Hello! Picked up an 86 and 87 ASE today and one is matte and one is sort of polished looking. The dealer said it wasn't a proof and he said some from the early 80's are just like that. Anyone know about this or have a good link to some reading material on the subject?
One would think the new Mercanti book should elaborate extensively. In the meantime, I can confirm most of my earlier ASEs are certainly shiny BU versus the later (notably 2011-2012) matte unc. Oh, and shiny BU is certainly NOT proof, which should look like a mirror field in stark contrast to the matte (or cameo...sorry my lingo isn't necessarily up to speed) devices.
That 87 definitely isn't proof; it's just very well struck (at least the obverse is). Interesting finish on the 86 but I think that's just a slight amount of toning from exposure to the air. Neither look "polished" to me but the 86 might have been dipped at some point. The 87 has quite a bit stronger strike than the 86.
I thought the opposite! The '87 looks grainy, but the '86 looks like 2011 or '12s! TC, could you please elaborate?
I am looking above the motto on both coins. The 86 has some light toning there. The 87 has some streaks that may be due to cleaning/dipping but not sure. TC
Neither are proofs, they are simply coins that were struck with dies at various states of preservation. The 1987 was struck with newer dies than the 1986.
It is normal. My '87 is even more proof-looking but definately isn't a proof...it hasn't been dipped cause it is still in the original package.
Yeah you are right...more specifically, I have several in packaging that I got in the late 80's from random sources that are sealed from back then. Probably in packaging from the resellers. But yes, many are almost prooflike, especially those from 87.
