Morgan Dollar - Proof or Business Strike?

C0inCollect0r

Hi folks,

This Morgan has mirrored fields and was advertised as a Proof, but it looks to me like a business strike. I wanted to post it here to ask those who know better than I do. It is cleaned and has extensive surface hairlines.










Thanks for your time.

Rampage

Difficult to say without seeing it in hand, but it certainly does look like a proof. As you said, however, the coin has been harshly cleaned.

TheDukeK

50/50 but I lean to Proof.
But hairlines would be an understatement...Wig would be the term

coindeuce

All of the Proofs of this date that I have seen have much more uniform and broader borders between dentils and edge on both sides.

Also, look closely at the field area between eagle's legs and upper section of tail (just above inner and outer talon on right leg, and just above inner talon on left leg). Those small flat areas between the devices would be mirror like on a proof. They are frosted on the coin imaged above.



I vote circulation strike.

Jackthecat1

It has the look of a proof but the surface issues might be confusing me.

MorganMan94

It looks tricky but my guess is a business strike that was extensively cleaned to look like a proof. It almost looks to me as though it was proof-like and cleaned intentionally to try and trick someone into thinking it was a proof. I could see many people on the edge, and as a collector everyone wants to believe it is true even if it isn't.

Wabbit2313

It looks to have some of the die markers, but I can't see them real good. Go to Vamworld and look them up and compare. My guess is a proof though.

AUandAG

I would say business strike based on the rims.



bob

mercurydimeguy

I would give this a .001% chance of being a proof based on the images.

Overdate

I don't see any serious bagmarks, so if it's a business strike it may have started out as a high-grade PL or DMPL.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

HighRelief

Originally posted by: Realone
Aren't the denticles on the reverse a clear giveaway the tit isn't a proof.

3keepSECRETif2rDEAD

Originally posted by: Realone
Aren't the denticles on the reverse a clear giveaway the tit isn't a proof.

...sorry but for some very odd reason this made me think of Katylene Jenner???

BAJJERFAN

Originally posted by: 3keepSECRETif2rDEAD

Originally posted by: Realone

Aren't the denticles on the reverse a clear giveaway the tit isn't a proof.

...sorry but for some very odd reason this made me think of Katylene Jenner???

Is her seester named Ethylene?

oldlinecoins

business strike for sure

rims don't have enough definition

Steve27

IMO it's not a proof. Here's an impaired proof from the VAMworld site:





Note the uniformity in the denticles.

golden

No.

pmac

Originally posted by: coindeuce
All of the Proofs of this date that I have seen have much more uniform and broader borders between dentils and edge on both sides. I vote no.

My thoughts exactly.

pmac

Originally posted by: golden
No.

Does this answer the question?

ricko

My vote is definitely not a proof.... rims, denticles just are not there... never were. Cheers, RickO

MICHAELDIXON

It is not a proof. This coin appears to be the same one I sent to ANACS several years ago for a friend of mine who was adamant it was a proof. If it is the same one, and I am almost certain it is, ANACS determined it was a business strike.

asheland

Originally posted by: AUandAG
I would say business strike based on the rims.

bob