@mannie gray said:
I agree that is is an exceptional coin, but to say it is a proof.......shame on ANACS.
Maybe it is a "mechanical error," lol
Why "Shame on ANACS?"
"Shame on ANACS" if they are labelling a business strike as a proof. On the other hand, maybe it is.
What's odd is the starting price. If that is one of maybe 10 actual proofs, it is worth waaaay more than $500, in my opinion. The seller must know that it is unlikely to be viewed as a proof in the community at large. Although, it's not impossible.
There's plenty of shame to go around even among some 'bigger & better' grading services. There are a few 1820's era Bust proofs still in holders that wouldn't holder as proof today. Mistakes get made, it really comes down to how good any TPGs guarantee is. The only shame ANACS would deserve here is if they deliberately put a coin they knew was not a proof into a new holder stating it was just to avoid a big blowup with the person who resubmitted it (If that happened). Actually doesn't make a lot of sense to resubmit to get into a new holder, probably more salable in the old white 2x3 cache. As many times as ANACS has changed hands over the years I'm doubting the current owners would be liable for something done 20 or 30 years ago.
By the way, you do know this is me, wade, don't you?
@logger7 said:
Blue holder means the coin was in the small white holder previously.
I did not know that....Ya learn something new everyday.
(I should have noticed. GC had one of my sales items reholdered, and it came back blue without me even noticing....)
I have some Blue Anacs holder coins that were not in old white holders. They used them years ago before they went to yellow.
@logger7 said:
Blue holder means the coin was in the small white holder previously.
I did not know that....Ya learn something new everyday.
(I should have noticed. GC had one of my sales items reholdered, and it came back blue without me even noticing....)
I have some Blue Anacs holder coins that were not in old white holders. They used them years ago before they went to yellow.
That's true also, but under current management while they have been doing the gold holder all coins for reholder from the small white one are put into blue holders.
There is something strange going on. Cert# does show proof but it does not show up in the population report. I don't even see a proof category in the population report section at Anacs for this coin.
For a proof, I would expect to see a better strike. The Anacs coin is first, and a PCGS MS coin is second. The Anacs "proof" sure seems to be missing a ton of detail on the lower half of the coin. No proof to me!
I also just got off the phone with Tim Hargis, who would've finalized this coin, and he doesn't remember it at all. He said right off the bat that he didn't think they existed, and ANACS would never certify something like this without good documentation and the opinion of experts. He agrees it is either a reholder from the white slab days or a mechanical error.
Full transparency- I am the ANACS Texas Rep.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
Who would have been at Anacs besides Hargis who would have seen the coin? If it were in the white holder previously, 1990s, would that have been Mr. Campbell and Mike Fahey? "Mechanical error"? That seems like a big cop-out, I would think the proof grade on that would have set off alarm bells with Anacs' software programs designed to prevent major problems.
@cmerlo1 said:
I have contacted Paul @ ANACS about this.
I also just got off the phone with Tim Hargis, who would've finalized this coin, and he doesn't remember it at all. He said right off the bat that he didn't think they existed, and ANACS would never certify something like this without good documentation and the opinion of experts. He agrees it is either a reholder from the white slab days or a mechanical error.
Full transparency- I am the ANACS Texas Rep.
Great to have an "insider" at ANACS around. I know for a fact that a couple of services that shall remain unnamed can pull up a certificate number and ID each of the graders "on" the coin and how they graded it.
Now, perhaps you could do us all a favor. Call them back and ask them what they found out about the coin. I won't hold my breath as that info should be confidential. At the least, they can take it off the market if it is not a Proof.
@cmerlo1 said:
I have contacted Paul @ ANACS about this.
I also just got off the phone with Tim Hargis, who would've finalized this coin, and he doesn't remember it at all. He said right off the bat that he didn't think they existed, and ANACS would never certify something like this without good documentation and the opinion of experts. He agrees it is either a reholder from the white slab days or a mechanical error.
Full transparency- I am the ANACS Texas Rep.
Great to have an "insider" at ANACS around. I know for a fact that a couple of services that shall remain unnamed can pull up a certificate number and ID each of the graders "on" the coin and how they graded it.
