## HYPOTHETICAL PROOFS

### HYPOTHETICAL PROOFS

Greetings. I hope I'm in the proper section for this hypothetical. I am looking at three 1880 Morgan Proofs, all graded by NGC. All three are good looking coins, however, 2 are graded "PF unc details-cleaned", and the other is graded "Proof 61". The 2 details proofs can be had for the same money as the problem free Proof 61. So my quandry is Door #1 or Door #2? Which would you choose, and why? Thanks

### Re: HYPOTHETICAL PROOFS

Skip the details coins when you can. There are times when you can't, but this is not one of them.

### Re: HYPOTHETICAL PROOFS

Details coins= problem coins, cleaned etc, are generally valued around 50% of a NON DETAILS coin, and

collectors shy away from them when possible

Some Details coins are pretty nice while others are harshly /improperly cleaned and worth much less

if salable period

collectors shy away from them when possible

Some Details coins are pretty nice while others are harshly /improperly cleaned and worth much less

if salable period

### Re: HYPOTHETICAL PROOFS

A coin is graded PR61 is usually a problem coin, showing lots of hairlines from historic TLC (i.e., frequent wiping), so there may be little to no difference among the three coins. The safest bet for liquidity is typically to avoid a "details" holder, but they might be nicer looking than the PR61.

Tough call without seeing them all, of course, but I would probably avoid all three and buy something graded at least PR63.

Tough call without seeing them all, of course, but I would probably avoid all three and buy something graded at least PR63.

Welcome to the VAMWorld 2.0 discussion boards. R.I.P. old VAMWorld.

### Re: HYPOTHETICAL PROOFS

As a coin dealer, I agree with JB. Proof 61s are generally “hazy” looking. Proof 63 and preferably 63 Cameo are the first level where proofs really resemble proofs. Of course the price tag will be considerably more but save your money for a real looker. Some 63 Cameos are gorgeous.

### Re: HYPOTHETICAL PROOFS

Thanks guys for all the ideas and info. Sounds like "problem free" is the clear winner so far, but that "unc details-cleaned" sure looks good until viewed @ 40X. There were no pics in my original hypothetical, but as you may have guessed, there was some reality. I made the hypo 1-dimensinal as I had only one quandry at first, problem v no problem. If I pull the trigger, I'll try to get some pics up. Thanks Again

- CascadeChris
**Posts:**2507**Joined:**Mon May 28, 2018 10:41 pm

### Re: HYPOTHETICAL PROOFS

A proof 61 is still a problem coin. In this instance the name of the game is "which is the best looking problem coin given the issues" forget about what the labels say, treat them

*all*just as raw but verified authentic, and choose which has the best eye appeal, the best look -and by that I mean both the best overall look given the type of issues each has as well as.. which looks the most like a proof i.e. which has the most CAM/DCAM frost + most flashy (with as little impairment of the mirrors given the issue) so to speak- etc etc.Alonzi VW 2.0!

- CascadeChris
**Posts:**2507**Joined:**Mon May 28, 2018 10:41 pm

### Re: HYPOTHETICAL PROOFS

and never look at a coin under 40× to determine if you want to purchase it. That's crazy Walt. 🤨

Alonzi VW 2.0!

### Re: HYPOTHETICAL PROOFS

Proofs were all the major collectors used to put in the cabinets and they wiped and mishandled (per our current protocols) their coins as a manner of custom. Many proofs have often dismissed problems with fine cleaning lines and similar. When looking at proofs also, especially at certain TPGs, make sure they are indeed proofs. Fortunately, we can attribute the dies. And a graded PF61? If you want in a different service's plastic, be even more careful that it is problem-free. They might sometime give a pass on a raw proof with a little " cabinet friction", but I sense they are pickier when a crossover is submitted.

### Re: HYPOTHETICAL PROOFS

Its my eyesight Chris. You can probably see @ 10X what takes me 40X. It especially helps with those partial inclusions and clashes. Am I cheating?