Canada seems to pump out some nice proof-like coins. I remember reading from various threads that proof dies were used to make MS proof-like coins. But I also came across a site that claims that you can tell a proof version of the 1964 Canada dollar by looking at the fine "dimpling on the shoulder" (excerpt from the site below): "1964 dollars exist as specimen strikes from official specimen sets, and usually have a deep cameo, with very good strikes lacking the find [sic] dimpling on the shoulder seen on Proof-like strikes" http://www.calgarycoin.com/modern/cddollar.htm Is this dimpling referring to the bottom perimeter of the bust? I can see in one example from Numista's page that the bust's bottom area is noticeably flatter than most other examples - is that a proof? (first image below) Whereas, a TPG graded example shows an angled bottom area (I'm not sure which TPG but it looks like an older grading and I'm not sure how reputable they are). Thanks in advance! Pics from the 'net.
I ran across this paragraph on an internet page about Canadian PL coins using regular (business strike) dies: When striking proof-like coins the mint used regular dies, often ones used previously. The dies were cleaned and sometimes pickled in a bath of dilute nitric acid. The acid bath left a fragile 'bloom' that could easily be scraped off. The dies were then polished. This polishing removed the bloom from the fields but not from the devices. When the coins were struck the bloom produced cameo-like devices on polished fields. The pressure of striking quickly caused the bloom to wear off and the cameo effect to fade. The first coins to be struck (maybe only the first 3 to 5) developed what we now call an ultra-heavy cameo appearance. With the pressure and friction of striking each successive coin had somewhat less contrast. Later coins were heavy cameo and this rapidly wore to a cameo effect. Even this wore quickly and the vast majority of proof-like coins do not exhibit any contrast between the devices and the fields, even for exceptional high grade pieces.
Would this be a proof-like or a proof coin? I'm not sure what to make of it... the mirroring is so strong, the strike is great, cameo is good, too. Is this simply an early struck proof-like coin? Or is this a proof example?
Probably PL - you can see the heavy die polish lines on the reverse by the D, under the U, and between the L L. Other than that it's kinda hard to tell unless you get them in a proof set or graded
That is a textural term, used to describe the lower shoulder of the Queen which is almost never struck fully, even in Proof-like (PL) strikes. The early effigy of Queen Elizabeth II has considerable relief, and it takes a lot for a full strike. Compare a 1964 specimen strike: http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/coinfacts.aspx?i=1264211&sid=6914 To a 1964 proof-like strike: http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/coinfacts.aspx?i=98355&sid=6914 Other years, like 1956 and 1957 are impossible to find without that dimpling on the Queen's shoulder. http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/coinfacts.aspx?i=230619&sid=6914 In summary, the lack of dimpling on the specimen strikes is because they were fully struck. Note that these images are not my coins, they were just easy to use to explain the OP's question.
Here is the same analogy, but with my coins (I collect nickel dollars). With this effigy is the cheek and garment folds at the shoulder that are poorly struck, or 'dimpled' - that is not a term I use. Proof-like http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/coinfacts.aspx?i=1825221&sid=124574 Specimen http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/coinfacts.aspx?i=2025159&sid=137216 Business strike http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/coinfacts.aspx?i=1433627&sid=82059
So the second coin in the first post is in fact not a proof? That TPG seems to have missed that dimpling part...
