| Author |
 Replies: 17 / Views: 465 |
|
Valued Member
Canada
51 Posts |
Picked up a new one for me. Pristine back proof from an 1898 DoC banknote. It wasn't terribly expensive and it is so nice and clean and crisp. Why not right? Maybe some day I'll find a way more expensive front proof to match up with it! Lev   |
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
55923 Posts |
Very attractive, congrats!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7059 Posts |
Beautiful - always liked the Canadian currency designs.
The slabbed Half dollar No G farce: Download No-FG half vs. Grading Company Claims report here: https://tinyurl.com/yalrstjz or higher resolution version: https://tinyurl.com/y7rksxu8- How much squash could a Sasquatch squash if a Sasquatch would squash squash? |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
8345 Posts |
Nice one!
Colour so intense.
How are you sure it is 1898 not 1911?
Is there a difference?
"Dipping" is not considered cleaning... -from PCGS website |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
4079 Posts |
Quote:
How are you sure it is 1898 not 1911? It says 1898 in pencil on the other side!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
8345 Posts |
Seriously? Even PMG cannot tell the difference. I'm genuinely curious. "Dipping" is not considered cleaning... -from PCGS website |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1264 Posts |
This design was used for both 1898 & 1911 so the PMG holder is labelled correctly: DC-13/18 ND (1898-1911)It's a shame that the "1898" has been written on the front (IMO) but that was sometimes what the printers did. That is the odd thing with PMG is that a note can have staple holes or writing on it (usually courtesy signatures from bank officials) & they still award 'EPQ' though its no longer original & top grades (unlike BCS). Edited by walk2dwater
02/27/2021 5:22 pm
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
51 Posts |
I don't mind the 1898 written on the other side. I'd assume it was written originally and not after the fact by someone later. Seems likely anyways. I'm quite happy with how it all looks. And yeah it could be for either year in theory but I'm going with 1898 since it's written on there. I just like how crisp and clean it is compared to most notes you buy from back then.
Lev
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
8345 Posts |
That back design ("one outward ") was not used until mid 1903, so it was likely not engraved before that year nor printed before that time.
1898 notes printed before mid 1903 used a back design ("one inward ") similar to the 1897 note.
I hope walk2dwater can answer my next question.
Is the 1897 back proof identical to the early 1898 back proof?
"Dipping" is not considered cleaning... -from PCGS website |
|
Valued Member
Canada
51 Posts |
Most proofs I've seen have had notes on the back from the printer. Granted not always the year, but I don't think it's unusual. If it was the new back proof for the 1898 banknote, regardless of which year it was printed, it's not much of a stretch to expect them to write 1898 on the back. It would have looked more odd to have 1903 written on it when there is no 1903 note. :). Either way I'm just happy to have a little piece of history.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
51 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1264 Posts |
Quote:
Is the 1897 back proof identical to the early 1898 back proof? 1897 is DC-12 or P-22 so I doubt it. The back proof should look something like the back of this note: http://www.banknote.ws/COLLECTION/c.../CAN0022.htmSame central parliament vignette scene but no "ONE" inwards nor outwards such as seen in DC-13a & DC-13b. Quote:
That back design ("one outward ") was not used until mid 1903, so it was likely not engraved before that year nor printed before that time.
1898 notes printed before mid 1903 used a back design ("one inward ") similar to the 1897 note. - I agree with DBM that the OP back proof was likely produced in the 1900's for DC-13b (Not the 1898 DC-13a) so the spurious writing on the front is incorrect/distracting (except for Series year). But the back of the 1897 is only similar in terms of the central vignette of Parliament. The 1898 adds the "ONE" which initially curve inwardly (with DC-13a) and then curve outwardly with DC-13b. So just to clarify what DBM posted take a look at the backs of DC-13a: http://www.banknote.ws/COLLECTION/c.../CAN0024.htmNow take a look at the backs of DC-13b: http://www.banknote.ws/COLLECTION/c...AN0024A2.htm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1264 Posts |
Quote:
I'd guess this is a previous sale of the same proof.
You can guess all you like (& we will never know). But honestly, that auction site is like a pawn shop & there will be other back proofs out there or they wouldn't be priced in that range. Anyway, it's a nice one & you are fortunate to have it graded so generously by PMG. Congrats!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
4699 Posts |
Most essays, proofs, and some specimens were all mounted on cards or have tape problems or writings that is what they where created for studying so I guess the TPG ignore small problems although I agree a lofty 67 grade is not justify, still a cool note, now you have to find the front half, good hunting ! |
|
Valued Member
Canada
51 Posts |
Yeah I'm familiar with the inward and outward ones as well as the 1897 issue as I have at least one of each in my collection. I bought this more because I thought it was cool than because I wanted the grade. I would have been just as happy with 65 as 67 on the holder. Besides PMG is notoriously high on their grading anyways. Not really sure that it makes much of a value difference on a back proof 65 versus 67? Here's the backs of the ones I have currently. The 1897 is in pretty rough shape because I'm too cheap to buy a higher grade one. Lol.   |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
8345 Posts |
Very nice collection!
"Dipping" is not considered cleaning... -from PCGS website |
|
Replies: 17 / Views: 465 |
|
Posted 02/27/2021 2:02 pm
