Do either of these deserve PR01

[robec1347]

[TomB]

No, both are higher grade than that.

[bsshog40]

What does the "PR01" stand for?

[TomB]

I am assuming the poster means Poor-01, though I suppose one might strictly say the terminology is more appropriate for Proof-01.

[robec1347]

Poor 01. When you want them high, you can't get them and when you want them low, you can't get them low.

[braddick]

They both appear solid AG03's to me and possibly even GD04.

[WoodenJefferson]

 

PO-1 Identifiable date and type

FR-2 Mostly worn, though some detail is visible

AG-3 Worn rims but most lettering is readable though worn

G-4 Slightly worn rims, flat detail, peripheral lettering nearly full

G-6 Rims complete with flat detail, peripheral lettering full

 

I agree with Braddick and others...too much detail, ain't that weird to say that?

[bsshog40]

They both appear solid AG03's to me and possibly even GD04.

 

They look that to me also.

[robec1347]

I am assuming the poster means Poor-01, though I suppose one might strictly say the terminology is more appropriate for Proof-01.

 

The reason this "poster" used the term PR is revealed in this thread. PR or PO I had questions myself as you will read.

[robec1347]

If you look at the NGC Online Population Report, you will also notice that the first column is listed as PrAG.

[robec1347]

I am assuming the poster means Poor-01, though I suppose one might strictly say the terminology is more appropriate for Proof-01.

 

Here is an image of one. (not proof)

[michael]

no!!

 

carry them around in your pants pocket for another ten years or so and they should be poor one material but make sure that the date and mintmark area is readable

[robec1347]

Thanks Michael. I just might do that