Large cent, PR or MS?

And confirmation it is the Naftzger-Holmes-et.al. specimen here:

http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?site=1&sale=62&lot=115

Here's what the cataloger had to say about this coin:

Lot 115

1846 N-1 R1 Repunched 18. PCGS graded MS-64 Brown. Mint state sharpness but very lightly cleaned, now retoned an attractive iridescent bluish steel brown and rose. The cleaning and retoning are subtle, which helps explain the relatively generous assessment by PCGS. The fields are prooflike with shallow to moderate mirrors, deepest on the obverse. The fields do show many microscopic struck-through lint marks and the rims are squared, both of which suggest a proof strike. The only notable mark is a thin diagonal nick high on the neck under the earlobe, and this mark appears to be a pre-striking flaw in the planchet rather than a post-striking nick from contact. E-MDS, die state b, with a very fine die crack that meanders through the date and stars and another fine die crack passes through much of the reverse legend. The strike is very strong with full radial lines in all the stars, and the fields are highly reflective from a fresh die polishing on both sides. A virtually identical example (except for the retoning) was offered as lot #704 in our 9/7/2009 sale of the R. E. Naftzger, Jr., collection of late date large cents, and it was graded Proof-65 Brown by PCGS. If that one is proof, then perhaps this one should receive the same assessment. However, neither piece is a real proof strike in our opinion. Our grade is MS60 sharpness net AU55. Called Proof-50 by Denis Loring in his census of proof large cents. Walter Breen also called this piece a proof, one of three listed in his census of proof large cents. We may never know with certainty what the mint intended here, and experts can agree to disagree on this call. What we can agree on is that this is a beautiful cent with highly reflective fields and a very sharp strike. And it comes with an impressive provenance. The attribution and Dan Holmes provenance are noted on the PCGS label. PCGS population 1; the finest of 3 Brown examples graded at PCGS for the variety. DWH #1860 (PCGS # 397608) .
Estimated Value $500-UP.
Ex Dr. George P. French, B. Max Mehl 1929 FPL, lot 648-T. James Clarke-R. E. Naftzger, Jr.-Eric Streiner-R. S. Brown, Jr. 4/17/99.

FWIW, it fetched $3,335 at the Holmes Sale in late Jan 2011, and Matt, to your question above, the above description suggests Holmes' other example of the N-1 did grade PF 65 back in 2009.

So perhaps PCGS is speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

Sure would be neat to lay both examples side-by-side and compare.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

And here is the Naftzger N-1 that graded out PF-65:

http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?site=1&sale=54&lot=704

Lot 704

1846 N-1 R8- (as a proof) PCGS graded PR65 Brown. Repunched 18. Light olive and chocolate brown faded down from mint color. About a third of the faded red remains on the obverse while the reverse is a more uniform light steel brown faded down from mint red. The only marks are a speck of carbon just right of star 6 and a light diagonal nick over the O in ONE. Very sharply struck E-MDS, die state b, with a faint die crack meandering through the date and stars. The fields are smooth and reflective, the mirrors deepest on the obverse, and the obverse fields are covered with microscopic die polishing lines extending from the upper left down to the lower right. The strike is superb, perfect in every respect, and the eye appeal is outstanding. This cent is listed as the second of only three pieces in Breen's book on proof strikes (Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins 1722-1977), and it is called Proof-60 in Denis Loring's census of proof large cents. Called MS65 and CC#2 in the Noyes census, his photo #31066. Our grade is MS65 Prooflike, tied for CC#1 honors with the previous lot in the Grellman census.
Estimated Value $2,000-UP.
Ex J. C. Morgenthau & Co. 10/5/1939-Floyd T. Starr, Stack's 6/13/84:472 (as proof).


Realized $26,450

 

Beautiful coin—and educational thread: thanks.

 

Yea, I've been scratching my head on this one for a while now. The coin is really quite beautiful in hand, but their asking price is far beyond what it should be for an MS-64. I really love it, but my gut is telling me to wait.

 

Don't know about you, but that gash on the neck—albeit "as made"—bugs the heck out of me on an otherwise stunning coin. Maybe it's not so noticeable in-hand.

 

Well, it's noticeable in hand. But if it weren't there, it would be out of my range.

 

OK...I'll boldly go where wise men fear to tread...

Let me begin by saying my observations are obviously wrong simply based on my limited education as compared to the Illuminati listed above, but I have a few questions if this is a proof coin...

