Isabel II Spain 4 Reales 1858, PR or PL? 1 1

[Tobias J Reily]

Picked up this 1858 4 Reales and I am really amazed by the reflectivity of the fields, it would surely get a PL designation, but could it be an actual Proof? What do you think the grade could be if I sent this in? Thanks in advance

Please view video to see the reflectivity:

Video of Coin

[Sandon]

  Although your photos don't make the coin appear to have been struck as a proof or even prooflike, it does appear to be prooflike in the video. Have you done any research to determine whether any actual proofs were reported struck of this issue? If so, you should compare it to photos of known proofs.

  The obverse scratches, especially the one in front of the queen's face, might preclude a numerical grade. The best numerical grades I think it could receive, based on U.S. grading standards, would be MS 62-63 PL or, PF 62-63 if determined to have been a proof strike.

[Fenntucky Mike]

I don't see any proofs listed in Krause, not a fan of how it looked in the video. 

P.S.

Ditch the cotton gloves. 

[Tobias J Reily]

Thanks for the replies. I too can't find any that were proofs or were listed as proof, but I did find this sale that NGC determined to be PL. Although it is a different obverse design.

I'm going to try collecting this 1852 to 1868 registry set of 4 reales. 

The scratch to the obverse I'm pretty sure is not large or deep enough to warrant a details grade, I'll send it in and see. 

I agree with somewhere around MS62 or MS63 with a PL designation hopefully. Also, I'm wearing gloves as I don't like to put fingerprints on my coins, even holding them at the very edge can cause the smallest fingerprints as your fingers overlap. (albeit in the video I had my left hand exposed as I was operating the camera, oh well.) Yes it makes me look like Michael Jackson! But whatever :P

https://coins.ha.com/itm/spain/world-coins/spain-isabel-ii-4-reales-1853-ms64-prooflike-ngc-/a/3082-34788.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

[Fenntucky Mike]

On 2/19/2023 at 12:06 PM, Tobias J Reily said:

Also, I'm wearing gloves as I don't like to put fingerprints on my coins, even holding them at the very edge can cause the smallest fingerprints as your fingers overlap. (albeit in the video I had my left hand exposed as I was operating the camera, oh well.) Yes it makes me look like Michael Jackson! But whatever :P

You will leave no fingerprints on the coin if held properly and your hands are clean and dry. In the video you seemed very near to dropping the coin, had to handle it with your bare hand anyway, and if you think just because a person is wearing a cotton glove the coin can't be damaged or that oils can't be transferred (especially if reused) think again. Do you think NGC graders are wearing cotton gloves?

Good luck with the submission, I agree with 62-63 PL if it straight grades.

I can't login right now, what did the HA coin sell for?

[Tobias J Reily]

That one sold for $660 in 2020 at Heritage. 

[Olek1984]

Coin great! But the variety of proof is not described in the catalogs, however, one sale was registered in this case, the photo at this link coinstrail.com, compare with yours.

[Tobias J Reily]

NGC graded this one MS64. I thought it would get PL but I'm just glad it straight graded.

I also made a big purchase on this MS67. Currently no.1 on the registry set now so pretty pleased with that, and trying to find more.

[Olek1984]

Super!

[RWB]

"Proof-like" is a result of ordinary die use and repair. "Proof" is specific process using different die treatment and coin manufacture. The photos show little of the first and none of the second.

[Tobias J Reily]

RWB, did you look at the video? It absolutely looks proof like. 

[zadok]

On 7/9/2023 at 5:15 PM, Tobias J Reily said:

RWB, did you look at the video? It absolutely looks proof like. 

...fret not...his is not the final say on this or any other coin, just his own opinion based on his arbitrary determinations many of which r not accepted by the numismatic community...ur coin certainly meets what i personally agree appears to look like what the collecting n grading community currently refers to as "proof-like"...fortunately, numismatic determinations r not dictated by any one individual, most r a dynamic evolving process n not always decided by methodology, in coins its the "what" not the "why" that has the final say...branch mint proofs in US coins r a prime example, they r not "supposed" to exist but u know one when u see one....

[RWB]

On 7/9/2023 at 5:15 PM, Tobias J Reily said:

RWB, did you look at the video? It absolutely looks proof like. 

Yes. Obv is nice; rev is questionable. Since a PL has to have both sides PL, then it does not qualify. However, in-hand examination might produce a different opinion.

Edited July 9, 2023 by RWB

[VKurtB]

On 7/9/2023 at 4:40 PM, zadok said:

...fret not...his is not the final say on this or any other coin, just his own opinion based on his arbitrary determinations many of which r not accepted by the numismatic community...ur coin certainly meets what i personally agree appears to look like what the collecting n grading community currently refers to as "proof-like"...fortunately, numismatic determinations r not dictated by any one individual, most r a dynamic evolving process n not always decided by methodology, in coins its the "what" not the "why" that has the final say...branch mint proofs in US coins r a prime example, they r not "supposed" to exist but u know one when u see one....

Ooh, wait. What if somebody’s surreptitious activities are not documented and deposited in a government archive? “Absence of evidence” proves absolutely NOTHING. In fact, all it implies a little bit is “evidence of absence”. Many things are true without a shred of documentation. Everyone serious knows that, especially when people do things they should not be doing. 

Edited July 11, 2023 by VKurtB

[zadok]

On 7/10/2023 at 7:59 PM, VKurtB said:

Ooh, wait. What if somebody’s surreptitious activities are not documented and deposited in a government archive? “Absence of evidence” proves absolutely NOTHING. In fact, all it implies a little bit is “evidence of absence”. Many things are true without a shred of documentation. Everyone serious knows that, especially when people do things they should not be doing. 

...exactamundo....