While searching through some rolls of Nickels I found a couple close to mint proofs from the 60's. It is obvious these are proofs, but I noticed they don't have mint marks like other proofs do. How can you tell they are proofs if they are circulated and lost their luster?
Close? They are either Proof or they are not Proof. Kind of like a woman is either pregnant or she is not pregnant. No in between. Proof coins have been struck at the San Francisco Mint since 1968 and carry an 'S' mintmark. Prior to 1965 (i.e., 1964 and earlier) the Philadelphia Mint struck Proof coins. Pre-1965 Proof coins do not have a mintmark (except for War Nickels). The Mint did not strike Proof coins 1965-1967; instead they struck SMS (Special Mint Set) coins that are something between a Business Strike and a Proof. Search the threads here for the characteristics to look for on Proof coins.
Ouch is right! By close I meant they are proofs but I found them in a roll of nickels so they wouldn't carry a higher grade as if they came from a mint set rather than a circulated roll of coins.
What Hobo is trying to explain is that proof is not a condition, it is a method of manufacture. Proofs are struck twice and show much more detail than a normal business strike. Even circulated proof coins are still considered proofs. They are considered impaired proofs and would get a number grade below PR-60. But proofs can go as low as PR-4.
Proofs were issued in proof sets, not mint sets. Mint sets just have uncirculated coins in them. Also, I've often said, you'll know a proof when you see one. If you can't tell that it's a proof, it's impaired enough that it doesn't matter. But look for the square edges if it's really that bad. EDIT: And in case somebody was going to correct me on this, yes, I know proofs were struck and issued before proof sets existed. They were singles. But that was before modern proofs, like the OP's.
I know what exactly a proof is, I was just stating it was in a roll of coins and not in pristine condition. I notice a lot of other coins that look like they are proofs, but are circulated.
No problem. The Nickels are 1962 and 1963 which explains why I was questioning them with the lack of a mint mark.
