history of proof coins

It's not a question of getting it right. It's a question of definitions, and which definitions a person (or the TPGs) choose to use. Example - here are the definitions of the words Specimen and Proof that PCGS uses.

Specimen Term used to indicate special coins struck at the Mint from 1792-1816 that display many characteristics of the later Proof coinage. Prior to 1817, the minting equipment and technology was limited, so these coins do not have the “watery” surfaces of later Proofs nor the evenness of strike of the close collar Proofs. PCGS designates these coins SP.

Proof A coin usually struck from a specially prepared coin die on a specially prepared planchet. Proofs are usually given more than one blow from the dies and are usually struck with presses operating at slower speeds and higher striking pressure. Because of this extra care, Proofs usually exhibit much sharper detail than regular, or business, strikes. PCGS recognizes Proofs (PR) as those struck in 1817 and later. Those coins struck prior to 1817 are recognized as Specimen strikes (SP).

Here are the definitions that NGC provides for the same two words.

SP - Specimen

Proof - a high-quality coin for collectors made in small numbers from specially prepared dies


As you can see, there is a lot left to be desired as to how the two different companies differentiate the two words. But as we all know, the two companies have long made a point of using different designations on their respective slabs. They do this quite intentionally in order to set themselves apart from one another. And yes I will agree that that practice does lead to and cause more than a little confusion to those who do not understand this.

However, to my point that Specimen and Proof are entirely different things and are not interchangeable or synonoumous, I will give you the following evidence.

Here for example is an article on the NGC web site that clearly illustrates that NGC agrees that Proof and Specimen are two different things - http://www.ngccoin.com/gallery/jacklee.aspx Here is another - http://www.ngccoin.com/news/viewarticle.aspx?NewsletterNewsArticleID=229 - now clearly, if this coin were the same as a Proof NGC would have called it a Proof. But they did not, they called it a Specimen because it is different than a Proof.

And here is the difference, as NGC sees it, between Specimen and Proof -

Proof coins will be so noted with the use of the prefix PF for all grades 1 through 70. Less commonly, but where appropriate, coins displaying proof characteristics indicative of special handling that are not true proofs are described with the grade prefix PL, prooflike, or SP, specimen. - http://www.ngccoin.com/coingrading/grading-scale.aspx
Also, it is important to note that NGC will also use SP (specimen) to designate certain varieties, as clearly illustrated by this article - http://www.ngccoin.com/news/viewarticle.aspx?IDArticle=2265


Now given all of this, and there is a ton more, do I understand why some people are confused ? Absolutely. The TPGs intentionally use the SP or Specimen designation differently. So it's bound to confuse people. But the evidence that Proof and Specimen are indeed two different things, and that it has always been that way, is plain to see for those who take the time to study.

So to use your words - to get in your head - you have to know all of this, and more.

 

But the designation on the slab does not define the different types of coins. It doesn't even define them for the TPGs. And I don't deny that they (the TPGs)are inconsistent in this regard, never did. In fact I even agreed with your point on that.

My only point is that a Specimen coin and Proof coin are two entirely different things. And on that point, NGC and PCGS both agree with me. So does pretty much every other numismatist and numismatic author in the world.

 

No, I did not state that you were an imbecile. I was asking an honest question. The difference between those 2 coins is obvious to me, but it is not necessarily obvious to everyone else. I believe that with the 2 coins in question, one is indeed a Specimen and the other is indeed a Proof.

Now you said that the coin in question had a mintage of only 500 coins. But are you aware that that same coin was minted no less than 6 different ways ? For that 1 coin there is KM #133, KM #E33, KM #E34, KM #E35, KM # PE9a, and KM # PE9. And it was minted in 3 different metals, copper/nickel, silver and gold.

Granted, both slabs indicate the repsective coins are KM #E34, but when it comes to world coins it is not uncommon at all for NGC and PCGS to make mistakes regarding the KM numbers. Nor is it uncommon for slab label mistakes to be made. Either of those is possible.

However, I ignored all that. Instead I based my opinion on the look of the coins - the NGC coin appears to have a Proof finish and the PCGS coin appears to have a Specimen strike finish. Thus my comments.

Even so, as I have stated already, the slab designations do not really mean anything.

And no, I have not changed my "song and dance" in any way.