Ebay 1938 Nickel- I think not proof- What does the Forum think?
FlyingAl
Posts: 3,893 ✭✭✭✭✭
I recently came across this 1938 nickel on Ebay, listed as a proof. I will withhold the link for now, until I get some more opinions, but I am of the opinion that this coin is not a proof. Here's the coin and why I think its not a proof:
Coin:
Reasoning:
Contact marks on both Obverse and reverse, while common for circulation strike coins, almost never occur on proof coins, even in the low grades, into about 62. Even 60 and 61 coins rarely have contact marks, especially to the degree of this coin.
The coin has major weakness on the reverse rims, especially near PLURIBUS. This is something very very few proofs ever have.
The coin has obvious die polishing lines on the reverse. These would have been effaced in the mirror polishing step of proof dies, and although some proofs do have circular die polishing marks, I have not yet seen one form this era with polishing lines running through multiple letters as seen here.
Lack of a mirror surface. The obverse has very little difference between the devices and fields, if at all.
Let me know what you think. I will contact the seller with this information and hope he pulls the listing, if not and I get enough responses, we can report the listing. Thanks!
Comments
Looks nothing like a proof from where I sit.
Poor strike, business strike rims, and I see patches of mint luster all of which are consistent with business strike. I also suspect it has been cleaned as there appears to be hairlines.
Not a proof. The star and ribbon are a giveaway. Along with the luster and lettering. It seems like a good strike to me, polished business die
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
That coin is "proof" that the seller does not understand the difference between MS and PR, or is a scammer. One of the two.
Edit to remove link.
It's the smart move.
Pete
It is possible that they listed this in error. I will send them a message via eBay.
I would also suggest messaging them
I did message them earlier today, no reply so far. I’ll keep the thread updated if I do get a reply.
One more vote for not a proof... definitely a business strike. Cheers, RickO
It think it is fair to report at the link above now. The seller has not responded to my message and has not revised the listing yet. I think we should get this out of here since it is a pretty large value difference IMO, and an easy mistake for a new collector to make.
You posted late last night - a Saturday - that you were going to message the seller. Maybe he won’t reply or revise the listing, but you sure can’t be accused of giving him too much time to reply, before taking action.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Acquired this one last year as a business strike. But it looks so proof-like with its satin fields. Perhaps a satin proof? i understand they made satin proof Buffalo nickels. That's a strike-thru on the possible 4 1/2 steps. Leo
It's possibly the seller's coin is proof-like similar to this coin but really needs to make adjustments to his photography to show the coin right.
Both pics can be opened in a new tab to make them much larger.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
@MFeld Probably true, but I didn't message the seller late last night, but early afternoon yesterday before I started the thread. Based on the size and amount of volume that this seller has listed (almost 500 items sold today so far), I think that 24 hours may be ample time because of how fast stuff sells on Ebay at times, particularly weekends. I had also messaged a different seller around the same time yesterday, and received a reply about 10 hours ago.
@leothelyon Thanks for the images, I do agree with your assessment of a PL business strike. As for a Satin proof, those were only struck in 1936, so I'm afraid your 1938 can't be one.
@FlyingAl let's give the seller a few more days to reply. It is the weekend and they have a large volume of items, meaning they list and sell a lot of coins. My guess is that this was listed in error. Probably by someone who they are training to list online.
Patience is a virtue, and based on the combination of the photos and asking price, nobody is going to buy this coin anytime soon.
@numisma @MFeld
Fair enough, I will edit my post with the link to remove it. I apologize to anyone I offended by jumping on this one too soon, I would just rather prefer that the listing is pulled rather than someone get burned by a bad purchase.
I guess I am just too new to reporting Ebay items, still learning!
I wasn’t offended and in fact, sent a message to the seller. I report a lot of listings, but as long as I think the seller might not be a scammer/might have made an honest mistake, I don’t report the listings that quickly, unless they’re about to end.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@FlyingAl No need to apologize. You are doing great! You are just younger and running at a faster speed. You are far ahead of your time in terms of coin knowledge.
Should someone buy the coin, then we send the seller messages asking them to cancel the order due to the mistake, before shipping the coin. However, I doubt that anyone will buy that coin at the asking price.
