1862 Three Cent Silver - PCGS MS63 or PROOF?

I bought this coin on eBay for three reasons:
1. I hoped it was a proof, mislabeled/misidentified.
2. I figured at $250, I could at least flip it for $300 if it wasn't a proof.
3. I thought it would be fun to see if it was the overdate 1862/1.

As it turns out, I think my dream came true and it is a proof! However, I am well aware that retired proof dies were sometimes used to make business strikes. I wish I could post a video of this coin, because the mirrors on both sides are very deep and 100% liquid. To me there's no doubt it is a proof, but I am always open to more knowledgeable folks and opinions. Here is my coin, followed by pics from CoinFacts of a PR66 coin. I found a common die marker for proofs, but I know that may not be the end of the debate.

My coin:


My coin with different lighting:


Close up of the die marker on my coin:


Closeup of the die marker on the CoinFacts PR66 example:


CoinFacts example of a PR66:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Looks good, how is the edge?

 

Can't see it due to it being in an older PCGS holder.

 

Mr. C-B-D,
Really nice trime.
You gambled on buying it for $250, IMO a good price for a MS-63.
I say, break it out and re-submit.
"In for a penny..in for a pound"
"Fortune favors the bold"
"Insert your favorite saw here"
Etc...
J.T.

 

The photos make it look like an Unc. to me. It's got too frost inside the letters and devices.

 

Those markers are the same.
Did they use proof dies on business strikes for this year/ denomination?

 

Proof or not it’s a gorgeous coin.

The next question is if it isn’t a proof, is it PL? Sure looks that way. Great find!

 

I am fairly confident you have a business strike coin. If you look at the rims, the are rounded, not crisp and square as you see on the proof. The edge looks rounded as well, as much as I can see in the slab. Additionally, there is weakness on the stars, which I would not expect to see on a proof. As johnmilton said, there appears to be too much frost on your coin.

However, there's a good chance that it could get a PL designation if the mirrors are deep enough.

It was very common in the 1800's for them to use proof dies to strike business strikes. Making a die was very expensive and labor intensive. A well made die could be used for thousands of coins - and they only needed to mint a few hundred proofs (550 for this date). I don't know about this particular date, but I'd be more surprised if the proof die did not make business strikes.

 

@physics-fan3.14 , @Michael K , @johnmilton , @CircCam , @Kentucky check out the video, please.

 

@TypeCoin971793

 

Beautiful!

 

Yes it looks good. And the marker is spot on.
I know in some years proof dies were used on business strikes, that's
why I asked. If I had to guess I am in the proof camp.

 

Yup, that video confirms in my mind that it is a very attractive PL business strike. I think PCGS got this one right.

 

For real??? Ah man. I mean all the fields on both sides are liquid. I plan to send it in for regrade when they reopen. If it is business strike, it should easily PL. But I still think it's a proof.

 

When I bought my trime, I asked a few dealers at the time if it might be a Proof. They pointed out to me many of the things I'm now mentioning. The fields are even deeper on mine than yours, and the cameo is distinct. The consensus was, this is truly a business strike.

Mine is also a die match to the proof, and was probably a couple dozen strikes before yours.

See mine here:

 

Wow. Is yours in a business strike PL holder?

 

Yes. NGC MS-67 * PL CAC

 

Holy moly.

 

It is one of my favorite coins, and one of the highlights of my collection. Even though its tiny!