Now, perhaps you could do us all a favor. Call them back and ask them what they found out about the coin. I won't hold my breath as that info should be confidential. At the least, they can take it off the market if it is not a Proof.
The coin is now “out and about” and there is no way that it can be “taken off” the market. It is what it is.
(Reminds me of the recent fiasco with our host slabbing a 1909vdb business strike as a matte proof.)
This coming Saturday the coin will be sold and someone else will be the proud owner of a "matte proof"
(according to anacs) 1917 type one standing liberty quarter.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@Insider2 said: @BUFFNIXX said: "The coin is now “out and about” and there is no way that it can be “taken off” the market. It is what it is. "
Oh? Actually, there is a way. It just would not be pleasant for those involved.
They can certainly buy it from eBay, which would be great for the seller, adding another bidder. They certainly can't demand it be returned. The current owner can tell them to pound sand if he wishes.
I believe the first scenario would be very "pleasant" to the current owner.
I submitted an 1880-S Morgan to ANACS in 2005, when they were using this generation of blue holder. It came back graded PF-63 PL, so there was definitely no system in place to keep these sorts of mechanical errors from happening back then.
@afford said:
Does anyone here trust blue ANACS holders for one minute? I know I don’t.
I had a recent good experience with anacs that I will share here. Got up one morning early and checked standing liberty quarters, there was a 1923s in very fine (cleaned) for sale at $429 a buy it now. I bit the bullet and bought it, the coin had
nicely retoned and was raw. i sent it to anacs because i am always concerned about added mintmark on this coin and it came back graded vf25 (cleaned) -- put it right back on flea bay and sold it for $795. So anacs did a real good job for me on this tuff SLQ. I really do like anacs.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
right about the time that anacs was transitioning to new ownership they started with this new “teardrop” holder that the anacs pr63 SLQ we are talking about is in. I had a 1913 type one buffalo nickel in an old small anacs cashe holder which had a big crack on the reverse, so I sent it in for reholdering and this is what I got...... Tried to cross it to a pcgs pr66 but they would not do it. No doubt about its proof status and sure does look correctly graded to me. But my luck with our host has not been too good lately.
( That 1917 pr63 slq would look nice next to this 1913 type one buff, wouldn’t it?)
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
It is DEFINITELY a mechanical error (typo). I checked, and if they had really thought it was a Proof, it would have "Matte Proof" in the description. Also, the superlative "Full Head" would not have been used on a Proof coin -- this is reserved for Mint State coins. Someone back then mistakenly clicked the button on the computer that changed the "MS" in front of the grade to "PF".
Alright! Some closure...hopefully. Now, will the seller send it back to ANACS for the correction and possible regrade? It certainly looks better than MS63 to me.
oih82w8 = Oh I Hate To Wait _defectus patientia_aka...Dr. Defecto - Curator of RMO's
Call me crazy....but I still find it surprising that a coin that gets this particular "Mechanical Error" also just happens to be a coin with a completely hammered strike.
Guess the look may have contributed to the mechanical error? Novice data entry person just jumped to a conclusion?
Or, the look just made it easy for successive owners to assume the attribution was correct, and not get it corrected?
@IrishMikey said:
It is DEFINITELY a mechanical error (typo). I checked, and if they had really thought it was a Proof, it would have "Matte Proof" in the description. Also, the superlative "Full Head" would not have been used on a Proof coin -- this is reserved for Mint State coins. Someone back then mistakenly clicked the button on the computer that changed the "MS" in front of the grade to "PF".
Exactly correct - Mechanical Error. The ANACS record has been adjusted to show "MS" in the grade and the eBay seller has been notified. Errors like this example happen from time-to-time and are always welcome to be returned to ANACS for correction. There is no charge for this service.
As a side note, this coin was submitted as a crossover (2006), but the original TPGS is not recorded in the notes.
The auction was ended, and the original grading service for the crossover was probably not one of the majors.
Who exactly convinced anacs that this was a mechanical error?? Something stinks here! The there-is-no-1917-proof-coinage crowd has struck again, and won! I hope you are all happy now!
Oh, just one more comment .......
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Can you see me smiling about the quarter? Can you see me smiling now? How about now?
There is a BIG difference between 1917 Lincoln cents and nickels (they have a history) and a "one-off" 1917 Standing Liberty quarter. At least the cents and nickels LOOK LIKE something special.