Thanks all for the help and understanding, particularly @MFeld and @numisma for coaching me through this a little.
I'll let this one wait then until say Tuesday night, I think that should be a fair time then? Hopefully the seller will adjust or reply by then as well.
I suppose now as I think of this more, a larger company like this likely has someone who is newer just listing coins with either little knowledge of coins or after a long day. I was thinking the opposite, but it could easily be a mistake for someone brand new.
I have bought from MBarr many times. When sellers have that many items, they have employees and frequently have weekends off.
The last item I bought from MBarr was a 1918-D Buff (or was it a 17-D?.. it was a couple years ago now) in "Nearly uncirculated" or however they qualify AU. It was a whizzed coin and even had the NGC body bag insert of XF details- whizzed included in the box. No mention of that in the listing and their pictures were not detailed enough to see that. Needless to say I have not bought anything from them since.
Collector, occasional seller
Interesting development on this coin. I recently got an offer from the seller, for $122.55. I don't think that this was a computer automated message as it also had a message from the seller, with no recognition that the coin is not a proof.
I really don't think that this is an error anymore after this message. I think perhaps we should report at this point, but I'll let a few others chime in.
Seller wrote me back, saying that it’s a Proof. It doesn’t look it from the pictures, but I know that images can give the wrong impression. And his other listings don’t give me the impression that he automatically labels everything Proof. So I’m not going to report it - I’m just not as certain as I like to be.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Sounds good, I personally just don't see any way that this one is a proof, so I personally am going to report it and will put the link in the thread for others to decide for themselves, I do think that quite a few members didn't think it looked anything like a proof. I will respect your decision, but I do think you will agree with me that it is fair to put the link in the thread to let others decide for themselves.
I do know that images can be deceiving, but I do count seven fairly major contact marks, which for a proof could likely drop the grade significantly. I have also never seen a proof with that much visible die polish, and so I tried to match it to a certified business strike, with no luck. One die pair has more die polish than this coin, but almost all business strike 1938 nickels have less die polish, and I could not find a single proof with any sort of visible die polish by MONTICELLO. There was also no proof matching the recutting of the ribbon on the obverse towards the bottom right, despite there being many varieties relating to recutting on proofs of this date. The evidence is almost overwhelming against this one.
I think that for this one each member should make their own decision on this one, like with all decisions. @MFeld, I would love to hear your reasoning with why it may be a proof, but it does seem from your post that you also think it is a business strike.
For all to make your own decision, here is the link: https://www.ebay.com/itm/125210670262?hash=item1d272334b6:g:~jgAAOSw6eJiFYLU
I wouldn’t report it either
“Thinking it’s not a proof” isn’t good enough.
As with the SVDB we conclusively prove they aren’t. There is 100% certainty.
In fact I urge you not to report it
Even if it is a proof, it doesn't look any higher than a PR63 IMO. Definitely not a $100 coin.
Collector, occasional seller
I don’t think the coin is a Proof, but I don’t KNOW it’s not one. That, plus a review of the seller’s other listings leads me to forgo reporting the listing.
The presence of contact marks and their effect on the grade have no bearing on whether the coin is a Proof.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Here is a certified 1938 Proof nickel. I don't think that the OP is a Proof.
While @MFeld’s statement is true that contact marks don’t have an effect on wether the coin is a proof, the obvious die polish on the reverse does, and it is what threw me over the edge per say. There are also no forum members or any evidence suggesting the coin is remotely a proof, with the exception of a strong strike.
I do respect your opinions and your vast experience Mark, so I would like in particular to hear your thoughts on the die polish in particular. I do think this is fairly conclusive and it may be as close to proving the coin isn’t a proof as possible, considering I have never seen a proof from this era with die polish like that, and if it did exist, I’d love to see it. I would really like to turn this into a learning experience, particularly since we have a thread on it.
I do think a quick comparison with @BillJones’s proof reveals quite quickly several obvious differences to the EBay coin. Just my opinion.
At this point, I’m not so much concerned about reporting the coin as learning about the opinions of others posted here.