http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Hierarchy.aspx?c=675&title=Type+2,+With+"CENTS"+(1883-1913) They mean to say that all 1913 liberty head nickels are proof??
All 5 are. Some are more proof like than others. Was a debate years ago about a couple being business strikes. But they’re all clandestine back room productions anyway
I think that they were all double struck in the proof manor of striking, but I pose a numismatic definition question: What makes a coin a proof? Is it just the strike? (two up to five times, depending on the metal) Or is it The strike & the intent of the striking authority. In other words, is it intended on being marketed and sold as a proof, and under what auspices (an act of congress) ? This question of were they all proofs, is one of semantics. If any authority at the mint strikes a coin doubly as a mistake in this day and age, it usually gets a designation of being PROOF LIKE. These are very easily distinguished by the presence of supporting evidence, mainly the mint mark corresponding to its purpose. Other such evidence can be in support of its purpose either if monetary or its entrance into the collectors market by the presence of original mint packaging, or by identifying certain characteristics like features in the rims (Lincoln matte proofs), die markers specific to those used to strike proof coins, etc. But in the case of these extremely rare 1913 coins, supposedly clandestinely made by mint employees operating outside the scope of their duties stated within their job descriptions, who can say that they are proofs, and furthermore who can say, let alone even if they are valid U.S coinage, since they were produced outside the law. Any other thoughts? Am I giving this issue it's full day in court? I really never gave it much thought until tonight, after reading this post.
They are all called and slabbed as proofs today, but back it their early years they were all business strikes. Same thing with the 1894 S barber dime. Stuck as business strikes, recorded in the records as business strikes, today they are all called Proofs even though the San Francisco mint didn't have the equipment for making proof coins. They are just quality strikes from brand new dies that gives them a prooflike quality.
It's quite simple, there is a standard definition of what makes a coin a Proof. The same definition has been used for centuries - and it is still used today. A Proof is defined as a coin that is struck on a specially prepared planchet and with specially prepared dies, and they are usually struck more than once. That's it, all there is to it. edit - direct from the PCGS website - I underlined the important parts, the rest is superfluous. Proof A coin usually struck from a specially prepared coin die on a specially prepared planchet. Proofs are usually given more than one blow from the dies and are usually struck with presses operating at slower speeds and higher striking pressure. Because of this extra care, Proofs usually exhibit much sharper detail than regular, or business, strikes. PCGS recognizes Proofs (PR) as those struck in 1817 and later. Those coins struck prior to 1817 are recognized as Specimen strikes (SP).
Most changes in designations are not from research, but for realizing more value by making it sound even more special, these changes then are 'market acceptable' by TPGs and "Beano grading"
I had a memory when I was a kid. I am certain I read a piece somewhere that the original owner of all five 1913 nickels had twelve of these pieces and seven were lost in some odd accident of some sort...... Was that just an odd misplaced kid dream I had?
Given the definition of a Proof, and the very well known strike characteristics of a Proof such as squared rims, the very smooth even surfaces whether they be brilliant, matte, or satin Proofs - to decide if they are or are not Proofs is a pretty simple process, all you need to do is look at the coins. The link the OP provided allows you to do that. And you can easily compare the 1913 coins to all other dates for Proofs - and they look nothing alike ! They don't have the squared rims or the very smooth even surfaces. But if you compare then to the business strikes - they all look like the business strikes. And of course they do, because they were/are business strikes - not Proofs. Yes, a couple are Proof-like. But Proof-like is not Proof.
At what point did people start referring to some of these coins as proofs? I know many online resources refer to all or some as proofs. Did this start with the TPGs deciding they were proofs or does it predate that? Would these coins fall under the category of "specimen" because of the purpose for which they were produced...or are they simply clandestine business strikes?
To be honest I cannot recall when it happened, I am merely aware that it did happen. I do know it was some time ago. Fair question. The oldest documentation I know off the top of my head for what defines a specimen is over 40 years old, it is found the 1st edition of the ANA grading standards and applies to special coins minted before 1817. Now I'm pretty sure that I can recall much older documentation that says the same thing which is 100 years old or older, without a great deal of reading to find it I can't exactly pin it down. But I'm thinking it was in old copies of the Numismatist. That said, the nickels and dimes would not meet this definition as they were not produced under normal circumstances. And all of the documentation that does exist for these coins, including the original mint records, record these coins as being business strikes. And for me, well that's kind of it, they are business strikes period - end of story. So for anybody, regardless of who they are, to claim otherwise - it flies in the face of reality.
Nope, there are only five. The Walton specimen was once thought lost in a car accident but it was later identified in the family's possession.
