is this really a PF?

mbbiker · January 28, 2003 2:19PM

I've been looking for a PF for a long time and maybe with this one being raw i could pick it up cheaper than most of them i've seen for sale. Is it really a PF?
link

why would he sell this many as one lot?
link

MastaHanky · January 28, 2003 2:31PM

The first one looks like a proof, but the other five sure don't.

gmarguli · January 28, 2003 2:41PM

I would say that they are proofs. ANACS isn't likely to blow the PR/MS attributes of these coins.

coppercoins · January 28, 2003 2:52PM

The dime in the first linked auction is proof - no doubt about it.

The other dimes in the other auction look like switcheroos. I don't think the coins go with the certificates, and there's little chance any of them could possibly be proof. The last two show obvious signs of die wear, something that didn't happen on the older proofs.

mnmcoin · January 28, 2003 3:24PM

Look at the third and fifth coin reverse...last I checked they didn't make proofs in Denver.

mo <><

first one could be pr, as could the second...the rest are suspect.

construct · January 28, 2003 4:28PM

The seller shows the ANACS certificates. They say the P coins are proofs and the D coins are MS business strikes. I see no reason to question that.

darktone · January 28, 2003 10:09PM

The first coin is a proof and as construct said look at the ANACS certificates and they show what each coin is. Why he would sell these as a group? maybe just to cut down on the hassle of listing each seperate? mike

Gilbert · January 29, 2003 12:44AM

They seem to be minted as described. I think he is trying to sell them as a lot because, as a group in the holder, it's apparent why they are removed and detached from the certificate. If sold individually some may be more skeptical about the coin not being in its original sleeve. It doesn't look like a bad lot; I just wouldn't accept the assigned grades at face value, particularly from that era of grading.

Steve27 · January 29, 2003 12:46AM

The basic question is, why does it say 5 proof Mercs in the title of the auction when there are only 3?

Spinynorman · January 29, 2003 1:18AM

I'd guess that they meant '5 proof / MS65 FB Mercury dimes'.

Baley · January 29, 2003 1:36AM

all the coins look impaired to some degree, the buyer is taking a risk that may or not be worth it.

to answer your original question mbbiker yes the first is a proof, I would pass and keep looking for a nice PF64 +/- 1, in an N or P holder, and pay what it costs, you will not be sorry and you most likely will be sorry, sooner or later, if you buy one raw.

I do think the lot of other 5 are the coins that go with the certs, and might be interested in the lot if the price were right, but the price IMO is already way above right, so again, pass

jmho but in my experience looking for both a proof morgan and proof WL half, the search was maddenly long for the "right" coins, eventually (and very satisfyingly) ended up with a PCGS PF62 morgan (white with golden peripheral toning, very lightly and evenly hairlined visible when magnified, mild cameo) and a PCGS PF66 Walker with mild rainbows.

incidentally, still searching for the right pf merc at the right price

Conder101 · January 29, 2003 10:34PM

INTERESTING auction!!! In one auction he has the earliest example of the ANACS 4 certificate I've seen and the latest example of the ANACS 6 type plus only the third Transfer certificate I have ever seen! I can't afford the auction but I'm going to contact the winner and offer to pay to have the 1940 proof slabbed if I can have the old ANACS certificate.

is this really a PF?

Comments

Leave a Comment