Whats the chances this is an original proof set or picked?

Coins wrapped in tissue paper packaged in a paper envelope, as far as I know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Trying to learn terminology that is used on this site. Can you tell me what is hairlined and where you see it on which coins you see it? Also, if you have a reference site that will give me the terms used that aren't the standard in the blue or red book, that would be great. Then I wouldn't have to ask so many questions. Thanks in advance.

 

Nowhere in the post you quoted did I say the coins aren't from 1899.

 

Questions are great.

Hairlines are long, fine scratches on coins that can be indicative of cleaning. Here is a thread that extrapolates on this idea a tad further and may be of use: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/what-exactly-are-hairlines.219918/

Here are some additional resources:

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/cointalks-numismatic-acronym-glossary.257793/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_numismatics

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/2202/Glossary/

 

The coins are all genuine. The question is has this been a set that has been kept together since the coins were issued from the Philadelphia Mint in 1899?

While there are many modern Proof sets that have been kept together since the beginning, for sets dated prior to 1936, actually from 1858 to say 1915, it is highly unusual. The reason is that collectors who wanted the individual coins were willing to pay prices high enough that dealers were willing to break them up.

Sets that have been kept together and not cleaned or dipped, with similar toning on the silver coins, are rare and highly desirable. They carry a premium price that is higher, sometimes far higher than the prices collectors will pay for assembled sets that have been built one at a time.

A few years ago I assembled a 1913 Proof set. The coins are nice, but they are not as desirable as a 1913 set that has obviously been together since 1913. I wrote and article about my journeys in finding this set that was featured a few days ago. You might find it interesting.

 

He's referring to the case they're in is modern. No doubt the coins are from 1899.

 

Good question to get the answer to. Very easy to show in person, harder with photos and text. Hairlines are patches of typically parallel scratches left on a coin from rubbing or even wiping, usually with a cloth. They tend to show up best is expansive areas of the coin. On proofs, they pop out on mirrored fields when the light hits them the right way. On the coins in this set, they're easiest to see on the Morgan and Barber half obverses. The raised parts of the design will actually protect immediately adjacent parts of the fields from wiping. If you look at the Morgan from 3:00 to 5:00 on the obverse, you see that near the stars, the field is deeply reflective, while in the space between the stars and the portrait, has a different look to it. Find something plastic with embossed lettering on it, rub your finger across the lettering, and you'll see the same thing. This is what hairlines look like on a mirrored proof, even at low (no?) magnification. The reason you don't see them on the other coins may be because the orientation of the hairlines is parallel to the direction of the light.

Hairlines like this on business strike coins are no-question no-grades, but on proof coins, they may simply result in a grade of PR61 or 62, especially if the coin is deeply toned, making the hairlines harder to see. Someone on VAMWorld today asked about choosing between 3 slabbed Morgans. One was PR61, two were PR Details, but he said they all looked about the same and were priced the same. Without seeing the coins or knowing the price, I told him to pass on all of them and hold out for a PR63. PR61 and PR Details was most likely a distinction without a difference in this case.

 

"and not cleaned or dipped, with similar toning on the silver coins, are rare and highly desirable."

So true, but look at the 1882 catalog preamble to the proof lots that contains instructions on just how to dip "discolored" proof coins to get them back to gleaming white:



It's a fact that the Victorians favored dipping and lacquering of specimen coins, which explains the extreme prices paid for non messed with examples. Here, one of the few existing 19th Century coin auction houses extolling the virtues of dipping demonstrates how mainstream the practice was.

 

Sorry, I must have misread.

 

Thank you

 

Thanks for clearing that up, I was confused.

 

Thanks, I think I see what you are talking about, kind of tough to see without higher magnification.

 

I don't always make $18000 posts on eBay but when I do I only post 3 crappy photos.

 

I think you misread the post. @tmoneyeagles said "the case these coins are in". Not the coins themselves. And the sites he listed in post #24 will give you all the info you asked in post #22. Peace.

 

This is a good example of hairlines. Note the tiny scratches on the face.

 

A different image can hide hairlines.

 

Maybe back in the 1990’s. The Morgan alone is worth than that now. If it is 65 or higher than it is worth multiples of $2000

 

I guess maybe I looked at a faulty site? It said it was only $600 in pf65.

 

I've been trying to take pictures of coins and I can't seem to get any good ones. I've done some scans, but they don't capture the luster and also shows up more distractions. What do you use and do you have any suggestions for me.

 

I had the same confusing thought you originally said $2000. According to the PCGS priceguide, in non-cameo 1899 PF60:
Morgan is $1500
Barber half is $550
Quarter is $550
Dime is $275
Nickel is $160
Penny is $135.

Prices climb ultra steep with grade and cameo.


https://www.pcgs.com/prices/detail/morgan-dollar/744/most-active/pr

https://www.pcgs.com/prices/detail/barber-half-dollar/732/most-active/pr