1891 Seated Quarter Proof?

So skip-perdoodle is beating around the bush for some reason and being generally useless. Status quo!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

WOW! I wish I had that for my type set.

 

The type set that it came from was quite impressive. I have a separate thread showing lots of the other coins.

 

Well, not squared rims, altho it is in the folder, and may look better out of it.

Then, cleaned, and artificially retoned.

 

okay, take it out of the folder and take pictures.

 

Any one have an opinion yet? Proof or MS?

 

Oh yes... I have an opinion. And since I am too old to be concerned with having egg on my face, I'll share it..... I believe the fields are far too perfect to be a business strike. My valueless opinion is that she is proof.... Though I do wish I could see those rims better. Inside that Dansco, they sure don't look very square.

 

MS...most seated quarters (and halves for that matter) from the later years of the series seem to resemble proofs.





Not a quarter, but

 

Randy Abercrombie,

It's too bad others are afraid of the "egg" residue.
NGC says one Proof die pair. Briggs says one die pair. Heritage has auctioned both Proofs and MS coins. It should be a simple case of seeing if the OP's coin matches the coins certified as Proofs. Can anyone explain how they would go about comparing the images?

PS What do others think? Lets try to only post images of 1891 quarters!

 

Ok, so here we go. Below are images for comparison. First is my coin followed by several slabbed proofs and then finally a business strike. I will post new edge photo in the next posting.

PF64

Pf63
PF64
PF65 (somehow???)
MS 64

 

Edge images:

 

I still say those fields are just too perfect to be a business strike. I would be much more confident if those rims were more squared off though.

 

Clues tomorrow...along with method.

 

I posted earlier that I believed it is a proof and that was based only upon looking at the OP's photos of the coin.

I have since looked at it "harder" and still believe it is a proof. I will be happy to give my reasons for that determination but I don't want to do so now if it will spoil @Insider's fun.

So, give my reasons now or wait?

 

Please don't say anything. I enjoy wasting my time playing Skipperdoodle's games where he teaches absolutely nothing useful and no one ever finds out if this is a proof or not. WGAS what he thinks as far as the OP's coin.

 

Do it now. The OP is asking for opinions, not for their thread to be hijacked into one of these guessing games that never delivers a clear answer.

 

Now, that's what I call a solid mandate! Dinner's up so I'll wait for an hour or so.

 

You're overlooking the sarcasm attached to one of those responses!

 

Pulled out my Briggs. The obv. seems to best match the description of the proof die. The other dies (as described) don't seem to match the o.p. coin . So I'm leaning toward proof.
The only thing nagging at me is that in some of the photos the rims looks flat and in others rounded.

 

I have wrestled with this coin last night and again this morning and I am changing my mind. I don't think it's a proof but rather the Obverse 6, Reverse F die marriage business strike.

First off, the date relationships. Please refer to the below side-by-side photographs of one of the OP's PR-64 slabbed sample coins next to the OP's coin.

According to Brigg's:

Proof Obverse-Date slopes up left to right.