1. What's with the mushy LBE[RTY] on a proof coin? Would they use this die to make a proof?
2. Does the Obverse appear a bit off center to anyone, but not the reverse...is that common for a proof?
3. What's with the die gouges (bumps) on O[F AM]ERICA.
4. The reverse die crack from the rim through the peak of AMERIC[A] seems to match N11 and the reverse die crack from the left edge of STA[T]ES to the denticle above the right edge of ST[A]TES seems to match N15...but none of the other die cracks for those varieties seem evident. There's a reverse die crack across the rim to the denticle at the left edge of A[M]ERICA that I don't see in any of Newcomb's descriptions.

My copy of Newcomb doesn't list N22 so I don't have the proof description to consider.

It seems like a well struck N1 (imho)...with curiosities (those die gouges on the reverse letters seem troublesome)

Hopefully someone can set me straight.

 

At this point, I 'm leaning away from it being a proof. But you are far from being wrong, the debate over this coin being MS or PR has raged for many decades by some of the most respected names in numismatics.

Sadly, I'm just not very well versed on the subject of variety attribution. But I believe you are correct in it being just a well struck, early die state N1.

The hunt for my proof large cent continues....

 

And one flaw, particularly a minted one, is better than a "death by a thousand cuts" coin. Tough decision.

 

This is what really bothers me about this coin. I am not even close to an expert when it comes to large cents...but I would think on a proof these details would be much sharper.

 

Compare the strike of the 1846 in this thread to this 1847:

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1143&lotNo=3032

Or this 1844:

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1114&lotNo=1518#39483948978

Both show more traditional LIBERTY strength you typically see in proofs.

However, look at the 1846 N-21 from the Holmes sale:

http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?site=1&sale=62&lot=166

PCGS called it a proof, but it is clearly not as hammered as the prior two coins.

However, Grellman calls this prooflike rather than proof.

So there's clearly some contention on these coins, and the N-1 isn't the only 1846 in which there is. Again, PCGS has seemed to go both ways on these coins.

If you could somehow get that coin into a PR slab, you'd come out smelling like a rose. It's a big gamble though.

As an aside, there are some who would argue there really weren't proof coins, per se, from this period, and they should rather be deemed specimen strikes, but that's another discussion....Mike

 

Well there you go again Mike. Just when I was settled you go and make me want it again. I think with its long history and pedigree, I would have a hard time slipping it past anybody at NGC or PCGS.

And I've seen that 44 before, it is drop dead gorgeous, but regrettably out of my range.

 

Question on wording...

I am looking at Newcomb's Copper Cents book and it states that die #1 the point of the bust should be slightly right of peak of 1.

I assumed that the "point of the bust" was the edge farthest to the left, am I wrong? Is it the lowest point? Something else?

 

Not an expert in proof large cents, but I do own 19th century proofs. I will say that early die state coins that have been cleaned can look very much like a proof. Having seen that myself, I would be hesitant to disagree with PCGS since they have had the coin in hand. Its interesting Walter Breen called it a proof, but the man was not known to be infallible.

 

I have also seen the coin in hand, on more than one occasion. I collect 19th century proofs and have full sets of proof Indian head cents, two cent pieces, three cent pieces, Shield nickles (minus the 67 w/rays) and seated dimes. I am very familiar with them and this is my dilemma.

With the help of Mike and Matt (Thank you very much for the help BTW), and so many auction catalogs stating it not to be a proof, I just have to admit that I called this one incorrectly. As much as I wanted the coin to be proof, at this point, I'm just going to pass on it. It is not worth the risk of spending 5K on a coin that I am unsure of.

On a side note, Saints training camp started today, so you get an extra........
Who Dat!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Lol.

I hope I didn't offend you with not knowing if you were familiar with 19th century proofs. Not a lot of collectors are.

 

Of course not. How could you know what I collected twenty years ago? I'm just not very familiar with proof large cents, there just aren't very many on the open market.

 

At the original auction price, I could see it, maybe.

At $5k (at roughly 5.5x what a MS64BN, 2.5x a MS65BN, and 1/4 of a PR64BN), I think you were wise to pass.

Thanks for sharing your contemplations.

 

I am not a US Large Cent collector (Canada Vicky Large Cents), but the comparison photos at the end of page 1 showed one thing very clear to me... the Reverse rim width on the right-hand coin had a much thinner rim width (the space outside the denticles to the edge) than the one on the left. If there are examples of what proof, specimen, or business strike Reverses look like, the answer should be found there. That much width variation could not be due to individual working die differences ... it has to be due to specially prepared dies (or positive proof that it was a business strike if all the MS coins look like that). I hope that I don't sound like a goofball mentioning the reverse .. all the other comments were about the Obverse (digit) differences.