I've been wanting one of these for a while. There are 2 dates in the Franklin series which have prooflikes graded - 1949S, and 1959 (there are some dates with semi-prooflike fields, and I have posted on those previously). The 1949S is more available, and I have a very nice FBL example which I've also posted a few times. The 1959 is scarcer, and is very difficult to come by. All known 1959 PLs are of the Type II design, and the leading theory is that a proof die was used to strike business strikes. After a couple of dozen strikes, the mirrored finish would have worn down and become indistinguishable from a normal business strike die. Anyways, I was trawling Ebay as I often do, and saw this beauty come up for sale. The mirrors are quite distinct and flashy. I am extremely pleased to add this coin to my collection. It is graded NGC MS-64 PL. Tell me what you think!
Given all the crazy grading recently, I would call that coin a 65 PL, even with the cheek hit. Beautiful surfaces.
Interesting. Your coin has prominent flow lines -- prominent enough to be clear and distinct at this moderate magnification. I'd think it would take a lot more than a few dozen strikes to produce those. (Otherwise, proof dies would have to be refinished every few dozen strikes -- because I don't think I've ever seen flow lines that prominent on a modern proof.) Or is there something about proof planchets that prevents them from impressing flow lines on the die, the way circulation planchets do? I'm having trouble imagining what that would be.
Good question! The short answer is that proof coins absolutely do also show flow lines. Take a look at the excellent proof that is the subject of another current thread: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/gtg-1962-franklin-proof-half-dollar.342579/#post-3605867 You can see in the pictures of that coin that there are flow lines evident in the fields of that coin. This is even easier to see in hand. Proof planchets were polished, which reduced the wear on the die, but even proof planchets would eventually wear the polished mirrors off the die. Franklin halves especially are notorious for having weak, shallow mirrors and lack of cameo contrast. This happened because the dies were used to strike too many proofs. And yes, as you deduced, the dies were sometimes refinished! There is a distinct difference in appearance between the early strikes from proof dies and the "repolished" proof strikes.
Interesting thread. There was another discussion recently when I opened my big mouth and opined that proofs don't have luster (thought I read it somewhere) and I was corrected by @GDJMSP and someone else who provided pictures of both flow lines and luster on some proof coins. The flow lines on proof coins are much finer than on business strikes, but they are there. Now, given that this is a business strike, can someone educate me on what defines a PL grade? This is a very nice coin, but the fields don't appear (at least in the pictures) to be mirror-like.
The pictures don't show the mirrors as well as I would like, but they are clear in hand. PL is defined as a clear, crisp reflection at least 2 inches from the surface.
That's what I thought, but the picture doesn't show what I would think would be that kind of surface.
It doesn’t look like a PL-coin at all, but I am sure it’s just the pictures. My first thought was he posted pictures of a different coin.
It is very difficult to capture the PL fields in an image, but seeing how it plays under the light is more convincing. Take a look at this video:
