1891 Seated Quarter Proof?

KBBPLL, posted: "Do it now. The OP is asking for opinions, not for their thread to be hijacked [by Insider] into one of these guessing games that never delivers a clear answer.

Guessing game? I don't know what posts of mine you've been reading. Let me tell only you a secret. I had to go through a long process to reach my opinion on the OP's coin. It may surprise you that my opinion changed several times (just as @Publicus2) before I reached it.

Furthermore, just for your information, coins are usually not authenticated or graded by images - especially those that are not 100% obvious!

Now, you can sit and wait for all of us playing GTG to post our opinions, or you can DO THE WORK YOURSELF. I've told everyone what to do. I use this method every day to confirm PR/MS decisions. I had hoped someone would follow my hints and explain how they reached their opinion on the coin as it is going to take me a very long post to teach the method. So, one more "peep" from you about how I post and I'm out of this discussion.

Hint: Coins have microscopic, diagnostic "markers."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

For many years, the Breen Proof book was basically all we had. Then in the 1990s along came the Briggs book on Seated Quarters. That was the "new" go to source for Seated quarters. Times changed when images of coins began to be posted by auction companies and TPGS. PCGS screwed up their source when they limited what folks could see. Apparently that was done to make it harder to confirm the gradeflation going on. Now, the NGC site showing coins from auctions (mostly Heritage - BIG THANKS) has replaced it for me. Because of the Internet, the Briggs book is now on the bottom shelf where it is used on occasion. BTW, that is the first place I looked for the diagnostics of an 1891 Proof quarter. I found it of little help on this coin except to confirm one obverse die was used to strike 1891 Proof quarters.

HINT: First look at the OP's coin that does not look like a proof due to the rims. Now blow up the image and look for something on the die (raised on the coin). One speck on the obverse MAY jump out. What do YOU see @KBBPLL and others?

 

There seems to be a small die chip to the left of her right hand.

 

Good eye but I don't see it. What popped out to me was the tiny diagonal line on the belly. When I saw this I went to my diagnostic files for '91 Proof 25c. This mark was not in any of my Proof records. Next, I went on the internet to see if it was on any '91 Proof 25c. Is it?

 

What I find interesting is that the proofs posted in post #30 appear to be from two different obv dies.

I also note the PF 64's and PF 65 have raised lumps between Liberty's body and upper right arm (I may be mistaken on the 65). The MS-64, the PF-63 and the OP coin don't.

 

OK, here is an NGC proof, from their website:





Here is the OP’s coin:


Looking at the devises, I see frost on the devices of the NGC coin. I do not see frost on the OPs coin. I see contrast between the NGC coins devices and fields. I do not see the same contrast on the OPs coin. Looking at the date on both coins, I see differences. The depth of the NGC coin’s date is significantly deeper. Also, the denticles of the NGC coin are more sharply struck.

Looking at the fields, on the NGC coin, I see far more striating, indicative of a proof strike. There are fewer striations on the OP coin, looking more like hairlines.

Based on those observations, I would say the OP coin is a business strike, that got some die polish on it, leaving striations. It is not a proof, in my opinion.

 

Looked at a few more proofs on heritage and the images posted here since last night. on the obv, just outside the right edge of the shield, to the right of Y, is a V shaped drapery fold with the open end of the V to the left (>). Inside that fold is a small raised bump, which I also see on the several proofs I looked at on Heritage just now. I see it on the OP's coin too. Briggs talks about "crumbled A's" and "filled S loops" on the rev but I have not seen that on the proof photos I've looked at so am discarding that as a diagnostic. I am not much at judging the slope of dates either but the left foot of the first 1in the date is over the left edge of a dentil on the subject coin and the graded proofs. So, I'm still not dissuaded from this coin being a proof, yet.

 

Hey folks. Original poster here. Thanks for such a deep dive into the proof or business strike question.
How deep into the diagnostic process do grading companies go or do they fly right through it like it seems they do with coins in general. I guess what I’m asking is, does a proof designation from pcgs mean definitively that the coin is a proof? I realize this question is largely unanswerable, but I’d like to know your opinions.

 

I expect that if there is a vast difference in value between proofs and MS versions of the same date, the TPG's would expend extra time and energy to properly classify the coin. If not, then I believe more of a gestalt approach comes into play.

 

In the case of this particular coin, there is very little difference in value between MS and PF

 

Assuming it straight grades as MS... are there any graded in MS PL? Or might even be worth trying for a NGC star if it falls short of PL. The youtube video is really cool.

 

I don't know if the PL distinction is available on all coins or only on certain series (like Morgan dollars, peace dollars, etc.)

 

I didnt see any on the PCGS census. But that's why I asked.

 

I looked the coin up in the Red Book 2020. I didn't see a MM, so I checked. The 1891, over its life, was minted at Philadelphia, New Orleans, San Francisco. Since there doesn't have a MM, I figured it was minted in Philadelphia. I haven't gotten into Liberty Seated coins yet, but the coin displayed has sparked my interest. So, thank you all for the information provided on this thread.

 

IMO (already posted) the Briggs book did not have enough info to resolve this coin. Some things mentioned in the book I could not find on the coin.

Next: You all should know the characteristics of a Proof coin. Frosty devices IS NOT ONE OF THEM. Wide rims generally are. This coin is borderline in that respect.

Missing details due to die polishing and die wear are not something we usually use to match a die. A diagnostic marker is something authenticators use to match a die.

You need to train your eyes to see tiny RAISED artifacts on a coin.

Now, does anyone see the raised diagonal line on the belly that is on both coins? Comments?

 

The die line seems indicative of it being a proof coin. I can’t locate that line on any MS examples and it’s on every PF example.

OP coin


Proof example from NGC


Several Proof examples from PCGS

 

BINGO! Yes. Now remember I posted that "marker" was not in my diagnostic files? What was in my files were the "dots" at the point of the shield, and the dash under the elbow by the pole and a line between the "T" & "R" in "Trust".

 

The coin will be going out to NGC with a few others next week so we should have results back some time before (next) Christmas.

 

Mark Metzger, post: 5258164, member: 86472"]The coin will be going out to NGC with a few others next week so we should have results back some time before (next) Christmas.

You may want to send it in as a Proof so someone does not blow it off as an MS.