1892 Indian cent PR?? Confirmed

[prudden]

So,what do you all make of this one. Thanks for looking!! It's actually much darker than this.It's in direct flourescent light. I turned the settings down to -1 1/2.

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

I do not believe that to be a proof, based on the rounded edges. The strike is pretty sharp, yes, but I don't think its a proof.

 

It does however, at least in these pictures, appear to be cleaned and retoned. I don't like it.

[prudden]

Going by the rim and denticles,it sure looks like a proof to me.I really shouldn't have used these pictures.The colors are very different when looking at it under the same light with a magnifier. I think my cameras colors interpretation is off.I've had this same trouble with alot lof other pictures.Wwithout the bright lights it looks much more like a normal Red/Brown Proof.It does have light toning,yeah.

[James_OldeTowne]

Business strike for sure, from these images.

[Coindude]

I'm gonna have to agree with James and Sir Physics.

[dean1345]

Business Strike

[relicsncoins]

I don't know, the way the rims meet the denticle and the denticles meet the fields, it sure has some proof charateristics.

[prudden]

I guess I had a gut feeling.It wasn't the denticles as much as the lack of reflective surfaces. It has plenty of luster,but it's not reflective.

So far,it's five out of six positive for business strike. EZ_E,in a PM thinks so too. Well,fooled me,again.The guy said he had a reference from Stacks.It turned out to be just a cut printout from a catalogue with a description of a two coin lot.Although,the pictures I went by were pretty dark. I'll let you guys know what happens.

[MarkFeld]

If that's a Proof, I sure wouldn't know it from the images.

[relicsncoins]

I guess I had a gut feeling.It wasn't the denticles as much as the lack of reflective surfaces. It has plenty of luster,but it's not reflective.

So far,it's five out of six positive for business strike. EZ_E,in a PM thinks so too. Well,fooled me,again.The guy said he had a reference from Stacks.It turned out to be just a cut printout from a catalogue with a description of a two coin lot.Although,the pictures I went by were pretty dark. I'll let you guys know what happens.

 

Email Rick, he will know the die diagonstics for an 1892 proof. When I first recieved this coin from ebay I posted it, not with these photos, but some others that were clear, but not quite as closeup, and most people said it as not a proof. Rick took a look at the photos and said it deffinately was a proof.

 

 

[prudden]

I guess I had a gut feeling.It wasn't the denticles as much as the lack of reflective surfaces. It has plenty of luster,but it's not reflective.

So far,it's five out of six positive for business strike. EZ_E,in a PM thinks so too. Well,fooled me,again.The guy said he had a reference from Stacks.It turned out to be just a cut printout from a catalogue with a description of a two coin lot.Although,the pictures I went by were pretty dark. I'll let you guys know what happens.

 

Email Rick, he will know the die diagonstics for an 1892 proof. When I first recieved this coin from ebay I posted it, not with these photos, but some others that were clear, but not quite as closeup, and most people said it as not a proof. Rick took a look at the photos and said it deffinately was a proof.

 

 

 

You mean Rick Snow or another Rick?? I don't know his e-mail addy.

[relicsncoins]

Yes, Rick Snow. I believe he is a member of these boards and goes by Eagle Eye, or some thing like that.

[prudden]

Okay.Yeah,I just found his company.Eagle Eye. I'm also thinking this coin has other problems.It might have been cleaned and I'm not too sure about the R/B either. Drat. I hate it when this happens.

[L1ncolnF4n]

Iunno, the second picture looks much more PL than the first set. The first set looked pretty clearly cleaned and retoned. If Rick said it's a proof, then is most likely is.

[prudden]

Iunno, the second picture looks much more PL than the first set. The first set looked pretty clearly cleaned and retoned. If Rick said it's a proof, then is most likely is.

 

The 2nd set of pictures are a different coin posted by someone else.

[L1ncolnF4n]

That would be why then...

[prudden]

Thanks relicscoins,

 

I e-mailed Rick Snow the same pictures I posted here and he confirmed it as a Proof Indian Cent.How about that? I didn't realize how fugly it was until I took pictures. It's weird,under normal light,hldig it in my hand it has a more dark ruby red color to it.Looks like some specks on the neck that really don't show in the pictures either.I'll see if I can get some better ones.

[relicsncoins]

I had a feeling it was, besided the rims and denticles, I was trying to compare your coin with some known proof 1892 coin photos I found on the web. One thing I noticed was that there is a small blob on the base of the two on proof issues, and I did not see it on a couple of the business strikes photos I looked at. I don't know if this is a marker or not, but it seemed to somewhat validate my thoughts on your coin.

[prudden]

I had a feeling it was, besided the rims and denticles, I was trying to compare your coin with some known proof 1892 coin photos I found on the web. One thing I noticed was that there is a small blob on the base of the two on proof issues, and I did not see it on a couple of the business strikes photos I looked at. I don't know if this is a marker or not, but it seemed to somewhat validate my thoughts on your coin.

 

Well,in a sense I'm glad it's a proof.On the other hand I have no reason to return it now. It really does look better that the pictures show though.My camera can sometimes make a perfect coin look bad. If I could afford to I'd replace it. I got an answer back from Rick about whether it had been cleaned.He says he can't tell.