Large cent, PR or MS?

Although PCGS doesn't agree, many, including myself believe this large cent to be a proof. This large cent was in the famous collections of Naftzger and Holmes and was called a proof by the authority of Walter Breen and Denis Loring. This coin, although having been cleaned in the past, exhibits full proof (like) mirrored fields. So, is it a proof?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

bump

 

I don't see a proof but I am far from an expert.

 

The mirrored fields, the better than average strike and the squared edges suggest that it is a proof striking. But the apparent bag marks lead to some of the confusion. I examined this coin a few years ago and believed it to be a proof, but I wonder why PCGS doesn't see it that way.

 

I am not familiar with your photography nor coins from that era, but my take would be business strike.

 

After comparing it with some other high grade coins on ha.com (MS and PR) I am now leaning towards proof.

 

That is one nice Large Cent! Full rims and full denticles and a great strike. LIBERTY is a bit weak so it may not be a Proof, perhaps just an exceptionally good strike. Does anyone think that it could possibly be a Specimen strike? (I am not that familiar with Proof and Specimen coins from that era so it is possible that Proof and Specimen were the same thing then.)

The mark on Liberty's neck looks like a hit and not necessarily a bag mark. Someone could have dropped the coin or dropped something on the coin somewhere along the way. It looks to me like this coin has had special care in its life and unfortunately took a hit to the neck at some point (probably due to poor handling).

 

That is a great coin. And I can see why it has gone both ways. If I had to make a decision it would be UNC but not by a lot.

 

Although a specimen strike does come to mind, there are some fairly clear markers that differentiate the two different minting processes. Specimen strikes are struck only once, while a proof is struck twice. The resulting difference can be observed by the quality of the detail and the resulting fields. Although a specimen strike can have proof-like mirrored fields, the usually have a bit of a washed out, and not so reflective appearance.

The best examples that I can think of to show the difference are the King Farouk 1907-D NGC PR-62 double eagle and the 1906-D PCGS SP-66 double eagle.





Clearly the proof example, despite having a number grade four points lower than the 1906, shows much finer detail. The strike of a specimen strike is intended to be better than a common business strike, but the quality of a proof strike is much finer all around.

 

My first reaction was it sure looks like a proof.

After some more staring at the photo and thinking... You do see both exceptionally well struck 1846's and prooflike examples of just about all of the 1840 large cents from time to time. In addition, I would expect the date and LIBERTY to look better-struck on a proof issue.

Three questions, if I may:

#1 - Do you have a good photo of the edge?

#2 - Have you compared your coin to the known proof dies?

#3 - What did Grellman have to say about the coin?

 

The coin is in the PCGS holder and it is not mine yet, I am considering it for purchase.

I really want a proof for my type set because it is the only coin in the set (later than 1840) that is not a proof. Maybe I'm reaching because I want it to be a proof, but I collect proofs of the era and it sure appears to be one to me. I'm not sure that I can risk almost 5K to find out that I am wrong. That's why I am asking all of you geniuses for opinions. That way if we are all wrong, we can split the cost evenly. :smile

 

After looking at the Grellman slip, he says PROOFLIKE.

Barring any information to the contrary, I would tend to believe Grellman/PCGS (prooflike) and doubt Breen/Loring (proof). To satisfy my own curiosity, I'd try and find its recent auction appearances and see what the cataloger says.

Getting past that, if you can't tell and you can't afford to risk it, I would recommend you pass on the coin.

Good luck in your decision...Mike

 

so if i say MS and it comes back proof, will you split the profits? lol

 

Sure, since it will never be sold, I will split any profits.

 

This is an image of a known N-22 PR-60 (generous grade if you ask me) for comparison. I'm thinking of just taking a chance, either way I get a gorgeous coin for my type set.

 

Sure looks like the same die to me. If anything, your coin looks to be an earlier state.

After further review, it does not appear to be the same die. Look at the foot of Y. There's clearly a die mark on the red N-22 (a proof only issue of the small date), and there's no corresponding mark on your coin.

 

Ok...

So let me get this straight... The coin is currently in a PCGS holder identified as a N-1? MS64?

N-22 is the proof die pairing?

I don't have my references in front in me... But tomorrow is my first day back in the office after the baby and I can look.

 

Matt,

Yes and yes. Grellman lists two proof only dies, N-22 (small date) and N-24 (tall date).

Grellman says of N-1: "A few examples are considered to be proof strikes. The most convincing of these are [two of] those of state b and one from state a. The proof status of these pieces is subject to debate, but their eye appeal is exceptional".

It is worth noting, Grellman calls out the Clarke-Naftger-Streiner-Brown-Holmes coin as the state a coin.

 

Seems that PCGS errored on the side of caution on this piece due to the controversial nature of the die pairing.

Mike do you know if any of the proofs that Grellman refers to are in proof holders?

 

Matt, I agree with you and PCGS on this one.

To answer your question, no, I don't know if any of the N-1s have been given proof status @ PCGS.

I do recall seeing the n-20 in PCGS slabs before, never an N-1.

While I watch late date large cents rather closely, I hardly see all these coins though, so take it FWIW.