My NEWP seated dollar proof

[CoinPictures-migration]

Many of you have probably seen this already across the street...

 

My local dealer had a number of early dollars come in over the counter a few weeks back and he sent them all into PCGS. The vast majority were sooooooo far out of my price range that it wasn't funny. As it is this one is roughly 5x the price of the most expensive coin I'd ever purchased prior to this, but after letting it roll around in my hand for a bit, I just had to have it.

 

The pictures aren't the greatest; I have a hard time capturing proofs. I shot it using angled glass to capture the color.

 

The obverse toning is what sold me on the coin.

 

What appears to be a long diagonal scratch at 6:00 on the reverse does not actually break the surface of the coin; in fact it's slightly raised. Die break? Planchet flaw?

 

Last year of the series. Fairly low mintage of 600 pieces.

 

The consensus amongst virtually all of the folks across the street, as well as myself, the dealer, and all the local people who have seen the coin in person is that it's a 64/65.

 

PCGS disagreed, and harshly called it a PR62. This is actually lucky for me, as had it been in a 64 or 65 holder, I could never have come close to affording it. I did pay a slight premium for the toning, but when all is said and done I'm into the coin for less than 63 graysheet.

 

Before I bought the coin I spent several hours going through the online archives of Stacks, Heritage, Bowers & Merena, and Teletrade, reading the descriptions and viewing photos. I realize that some of the auction pictures are subpar, and I will admit I am biased, but I like this PR62 better than every PR63 I found, without exception. So many of the PR62-63 coins I saw were heavily-dipped POS's with a dull, lifeless appearance, or had a LOT of distracting surface marks.

 

I speculate (most likely baseless, but why not?) that the graders treated the mark on the reverse as a scratch rather than as a die break or planchet flaw, and net graded the coin harshly.

 

All the appearance of a 64, but at less than half the cost. Works for me... it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people would crack this one out.

 

 

[123cents]

I guessed PR-64CAM ATS. It's a beauty.

[WoodenJefferson]

I have never seen such a coin in person, so I do not know how a proof 1873 Dollar should look. The graders seen or didn't see something we cannot...what that is will be hard to say, to bad the grading service does not have a short narrative to explain the findings to go with the grade on these super classics.

 

My eye is immediatly drawn to the mark on the reverse @ 6 AM. Whether it's raised or incused like a mar, it does take away from the superb eye appeal. There is also a nick off the end of the eagles beak...perhaps it was all this adding up that created just a measly PR-62...the obverse is stunning!

 

Image Opinion: PR-64 (no CAM because the revese may lack the contrast definition)

[TomB]

The image of the coin makes it appear quite lovely, however, I must ask if there are patches of hidden hairlines within the toning. If so, you know why the coin graded as it did.

[SkyMan]

Whatever the grade, it's a pretty coin!

[CarlWohlforth]

Nice! It looks neat to me, I would be happy to own it. Perhaps the fields are not super reflective? Perhaps (as Tom suggested) there are some hairlines? Hairlines might be difficult to see if they are under the toning - if that is the case they would not bother me a bit.

[SuperDave]

It's a gorgeous coin. I wonder if the mark on the reverse is a strikethrough string or something? It seems to go through the "O," which is unlikely for a die crack.

[CarolinaCollector]

Lovely proof... I think many 19th century proofs are underrated in term of price.

[23Pairer]

Gorgeous coin. Who cares what the graders say..........you bought the coin for its eye appeal, I assume, and it practically takes your breath away. Congrats.

[CoinPictures-migration]

Nice! It looks neat to me, I would be happy to own it. Perhaps the fields are not super reflective? Perhaps (as Tom suggested) there are some hairlines? Hairlines might be difficult to see if they are under the toning - if that is the case they would not bother me a bit.

 

The fields are quite reflective; definitely a mirror proof even thought the photos above do not indicate such.

 

There are some hairlines, although not visible to the naked eye. Under 10x they start to appear. Then again, I cannot tell the difference between hairlines and die polish lines; they seem very similar.

 

I compared this coin with an 1870 seated liberty quarter, NGC PF63 CAMEO (old fatty holder), under a stereo microscope, at 20x and 40x, and saw similar surfaces on both coins.

 

To the naked eye, this coin exhibits no lines other than the 2 marks on the reverse indicated on the photos. I haven't shown the coin to anyone yet whose reaction wasn't "Wow!"

 

But if it were a no-problem 64, it would have easily cost double what I paid for the piece, so I ain't complainin'

[Hoot]

This is a spectacular coin. I think you lucked out finding a piece that had a tough grade assigned to it. I also agree about the hairlines, but what strikes me the most is the contrast between the high and low points of the major devices. Since the coin has a cameo contrast, any minor rub on the high points (cabinet friction or envelope friction) will show readily, as will shiny spots in the devices where the frosting on the die was impaired or incomplete. I believe this is why the coin was graded 62.

