Is this a proof?

I'm not sure it is. Please give me your thoughts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Very nice coin and yes I think it is proof. I would say ANACs graded it correctly. Once again nice coin!

 

Nice coin, but? A proof?

 

It does not look Proof to me. No mirrors. The rims are not squared off. There is not the detail I would expect in a Proof.

 

I agree and the strike is not strong as one would expect from a Proof...especially a Proof Indian Head Cent!


Frank

 

Agreed with Hobo & Frank.

 

I would say that it appears to be very well struck and is a proof, just toned quite a bit.

 

Well if ANACS says its proof; who am I to argue? But if it turns out not to be a proof, then whats the point of a TPG? Still a nice coin.

 

It is a proof coin. The reason you no longer see the mirror finish is because the coin has not been stored in a manner that would alow it to keep that mirror finish. Remeber they did not have plastic slabs 103 years ago. Most collectors had there coin on a coin display where the coin would sit open to the air for who knows how long. Chances are this Cent sat in open air for a few years then was put away in a paper storage of some sort. Then some time in the 1990s got put into a ANACS slab. IMHO that is a fantasic coin. You should be very happy to own it.

 

There should still be mirrored surfaces in protected areas such as between the stripes in the shield and inside numerals and letters.

And lack of mirrored surfaces is only one reason I say it does not look like a proof. A proof coin is struck twice (or more) which brings up detail usually not found in a business strike. I don't see that detail in this coin and I don't think it was ever there. This kind of detail does not go away while a coin sits in a drawer or an envelope.

 

I realize that determining the method of manufacture can be difficult from images. I would have guessed business strike in this case, though I will give ANACS the benefit of the doubt (and hope it's not a "mechanical error") since they have viewed the coin in person.

 

It may be an inadvertent typo error and should read MS-63 RB!


Frank

 

I'll add a bit more about the coin.

At one angle the mirrors are there and from another angle the die polish lines cover the fields. It's been a fun coin to image.

This next image was with the glare of the lights on the plastic.
The contrast and brightness were adjusted.

Anyone have the diagnostics for this year?

 

I do not think it is a Proof but if the experts say it is go with it

Just hope it is not one of them China labels (only kidding)

May have been a proof that was not protected and handled but still is a proof.

Maybe the mint should have a little insignia on all coins that will show a coin is a proof

 

I tihnk it is a proof, and the photos are deceptive. The die seems to match the one from my collection:




Although the date on the original coin looks quite different (looks more "rounded" rather than square as I'd expect on a proof).

All IMHO...Mike

 

p.s. I have even larger photos, if that would be helpful. PM me.

 

I'm not sure of the number of dies used for this year or the markers.
I'll find out and post what I find.
Thanks.

 

I know the first pictures dont look very proofish. But Im pretty sure ANACS got that right after seeing the newest photos in sure its proof. I mean guys. Look at almost any nickel of copper proof coin thats over a 100 years old. Not many keep that mirror finish. I saw a proof IHC a few weeks ago that under low light looked rainbow toned business strike, but if went to a brighter light and turned the coin a bit. You saw proof mirror.

 

You are right Leadfoot. The date does seem more rounded. But couldnt that have come from handling the coin over and over?

 

To me, Leadfoot's coin appears to have MUCH more detail.
The diamonds are much more pronounced.
The rim on the obverse of the OP's coin appears really rounded at the 1 to 4 o'clock positions.
It is a nice coin, but I would be pressed to pay any premium toward it being a proof.