: Nice luster and rims, but DREADFUL strike! Yeah, THIS IS HARD. Any advice?

AUandAG · February 23, 2014 1:38PM

If you are going to post links please learn how.

bob

There is a testing forum under the NAVIGATION to play around with.

1868LargeCent · February 23, 2014 1:45PM

<< If you are going to post links please learn how.

bob

There is a testing forum under the NAVIGATION to play around with. >>

Can't you just teach me?

CuKevin · February 23, 2014 3:25PM

<< 

<< If you are going to post links please learn how.

bob

There is a testing forum under the NAVIGATION to play around with. >>

Can't you just teach me? >>

It isn't something easily taught. Play around with these instructions in the testing forum.

1. New topic or reply to post
2. Copy link you want to post from website
3. Underneath the words "Message Text:", click on the http or https box.
4. Delete the current text there and paste your web link.

That should be a good start.

1868LargeCent · February 24, 2014 2:42AM

All right, got it! Not so hard to teach after all.

Bad Rims Lackluster "Proof?"

Heck, the first 5 and last 2 stars are basically blobs, so the strike isn't great either. NOT A PROOF!

Weak Strike Proof

All right, this one's a pattern, so it wasn't exactly struck to be of high quality, but it's still a proof with a crappy strike.

indeetlib · February 24, 2014 3:10AM

Classifying proof late date large cents can be tricky business. While there are many varieties that are "proof-only" there are many more die marriages that started off as proof strikings, but were subsequently used for business strikes as well. There are many purported proof large cents that experts will simply never agree on, even within the EAC fold. Also, many coins will get a proof designation from the TPG's one day, but then a MS grade if sent in again. The 1855 you posted is very questionable. It's an N-10 which did start out striking proofs, but made many regular strikes as well, including many deceptive EDS coins that have been sold as proofs. Here's a link to the unquestionably proof 1855 N-10 in the Holmes Sale that includes some good info on the variety. From the looks of the scans of the coin you posted, I don't think many experts would concur with the proof designation, but it would really need to be seen in hand to have a better idea of the surface characteristics.

To your earlier question regarding identifying circulated proof large cents - you really can only determine that if it's a proof only variety (as savoyspecial was getting at). There are usually not clear enough proof characteristics to distinguish between a proof and EDS example on a circulated coin. Definitely pick up Grellman's or Noyes' book on late dates if you need an attribution guide for those. Also, the Dan Holmes catalog on the Goldberg's site is a great source for info on late date proofs vs. business strikes.

1868LargeCent · February 24, 2014 2:54PM

That one looks like more of a "specimen" than a proof but it's not a business strike. The Ebay one shows no proof qualities. CAC ought to be ashamed.

19Lyds · February 24, 2014 7:52PM

<< That one looks like more of a "specimen" than a proof but it's not a business strike. The Ebay one shows no proof qualities. CAC ought to be ashamed. >>

Exactly "why" should CAC be ashamed?

shorecoll · February 25, 2014 12:20AM

This is a tough question, as Indeet pointed out, there are major EAC specialists on both sides of debates on some of these. I've been warned off of some coins in auctions that were supposed to be one or the other, but were being actively debated. For some, it comes down to die variety and consensus...that last part is a hell of a situation to drop significant money on, because it is subjective.

indeetlib · February 25, 2014 12:32AM

<< CAC ought to be ashamed. >>

I wouldn't say that. Even if the proof status is questionable, I think CAC's objective with the coin is determining whether it's market acceptable for the grade and not to make a judgment as to its proof status. Maybe I'm wrong on that and of course if there was a blatant error where a MS coin was called PR, CAC wouldn't sticker it, but, as has been discussed, it's not so black and white with many of these Large Cents. I think it's fair for CAC to accept the PCGS designation in this case. Not to put words in CAC's mouth though….

Sonorandesertrat · February 25, 2014 12:34AM

<< That one looks like more of a "specimen" than a proof but it's not a business strike. The Ebay one shows no proof qualities. CAC ought to be ashamed. >>

Really? This is an issue that really requires that the coin be viewed IN HAND. There have been numerous debates regarding early (pre-1858) proofs vs. specimen strikes vs. cherry initial business strikes.
If you really want a nice proof large cent, be patient and very careful. I have seen plenty of coins that were worked on. And I don't think that I would plan on finding a coin that I deemed acceptable by turning to eBay.

P.S. In the world of early coppers, CAC beans aren't all that important.

tradedollarnut · February 25, 2014 12:38AM

<< 

<< CAC ought to be ashamed. >>

I wouldn't say that. Even if the proof status is questionable, I think CAC's objective with the coin is determining whether it's market acceptable for the grade and not to make a judgment as to its proof status. Maybe I'm wrong on that and of course if there was a blatant error where a MS coin was called PR, CAC wouldn't sticker it, but, as has been discussed, it's not so black and white with many of these Large Cents. I think it's fair for CAC to accept the PCGS designation in this case. Not to put words in CAC's mouth though….

>>

Of course the CAC sticker means CAC agrees it's a proof. They would NEVER put a sticker on a business strike in a proof holder if they determined that was the case.

As far as a newbie claiming CAC should be ashamed off some image - do kindly give us all a break. Sigh

Unknown · February 25, 2014 3:30AM

This content has been removed.

stealer · February 25, 2014 3:33AM

<< All right, got it! Not so hard to teach after all.

Bad Rims Lackluster "Proof?"

Heck, the first 5 and last 2 stars are basically blobs, so the strike isn't great either. NOT A PROOF!

Weak Strike Proof

All right, this one's a pattern, so it wasn't exactly struck to be of high quality, but it's still a proof with a crappy strike. >>

Depending on the series and date, proof strikes can come terribly poor...

Your second link is moot as you said so yourself, and to say that it's a proof with a crappy strike means nothing.

Large cents - Identifying wild proofs?

Comments

Leave a Comment