Is This Really A Proof?

yes, i know. your reply is referring to the anacs piece. blow it up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Perhaps my eyes are getting old...I see touching letters and the top arrow point exposed. Do you see it differently?

Here's the eBay listing. The coins seem legit from a highly rated seller. The ANACS numbers are sequential, indicating the slabbed coins were submitted at the same time. Other than no pictures on ANACS, I can't find anything wrong...except that the quarter appears to have a Type-A reverse.

So, either I'm being fooled by a grainy photo or there's something up with this coin. I asked the Seller for a better photo of the 25¢ reverse. If it turns out to be a Type-A reverse on a 'real' Proof coin...I'll buy it in a heartbeat!


https://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-US-SI...IFIED-PROOF-66RD-66-66-67-64-104/254827765404

 

Thanks. I guess the CT consensus is..."Proof w/ Type-B reverse". I don't see it from these pictures, but will defer to younger eyes.

 

1950 and 1951 silver Proofs tend to look frosty. It is has been my experience that the 1952 coins are much brighter because the dies were heavily polished. That was not always a good thing because they sometimes lacked detail.

The photo makes that 1952 quarter look like a business strike.

 

Do you have an opinion on this particular coin?

 

About 15 years ago (when silver was dirt cheap) I began hoarding OBW rolls of silver coins from the '40s, '50s, and '60s. That's how I stack silver.

My numismatic interest at the time was Half Cents. All my rolls just sat there, untouched until I read about Type-B (proof) reverses on some business strike coins from 1956-1964. I went back and searched. I found rolls that had as many as 50% Type-B reverses. @jaceravone can attest to this. I gifted him some of my nicer Type-B reverses.

When mintmarks resumed in 1968, the quarter's MM was moved to the Obverse. I read where the Philadelphia Mint erroneously sent some of their 1969-1972 "lightly used" Proof dies (Type-B Reverse) to the Denver Mint...mixed in with their normal shipment of business strike dies. I've only read about these coins' existence, but I've never actually seen one.

I went on a multi-year quest to find one. I purchased over 600 OBW rolls and searched them all...nothing. However, over that period of time, I got pretty familiar with Type-A, Type-B, Type-C, ect. reverses.

Here's a good diagnostic guide...

http://www.heartlandcoinclub.com/Do...n Varieties (RDV) From A to H, and Beyond.pdf

 

definitely not touching. i blew it up, as i said, and just did it again on the listing photo. don't know if that helps you or not, but maybe wait for a better photo as you have mentioned you asked for. good luck.

 

No photo of the edge, so no opinion. just a suspicion. Below is my 09 proof before it being slabbed as an example. Jim

 

Thanks...that seems to be the consensus answer. The whole reason I posted this thread was because it looks (to me) the STAT[ES] are touching...and that's just crazy! If the seller sends a clearer photo, I'll certainly post it.

I get nervous when I see disclaimers like this in the description...

These coins are displayed via the photographs available. No material representations are made here as to the condition or grading of the coins. These coins are guaranteed as GENUINE!! WE ARE honest and will ship your coins as soon as your payment is received and cleared.

 

The coin is clearly a proof.

Not trying to sound harsh, but a little common sense about the situation would go a long way. The seller has been on eBay for 16+ years. They have 21,500+ feedback, of which 100% is positive. He is selling a 1952 proof set that has sequential ANACS cert numbers. It's a $60 coin.

 

Sure...that's obvious (as previously stated). The question is...does the coin actually have a Type-B (proof) reverse? Odds are it's a Type-B reverse, but the pictures don't show it. Not to me, anyway...and I've seen quite a few "in hand".

 

Upon further study, other diagnostics show it's a proof (bracketing of PLUR[IB]US by UNU[M], and the flat branch above QUAR[T]ER, etc.). I guess I'm just getting old.

Thanks for you input!