Sorry to say Insider2, I saw a different 1917 type one matte proof standing liberty quarter that was slabbed by SEGS. And i know you probably do not like SEGS but that quarter would just "reach out n grab you”. It was, and still is, a proof 1917 where ever it is. I had no skin in the game with that coin but it was the real deal.> @Insider2 said:
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Can you see me smiling about the quarter? Can you see me smiling now? How about now?
There is a BIG difference between 1917 Lincoln cents and nickels (they have a history) and a "one-off" 1917 Standing Liberty quarter. At least the cents and nickels LOOK LIKE something special.
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(The 1917 SEGS type one quarter was graded matte proof 63 - cleaned)
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
"Can you see me smiling about the quarter? Can you see me smiling now? How about now? “
Guess we know who was the driving force behind getting this coin delisted at ANACS!!
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@TommyType said:
Call me crazy....but I still find it surprising that a coin that gets this particular "Mechanical Error" also just happens to be a coin with a completely hammered strike.
Guess the look may have contributed to the mechanical error? Novice data entry person just jumped to a conclusion?
Or, the look just made it easy for successive owners to assume the attribution was correct, and not get it corrected?
You're crazy. To think that a data entry person could override the finalized grade because they thought the coin looked like a proof is ... well ... crazy.
Data entry (mechanical) errors happen ... even with coins that are well struck.
Why was the error not corrected? Likely it was ignorance or greed. My money is on ignorance. But now that the seller knows, only greed may prevent the correction. It's tough being the last one standing when the music stops.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
@TommyType said:
Call me crazy....but I still find it surprising that a coin that gets this particular "Mechanical Error" also just happens to be a coin with a completely hammered strike.
Guess the look may have contributed to the mechanical error? Novice data entry person just jumped to a conclusion?
Or, the look just made it easy for successive owners to assume the attribution was correct, and not get it corrected?
You're crazy. To think that a data entry person could override the finalized grade because they thought the coin looked like a proof is ... well ... crazy.
Data entry (mechanical) errors happen ... even with coins that are well struck.
Why was the error not corrected? Likely it was ignorance or greed. My money is on ignorance. But now that the seller knows, only greed may prevent the correction. It's tough being the last one standing when the music stops.
What I was saying, (or talking around), was that I think ANACS really did call it a Proof at one time in it's history. The chances that a mechanical error would just happen to coincide with an uncharacteristically strong strike....(and those who say all 1917's are this strong didn't look closely enough)....is really quite the coincidence. A coincidence that I have a hard time believing. Now, I think they're backtracking....and using mechanical error as an excuse. The net result may be correct...but the circumstances seem fishy.
(Not taking a stance on Proof vs. Not Proof. I don't have that background. But I do think there is something special about this coin. Test strike? Show piece made for someone? Maybe it's not a technical proof, and all that means as far as manufacturing...but somehow special none-the-less).
@DMWJR said:
The owner said he was surprised also when it came back a proof, so I can't see him complain if ANACS said it was a mechanical label error
Yes, I discussed it with him. He said he sent it in to cross as all his coins are ANACS. He doesn't remember what holder it was in but that he doesn't recall it being labelled a proof at the time.
I took a flyer on it. I need to see it in hand, obviously, but there is something different about it. The surface is satiny. The shield is very well struck but the bricks are oddly lacking in detail.
_This coin seams to be generating a great deal of interest. Here is more information that may be helpful. I sent this coin to ANACS 10 or 15 years ago. I Don't rember if it was a cross over or a raw coin but I had no idea that it was a proof. I am not a coin grader that's why I have coins graded. This one came back PF63 FH from ANACS. _
That "story" just doesn't seem plausible. And who is going to sell an essentially unique SLQ proof for $2500? ...unless they're darn sure it isn't one. My radar gets flagged when I see "I'm not a coin grader" in the description....lol.
@roadrunner said:
_This coin seams to be generating a great deal of interest. Here is more information that may be helpful. I sent this coin to ANACS 10 or 15 years ago. I Don't rember if it was a cross over or a raw coin but I had no idea that it was a proof. I am not a coin grader that's why I have coins graded. This one came back PF63 FH from ANACS. _
That "story" just doesn't seem plausible. And who is going to sell an essentially unique SLQ proof for $2500? ...unless they're darn sure it isn't one. My radar gets flagged when I see "I'm not a coin grader" in the description....lol.
