I'd say its worth it as without the haze it would likely go higher. That's a neat repunched date as well.
I dunno Larry, the hair on the forehead looks pretty weak to me. I'd be afraid that if the toning were stripped it might show something you'd rather it didn't show. At the least it would make that "flaw" (and I say flaw because it's a Proof) more evident.
NGC might expose a problem but I would take the risk. I have only used them three times. Two worked out nicely one didn't.
I will have to agree with Doug with on this one...here's why. 3,942 proofs minted,they rank 26th in proof, date seems to be available in all certified grades except 67 & 68. In 64 they are ranked 27th. Proof of this year can be considered common,except as stated 67 and above coins. This date was hoard and is pretty common due to being hoarded. There are two varieties obv 1 normal date,obv.2 doubling on the base of 1 RPD from strong to weak . Rev. Type B. This is the RPM 1 Rev.type B coin. Another interesting point Is that in 1884 the mint purchased some 2000 lbs. of English and German nickel for use in minting these coins.The nickel was proved so unmalleable and add to serious delay and impeded coining operations. The reference that I'm using shows that there is quite a different in between ms 60-61 , 62, 63, showing the lower grades are rarer ,@64 seems to be the norm range on the 84 proof date,and again a much lower population on 65 coins. And 66 somewhere in the 75-100 known range. You have a very nice Variety specimen and chances of it going up by a point are slim to none. Leave it be....she sweet where she sits.
To me this coin is just on the edge of being ugly. It was a really pretty coin 24 years ago when I bought it. I'm not sure it would even grade 64 today without some help. Can't see it getting a 65 even after NCS. I'll post the results of NCS sometime in the future.
