This is a super nice coin that I like, though how can they call it a PR 63 and grade that high when it appears it was cleaned showing the horizontal and vertical lines of a possible cleaning on the unstuck area of the planchet, or am I wrong? ANCS graded a few of my early 60's Franklin 1/2 as MS 60 because of counting wheel damage I really can't see. I have also seen PCGS be very liberal in grading Carson CC's & other Morgans that are pretty well dinged like a golfball. It must be due to depending on the grader's attitude, consciousness, drug, alcohol, or pharmaceutical use, and or mental acuity at any one moment in time?
Hairline scratches probably from a cleaning. Other than the hit on the cheek and chest it would be so amazing.
Current grading standards allow hairlines in grades less than 65. In fact, I think the hairlines are what cause the reduction in grade, assuming there are no other factors. I don't know this next assertion for a fact but I think the logic of giving a straight grade to these coins is that they were typically wiped with a jewelers cloth and that is not really considered improper cleaning by them. Agree or not, I am not condoning or supporting that idea, just relaying things I have read and heard.
I have to agree with the PCGS grade. Hairlines are normal for a proof of this age and grade. Nice looking coin.
I just checked PCGS and their grading standards allow hairlines all the way up to PR-66. For PR-63, here's what they say" "Average or slightly weak strike with moderate marks or hairlines." I guess one could argue that the OP's coin has much more than "moderate" hairlines and is thus not worthy of a 63 but more like a 61 which is defined as "Multiple heavy marks or hairlines allowed." Just for comparison, here is my 1937 PR-63 WLH. It has a few hairlines but not as many or as heavy as the OP's coin. Did they give the 1865 quarter a break because it is 72 years older?
We should be mindful of the possibility that the lines in the fields of a proof are die polish, but I think I see a few signs of them plowing through high points on this coin (lowest recesses in the die), and do not believe that is the case here. Accidental hairlines are one thing, and when sparse and random tend to affect the grade, but not greatly. It's difficult to know just how light they are on this coin but the hairlines in the OP's photo are numerous and, even more importantly, far from random in size and orientation. This is indicative of conscious efforts at enhancing the coin's appearance, as opposed to accidental mishandling, and should have been penalized as such. I personally feel this coin should have graded less than PR62. If the lighting is good at accentuating what otherwise may be imperceptibly shallow hairlines, I could feel differently examining the coin in person, but I suspect that is not the case.
Early proofs are fun. The surfaces have many different looks with angle of lighting and lens. I believe the services cut these a bit of slack on hairlines. It's great to hold the coin before you buy it.
