My new 1892 Columbian half. Kinda wondering what you might think.

[agentjim007]

First two photos are eBay sellers. My miserable photo abilities are responsible for the last 3. I felt from the colors on the seller photos especially on the reverse that they looked similar to toning I see on proofs. Turns out both sides are deep mirrors seller failed to mention ( tried to photo the reverse but not enough field for me to get a mirror shot and I barely could get one of the obverse). NGC has slabbed a bunch of PL but only 3 deep mirrors. Of course I've been daydreaming it's proof. It doesn't have proof rims but neither does the one pictured in PCGS coinfacts. Baring a no grade for some reason I'm thinking I should get a deep mirror. I don't think my pictures are good enough to convince they're deep mirrors but maybe someone can tell me something from these pictures. Thanks.

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

Looks like an attractive coin. Definitely not a proof, but I think you know that already - proofs are quite rare, and the strike would be much, much stronger on a proof.

 

I also don't think yours is a DPL. Those are also quite rare - even in your pictures, a DPL would be obvious.

 

But, I do think your coin has some prooflike tendencies. Looks like a nice coin!

 

Here is my 65 * PL for comparison. I think it got the star for the impressive deep mirrors and cameo contrast on the reverse.

 

[RWB]

No real Columbian half proofs were made. However, a bunch were struck from polished dies at the request of the sponsor. Same for the quarter. In both instances the Engraver specifically stated they are not proofs.

[CaptHenway]

Does not look like one of the so-called Proofs to me.

 

The die used for the so-called Proofs has a die scratch on the bottom of the mainsail, to the right of the mainmast, roughly halfway from the mainmast to where the mainsail intersects the railing and roughly parallel to the bottom of the mainsail. However, this die was also used to make business strikes, the early ones of which are Proof-Like.

 

If it does not have the die scratch it cannot be a so-called Proof.

 

It is my understanding that none of the major TPGs will call any Columbian half or Isabella quarter a Proof anymore.

 

TD

[agentjim007]

Thanks. First 3 responses are from people I know know what they're talking about, that helps. I knew there where no real proofs but only so called ( but one can dream ) and even though the mirrors are deeper than I can get in my pictures I'm sure I'm looking at a pl only. Still a happy purchase for 86 bucks.

[e1cnr]

A very attractive coin - if I sent it in, I would get either cleaned or art toned.

[MJ]

Thete are quite a few PL commems listed on the Pinnacle site if you are arent aware. The Waverly Collection. I know Jason collects PL coins

 

mark

[MarkFeld]

My guess is that the coin won't straight grade, due to questionable color.

 

Edited to add: The obverse color, in particular, looks artificial to me. And if that weren't enough, seeing where the coin came from, cinched it for me.

[coinman_23885]

QT

[mommam17]

The color does not look right to me. I would pass.....

[agentjim007]

Thanks for the input. When I said baring a no grade color is primarily what I was referring to, wild color is a gamble. If this coin cost me $860 instead of $86 it would have been back in the mail before I ever brought it up here. Even at $86 if I was convinced it was AT I would probably return it but each time I check it out I just can't get myself to think return, it's really a decent coin that apparently needs to be seen in hand to appreciate.

[MJ]

A very attractive coin - if I sent it in, I would get either cleaned or art toned.

 

I assumed from the pics that it was both.

 

mark

[numisport]

Looks like an attractive coin. Definitely not a proof, but I think you know that already - proofs are quite rare, and the strike would be much, much stronger on a proof.

 

I also don't think yours is a DPL. Those are also quite rare - even in your pictures, a DPL would be obvious.

 

But, I do think your coin has some prooflike tendencies. Looks like a nice coin!

 

Here is my 65 * PL for comparison. I think it got the star for the impressive deep mirrors and cameo contrast on the reverse.

 

What an incredible coin and great cameo. Unbelievable !

[WoodenJefferson]

I don't know quite what to tell you, but those splotchy areas of blue on the reverse is very suspect to me, like it had some sort of accelerated help to achieve this level of toning.

[Walkerfan]

Questionable but attractive toning.

[agentjim007]

Don't usually listen to the opinion here since I've seen it wrong more times than right but you talked me into returning.

[johnny9434]

pass, the color is not right for me. just saying

[e1cnr]

Don't usually listen to the opinion here since I've seen it wrong more times than right but you talked me into returning.

 

You are seeing in hand, which is always better than pics. I would have stuck to my guns and kept it, like you said $84.

 

I just checked who was seller - there is a guy ATS that has picked at least a couple proof Buffalo nickels selling as UNCs, from this group. Although many feel their coins are messed with, they also let quite a few through the cracks as described wrong and someone gets a deal.