1990 No S Proof in Circulation

Would it be possible to find a 1990 no S proof in circulation and if so, how would you be able to tell it apart from regular strike 1990 Philly penny?

I mean, are the letters on the back different in size or shape? Just how does one make the distinction between the 2?

Any help would be appreciated! Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Proofs will always look different until they're in really poor shape.

With that said, I've found one proof cent in over $2k searched... so you have an idea of the odds of finding that particular proof cent.

 

Fair enough, but would it look something like this?

 

No, that's just a nice circulation philly strike.

 

How can you tell?

 

I just noticed something....Abe seems to be wearing a Jimmy Carter type smile in that picture! lol :goofer:

 

A Proof would have stronger frosting in the raised surfaces and a shinier finish in the fields.

 

This. It would look like... a proof. That doesn't resemble one at all.

 

I see, and so this same 20 year old circulated coin would have a back like, i mean...reverse...like this perhaps?



I'm just asking...how are the 2 different strikes different other than appearance? IF a proof found it's way into circulation is there no way to tell that it was once a proof coin after passing though so many hands and losing it's frost and luster?

 

Even after being in circulation for a few weeks...or maybe even months or maybe even years? It would still retain those same features?

 

Ok, these aren't the best pictures, sorry. I think this one is a little better, but your statistical probabilities will still say nay... I guess there are arrogant people in all walks of the internet just as there are in real life....I mean, if you don't know how to tell the 2 apart other than "frost" and "luster" and other abstract words, then just say so. All I was asking was if there was anything different from the 2 strikes other than the obvious.

 

I think you just answered the original question... you want to know if it's a rare proof 1990s Lincoln missing the "s" mintmark. If a proof were in circulation and the luster/frost wore off enough to look like that coin, it would no longer be viewed as a proof. If it's not viewed as a proof, it's not a 1990s proof Lincoln -s.

 

Why wouldn't it? It would still be the same coin, missing the same mint mark that it should have had....but just because someone needed gas or tax for bread, that turns the coin into a Philly minted coin? otay....

 

are the proofs still 2.5g copper/zinc or 3.1g copper?

 

Thank you. There is some information that I didn't know. And I still don't ...really... because you seem to be asking the question too.

But yeah, THAT'S what I was trying to get at. Surely the 2 aren't exactly the same in every respect except that one glows frostily and lustrous and the other does not....

 

This is the last time that I'm replying to this thread, as it's starting to feel like you won't stop asking until someone tells you that you have something that you don't. It's not impossible for a 1990s no-"s" proof Lincoln cent to end up in circulation. What you have is not a 1990s no-"s" proof Lincoln cent. You have a 1990p non-proof Lincoln cent.

Proof coins result from specially treated dies multiple striking specially selected planchets. The result of this is deep mirrored fields and highly frosted devices. Due to this process, it would take a great deal of circulation (or rubbing) to remove the frost from the devices. The fields would dull faster than the devices would dull. Why? The fields go from polished to dull. The devices would need to go from frosted to polished to dull. The amount of wear necessary for this to happen would cause a coin to drop out of the PR-60 - PR-70 range of grades. Proof coins that grade below PR-60 with nothing to distinguish them from another Circulation issued coin would grade as a Circulation coin.

You don't have a proof Lincoln, period. You can keep asking the same question and trying to turn your circulation 1990 Philadelphia Lincoln Cent into a proof 1990 San Francisco Lincoln Cent without mintmark, but the end result will be the same: You own a 1990 Philadelphia Lincoln Cent.

 

Yes. The process of making a proof is different from making a business strike. Those features are very obvious until the coin is very worn.

 

Quote edited.
That wasn't the question I asked....


Here is the question I asked:

When did I say that I had 1990 proof? I do not see that in any of my posts. I suppose that merely asking a question around here and one gets "branded"....nice forum....or rather nice people ON the forum.

I asked a question. All I got was a couple of abstract answers, which I didn't ask for or require. I DO KNOW how to look at a coin in it's mint state and tell if it is a proof coin or not. THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION. But I suppose to a couple of you, it was. I apologize for my impreciseness. I merely wanted to know if there were any differences in the coins that would differentiate them from each other BESIDES the fact that "one's a proof and the other isn't" type of answer. I guess I came to the wrong place if I was looking for intelligent conversation....my bad.

 

Dude, have you ever seen a proof? If you have, well, that's what a proof looks like. They maintain that look even after considerable time in circulation, the fields still remain somewhat mirror-like.

Also, c'mon, you started posting pics of some MS 1990 cent... you clearly posted this thread because you were hoping that was a '90 Proof without the S. Don't backtrack now.

 

Have you ever handled a proof coin with your bare hands? Just answer that please.