Impaired Proof Question

Okay, at what point can you no longer tell if an impaired proof was ever a proof and not just some really worn circulation strike?

Just looking around on the bay and I come upon this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/142301660850?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

Im not seeing anything that suggests this was a proof from the seller photos. Maybe there is something you cant see? Maybe a mis-printed lable? Wouldnt be the first time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Who cares if it is a proof or not. Like Moriarty said in "Kelly's Heroes"........"It's a piece of junk!"

Chris

 

Donald Sutherland was my favorite in that movie.

I too think it is junk, a very overpriced piece of junk.

 

It was certified by the grader as a proof, and even though it is the key date 1877,
it is not worth $800 because of the hole. Without the hole, yes. With the hole, I am at $100 tops.

 

I'm guessing there's die markers that let them see this is a proof. That said, it's a horribly ugly coin and is a perfect example of buy the coin and not the holder. Cause this coin is crap.

 

I just dont see how any markers would be visible with that much wear and how beat up it is

 

Me either. I would never buy that coin as a proof.
"But, but, it was graded by PCGS! They're never wrong!"

 

They graded that double headed nickel MS-65.
I don't know what they are smoking.

 

Apparently some stuff that the rest of us can't get ahold of. Ha!

 

It depends on the series and timeframe. Early proofs were (double) struck on the medal press while circulation coins were (single) struck on another set. So the rims are square for a proof, vs. not for a circulation strike.

Dies may be reused for circulation strikes after the proof run - or not. Based on known proofs, the markers can be compared - and some of them survive a lot of wear.

It differs for each series and coin and the experts really do know.

All that said, an impaired proof is worth less than it's unimpared cousin (e.g. PF65 vs. PF50) probably has more of a discount than MS65 vs. AU50.

And a damaged proof is anybodies guess.

 

I believe there die markers that can distinguish a Proof from a business strike.

I understand that the bottom of the 'N' in 'ONE' on the obverse on business strike 1877s are weakly struck and but on proofs the 'N' is fully struck.

So, that difference shows even at low grades, thereby permitting the differentiation even in terrible condition.

 

Maybe PR is poor abbreviated?

 

I believe Mr. Flute is correct. Somehow the business strike 1877 cents were struck with an older 'weak N' reverse die that had not been in use since 1872. Proofs had the normal 'strong N' reverse. The pictures are not close enough to tell for sure, but I would think PCGS would have this correct.

 

That's only true if different dies were used for proof and business strikes. For many small mintage coins (e.g. the 1863ff 3 cent silver) it's not.

Given the time and effort necessary to make a die, they were frequently pressed into service (pun intended) when they were done striking proofs.

 

Agree 100%! Buy the coin not the grade or in this case the holder.

 

junk to me with that hole in it and never proof to me in that condition

 

Proof is not a condition it's a special minting method.

 

not to me and its still junk

 

"You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."

Drilling a hole in a proof doesn't make it not-a-proof.