Why do TPGs sometimes grade proof-only issues as MS?

https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/3838594-002/

This coin is a royal presentation piece, one of 200 minted. A proof only issue. Yet this and the other 11 examples in the NGC census are all graded as MS instead of PR. I'm trying to understand why this is, as it's not the first time I've seen this done.

Any insight is much appreciated

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Beats me. I don't think it's often they do this, since I don't run into it a lot. It's obviously not a mistake since all were graded this way you said. It could be due to one of the following:
- they know somehow it wasn't struck more than once, only with polished dies
- or the pressure was insufficient
- polishing was minimal

Those are some guesses. But I don't know anything about the coin, it's appearance, etc

 

Why don't you post your concerns on "Ask NGC"? Maybe it is just an oversight.

Chris

 

I haven't been using their forum, but worth a shot, thanks

 

Apparently they do not consider the proof quality good enough to be real proofs

 

I thought it was more about the preparation and striking process than the actual appearance of the final product

 

or that

 

Because they don't do their homework and don't realize it was a proof-only issue. That's my guess.

 

I just had one come back from NGC with an MS that is a proof for a restrike that had both proof and matte proof versions (but both only proofs). All of the ones I've seen have been graded MS as well.

 

BINGO!

 

Oh, sure! And, we have the same thing here.......people who don't do their homework!

I do know that NGC was working on an overhaul of some of their programs (Registry & Census) and they made it a point to let their members know that if they ran into any problems or inconsistencies to contact them.

Why do people jump to conclusions before they get the answer from the horse's mouth?

Chris

 

NOTE: A Proof is a Proof. This BS about number of strikes etc to determine a proof is ....

Krause reports coins made as "mint sports" (I'm sure NGC graders can read) exist from the same dies (which should produce PL coins like the OP) w/effaced "8" that are thin and lighter that are considered MS. I see no evidence of this in the OP's photo. HOWEVER, NGC had the coin in hand ...so, they MUST BE the thin restrikes.

 

Proof is a process, not a quality...I spoke without reading to the end...never mind

 

And then comes Roger Burdette's research that shows that the 19th and early 20th century proofs were struck just ONE time in the mint's Medal press. So I guess those proofs aren't proofs. And some early proofs used the same dies as the business strikes. In some cases AFTER they had been used for business strikes. So they weren't specially prepared dies.

 

Exactly. I don't agree with that definition either. Really what makes a proof a proof is the intent when it is struck.

If a mint decided to specially prepare their planchets and dies and strike their coins twice and then released them as business strikes, they would clearly be considered proof-like business strikes, not proofs. Likewise, if a specially prepared die strikes a specially prepared planchet once and the intent is to create a proof, it is clearly a proof.

But intent is hard to prove. All you have to look at is the coin most of the time. Here is where mint records and other knowledge about a type can help with the determination, especially with die markers. I've seen coins I would attribute as proofs that are attributed as proof-like, and vice versa. Why? Mint records for one don't indicate proofs were struck, and for another the records show proofs. But of course mint records aren't always reliable and there's no way to tell if a coin was actually intended to be a proof or is just a proof-like strike from proof dies intended to be a business strike, even if proofs were recorded as struck.

 

Julian Leidman once told me this: If it looks like a Proof, it is. That would make all the "early" Proofs easy to ID.

The accepted definition of the manufacture of a Proof as Doug posted is correct and Conder has posted more info. My point above is the OP's coin looks like a Proof strike. Apparently it is - just on a thin planchet and called MS.

 

Not exactly the best "appeal to authority" you could have chosen. A quick search of Cointalk will show the number of times he's been eviscerated here for his questionable and loose application of whatever terms he wants. Liedman is about as reliable as Breen for solid, researched, accurate information, in my opinion.

As to the OP, I'm guessing that the coin does not meet the traditional definition of proof as has been described in this thread. It is clearly a special presentation piece, but not a true proof.

Krause does not list this piece as a proof, either, just FYI.

 

Unfortunately, my post was misinterpreted. The "point" I wished to make was in the old days, things were much simpler and many professional numismatists believed that "If it looked like a Proof, it was - Proof enough - and worth a premium." J. Leidman was ONE of those dealers who felt that way. So, I get really frosted at all the "Johnny-come-lately" fellow numismatic researchers who like to bash their predecessors for errors made during a much simpler time.

Several noted "older" numismatists such as Leidman, Breen, Bressett, Newman, etc have made comments to me about the "proof status" of certain coins. I wish I had not used a name (JL) as ALL OF US HERE have made possible errors on specific pieces. Some of those NOT HERE have made contributions to numismatics far above the rehashed, well-known, "old" parroted stuff in your book! Which BTW, I have bought and highly recommend for beginners.

As to Krause not listing the coin as a Proof - check out KM#952.