Coin comes with return privileges. The gentleman seems more than reasonable.
@roadrunner said:
_This coin seams to be generating a great deal of interest. Here is more information that may be helpful. I sent this coin to ANACS 10 or 15 years ago. I Don't rember if it was a cross over or a raw coin but I had no idea that it was a proof. I am not a coin grader that's why I have coins graded. This one came back PF63 FH from ANACS. _
That "story" just doesn't seem plausible. And who is going to sell an essentially unique SLQ proof for $2500? ...unless they're darn sure it isn't one. My radar gets flagged when I see "I'm not a coin grader" in the description....lol.
Coin comes with return privileges. The gentleman seems more than reasonable.
By the way, that story has to be true. The coin is in ANACS database. Whether it's an error in labeling remains to be seen.
If you look at all his offerings, they are all in ANACS holders I'm quite certain he's telling the truth about how he came by the coin. He may not think it's a proof, but he's not lying about what it is or how it came to be that way.
Quick question: If I don't like the coin or think it is mislabeled when it arrives, can't I just send it to ANACS for a refund of the price differential? Doesn't that make buying it kind of risk-free? I know there's some issue over dates given that the only guarantee is of coins slabbed since 2008, so is it only gold labels that get the guarantee.]
[Although the seller gave me 14 day return privileges. If I can get it before Baltimore, maybe I can get someone to walk it through.]
According to this website: October 17th, 1916... cease proof manufacture. November 1, 1916... DM requested all further Proof coinage / special lot, be reported directly to DM and not reported on coiners record.
Updated site with pictures from National Archives U.S. Mint documents, coins in the Smithsonian and much more.
It makes absolutely no sense at all to me that with an entirely new beautiful Silver coinage finally completed,
that Proof / Special Lot coinage would not have been struck.
Hermon A MacNeil requested and paid for 2 complete sets, per documentation.
Comments
To me it looks like an old buff job that gave it that look. Definitely not the normal look of an slq without it being either helped or special
By the way, you do know this is me, wade, don't you?
That is a beauty Broadstruck.
I have some Blue Anacs holder coins that were not in old white holders. They used them years ago before they went to yellow.
That's true also, but under current management while they have been doing the gold holder all coins for reholder from the small white one are put into blue holders.
There is something strange going on. Cert# does show proof but it does not show up in the population report. I don't even see a proof category in the population report section at Anacs for this coin.
-
-
It is a nice looking coin in the photos...I wish my type example was that well struck!
K
I have had a couple of really nice coins cross-over from Blue ANACS holders.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore...
Usually, no. I also have a couple of exceptions that are very nice for the holder grade.
@afford said: "Does anyone here trust blue ANACS holders for one minute? I know I don't."
I learn a lot when I read posts.
For a proof, I would expect to see a better strike. The Anacs coin is first, and a PCGS MS coin is second. The Anacs "proof" sure seems to be missing a ton of detail on the lower half of the coin. No proof to me!
-
I have contacted Paul @ ANACS about this.
I also just got off the phone with Tim Hargis, who would've finalized this coin, and he doesn't remember it at all. He said right off the bat that he didn't think they existed, and ANACS would never certify something like this without good documentation and the opinion of experts. He agrees it is either a reholder from the white slab days or a mechanical error.
Full transparency- I am the ANACS Texas Rep.
Who would have been at Anacs besides Hargis who would have seen the coin? If it were in the white holder previously, 1990s, would that have been Mr. Campbell and Mike Fahey? "Mechanical error"? That seems like a big cop-out, I would think the proof grade on that would have set off alarm bells with Anacs' software programs designed to prevent major problems.
ill pass on that for now.
Great to have an "insider" at ANACS around. I know for a fact that a couple of services that shall remain unnamed can pull up a certificate number and ID each of the graders "on" the coin and how they graded it.
Now, perhaps you could do us all a favor. Call them back and ask them what they found out about the coin.
I won't hold my breath as that info should be confidential. At the least, they can take it off the market if it is not a Proof.
