1882 Seated Dime for type set

johnny54321 · 06-30-2009, 10:14 PM

Opinions?

mark_h · 06-30-2009, 10:26 PM

I would say AU - are these scans? Just wondering if it is making the color look kind of flat. Looks like a nice coin.

tmoneyeagles · 06-30-2009, 10:38 PM

Looks like a proof...
Very nice coin

Bada-Ba-Ba-Ba, I'm loving it

johnny54321 · 06-30-2009, 10:59 PM

A proof tis true.

My first early proof. Definitely not "high end"; but they aren't that much more expensive then they're mint state counterparts at this grade, at only a fraction of the mintage. The reverse looks possible cameo. I've been debating whether or not to "spice up" my type set with a couple of these. I'm not sure if the look of this coin will fit in with the rest of the album's cartwheel light show, so I may just keep it in the slab and velcro to the reverse of the album. It might fit in nicely though and be deslabbed, as it would definitely be an upgrade from the current filler. I will decide when it arrives.

thanks for the comments!

tmoneyeagles · 06-30-2009, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny54321

A proof tis true.

My first early proof. Definitely not "high end"; but they aren't that much more expensive then they're mint state counterparts at this grade, at only a fraction of the mintage. The reverse looks possible cameo. I've been debating whether or not to "spice up" my type set with a couple of these. I'm not sure if the look of this coin will fit in with the rest of the album's cartwheel light show, so I may just keep it in the slab and velcro to the reverse of the album. It might fit in nicely though and be deslabbed, as it would definitely be an upgrade from the current filler. I will decide when it arrives.

thanks for the comments!

Slab you say? What is it graded? PR64? PR63?

Mark Feld · 07-01-2009, 12:40 AM

[quote=johnny54321;628748]...The reverse looks possible cameo. /quote]If the image is even close to accurate, the reverse easily makes "cameo".

johnny54321 · 07-01-2009, 01:32 AM

Good points Mark and Danr. It got me thinking about a certain well known ebay coin dealer that always seems to have an abundance of raw "superb gem" early proofs that go for crazy money in auctions. I'm sure some of you know who I'm referring to. It makes me wonder how many of them are actual PF-60/61s, yet look like 66s in the photos and sell for 65 money.

sad..

johnny54321 · 07-07-2009, 09:37 PM

I received the dime today and am quite pleased. Indeed Mark and Mike are correct, there are some very very fine hairlines on the coin. In the photo, some of the lines are on the plastic, and others are on the coin. They are barely noticable in hand, but as some of you know, my camera is EXCELLENT at picking out hairlines and making them look stronger than they really are...

What I find interesting about this coin is the HUGE arc shaped line/imprint that circles the reverse right inside of the denticals from about 7oclock to 2oclock. I'm not experienced with early proofs, but is this common? What is the cause of it? I assume it may occur when the coin is struck the second time, but I have no idea. It is quite interesting though, and is very evident in my latest photos. My photos didn't capture the toning very well, but it is quite nice. It looks to have semi-cameo features on both the obverse and the reverse. Also, I don't believe there is any wear on the coin. Both sides are sharp. The main detractors are the hairlines and the hit on the obverse at about 8oclock.

Now the question is, should I put it in my DANSCO album? I really like the look of the coin, and think it would add some nice variety and look to the set. I mentioned this on the PCGS forum, and they seemed to think it was a crime to put an early proof into an album. I handle all my coins with cotton gloves, and have not yet damaged any of the more modern proofs I've handled in albums. It obviously already has a lot of hairlines, and the coin itself set me back $270....Is it THAT dangerous to put proofs into albums?? Anyways, I'm still debating it.

johnny54321 · 06-30-2009, 11:04 PM

nothing but a humble pr-61.

Danr · 06-30-2009, 10:27 PM

pr63?

physics-fan3.14 · 06-30-2009, 11:06 PM

Nothing wrong with that. I like it!

kanga · 06-30-2009, 11:14 PM

Wow!
Gorgeous coin.
I don't have any early proofs and really don't collect proofs.
Therefore I have no basis for grading your coin.
But I'll say one thing, I've GOT to believe that it's better than a PF-61.

I've got a few other posts in here where I expressed the opinion that ANACS is currently VERY tight on their grading.
IMO this is a perfect example of what I feel/think.

Mark Feld · 07-01-2009, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kanga

Wow!
Gorgeous coin.
I don't have any early proofs and really don't collect proofs.
Therefore I have no basis for grading your coin.
But I'll say one thing, I've GOT to believe that it's better than a PF-61.

I've got a few other posts in here where I expressed the opinion that ANACS is currently VERY tight on their grading.
IMO this is a perfect example of what I feel/think.

Far more often than not, the grade of a Proof coin is most heavily impacted by the degree to which it is hairlined. And that is rarely apparent in images.

mark_h · 06-30-2009, 11:16 PM

Very nice coin! Almost looks like wear across the leg and breast. That was were I got AU from. I figured it was a scan causing the reflection in the fields. Oh well.

tmoneyeagles · 06-30-2009, 11:29 PM

Johnny, me likey.... PR61... Wouldn't have guessed...
Only thing that bothers me is that big spot on the obverse

Welcome to Coin Talk! Register Now, it's easy and FREE!