3 Cent Silver Experts: MS, PL, Proof?

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by valente151, May 6, 2012.

  1. valente151

    valente151 Mr. AU64, Jr.

    I bought a 3 cent silver yesterday and I really dont believe NGC's call on it. Here's 5 pics, the first three are mine and the other two are NGC's. I want to know your opinion for designation. Does it look like a, for lack of a better word, "plain" MS, a PL or a Proof?

    I did no editing besides cropping to my pics.

    IMG_0837.jpg IMG_0838.jpg IMG_0839.jpg Screen Shot 2012-05-06 at 9.55.43 AM.jpg Screen Shot 2012-05-06 at 9.55.50 AM.png
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest

    to hide this ad.
  3. Kirkuleez

    Kirkuleez 80 proof Supporter

    Nice. Looks like it has PL qualities, but maybe not enough for the designation.
  4. Chiefbullsit

    Chiefbullsit CRAZY HORSE

  5. brg5658

    brg5658 The Horse Coin Guy

    Looks like a regular MS coin to me. I say this because 1) there are only 550 proofs from this year minted, and 2) the couple that I have seen seem to have more of a "matte" proof look to them, and 3) the rims are not correct for a proof coin.

    The NGC pictures are too fuzzy, and they take them under weird lighting conditions, so I'm guessing that it doesn't have as much Cameo effect in hand. Your pictures are too dark, put more light on the coin. It appears to be a very nice piece, with a good strike, but if you think it is a Proof coin, you would need to have some pretty hefty diagnostics to prove it. Just thinking out loud here.

    All in all, a very nice pick up. :thumb:
  6. jhinton

    jhinton Active Member

    It looks like a regular MS coin to me as well. It does not look PL or Proof.
  7. Porsche2007

    Porsche2007 Senior Member

  8. Kirkuleez

    Kirkuleez 80 proof Supporter

    [TABLE="class: menu"]

    [TD="width: 800, align: center"] Here is an image of a PR-65 DCAM from Goldberg auctions, notice the sharpness on the rims and the devices. This is the standard diagnostics used to determine if any coin is a proof.

    [TABLE="align: center"]

    [TD="width: 200"]

    [TD="width: 200"]

  9. silverspoonvint

    silverspoonvint New Member

    I'm no expert on these but I think you have a business strike with PL qualities. I'm guessing its MS63 but I could be way off having only owned a few circulated silver trimes myself.
  10. bradarv90

    bradarv90 Member

    Is it possible someone could post a picture of the rims of a proof and a bu, just so I can truly understand what's different about the rims?
  11. KoinJester

    KoinJester Well-Known Member


    From what I can see dipped,as you can see either residue or traces of original skin in the last ES of states
  12. Kirkuleez

    Kirkuleez 80 proof Supporter

    PR2.jpg PROOF 1.jpg MS1.jpg
    The nuts and bolts of it is that proof coins will have a squared off edge and business strike coins will have a rounded edge. Notice the rounder devices on the MS coin as opposed to the sharp squared off devices and rim of the proofs.
  13. valente151

    valente151 Mr. AU64, Jr.

    Here's a more well lit obverse shot, again no editing besides crop.
  14. valente151

    valente151 Mr. AU64, Jr.

    Thanks for all of the opinions. I'm not trying to sound ignorant, but I think the coin is extremely prroflike in hand, but I am having trouble capturing it in-camera.
  15. Kirkuleez

    Kirkuleez 80 proof Supporter

    It does have an argument that it is a PL. There are plenty of Morgans out there that I wonder why they did not get the PL designation.
  16. valente151

    valente151 Mr. AU64, Jr.

    Oh and they slabbed it as ms63
  17. bradarv90

    bradarv90 Member

    Thank you. I have always wondered what y'all meant by square edges and now I finally see it.
  18. Lon Chaney

    Lon Chaney Well-Known Member

    It's easier to see when looking at the edges, like this proof:
    proof cent edge.jpg
    (Image taken from this thread: http://www.cointalk.com/t182880/ )
  19. Conder101

    Conder101 Numismatist

    A really well struck MS coin from new dies. Quite possibly with PL surfaces. Not a proof.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page