Hi guys, So my proof Half Dime arrived in the mail today. I was excited to have it...that is, until I photographed it under some strong light. Looking at the photographs, it looks like numerous hairline scratches on both sides of the coin. Without magnification, the coin looks like a relatively normal proof and I can't detect how a cleaning would have affected it. I have read a little bit about proof strikes, and read that older proof coins were supposedly caught by mint workers in a cloth and then lightly polished. True? Not true? I have even seen some photos of old US 1800s proof silver with hairlines like this that graded cleanly. Did I get hosed? Seller does not offer returns, but the 3 photos from the listing did not make it (seen here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1862-proof-half-1-2-dime-liberty-seated-h10c-liberty-seated-/321434895311?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p2047675.l2557&nma=true&si=o2OEN5%2FZuVfdXIo%2FKJ8rPdRN2K4%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc) did not lead me to believe that the coin was cleaned. Anyways, here are the photos.
That was my secondary question...I know conder said in my previous thread that there were some well-struck 1862 half dimes that are sometimes confused with proofs. I have never handled a mint-state circulation strike, but this one seems to have a little stronger details compared to what I have seen online, and the fields are fairly mirror-like in hand.
Are there any markers to definitively call a coin a proof or not? It has proof qualities in-hand that are hard to capture in photos... If it turns out not to be a proof and the seller doesn't accept returns, am I stuck with it?
It doesn't have the mirrors that a proof typically has. I would say it's Unc Details because of the hairlines and the fact that it doesn't have any visible cartwheel luster. And you aren't stuck with the coin, as eBay has a buyer protection program where if the item is not as described you can send it back for a refund.
That's a good thing about ebay. If people want to sell in ebay's forum they will be held accountable for the product, even with bad pics, etc; maybe not on the front end but in customer satisfaction ebay takes care of the buyer. People like to say that in the coin market that the customer isn't always right, but if they sell on ebay it's like opening a kiosk in their corporate mall; if you don't play by their rules you can go sell at the swap meet. I hear a lot of complaints of too much buyer protection, but that is in ebay's best interest, and the seller is playing on their field. Also, the seller is the one taking the money which opens the door to way more fraud then on the buyer side. If you aren't happy, send that sucka back. It is still a sweet coin either way.
I contacted the seller again today and he seemed very honest in that he does not clean his coins and the pictures not revealing the hairlines was unintentional. He reluctantly agreed to offer a return. At first he offered a partial refund of $50, but later agreed to accept a return on it. So I think everything will work out.
Good luck. By the way, on that obverse .. the rims do not look squared enough for a proof. How mirror like is the surface?
Pretty mirror-like... But at this point I am not a fan of it because even if it is a proof, it is impaired. I have my eye on a few other 1860s proofs that are stabbed and within my budget.
There are many things that can cause hairlines on a coin other than harsh cleaning. But my guess is your coin has definitely been harshly cleaned. The last part, definitely not true. Caught in a cloth ? I find it doubtful and have never heard or read any such thing. Nor can I even imagine why it would be necessary because Proof coins were made 1 at a time and not automatically ejected from the presses so there was no catching to be done. It's not just old ones, even modern Proofs can be found with hairlines. It's extremely common. But I don't think you've ever seen a coin like this one, Proof or not, that was graded and slabbed. A few hairlines here and there do not make a coin a problem coin and keep it from being graded. It is only when hairlines are found all over the coin, like on yours, or when there are patches of them here and there, that they (hairlines) become reason for a coin being ungradeable. Sometimes even a single patch of hairlines, like from a coin being wiped on one area, are enough to make that coin a problem coin. And hairlines are found on business strikes even more often than they are found on Proofs. The only difference is they are easier to see on Proofs because of the mirrored fields. Handling, just common ordinary handling, is usually the cause of hairlines on coins. Something as simple as laying a coin down can cause a hairline or two. Putting a coin into or taking it out of a flip can cause hairlines, same thing with coin albums, coin envelopes, coin cabinets, for that matter being in a mint bag can cause hairlines. Even two coins sliding against each other can cause hairlines. Finding a coin with no hairlines at all, now that would be unusual.
Nineteenth century proofs were not caught and polished. Regardless, that coin was pretty well imaged to tell you that it was already dipped to all get-out so I am not certain why you would have been itching to buy it unless you just needed a coin fix. It's not a good looking piece.
It's currently being shipped back for a refund. Based on the pictures for the listing, I thought it was a relatively clean piece (shot in a somewhat unusual lighting setup) that may have had some old environmental issues. The thought of it being dipped didn't enter my mind. Oh well. I learned the hard way.
Sellers who say they don't or won't accept returns are idiots plain and simple. If they're selling on ebay they have to follow the guidelines and they have to accept returns. With that said, I don't know if you should return it because I don't know anything about that specific coin series. good luck with it. Edited to add: Guess I didn't read far enough!
It's on its way back to the seller for a refund. The hairlines were just too unappealing. I think when it comes to coins like this I'll be safer and better off sticking with slabbed examples.
