GTG 1886 3CN 0

[ldhair]

[Sandon]

   I would say PF (PR if PCGS graded) 64-65, possibly CAM as well.

  I have one of this date NGC graded PF 66. It has fewer marks and haze than this one but less contrast.

[Hoghead515]

PF 63 very beautiful coin. 

Edited February 19, 2023 by Hoghead515

[Fenntucky Mike]

I love this coin but being a primarily non U.S. collector I'm not familiar with these, that being said I have a few questions. LIBERTY in the coronet and the definition in Liberty's hair seems poor/weak is this common in proofs of this series? The tri-columns seem well defined which would be directly opposite of the depiction of Liberty which seems odd.? The wreath on the reverse seems less defined than the lettering on the obv, also common?

I'll go PF 62 CAM.

[Sandon]

   @Fenntucky Mike--The 1886 is a proof-only date in this series, although some, unlike this one, don't look like proofs. The hair and wreath generally aren't any better defined on the later dates, which I assume has to do with die preparation.  Circulation strikes from the earlier part of the series (1865-76) may have somewhat more hair definition but are plagued by weak strikes, die breaks, and clash marks. For comparisons with my certified copper-nickel three cent pieces, go to Set Details | NGC Registry | NGC (ngccoin.com) (proofs), Set Details | NGC Registry | NGC (ngccoin.com) (circulation strikes).

[J P M]

 I love it and say a PF 66 CAM

[rrantique]

PR65 Cameo

[Coinbuf]

PF65 no cam is my first thought.

[Rod D.]

PF64 CAM?  

[ldhair]

[Sandon]

   The PF 65 grade given by NGC decades ago is consistent with most of the responses as to the numerical grade. I don't think that NGC was giving proofs the CAM designation at that time.