1878 Prooflike Seated Liberty Quarter

[CoinTalk72-migration]

Hello, and let me introduce myself; I am a new user to this site, I've mainly got into numismatics about two years ago, and I'm lucky enough to have received two scholarships to this years American Numismatic Association's Summer Seminar!

 

My 1878 prooflike quarter was graded by NGC as MS61 PL, though the coin was removed from the case. The mirrors are exceptional compared to other PL specimens. I had shown a former pcgs grader the coin, and at a first glance he though it was a proof! though its a brilliant prooflike coin!

 

I have two videos of the coin on my youtube channel. The first video is of the coin in the NGC holder 1.- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuUcezLDQc0

and the second video is of the coin out of the holder - 2. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrc6ocL-NXM

 

 

 

 

Let me know what you think of this coin!

[coinsbygary]

Hello CT! Welcome to the boards here at Collectors Society. I remember this coin when you rolled it out at CU. I liked it then and I like it now. Now a couple of points on the coin.

 

First, I don't have enough experience to always differentiate between proof and proof-like coins. What I can say is that the surfaces of classic proof coins have a certain look and "feel" to them. The fields seem much flatter and the legend and devices are much crisper when compared to equivalent grade MS coins .

 

That said, let me suggest to you a couple of options. You could take the coin to summer seminar and ask a few more experts for their opinion. Otherwise, you can send the coin to PCGS for grading and hope PCGS gives you the proof designation.

 

You have to be careful about this option though because last I heard PCGS only grades Morgans with a "PL" designation. I have been eyeing a PCGS MS-62 1877 Seated Liberty Quarter for myself that I am pretty positive is prook-like but without the designation. Another option is for you to resubmit the coin to NGC and hope that with a second look they give you the proof designation.

 

Finally, I think that you will find most people here at Collector's Society pretty honest and reluctant to judge your coin based on pictures and you-tube videos. There is nothing like "in the hand" to properly evaluate a coin. Thus what can it hurt to take the coin to summer seminar and ask the opinion of a few more professional numismatists. Once again, welcome and all the best in your future numismatic pursuits!

Gary

[johnny9434]

welcome to the forums

[Deerefan8420]

Welcome to the forums CoinTalk! That is a mighty-fine Seated Quarter you have there! It is definitely one of the sharpest struck coins I have seen(going by the images provided) and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that coin came back as a Proof. I have to agree with Gary that it is a bit more difficult to differentiate between Proofs and MS Proof-Like pieces, especially when the coin is so well struck. But without an in-hand inspection, no-one will be able to give you a definitive answer. Either way, it is still a gorgeous coin!

[coinman_23885]

The images make the edge/rims look rounded and not square as one would expect to find on a contemporaneous proof. I think NGC is right that the piece is proof like and not a proof. For whatever it is worth NGC has both a proof like and a DPL (deep mirror proof like) designation. While the mirrors are strong, I do not think it makes DPL. In hand, the piece might be worthy of a star.

[dimefreak]

He isn't saying its a proof.... he is just sharing his coin with us. Nice coin thanks for sharing! Have fun at the ANA

[dimefreak]

However since I know this thread will draw the PL gurus out.... please exain why this coin is absent of die polish lines.

[MarkFeld]

Welcome to the forum.

 

While this is not (no pun intended) foolproof, here is one important consideration in trying to distinguish business strikes from Proofs: Generally speaking, a Proof will exhibit reflective surfaces (which match that seen in the fields) within the shield stripes on the reverse, while a business strike will not.

[coinman_23885]

However since I know this thread will draw the PL gurus out.... please exain why this coin is absent of die polish lines.

 

Not all PL coins have readily noticeable die polish lines. With regards to why I thought it was PL instead of proof, see my comments above about the rim/edge. Mark Feld also brings up a good factor to be considered in hand.

[coinman_23885]

He isn't saying its a proof.... he is just sharing his coin with us. Nice coin thanks for sharing! Have fun at the ANA

 

I might have misunderstood his post. In any event, I agree that it is a nice coin and looks nice for the grade as best I can tell from the photos.

[RWB]

Nice coin. Not a determination that should be made from photos or videos.

[CoinTalk72-migration]

The coin was in an NGC holder as MS61 PL... The surface preservation is an MS60 but because of the nice strike, luster, etc. its a solid MS61 PL. When I was on the heritage website I was comparing my prooflike specimen to other seated liberty prooflike quarters, and I have concluded that it is a more earlier strike from the pair of dies. I find it interesting that the reverse has a number of die cracks. That could mean that either one of the sides was a proof die and paired with a nicely polished business strike die, or the obverse die was newly made and the reverse die was polished again to be paired with the obverse die... either way i'm not fully sure...

 

Watch my new video to get a better view of the details, and surfaces of the prooflike seated liberty quarter!....

[coinman_23885]

When I was on the heritage website I was comparing my prooflike specimen to other seated liberty prooflike quarters, and I have concluded that it is a more earlier strike from the pair of dies. I find it interesting that the reverse has a number of die cracks. That could mean that either one of the sides was a proof die and paired with a nicely polished business strike die, or the obverse die was newly made and the reverse die was polished again to be paired with the obverse die... either way i'm not fully sure...

 

Comparing it to coins based on Heritage images and coins of a different date (presumably - since there is quite a variety and most of differing dates) doesn't really say anything about how new or newly polished the die was that struck these. Also, I am not sure how you are concluding the latter.

 

Based on the new photos, the indicators that Mark pointed out to look for also look to be there and as I said initially regarding the rims and edge, it does look to be proof like rather than a proof.

 

I think it is a nice coin, but I can see hairlines that I didn't see before. My recommendation would be to have it reslabbed to preserve the coin, and if you or your heirs ever sell the piece, having it designated by NGC will increase its value.

[CoinTalk72-migration]

Comparing it to coins based on Heritage images and coins of a different date (presumably - since there is quite a variety and most of differing dates) doesn't really say anything about how new or newly polished the die was that struck these. Also, I am not sure how you are concluding the latter.

 

Based on the new photos, the indicators that Mark pointed out to look for also look to be there and as I said initially regarding the rims and edge, it does look to be proof like rather than a proof.

 

I think it is a nice coin, but I can see hairlines that I didn't see before. My recommendation would be to have it reslabbed to preserve the coin, and if you or your heirs ever sell the piece, having it designated by NGC will increase its value.

 

When I was comparing the coins on heritage I was interested on comparing my PL quarter to the others -- such as ranking the known ones that were on heritage's site. I know that each PL cannot-- in a sense-- be compared because they are different. I also know that mine is a nice PL business strike which. I may send the coin back to NGC when I pick up some other coins for a certain set which will take awhile...