Both of these barber dimes are without wear and heavily toned, albeit in quite a pleasing manner. However, through the toning my biggest question is whether or not one or both were just MS or possibly proof. The 1892 has a high degree of reflectivity on the reverse in the open field about 2" deep and on the obverse I can see reflectivity hiding beneath the toning. The 1904 shows some reflectivity on both sides, but the reflectivity is not as deep as on the 1892. Neither of the coins have a cameo appearance as far as I can determine on the obverse. The reverse of the 1892 may be cameo and the 1904 could be cameo but the steel gray toning hides any possibility of ascertaining that. My diagnosis is that the 1892 has a 70% chance of being proof whereas the 1904 only about a 30% chance. But either way, they are two of the nicest dimes I have in my set.
Don't know anything about barber coinage - but should the rims and dentils be more squared like in IHC's? Still looks like a couple of nice coins.
Many of these coins(barber series) in mint state will exhibit proof like qualities. I do not believe that either is a proof. Proof barber dime http://caimages.collectors.com/coinfacts/large/06666408.jpg
Neither is a proof, IMO. Note the dentil details and much crisper strike on the following coin and compare them to the two pictured above...
