Since I am starting to search boxes of rolls and have never actually gotten a proof coin to compare in real life, if I come across one in a roll of coins, is it going to stick out to me so that I can definitely tell that its proof? Is it immediately apparent that a coin is proof versus a general shiny?
Proofs after 1968 have an S mintmark, and most have very shiny fields and dull/frosty devices. You will be less likely to find old proof coins.
Depends on how good your eyes are. I actually got a 1971 Proof Washington Quarter in some change the other day, it had clearly been in circulation for a while but I knew immediately because of how it looked and it's reeded edges felt sharper (that's how I actually found it to pull for a second look, how it felt between my fingers because I dumped into my pocket first as I was still out and about).
i have a 1974-s cent. it's proof????? how about my 1973-s???? ALL proofs, regardless of denomination, were minted in san fran starting in 1975. between 1968 and 1974, the nickel, dime, quarter, and half were proof in san fran. the cent had business strikes and proof strikes during that time.
Probably should have been worded: "Starting in 1975, all coins that have an S mintmark are proof coins." But that's not exactly true anymore.
So basically what I'm hearing is that after a certain date, if it has an S mintmark, its probably proof then?
ASEs aren't coins, they're bullion. if the mint sold them for $1 each, i'd believe it's a coin. they sell them for melt (plus a premium), which means bullion. business strike coin means provided at a bank for face. now, show me a bank providing business stike ASEs for face, no premium.
I said that they WEREN'T minting Business Strike in San Francisco, but they are making ASEs that aren't proof.
And mint sets aren't sold for face value, they are sold for a premium. Does that mean that they aren't coins?