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

Yes, that is what I'm looking at. It says it was struck for royal presentation, but does not list it as a proof. I have the 35th edition, so it may have been updated to proof in a newer edition and I wouldn't know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Unfortunately, THAT IS THE CASE here. I didn't know if NGC made an error either until I looked the coin up and posted the information in a later edition of Krause above (Post#12).

 

As with most things, newer editions of the same reference USUALLY have better, more accurate information. Anyone here disagree with this generalization?

 

They are not the same. For these coins, it appears that the "Proofs" are thick, weigh more, and were struck for presentation. The follow-up (in a newer edition of Krause) mentions pieces (with a mirror surface like a Proof) struck with a very slightly modified die on thinner planchets. These are considered MS. Looks like that is what the OP has.

All one needs to do to understand this is to look at modern foreign bullion (Australia and China for example) where coins that look like Proofs w/DCAM relief are considered MS pieces.

This confirms the long held belief (as you and others point out) that Proof is a METHOD OF MANUFACTURE; yet an identical 'look" can be achieved on a coin without it being produced as an actual Proof strike.

 

I thought NGC made a mistake as the OP's coin looks like a Proof. Then I decided to CMA and look it up in Krause. As a result, I posted this:

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.[/QUOTE] ...(that look like Proofs and fooled me).

Sorry for any confusion due to my ignorance!

 

That's fine, but how does this definition of the method of manufacture help you when all you have to go by is the appearance of the coin in your hand?

 

BINGO! That's the point! In many cases, no one besides the people who made the actual specimen know for 100% certainty all the time. The 17th and 18th Century mint workers are DEAD. Records are sparse. Proof die were often used to make MS coins. Intent? Who knows?

That is why many of the old timer's (I quoted one of them and he got disparaged for an opinion he had in the 1970's) believed: "If it looks like a Proof, it is."

As for the OP's coin. We have printed evidence of what the coin is. Is Krause correct? Is the coin in the NGC holder thick or thin (we cannot tell)?

 

"If you look at it, it's a barn...If you smell it, it's a stable"

 

So then if the definition of the method of manufacture of a proof isn't actually helpful as a diagnostic tool for determining if a coin is or is not a proof, it's not really relevant to this discussion.

The question, I believe, is that when a TPG looks at a proof-like coin, how do they determine if it should be PF, SP, MSPL, or just plain MS?

My belief is that you'll get the proof (or SP, depending) designation if you've submitted documentation (such as the coin being submitted in a proof set, or other provenance) indicating it's a proof, or if the coin was only ever struck as a proof based on information on the type in the relevant major numismatic text. If that's not the case, then they may go by mint records for the date (from whatever source) to see if proofs were recorded as being struck and make an educated guess, or you might get lucky and there may be die markers that indicate it is from proof dies (if only proofs were struck from those dies). If there is no conclusive evidence, you may get proof-like, or you may get nothing.

Here's an example:
1912 Austrian Corona KM-2820 (1912-1916)



This is the first year struck for this type. The coin is extremely well struck with frosted devices and mirrored surfaces. I've never come across another proof-like example of this type, let alone this date. Proof-like examples are more readily available for the equivalent Hungarian types, and those examples do not have frosted devices. To me, this is a proof. As far as I know, no mention of proofs exist in the mint records.

I submitted this coin to NGC and here were the results:


I took the coin to several world dealers and my LCS to get some opinions, and every single person I spoke to said they thought the coin was a proof.

I resubmitted it to NGC for designation review and here's what I got back:


I've had similar experiences with 8 other coins, a couple of which I consider to be proofs, and the rest of which I consider to be proof-like. Some got the PL designation, others did not. I can't help but think they might just be guessing, but they are very reluctant to give out a PF based on the appearance of the coin alone without documentation to support that proofs were struck.

 

Sorry to hear about your experiences. All the TPGS's make mistakes and I don't speak for them. We can only talk about specifics such as the "errors ?" you have posted.

You are a smart fellow; however, your first sentence is above is wacky. Therefore, I don't wish to take a simple, easy to understand, long-held, concept and write further on the subject of Proofs. Figure it out for yourself. Then, write or call someone who cares. Someone who may benefit from your experience and who may wish to help you in some way (refund?). I guess that would be NGC.

 

Wouldn't SP be a better designation in that case?

 

...or thin Proof. IMHO, the TPGS throw "Specimen" on the label of any coin that looks different - in some cases even when the mint making the coin calls them Mint State.

 

Not sure why you say this. The OP is clearly asking why NGC is labeling the coin MS instead of PF. To answer this question one needs to determine NGC's process for determining whether or not a coin gets the proof designation. As all they will typically have to go on is the appearance of the coin and we've already established that you cannot tell if a coin is a textbook definition proof by its appearance, the textbook definition of a proof is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

I'm not complaining about my experience with NGC, rather illustrating that identifying a proof is not straightforward, as you cannot tell the method or intent with which a coin was struck. The evidence I have presented is intended to speak to NGC's inconsistency in identifying proofs (or at least proof-like coins), and to speculate on why that is.

 

Here's another example from NGC similar to the OP's. Much like the OP's coin, all slabbed examples I have seen of this particular restrike are MS and not PF, and I don't have a clear answer as to why.



This coin is an Artex restrike. Not all Artex restrikes are proofs, although the vast majority are. This particular coin, however, had only two types of restrikes recorded in the Artex records, a proof and a matte proof. In fact, the distinguishing diagnostic of these restrikes versus the originals (since they are unmarked restrikes) was that in 1967 when these were struck, Hungary had the technological capability to strike proofs in aluminum, and in 1945 they did not.

 

Unfortunately, there is no "face" to express my frustration with this thread.

@Jaelus You are 100% correct. As you wrote: "The textbook definition of a proof is therefore irrelevant to this discussion." For the OP's coin ONLY its thickness is the determination.

Apparently, NGC has a copy of Krause (WHICH I QUOTED FROM) that says when these coins are on a thin planchet they are CONSIDERED TO BE MINT STATE and NOT PROOF! I don't know if what is in Krause is true. I don't know if the coin is thin or thick. I can see that the coin has a mirror surface, even in the holder.

As to other coins posted on this thread: I do know there are certain characteristics usually found on Proof coins. I do know that the diagnostics found on many Proof issues are documented by researchers. I do know that the professionals at TPGS are not perfect. I do know that many professional dealers in foreign coins know MUCH LESS than you would think.

This is not complicated! If the OP and the rest of you have questions about ANY coins that have been graded by a TPGS; CALL THE SERVICE and ask them. If you don't get satisfaction, use another TPGS. Simple.

 

There's truth to that, but when MS coins do actually exist isn't it better to do that then have them all grouped together? In my opinion it is a better alternative then ruining the MS pops when actual MS do exist as well