 

If you peruse the population reports, you'll notice that fewer cameo or deep cameo attributed coins are found in high grade, compared to their brilliant counterparts. This is simply due to the fact that these coins show off minor marks and rub in the frosted devices than brilliant coins.

 

Again, a terrific piece and one to be quite pleased with for the long term.

 

Hoot

[James_OldeTowne]

Breathtaking coin, and I'm really glad you posted it here as well as ATS. Otherwise, I never would have seen it (I almost never venture ATS). Mind-boggling beauty!

[shirohniichan]

Beautiful coin (and an interesting year to boot!)

 

Perhaps this coin would have cost you more out of the holder.

[MikeKing]

What a beautiful coin! Congratulations on obtaining this

[Tradedollarnut]

Perhaps this coin would have cost you more out of the holder.

 

Sometimes the holder has positive value, sometimes negative. The coin is always worth the same.

[BillJones]

I think that you got a bargain. A goodly number of the Proof Seated Dollars that I see in PR-63 and lower holders have been cleaned to death. Their surfaces are dull and have no life. I purchased one in a PCGS PR-63, Cameo holder a couple of years ago. I had to pay way over Gray Sheet “ask” for it.

 

The thing I liked about it was that it had original surfaces and not been dipped. The toning was fairly thick, especially on the reverse, but overall it pleased me for the price. So far as the Cameo was concerned, my guess is that the graders gave it that to it because they were debating whether or not to call it a PR-64. The obverse had some cameo features, but I couldn’t see any cameo on the reverse.

 

Your coin does have some marks, but the overall look is of an original coin. It may have been dipped long ago, but if it was, it has certainly recovered nicely. For a PR-62, it’s a great looking coin.

[Tradedollarnut]

Nice looking coin, but I know from first hand experience one can't accurately comment on the grade of a proof coin from an image. This coin is graded PR63:

 

[EZ_E]

WoW...!!! This is an incredible type coin. What an opportunity buy! Anyone would be proud to own it!

[Bruceswar]

Nice looking coin, but I know from first hand experience one can't accurately comment on the grade of a proof coin from an image. This coin is graded PR63:

 

 

 

 

 

Smokin Coin TDN! Eeverytime I go look at your collections I have to pick my jaw up off the floor.

[rexcat]

CoinPictures, that’s one really really awesome dollar!

 

That's a very hard coin to find because of the value, the high power stuff (you know, PF65CAM, PF66, etc.) in 19th century proof can be found all over the place, perhaps its price.

 

But nice looking proofs in affordable grades don’t stay for sale long, they get grabbed up fast, only an ugly PF63 coin sits long,(and finally end up getting dumped in a Teletrade auction ).

 

 

I’ve yet to be able to add a proof seated dollar to my type set but finding a nice looking PF62 is something I do keep an eye out for, a coin that grades and looks like my 1883 Trade dollar would fit quite nicely into the set.

[CoinPictures-migration]

Thanks for all the comments. While I initially had major trepidations about buying a coin this expensive, the more time goes on and the more feedback I get, the happier I am about having made the purchase (although I suppose that if I were being told that I got hosed and that the coin is a POS I'd be jumping off a tall building right about now ). Validation is good for the soul.

 

I did just find out that two of the local "serious" collectors were more than a little peeved that the coin sold so quickly. Oh well. They had an opportunity to purchase the coin upon seeing it, but decided to wait, pending doing more research. I came in later in the day, had the coin in hand 15 minutes, made a spur-of-the-moment judgment call, and for better or worse bought the piece.

 

As I found out this morning upon losing out on an opportunity for a very nice commem, the old adage is as true today as ever: "You snooze, you lose."

 

What I like most about the coin is that while it may not have the technical merits of "gem" pieces (like the drool fodder that TDN is used to dealing with ), it has lots of eye appeal and plenty of mirror reflectivity. It's not "dead" looking like the majority of 62-63 pieces I've seen. Perfect type set material and a better date to boot.

 

Given the huge jump in price for better pieces ($4,750 in PR64 and $9,400 in PR65 according to graysheet, let alone real world prices), I think the amount it would cost to "upgrade" to a more visually attractive piece would be insane. (Ya gotta remember that the most expensive coin I'd ever bought before this was under $500, so when I see these numbers it's frightening ).

 

EDIT: I never realized this, but an astute friend pointed out that most of the lettering in the motto on the reverse is doubled, especially prominent in "In God". Was this true of all of the pieces, given the low mintages?