Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Kirkuleez, post: 2193500, member: 36864&quot;]Though the 1916 is generally regarded as a proof striking, it is generally known that Breen was a bit liberal in his classification of proof strikes. Two coins from my own collection were once called proofs by Breen and a few of his contemporaries, but are now considered business strikes.</p><p>This type 1 standing liberty quarter has been a contraversial piece for decades, Breen considered it a proof strike, but John Albanese and Cline himself inspected this coin in hand and could not conclusively name the method of manufactur either way. (Though hearing them debate the issue was a great education for me.)&nbsp; Today it stands as a nice business strike SLQ and is the plate coin for SLQ.org, but what the mints intention was is still unclear.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]426437[/ATTACH]</p><p>This large cent from the Naftzger/ Dan Holmes collection was called a proof striking by Breen and Grellman, but PCGS and NGC now disagree with their opinions. Though proof strikes of the N-1 die marriage are known, the debate continues about this coin. I consider it just a nice business strike, but it was clearly struck with some extra care. Perhaps the intention initially was to make it a proof coin, but the planchet flaw designated the coin as only a single struck business strike. The coin displays full mirrors and very sharp edges. [ATTACH=full]426439[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]426440[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in