The coin is now “out and about” and there is no way that it can be “taken off” the market. It is what it is.
(Reminds me of the recent fiasco with our host slabbing a 1909vdb business strike as a matte proof.)
This coming Saturday the coin will be sold and someone else will be the proud owner of a "matte proof"
(according to anacs) 1917 type one standing liberty quarter.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@BUFFNIXX said: "The coin is now “out and about” and there is no way that it can be “taken off” the market. It is what it is. "
Oh? Actually, there is a way. It just would not be pleasant for those involved.
They can certainly buy it from eBay, which would be great for the seller, adding another bidder. They certainly can't demand it be returned. The current owner can tell them to pound sand if he wishes.
I believe the first scenario would be very "pleasant" to the current owner.
I submitted an 1880-S Morgan to ANACS in 2005, when they were using this generation of blue holder. It came back graded PF-63 PL, so there was definitely no system in place to keep these sorts of mechanical errors from happening back then.
ANACS made mechanical errors just like all the other services.
I have this one. It's not a proof.
That coin in that holder means nothing to me. It's gotta be a mislabel error. JMO
Here is an UNC type one 1917d standing liberty quarters being offered on the flea (eBay) Compare this to the anacs coin herein above.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
That's what jumped off the screen for me.
I had a recent good experience with anacs that I will share here. Got up one morning early and checked standing liberty quarters, there was a 1923s in very fine (cleaned) for sale at $429 a buy it now. I bit the bullet and bought it, the coin had
nicely retoned and was raw. i sent it to anacs because i am always concerned about added mintmark on this coin and it came back graded vf25 (cleaned) -- put it right back on flea bay and sold it for $795. So anacs did a real good job for me on this tuff SLQ. I really do like anacs.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
right about the time that anacs was transitioning to new ownership they started with this new “teardrop” holder that the anacs pr63 SLQ we are talking about is in. I had a 1913 type one buffalo nickel in an old small anacs cashe holder which had a big crack on the reverse, so I sent it in for reholdering and this is what I got...... Tried to cross it to a pcgs pr66 but they would not do it. No doubt about its proof status and sure does look correctly graded to me. But my luck with our host has not been too good lately.
( That 1917 pr63 slq would look nice next to this 1913 type one buff, wouldn’t it?)
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
It is DEFINITELY a mechanical error (typo). I checked, and if they had really thought it was a Proof, it would have "Matte Proof" in the description. Also, the superlative "Full Head" would not have been used on a Proof coin -- this is reserved for Mint State coins. Someone back then mistakenly clicked the button on the computer that changed the "MS" in front of the grade to "PF".
Alright! Some closure...hopefully. Now, will the seller send it back to ANACS for the correction and possible regrade? It certainly looks better than MS63 to me.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore...
Call me crazy....but I still find it surprising that a coin that gets this particular "Mechanical Error" also just happens to be a coin with a completely hammered strike.
Guess the look may have contributed to the mechanical error? Novice data entry person just jumped to a conclusion?
Or, the look just made it easy for successive owners to assume the attribution was correct, and not get it corrected?
It's certainly a nice coin. Fact is though, 1917-P almost always has a really hammered strike.
I also think that with the lack of marks, this could have been under-graded as an MS coin, but without seeing it in hand, it's a little tough to tell.
The auction was ended, and the original grading service for the crossover was probably not one of the majors.
Who exactly convinced anacs that this was a mechanical error?? Something stinks here! The there-is-no-1917-proof-coinage crowd has struck again, and won! I hope you are all happy now!
Oh, just one more comment .......
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Can you see me smiling about the quarter? Can you see me smiling now? How about now?
There is a BIG difference between 1917 Lincoln cents and nickels (they have a history) and a "one-off" 1917 Standing Liberty quarter. At least the cents and nickels LOOK LIKE something special.
Sorry to say Insider2, I saw a different 1917 type one matte proof standing liberty quarter that was slabbed by SEGS. And i know you probably do not like SEGS but that quarter would just "reach out n grab you”. It was, and still is, a proof 1917 where ever it is. I had no skin in the game with that coin but it was the real deal.> @Insider2 said:
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(The 1917 SEGS type one quarter was graded matte proof 63 - cleaned)
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
"Can you see me smiling about the quarter? Can you see me smiling now? How about now? “
Guess we know who was the driving force behind getting this coin delisted at ANACS!!
