I got these today and was told they were Proofs. I also got this 1963 and was told it was UNC. What do you think and how can you tell if it is a proof or UNC.
Who did you get these coins from?? I'll be the first to tell you that these coins do not look like proofs, you should see mirroring in the field, and a high contrast between the fields and the devices. I am not certainly ruling out proof, but am not convinced of their so called proof designation.
A lot of the older proofs, particularly '60s and earlier, don't have a lot of contrast between the fields and the devices. However, as you noted, a mirror effect should be apparent in the proofs, and it is hard to see it in the two coins that are supposed to be proofs here. For comparison, here is a proof 1962 Jefferson nickel:
I bought a Lot of coins on ebay. 9 buffalos 8 jeffersons 2 war nickels and a 1776-1976 dollar. I did not buy the as proofs but when I got them they were in 2x2 holders and the 1958 and 1956 said proof on them the 1963 said unc, and Im new to collecting and was not sure of the difference. Now that I have seen collector1966 image I can clearly see what a proof looks like. My pic are not that good the coins do look better in hand but they still dont live up to that one. I paid $2 for the lot + shipping. You get what you pay for. Thanks
yeah Im happy with the war nickels and 3 of the buffalos were not in bad shape. The 1956 and 58 will fill some gaps in my collection until I can upgrade them. Thanks for the help.
If you only paid $2 for that lot, you got a deal, if the shipping wasn't too high. The two war nickels and the Ike dollar alone should be worth close to $4, and the buffaloes should be at least a buck apiece if they have full dates. :thumb:
I think the 56 might be a proof, I didn't think the 58 was but the more I look at it the more I'm not sure. Photographs of brilliant proofs if not shot well can be deceiving. I will go further than that and say they often have NO contrast between the fields and devices. The sharpness of strike is often used to describe a proof as well but that can be a problem too. The 1950's proofs often had no contrast but were sharp, but by the early sixties they were taking on a different , almost melted look. Look at the 1962 posted earlier. There is nothing "sharp" looking about it. It has almost a "liquid" look to it with the fields flowing into the designs and a certain "softness" to the designs themselves. This was because the master hubs were wearing out and the dies were being over polished and then repolished as they became worn.
