Is this Morgan a Proof?

savoyspecial · November 29, 2011 12:43AM

3 Different shots of the same coin:

Highly reflective fields (unusual for business strike 1882 Phillys)

Obviously harshly cleaned/hairlined

What do you think?

blu62vette · November 29, 2011 12:46AM

Here is a graded proof to compare to:

BaseballAbs · November 29, 2011 12:49AM

Looks like it to me from your images. Does look cleaned.

BAJJERFAN · November 29, 2011 1:23AM

Are the denticles different in proof Morgans?

blu62vette · November 29, 2011 1:23AM

<< <i>Are the denticles different in proof Morgans? >>

I believe they are more squarish.

IrishMikey · November 29, 2011 1:34AM

Sure looks like a Proof from the 2nd and 3rd set of images. If the edge reeding is
sharp and fully rounded, it is most likely an impaired Proof.

Wolf359 · November 29, 2011 1:38AM

Based on the images, no.

Mirrors just aren't there and the strike is too weak on the edges.

commoncents05 · November 29, 2011 1:41AM

Rims look rounded in the photos, so I say no.

-Paul

CarlWohlforth · November 29, 2011 1:50AM

I don't know for sure but my immediate impression was NO. After a long look I am even more convinced that no, it is not a proof. The rim and denticles aren't square and even enough. The fields look horrible for a proof. The central devices are not as sharply struck as Vette's photo and lack some details.

rawmorgan · November 29, 2011 1:51AM

I would need a better look at the date, the diagnostic for the 1882 proof is a slight doubling in the 82 of the date. Check this link.

Is there a slight "horn" coming out of the 2 below the upper loop.

Good luck

AUandAG · November 29, 2011 1:52AM

Right date placement. Good dentils. Rims are iffy. I'd say 50/50 and can't
decide.

bob

NewParadigm · November 29, 2011 2:09AM

Image 2 looks like the strongest case for being a proof.

kryptonitecomics · November 29, 2011 2:27AM

Doesn't look like it to me but then again impaired proofs can be a bit tricky.

DorkGirl · November 29, 2011 2:37AM

<< <i>I would need a better look at the date, the diagnostic for the 1882 proof is a slight doubling in the 82 of the date. Check this link.

Is there a slight "horn" coming out of the 2 below the upper loop.

Good luck >>

Holy crap...that PR68CAM at that link is breathtaking.

johnny9434 · November 29, 2011 2:39AM

it looks cleaned from here. jmo ( for what its worth

)

messydesk · November 29, 2011 2:39AM

I'm going to vote that it is probably not a proof. The rim isn't sharp enough, especially on the obverse from 5:00 to 9:00. The date position is constant on Morgan dollars until 1884, so that doesn't come into play. Other diagnostics to look at include the degree of die polishing at the two leaves immediately above the N in ONE and the area around the eagle's right (viewer's left) foot, but I can't come to a conclusion based on only these in your pictures.

telephoto1 · November 29, 2011 2:57AM

IMO this is an impaired DMPL business strike that was harshly cleaned, likely to remove toning. The rims don't look right for a proof.
Of course this opinion is based stictly on the images provided.

leothelyon · November 29, 2011 2:59AM

Are such grading expertise, distinguishing or using the strike characteristics to tell a proof from a business strike, used in other series, as well?

WoodenJefferson · November 29, 2011 3:22AM

On large denomination proof coins, there are most times distinction between the fields and the devices, only the middle image captures this difference. If indeed it is a proof, I would think it cannot be higher than a PR-62 or possibly ungradable. (impaired)

Perhaps you already know?

savoyspecial · November 29, 2011 5:06AM

thanks for the diagnostic link! here's a close-up of the date on ours

messydesk · November 29, 2011 5:19AM

I don't think the mechanical damage to the digits would be present on a proof coin. I'm referring to the "lip" of metal at the bottom insides of the loops of the 8s and the top of the base of the 2, most obvious at the bottom inside of the top loop of the 2nd 8.

rawmorgan · November 29, 2011 7:41AM

<< <i>thanks for the diagnostic link! here's a close-up of the date on ours

>>

My apologies for throwing that link out prematurely. That "horn" below the loop in the two is common in the 1882, it can be found in a number of vams including 4, 8, 10-15, 22, and 25. I agree with the earlier sentiment that a proof would probably have a much cleaner strike in the date especially the "8"s. This is what happens when I try and duck in here during a break at work.

Is this Morgan a Proof?

Comments

The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

My Jefferson Nickel Collection

Leave a Comment