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
So, evidently segs is the authority on 1917 proof coinage. I wonder why eBay won't let you mention their name in listing titles.
Justice for you and the disagree you got!
To answer the question posed by the OP, after everyone looks at this coin, nobody will have seen a matte proof 1917 SLQ.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
@messydesk said: "To answer the question posed by the OP, after everyone looks at this coin, nobody will have seen a matte proof 1917 SLQ."
Not true! One knowledgeable poster has seen one slabbed. The white rabbit brought it back from "Wonderland."
FWIW, if one exists, it is a different design (according to Breen). Perhaps a pattern?
BTW, IMO SEGS is not as bad as everyone says.
You're crazy. To think that a data entry person could override the finalized grade because they thought the coin looked like a proof is ... well ... crazy.
Data entry (mechanical) errors happen ... even with coins that are well struck.
Why was the error not corrected? Likely it was ignorance or greed. My money is on ignorance. But now that the seller knows, only greed may prevent the correction. It's tough being the last one standing when the music stops.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
What I was saying, (or talking around), was that I think ANACS really did call it a Proof at one time in it's history. The chances that a mechanical error would just happen to coincide with an uncharacteristically strong strike....(and those who say all 1917's are this strong didn't look closely enough)....is really quite the coincidence. A coincidence that I have a hard time believing. Now, I think they're backtracking....and using mechanical error as an excuse. The net result may be correct...but the circumstances seem fishy.
(Not taking a stance on Proof vs. Not Proof. I don't have that background. But I do think there is something special about this coin. Test strike? Show piece made for someone? Maybe it's not a technical proof, and all that means as far as manufacturing...but somehow special none-the-less).
I'll post photos as soon as I get it in hand.
The owner said he was surprised also when it came back a proof, so I can't see him complain if ANACS said it was a mechanical label error
Yes, I discussed it with him. He said he sent it in to cross as all his coins are ANACS. He doesn't remember what holder it was in but that he doesn't recall it being labelled a proof at the time.
I took a flyer on it. I need to see it in hand, obviously, but there is something different about it. The surface is satiny. The shield is very well struck but the bricks are oddly lacking in detail.
_This coin seams to be generating a great deal of interest. Here is more information that may be helpful. I sent this coin to ANACS 10 or 15 years ago. I Don't rember if it was a cross over or a raw coin but I had no idea that it was a proof. I am not a coin grader that's why I have coins graded. This one came back PF63 FH from ANACS. _
That "story" just doesn't seem plausible. And who is going to sell an essentially unique SLQ proof for $2500? ...unless they're darn sure it isn't one. My radar gets flagged when I see "I'm not a coin grader" in the description....lol.
Coin comes with return privileges. The gentleman seems more than reasonable.
By the way, that story has to be true. The coin is in ANACS database. Whether it's an error in labeling remains to be seen.
If you look at all his offerings, they are all in ANACS holders I'm quite certain he's telling the truth about how he came by the coin. He may not think it's a proof, but he's not lying about what it is or how it came to be that way.
Quick question: If I don't like the coin or think it is mislabeled when it arrives, can't I just send it to ANACS for a refund of the price differential? Doesn't that make buying it kind of risk-free? I know there's some issue over dates given that the only guarantee is of coins slabbed since 2008, so is it only gold labels that get the guarantee.]
[Although the seller gave me 14 day return privileges. If I can get it before Baltimore, maybe I can get someone to walk it through.]
seymourwampum.com -category > more > 1916 & 1917 proof coinage
http://www.seymourwampum.com/
According to this website: October 17th, 1916... cease proof manufacture. November 1, 1916... DM requested all further Proof coinage / special lot, be reported directly to DM and not reported on coiners record.
Updated site with pictures from National Archives U.S. Mint documents, coins in the Smithsonian and much more.
It makes absolutely no sense at all to me that with an entirely new beautiful Silver coinage finally completed,
that Proof / Special Lot coinage would not have been struck.
Hermon A MacNeil requested and paid for 2 complete sets, per documentation.
R.I.P Son 1986>2020