ANACS vs NGC

That has never been a definition I agreed with. If you think what happens to a stinking 5-cent piece struck for commerce and what happens to make a Lions Club non-proof dollar bear any resemblance to each other, I can't help you other than to SMH.

In fact, I'd wager the differences between what happens to proof vs. non-proof collector pieces is MUUUUUCH smaller than the difference between the two things you want to put under the name "business strikes".

Actually, I've been on record for at least 23 years now advocating that we should be calling them what they are - Matte proofs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I completely agree, Kurt. I wish the Mint would return to the ORIGINAL Matte proofs like the Buffalo nickels or the earlier Lincoln cents, but I believe that the modern "frosted" proofs have complicated things in recent years.

 

I think they have, especially starting with the 1994 nickel in the Jefferson C&C set, but they have an aversion to calling them what they are, a typical governmental aversion.

 

Here we go ...You are 100% correct. Even bullion SE are not "business strikes."

So, I'll correct my original post: "I've personally examined thousands of perfect coins in TPGS slabs and raw at magnifications much higher than 10X while looking for a single microscopic flaw (hairline, spot, nick, mint-made struck thru, etc.) so I could trash the coin! Note: Mint-made marks are allowed on 70's. But none of them were "Business strikes."

 

I agree 100%. And what makes the whole situation doubly disheartening are the 70's that eventually grow "stuff" that makes them not 70's, much like the Wickersham Brothers in Horton Hears a Who sang of - Who's who are not.

 

You likes big honkin' teefs, does ya? Girl gotz what look like a hunnert big ol' teefs.

 

Which is 100 percent the mints fault and their garbage pump stuff out for money process