Options
How the heck did ICG know?
braddick
Posts: 25,192 ✭✭✭✭✭
This is a circulated Proof and not a business strike?
1
Comments
All I can assume is that there's a surviving die marker for the proof dies on the coin and no business strikes are known with that marker.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Maybe they have a coin "whisper" on staff and the "Barber" told them, you know they love to talk!
It's got to be a mechanical error ... the seller should know better ... or perhaps he/she does and is just looking for a fish.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
maybe they have an Insider.
"Money does not care about speeches on morality. Capital asks whether the rules will remain the same tomorrow. With inflation, people assume price is the problem, and propose regulation—but price is simply the message." - Martin Armstrong
Mechanical error
Latin American Collection
For what it's worth, according to Breen's Encyclopedia of Proof Coins, there are "no special peculiarities" for 1898 Proof half dollars.
Jesse C. Kraft, Ph.D.
Resolute Americana Curator of American Numismatics
American Numismatic Society
New York City
Member of the American Numismatic Association (ANA), British Numismatic Society (BNS), New York Numismatic Club (NYNC), Early American Copper (EAC), the Colonial Coin Collectors Club (C4), U.S. Mexican Numismatic Association (USMNA), Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC), Token and Medal Society (TAMS), and life member of the Atlantic County Numismatic Society (ACNS).
Become a member of the American Numismatic Society!
Too bad there's no one here from ICG that we can ask...
Collector, occasional seller
Maybe the same person that has been grading proof Frankin's as business strikes?
Maybe it was found in a parking lot. What else is needed?
I think I see an omega in Ben's ear!
The square rims are not just on the edge.
I wouldn't trust Walter Breen's knowledge or judgment on anything. He has been wrong just as often if not more than he was right.
Indeed, that's why I added the "for what it's worth" caveat. It's all I could come up with regarding individual proof dies at the moment, being away from the ANS library. I was reluctant to bring his name up at all.
Jesse C. Kraft, Ph.D.
Resolute Americana Curator of American Numismatics
American Numismatic Society
New York City
Member of the American Numismatic Association (ANA), British Numismatic Society (BNS), New York Numismatic Club (NYNC), Early American Copper (EAC), the Colonial Coin Collectors Club (C4), U.S. Mexican Numismatic Association (USMNA), Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC), Token and Medal Society (TAMS), and life member of the Atlantic County Numismatic Society (ACNS).
Become a member of the American Numismatic Society!
Breen ever met a fact that he couldn't make up
BHNC #203
I cannot conclusively say one way or another from the pictures... However, I would lean to it not being a proof... the rims do not look squared enough and especially the reverse. Cheers, RickO
It's a so called "mechanical error" which happens at all the major grading services.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
The (reverse) slab serial number has it as a Proof.
Not blast white enough to be a proof.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Do as you please, but he got plenty of stuff right.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
A regular business strike VG10 Barber half...
I agree.
Would you ever buy a coin as rare variety/specimen/attribution "legitimated" solely by Breen's book or even a Breen letter?
I wouldn't trust Walter Breen's knowledge or judgment on anything. He has been wrong just as often if not more than he was right.
this is just wrong. everyone acknowledges that he made mistakes and even assertions that weren't based on fact, especially in his later years, but to say he "has been wrong just as often if not more than he was right" is just factually not true, not even close. also, I would add that since he published his Encyclopedia quite a bit has been learned based on what he stated in that book to prove some of it wrong. that's a good thing and is basically how Science works.
like the Coinguy said, believe what you want and good luck with that.