Options
Who's ever seen a matte proof Standing Liberty? Here's one in an ANACS holder.
bcdeluxe
Posts: 208 ✭✭✭
Although they've been talked about, I've never seen one labeled as such in a TPG slab.
I see nothing on this coin that would indicate it's anything other than a standard MS intended for circulation.
0
Comments
I agree from just the image. Perhaps there are diagnostics on the coin. That's going way, way out on a limb if they don't know something we don't.
Smoke and mirrors, people chasing bigfoot and the right person submitting at the right time. Only a fool would buy that coin for more than normal UNC type prices
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
You have to admit, it is an exceptional strike! But good strike does not equal "proof".
Philadelphia 17's are the most hammered of the entire series. The reverse is nice, but the obverse is not struck any better than most MS coins.
Having spent over a year looking for the "right" MS-63/64 Type 1, I'll just say I would have jumped on a coin with that shield, head, and leg drapery on a single coin. Better struck than most years? Yes. Always THAT well struck? No.
I don't think I'd trust that attribution.
Nice coin...but not that nice.
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...
If it crossed to a 64FH it would break even. If it crossed to 65FH it would be great. If it made 66FH Home Run!
Looks pretty nice to me, but I don't know the series.
Nope.
The coin is supposed to be a PROOF. That's all that is important in my opinion. Is it? What are the diagnostics?
No 1917 proof quarters were made. Wally didn't know how sandblast and satin proofs were made. His letter is worthless.
There are a few early strikes from new dies that have exceptional detail and minimal luster, but these are all within normal a manufacturing range. (The Mitchelson collection has several.)
Well ANACS, what about it?
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.
I don't know. Hard to tell from just photos. But, I think that IS what I'd expect the satin proof to look like, at least on the obverse. The reverse seems a little weaker than I'd expect for a proof strike although the fields are right.
Might be worth $500 to find out. As DimeMan said: if you could cross it to MS64FH, it's almost a break even. If you could cross it as a proof, it's gotta be a $25,000 coin, or more.
Bigger mystery: how did they get to a 63? I don't see any dings
Wonder if it's the same coin:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/standing-liberty-quarters/quarters-and-twenty-cents/1917-type-one-ms-64-accompanied-by-breen-proof-papers-the-satiny-surfaces-are-overlaid-with-light-gray-russet-toning-for-f/a/163-5439.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
There is a reason it's still in that holder.
Still a nice coin though.
EAC 6024
Unfortunately Walter Breen wrote a fair number of these letters which made claims about coins that were inaccurate. When I was a young collector in New Jersey, these letters used to pop up in bourse cases all the time at the local shows. It didn’t seem to do much to improve the salability of the coins in question, which were often “optimistically priced.”
Certainly a very nice specimen...... will be interesting to see where the bidding goes on this coin. If someone wanted to 'play the game', I think this would be a good candidate. Cheers, RickO
I'm not sure you even have to cross it over. Look at the "proof" that Heritage sold raw in 1997 for 11,500. I think you just need to get it in a Stack's or Heritage auction and have them hype it a little bit.
I wonder if it would CAC?
It's going to have to cross to NGC or PCGS as a Proof to have that happen. I can't see this coin crossing as a Proof.
Just as a point of order, the Breen letter illustrated was not issued for this coin. The seller says so.
That said, the Breen letter is worthless for whatever coin it WAS issued for.
TD
The ANACS Certification number matches their database. Several on this forum has attested that ANACS is very good at variety attribution...rare unaccounted for proofs would be a different story.
There are a few people who have dropped their line in the fishing pond hoping to snap a "big one".
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...
Image appears to be digitally sharpened.
except the population shows none - I feel it is a mechanical error
the reverse is non-remarkable although the obverse shows promise
I'm in the 'mechanical' label error camp and besides, why would the designation FH even come into play if this were a true matte proof specimen?
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
Blue holder means the coin was in the small white holder previously. Does Anacs have the original records when that coins was attributed, it could have been 30 years ago? Their guarantee covers authentication only on Blue holder coins. Their current gold holder has a grade guarantee.
Let's say it is a mech error. Would it cross? The toning on the reverse may be a concern.
My 2 guesses:
CORRECTION: Looked again and realized it was one of the rounded blue holders. It still could've been a reholder done during the early Austin years of 2006-2007. In 2007 (I think) they switched to the holder style they have now, with blue labels. They switched to the gold labels no long after that and still use the blue labels to denote reholders.
OR (most likely)
It's a mechanical error. I'm confident there was no one at ANACS in 2007-ish when the blue labels were used for all coins that would certify any SLQ as a matte proof. Tim Hargis was the head numismatist, Randy Campbell was one of the graders, as was Mike Ellis. I'm friends with Tim and will ask him if he remembers this coin.
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....)
Can we so a high end MS for comparison & contrast ??
What about diagnostics ??
Are the rims squared ??
Are the denticles sharp & detail sharp ??
Chris
Appears the is a gash in the chin & one in the wing left side.
What documentation warrants it to be a proof ??
Are there other coins including Lincolns & Buffalos which are designated proofs ??
Mechanical error?
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
neither of those marks preclude it being a proof. Proof is a methodology not a degree of preservation. Heritage sold a proof-1 a few years ago
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.
Either that's just a mechanical label error or it was graded on Whiskey Wednesday at ANACS instead of Taco Tuesday. It's a business strike all day and the close up images have been juiced a bit. Also it was shot with a point and shoot camera which is much easier to capture all the SLQ details at different angles then a DSLR in fixed copy stand. Below is a photo of my 1917-S AU58FH which is a early business die strike and if you look at the fields is more stain proof like then the eBay coin.
Business strike. Nice coin.
Dave
Very nice! Good example of why true AU coins can be very desirable - much more so than so-called "mint-state."
It wasn't me putting the shame on them. Just me explaining what the previous poster meant by the phrase.
If ANACS ownership is continuous, the later owners would likely have assumed the liabilities of the prior owners.
That's a very nice AU58. I don't think it really proves anything about the eBay coin, however. Hard to say much of anything about the eBay coin without it in hand.
i have a 1917 type one with fully matte proof like surfaces & details that looks more like a matte proof than this one. Heck, guess I better send it to anacs (yuk-yuk-yuk!!) since I may be able to get it called a proof instead of just proof like. Yep, think that is what I am going to do. (Got this coin in 1995 from a Heritage auction where it was described as “MS65 matte proof like and it really does look like a proof)
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
It is listed in the ANACS certification data base. The cert number is 2922687 which is on the reverse of the slab.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Here is a new type of Standing Liberty Quarter proof, called the TAMPER PROOF now in an eBay auction!
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
This coin is currently in the ANACS database. The type of holder the coin is in was issued by the current ownership of anacs.
so they do think it is a proof IMO.l
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Why ANAcs, or why not PCGS?? it looks nice but not sure about "proof" status..
That an impressive strike
About 15 years or so ago I saw a 1917 type one standing liberty quarter that was in a SEGS proof-63 (cleaned) holder. Despite the fact that it was cleaned it “had it all”, surfaces and strike, you name it. In my mind it was a no questions matte proof that really did just jump right out of the holder and grab you. No question. And it was in an SEGS holder because the
biggie services will not even give a sniff to 1917 proof coinage. Thats just a fact of life, the way it is now and will always be IMO. But getting back to this coin the picture does not look like a proof coin to me, but of course you have to see the coin in hand to make a final determination.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
The outside edge of the shield is HAMMERED @Broadstruck!
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...