Indian Cent Proof Indetification

Anybody have links to good info on distinguishing a proof Indian Head Cent from a regular IHC? I am not having the easiest time with this. Apparently, this is not a widely talked about subject.

I have a penny (scans do it no justice) 1890, that looks like a proof in hand. Scans totally take away the evidence, and completely distort the way the fields actually look. Also this year has a particularly weak strike as a proof which also throws people off.

I have heard people talk about the denticles, et cetera, but I want some real evidence. All help would be appreciated.

Oh BTW... I want to send this off to a TPG as I am rather certain it is PR64, but I may not bother if it is not a proof....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

There's an 1890 proof seen here - not a great closeup but maybe it will help.
http://www.teletrade.com/coins/lot.asp?auction=2556&lot=1017&imagetype=j2

 

It's all about the edge baby....check those edges. Are they flat and mirrored or rounded and dull? If flat and had/has mirrors then likely a Proof, otherwise no.

 

When you say edges, do you mean the actual side of the coin, or do you mean the small area out side of the denticles (rim).

Forgive me for asking dumb questions just need to clarify.

This coin does have rims that are mirrored, and the outside edges are flat, but not necessarily mirrored. I guess it is kind of hard to tell... if this something that is blatantly obvious then it may not be a proof. I compared it to circulated Indians I have, and they are much more "rounded". I have a MS Indian, but it is in a NGC holder.

What it the reasoning behind the mirrored edge? Did they use different planchet when making the proofs?

 

Yes, I mean the third side. The edges should be flat due to striking pressure and mirrored pretty much for the same reasons the surfaces are mirrored (planchet and die preparation...mainly die preparation for the edge). The rim edge should almost be sharp and there might be a wire rim going around...again, due to striking pressure.

 

The weak strike I was talking about is noticeable in the teledrade coin... The first three feather tips are not well defined... mine is the same way. Although my coin is not brown.... It is still red and the fields are heavily mirrored.... However, if scans do this coin as much injustice as they do to mine, I would likely say the fields on that coins look nothing in hand like they do in the picture.

Mine also has some multicolored toning. Blues, purples, and bright reds are noticeable around the rims. This is definitely not oxidation, but toning. I have been told that "iredecent" toning only shows up on the proofs, and this is due to the fact that they were packaged in tissue paper from the mint.

 

I am confused. Do you you think it is a Business Strike (MS) or a Proof (PF)?

 

Ooops... I meant PR64. Thanks for keeping me accountable!

 

I figured that's what you meant.

I would recommend looking for these features of a Proof:

• squared off edges
• full, flat rims
• flat tops of lettering and numerals

If these features are not present it is probably not a Proof.

 

Multicolored toning may be more prevalant on proofs but it happens on proofs and business strikes alike .
rzage

 

In hand, the difference should be immediately obvious. Proof IHCs look like modern proofs for the most part (they generally aren't found as cameoed) -- their fields look like mirrors. On the other hand, business strike coins have cartwheel in the fields, and I can't think of a single prooflike IHC business strike.....Mike

 

Don't believe everything you read/hear.

Many (if not most) IHCs with toning are artifically toned -- both proof and business struck coins.

Some were toned as a result of the storage medium (tissue paper), and somehow this has become the "reason" for all toned IHCs.

Respectfully...Mike

 

I would have to say if your statement is accurate there is no question in my mind that my penny is a proof. I have never seen normal IHC with fields like mine. I should stop fretting and just send it in.

 

I have no doubt my statement is accurate, however there are lots of business struck IHCs I've never seen so there may be prooflike examples I'm not aware of.

I have seen weakly struck proofs, however.

My only concern would be if the coin were polished..... Not seing the coin in-hand (or in pics) makes all of this just conjecture, however...MIke

 

p.s. all IMHO and recognizing there are others with far more experience than myself.

 

You can thank Mark h for these. The top photo is proof denticles and bottom is regular denticles for IHC's.

 

I think I have seen these pics before, but they are not convincing for me, and for all years of IHC proofs. Please look at the coin in the below link:

http://www.indiancent.com/market/89p66bnp36.jpg

 

Yep te side. And where the side meets the rim should be square not rounded, and it should be square all the way around the coin not just in some places.

 

The bottom of the denticles are more square then roundeded, so it appears to be a proof. I know what you are saying, though I have an IHC that is "borderline". Try one of these books, I think I'm going to buy the redbook one, saw it at the bookstore the other day.

REDBOOK-A Guide Book of Flying Eagle and Indian Head Cents by Richard Snow. Published 2006 by Whitman Publishing.

Flying Eagle and Indian Cent Attribution Guide, Vol. 1, 2, 3 and 6

 

Good book... I perused it though and did not find anything specific about IHC proof attribution. I may have missed it, but it is still a great book. Tons of history, and details about all years.... A++++

Rick snow has another set of books on his website.... I would imagine those are a goldmine.