All I Can Say Is.... Wow!

I agree with you Conder101 on the first (toned/tarnished) coin, but the second is ok. I bought mine for $2.25 so I'm not interested.

I do have one question though.........The Red Book does NOT LIST ANY PROOFS for 1938 (just P, D, & S). How did these coins get the PR designation?

The finishing is distinguishable on the field very much like the proof ASE, plus the strikes is much sharper. Although there are few early business strikes that have close to proof finishing, the strikes aren't as pronounce.

Yea I'm not too impressed. They are indeed nice coins, but the OP is too shiny all over... not enough frost.

Not to hijack this thread but a few comments got me thinking. For those that said they prefer proof coins with no toning I'm curious if that applies to 19th century proofs as well or is it only 20th and 21st century proofs where you feel that way? I'm asking because I've observed a number of times where there may be some kind of a psychological break point in the age of a coin and the acceptance of toning.

In my own case I too prefer that Mercury dime proofs not have toning. It just seems odd to me if they are toned. In my mind they should be bright, frosty, and free of any spots or toning. However on proofs from the 19th century a lack of toning makes me feel the coin is sort of artificial looking. As if there is no way a coin that old could not have some kind of toning.

Perhaps this is just my own perception but I'd be curious if others share similar experiences.

For example, those that say they prefer proofs coins to be free from toning what are your thoughts on these two Barber dime proofs? Both are the same year and where graded the same by PCGS, PR65.

Which do you prefer?

Speaking of WOW coins. Check out this one that posted today.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1867-PCGS-A...em2587b16128