New decimals graded by PCGS

[r9453]

As far as I can tell, this coin is not included in any registry sets:

http://www.pcgs.com/pop/valueview.aspx?s=532704

http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/composite.aspx?c=5804

[ausjack]

Gee the 2005 proof $1 has a funny mark under the queens nose so I'm surprised it got a 68.

[autocoupler]

Gee the 2005 proof $1 has a funny mark under the queens nose so I'm surprised it got a 68.

Looks like a 1 -0 suicide to me AJ.

BTW, probably showing my ignorance here, but what is the significance of the coin topic of this thread. No 2005 proofs, is that it? Easy to see I'm not into decimal proofs

[Unicorn]

Auto, I think the importance of the 2005 $1 MOR proof is that the 2005 proof set had the Dancing Man $1. The 2005 $1 Mob Of Roos proofs were found inside a few 2006 proof sets. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong).

[ausjack]

I'm not 100% but think Uni is on the money and no MOR only dancing man were meant to be minted :good:

[trout]

I'm not 100% but think Uni is on the money and no MOR only dancing man were meant to be minted :good:

Spot on AJ, there are only a handful of these "Mules" so far discovered and are so much rarer than the 2000 mule.

[autocoupler]

Auto, I think the importance of the 2005 $1 MOR proof is that the 2005 proof set had the Dancing Man $1. The 2005 $1 Mob Of Roos proofs were found inside a few 2006 proof sets. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Thank's team. The blog reports a population of 40, so being such a small number, I suppose it wouldn't matter too much if the coin was removed from the proof set, or would it?

[r9453]

I don't think it would matter, as far as I know it could only come from that set. I guess some people would claim a premium for the set in tact.