1907 Indian Head penny 0

[Terri Lynn]

Is this a business strike? I'm very new to coin collecting.

[JKK]

Looks that way. Too bad about the vandalism or whatever marring happened to it, as it's got most of the original detail.

[J P M]

I see that a lot on coins . The old razor knife X 

[Coinbuf]

@Terri Lynn do you think this is a proof?   And if so are you thinking that because its shinny?

[Mohawk]

It's a business strike.  A damaged business strike, sadly.

[RWB]

It's a damaged circulation strike coin. (ALL US coins, including proofs, patterns, novodels, etc.) are part of the Mint's "business" and thus business strikes.

[Mohawk]

On 9/30/2021 at 9:09 PM, RWB said:

It's a damaged circulation strike coin. (ALL US coins, including proofs, patterns, novodels, etc.) are part of the Mint's "business" and thus business strikes.

So true.  I never thought about it that way before, Roger.  I'll endeavor to use better terminology going forward 

[RWB]

Most don't care. but when I write about "proof coins" or "circulation coins" or "master coins" the meaning has to be clear. I emphasize "provenance" vs "pedigree" for much the same reasons. That's also why I object to phony euphemisms such as "cabinet friction" or "wire rim."

[RWB]

"Cabinet friction," "BU rub," and "wire rim" are all old, well-worn expressions that mislead collectors. The first two are euphemisms for wear - that is, the coin is no longer uncirculated. The third is actually a "fin" (Mint's own description) or defect in minting. "Matte" is another misused term although not necessarily deceptive - for Saint-Gaudens/Pratt gold proofs the correct term is "sandblast" which describes exactly how the visual effect was created. "Matte proof" is now reserved for early proof Lincoln cents and Buffalo nickels where the dies were sandblasted, but not the coins.

[Terri Lynn]

On 9/30/2021 at 3:40 PM, Coinbuf said:

@Terri Lynn do you think this is a proof?   And if so are you thinking that because its shinny?

No I did not think it was a proof but I just thought it was too shiny to be a circulation coin. It's not mirror like it's just shiny. Should I get it graded even though it's damaged is it worth it?

[JKK]

On 10/2/2021 at 11:04 AM, Terri Lynn said:

No I did not think it was a proof but I just thought it was too shiny to be a circulation coin. It's not mirror like it's just shiny. Should I get it graded even though it's damaged is it worth it?

A coin can be made shiny by cleaning. Shininess means nothing. A proof can lose its shine and still be a proof. And no, you should not get it graded. It might be worth half what an undamaged example is, which is in the neighborhood of a buck or two, which doesn't merit spending $30-60 to obtain a grade of VF Details--Vandalized (or whatever they call it when someone has riven the coin with scratches). You would do far better to spend that amount on the nicest undamaged 1907 IHP you can find--probably a MS-62 or 63 with no damage.

[Mohawk]

On 10/2/2021 at 2:10 PM, JKK said:

 You would do far better to spend that amount on the nicest undamaged 1907 IHP you can find--probably a MS-62 or 63 with no damage.

This is very good advice.  If you're interested in IHCs, I'd follow it.  I definitely would not pay to have the coin in the pics graded.  You'd be throwing your money away.