good feedback percentage, but the coin just doesn't look right to me. Any collectors of these care to weight in? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...Sell_LogicX&refwidgettype=cross_promot_widget
I'll bet it's a proof. Good looking coin and Proofs are sometimes less expensive than MS varieties... Ben
I believe it is a proof as well. The details are very crisp, the rims look sharp. However, some mint state seated coins appear very close in appearance to proofs, and often get mistaken as such. The coin looks to me like it has been cleaned and has altered surfaces, but that could simply be from the overexposure (it's has definitely been cleaned though).
Wow. Yep, probably a proof, and yes, has definitely been cleaned at some point, but not too badly, it's still a very nice-looking coin.
I don't believe that it is a proof. The rims are not squared enough, especially on the reverse. Still, a wonderful strike, even if it is cleaned. and a low mintage date: 8,400 including 1,355 proofs! Now that is a hard date to get.
Proof to me, I don't see what is wrong with the rims, they look sharp enough, and the frosting is SUPERB !
It appears to be a proof coin or at least prooflike. The reverse has a deep strike with a wire like rim and large denticals which is consistant with several other coins I checked in MS and proof. A larger pic from this seller would tell the story of the cleaning job done. The current pic is a crap shoot on the amount of hairlines involved. Looks like a great coin but if I were to buy it, I would ask the seller for a larger Hi Res pic.
Ok so lets cut to the chase. If cleaned would it likely come back with a body bag and about what is its value? Ruben
Ruben: Hi, you haven't been around for a while. Yes, it would probably body bag. Value: not much spread in value: Good= $300 XF= $500 AU = $ 550 MS-60 = $800 Proof-63= $700 So, it is still a very scarce coin.
I'll say. Question, why is the proof worth less than the MS? Or is that just a typo? Just curious, sorry. Phoenix
phoenix: The story is that in those days collectors did not differentiate between proofs & uncs. So, they just kept one nice coin for their collections and spent the rest. Since they could get nice proofs they saved them, and used the regular, circulation pieces for spending. As a result, the proofs, which were kept nice and saved by collectors are more available than the uncs. ... And that is the rest of the story. And, why apologize? That is how we all learn.
Every time I have a day off you say that! Even as a body bagged coin? It looks nice but I'm sick of having coins that would be body bagged. $700 for this or $10,000 for a '95W set? Hmmmm Ruben
Ruben: I agree with the body bag comment, but, sometimes it is worth getting a non-slabbed item because you just won't see another. However, if in doubt about a coin's authenticity, sent it to ANACS, they will still slab it as genuine.
And don't forget the OTHER item which drives pricing - SUPPLY. Since most folks prefer proofs, DEMAND doesn't explain why $unc > $proof. But Treashunt's explanation above indicates why SUPPLY of uncs is sometimes low. Since a higher proportion of proofs are saved, their survival rate is higher than Uncs. That's especially true for fractional denominations (50c and less). They were minted for circulation, while many S$1s and gold coins, as bags or rolls, moved 'twixt bank vaults, and never circulated 'mongst the general population. Proportionally, fewer unc's survived - business strikes went to work in day-to-day commerce, proofs mostly stayed at home. That balances the fact that there were fewer proofs minted. Yes, it's true, the much larger mintage of business strikes normally overwhelms the "lower survival rate" issue, but not in this case. When business strike mintage is really low and proofs larger than normal, you can get a price inversion like this.
