1876 gold one dollar proof?

So I've been collecting coins since I was 12 seriously going to meetings and unfortunately to pay for college I had to sell a lot of my collection I have a few coins I've saved that are raw and I was wondering if you think I should get them slabbed ? Do you think this might be a proof??? I know they are very rare it came from a very good old collection all purchased before 1950

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It doesn't look like a proof to me, but the best way to tell is to look at the rims. They should be squared off, not rounded.

 

Welcome to the forum.

It doesn't look like a proof, in fact not even unc.

 

I agree that it's not a proof. It still may be worth certifying, however, as it will be much easier to sell. What other coins do you have that you are considering having graded?

 

Agreed; there should be detail at the top of the headdress and bottom of the hair which isn't present. Seems as if the coin has circulated.

 

Not a proof. Looks like au-50, maybe 55. Not one of my specialties but it shows definite signs of wear.

 

Almost looks polished or whizzed to me. I would definitely send it for authentication. Just my opinion.

 

Wear does NOT disqualify the coin as a proof. Proof is a method of manufacture, not a condition. There are many proof coins with wear, they just grade under PF-60

 

Agreed, but still not a proof.

 

I know... I agree with you. just setting the record straight on diminished proofs.

 

His statement did not mean the 2 correlated. So he could have been saying 2 things, in other words. 1) Not a proof. 2) AU condition.

 

that may well be true, but a proof coin that has signs of wear is graded PF-50, not AU

 

Somewhere, I wish I could remember where, I saw a coin, (I believe it was a Morgan) slabbed and graded PF-5 (that is not a typo).

 

There are some 1895 Morgans graded PR6 and PR8.

 

There are people who actively search for low-end certified coins (including proofs). They are generally referred to as "everyman sets".

 

Which is probably why he said not proof, looks au50.

 

and you're right. I did mis-read his original post. His assessment was accurate.

I think I had OP's post on the brain.

 

???????? I said NOT A PROOF and IT SHOWS SIGNS OF WEAR. And there is no need to set the record straight, except that it's NOT A PROOF!!

 

Check this out: https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-explorer/gold-dollars-1849-1889-pscid-54/1876-g1-pf-coinid-17626

Mintage = 45
NGC certified = 17 coins, 16/17 are CAM/UCAM

I know pictures can be deceiving, but your dollar really doesn't look like a proof coin: No reflective fields and a weakly struck O and 8.

Diagnostics for a 1876 proof:
- no rust pit on neck
- some extra outlines on UNI of UNITED
- die file mark through base of A towards M
(Source: official Red Book, Bowers)

 

As Koothrappali would say...shut your A**!