A fabulous coin, no question about that. But a proof? Sorry, don't think so. Sometimes I think NGC makes proof or specimen attributions just to create a "discovery" coin. This coin doesn't have the mirrored fields of a proof, nor the type of matte surfaces other proof coins from the Rome mint from the era had. http://coins.ha.com/itm/albania/wor...00-franga-ari-1937-r-pr62-ngc-/a/3033-23106.s
The definition of a Proof is a coin that is struck from specially prepared dies and planchets, and struck more than once. That's all that is required for a coin to be a Proof. Nor is it unusual for Proofs from the same period to have different finishes. While I understand what you are saying about their use of the Proof designation, it is a designation that they apply to all of these coins. In any case, it is definitely a pattern, and many patterns are considered Proofs, and it would not be the discovery coin. From a 2010 auction - http://www.acsearch.info/search.htm...1&ot=1&images=1¤cy=usd&order=0&company=
$9000.00 PR62 Mintage must be low or most were used in everyday spending. I don't think this coins is a coin most of us can say we own. Simply it's one them rare ones we dream of owning.
I was thinking it was something like that Doug . I know that country didn't produce much collectors coinage .9k just to open a bid their had to be a reason like that.
