1882 Seated Dime for type set

Opinions?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

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

 

pr63?

 

Looks like a proof...
Very nice coin :thumb:
Bada-Ba-Ba-Ba, I'm loving it

 

A proof tis true.:goofer: 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?

 

nothing but a humble pr-61.

 

Nothing wrong with that. I like it!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

You have to look with magnification to see hairlines on a proof. It is harder to grade without having it in hand and having magnification.

 

thanks everyone! Yeah, there look to be a couple "milk spots" on the obverse, and some tiny hits in the field. I really like the reverse though, and there appears to be some good contrast against the golden toning. It might be a good coin to slip in as a reverse face forward coin in my album. That's what I was thinking when I purchased it.

 

I would have said PR-58 but I guess ANACS feels the coin has never seen circulation. Weak strike maybe??

 

It may have a little rub on the devices and that's why it only got 61 instead of a 63. I know TPGs will occasionally grade a coin MS with mild device rub as long as there is still full luster in the fields. Might they do the same for proofs? You may be right Mark and gopher.

 

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.

 

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.:rolling: sad..

 

Looks nice for a 61, but then again hairlines (which are typically what hold these coins back) often don't show in photographs.

How are the hairlines in hand?

 

I don't have the coin in hand yet, but at this grade I'd expect the hairlines to be plentiful. Oh well, I would have less hesitation about putting it into an album as opposed to say a PF-65 or so.