1990 No S Proof in Circulation

Probably a few dozen.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

So have I. And you know what I noticed? That nice precious mirror shine is reduced DRAMATICALLY. (Wears gloves now because of that..)

But that's ok, I'm sure you know far more than I do, after all, you have 1680 posts to my measly 80ish. My question still hasn't been answered, so until somebody who actually KNOWS something about WHAT if ANYTHING is different about the 2 coins posts an intelligent answer to my question, I suppose it will remain unanswered.

But I do appreciate your trying to help. Even if it didn't answer my question.

 

You must love touching the obverse and reverse then, I handle proofs bare-handed all the time and they are none worse for the wear... and even if I did accidentally touch them somewhere besides the rim, since I understand how to properly remove finger oils and other foreign material for the surfaces of coins, it's not a big deal.

Post count doesn't mean anything, post quality means everything... I've seen plenty of yours, and that's all I'm gonna say about that.

Lastly, I did answer your question... they maintain strong reflective qualities... the only proof quarter I've found in circulation, I only noticed because it was sitting on top of a bag and was reflecting a bit more light than the rest of the quarters in said bag. Your eye just isn't trained to spot that, therefore you must think it's impossible or something.

If you still don't accept that as an answer, how about this?

They typically have a much better strike.
The modern-era proofs are all S-minted.
The rims are square, but they can also be on circulation coins.

Need more proof (pun intended) that I'm right? Just go buy a proof set, toss it in your pocket for a few months, then pull them out and compare them to regular circulated coins... you'll still be able to tell.

 

If proofs are handled improperly, the mirror shine does go away. That is true. But, the strike characteristics of a proof do not. Even without the mirror, a proof can be distinguished. Most old proofs don't have the modern mirror finish, look at proof examples of coins from the 1800s. They are still obvious proofs...even without the cameo and mirror finish.

 

Amen Merc.

 

Ahhh Ok, so you know how to properly remove finger oils and other foreign material from the surface of coins....I suppose everyone does, and does that every time they run up on a proof coin in circulation, and then they just toss it right back in knowing that whoever handles it next will do the same, since a proof coin out circulating around the country will "maintain it's luster for some time.."

And your little quarter story, I'm not even gonna bother because "yours is" and "mine isn't" (which, btw, I never said my was to begin with, it was just for an example, but it sure got you going...) is just another argument freshly seeded.

 

I saw a professionally graded circulated proof morgan somewhere once. I think it was grade PF-50 or something. I thought that was kinda crazy. Only time I've seen something like that.

...a bit off topic, but this thread just reminded me.

 

Oh, just ignore my advice because it doesn't work out in your favor, I see how it goes.

By the way, it's called acetone, and it works typically within a day or so of the coins' surface being touched, sometimes longer... but you wait too long, and the oils will etch their way into the metal of the coin and the fingerprint will become a permanent mark.

But I don't know anything.

 

Perhaps it was an 1895, a year in which 1895's without a mint mark were ALL proofs...THAT is probably how they were able to tell it was a proof....

 

No, proofs carry certain strike characteristics that remain unless they circulate down to a very low condition. Since they know what they're looking for, it's easy to tell a proof from a circulation strike.

But I don't know anything.

 

Dang NOW I know why I can't remove this fingerprint from this coin...THANKS!

 

Coin Talk Rules –

1 - There will be absolutely no cursing or swearing allowed. Any words that wouldn't have been aired in a 1950s television show, are unwelcome here as well.

This is includes what some have come to do on a regular basis. Some people seem to think that replacing 1 or 2 letters of a word with a *, a #, or whatever other symbol, makes it OK to use bad language.



Well it doesn't ! Do you really think that using a $ in place of an S makes it so that people cannot see what the word is ?

Here's the deal, those members who continue to use symbols in place of letters resulting in language that is not permitted here are going to start receiving Infractions for their actions.

Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/showthread.php?t=34131

No one has to answer any question or remark directed to them, so keep quiet if you can't answer without cursing or being disrespectful.

Thanks

Jim
​

 

If you want straight answers, ask straight questions, dude. It's not a difficult concept.

Circulated proof Morgan Dollar for you;

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=1152&Lot_No=8969

Here's an even more circulated proof dollar;

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=1151&Lot_No=11490

Note it maintains some reflective qualities, even if they are "impaired". It's referred to as an impaired proof.

 

TazMage: many people have replied to this thread and tried to give you excellent, quality advice, but you contiously deny help.
Just slow down and listen to yourself. You asked your question, got an answer and asked the same question because you did'nt like the answer. And this peronal attacking of Merc, not cool. Take our advice and dont argue or dont ask at all.

 

Sure it would. It would be refered to as an "impaired proof".....

 

Exactly. What a lot of people don't understand is being a "proof" has nothing to do with the condition. A proof can be a PF70 or a PF8...the grade doesn't matter. Being a "proof" depends on how the coin is manufactured and that manufacturing process results in very specific characteristics being present on the coin. I suppose a proof coin could be worn so much that you could no longer distinguish it from a business strike...but it would have to be worn down to the AG3 level or worse probably.

 

I was thinking VGish would probably do it... on certain coins, F15-ish might be good enough.

 

It would depend on the coin. I might have been exaggerating a little bit. But, the point is...it takes a lot to make the evidence of a proof disappear. Also, some proofs have specific die makers that can help distinguish them even if greatly worn.

 

Tazmage, Is there another way you could ask your question, perhaps more specifically? Like, are you looking at something in particular? Cuz it seems you've got something tucked in your mind that won't let go, and maybe the folks answering are not figuring out what that is. Maybe? Sometimes the 'heat' just won't let us (well me sometimes) 'get' what it is others are telling, or trying to tell.

I think everyone IS trying to help by telling you what is obvious to them.

Lucy

 

Is it possible to find one - well. probably, but about as unlikely as you can get.

How can you tell - I am surprised no one has posted a picture. See if you can tell the difference