1950 Proof Set Franklin question

Hi
I've been looking at unslabbed 1950 proof sets, mostly in capital type holders.
Some of the franklin halves I've seen look like they may be business strikes.
Wondering if there is an definite way to tell if the franklin half is a proof strike?
As it pertains to lower quality proof sets. I'm not an expert on early proof franklins and they different ways they tone over time.
I can tell an obvious proof finish but am wondering about the lower quality/not as easy to tell if it's proof strike ones. Thanks in advance for any tips!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

A picture of that which you speak would be so helpful.

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/114102384995

 

Just an example. This one looks a little more proof-like than some others i've seen

 

I can see what you mean. That ebay auction pictures are very poor, and determining 'proof' is difficult. I will say that prior to 1955, proof sets were not packaged very carefully. My father set aside a 1954 (which I still possess) and it was packaged (individual coins) in a plastic bag type of material. That's why so many of these earlier sets appear in 'capital' type holders.

My advise to you would be to only purchase such sets from trusted dealers. Or to purchase them in person and in hand, where you can make an more educated decision based upon your own experience and knowledge.

 

This came from an old Capital holder and it’s still there, as it happens.

One thing to look for is a bit of consistency between the coins. In this set there is a smattering of toning just around the rim, under GOD WE TRUST and at the same position on the reverse. The quarter has the same toning so it looks like both coins spent decades together as a tiny bit of area leakage caused the toning.

You may also see that die polishing has lowered the fields on the die, and started to cut into the fine near-surface details on the die. Look at the left-most hair curl at neck level, where it fades into the field. The eagle on the reverse also seems to fade into the field at some angles, but that fine detail is highlighted at other angles.

To judge proof from business strike I would start with the fields. The planchet is polished before striking, so there should not be any low-grade irregularities where the dies mashed down onto uneven surfaces on the planchet. Here you can see the evenness of the mirror fields, disturbed by only the slightest grain pattern from metal flow.

Since these were the first proofs struck in 8 years or so, there may be some areas where the mint staff was relearning this craft. You can see just above the clapper that there is some roughness to the strike, between the two sets of bands. The metal of the planchet did not fully fill the die on this strike. Even so, it should be much better than on a business strike.

 

A lot of 1950 Proof Franklins did look like business strikes...the Mint had not made any proofs for years and lost the touch. Try to find ones which look like nice proofs...most are in slabs and should grade 65 or better to be good lookers.

 

@chascat Exactly. The same thing happened in 1936 after a 20-year hiatus in making Proofs. The guy(s) responsible for Proofing dies quit, retired, got moved to another department, whatever.

 

Wrong!!...The Mint actually did produce consistently nicer proofs and by 1952 all were of very nice quality for the times. Proofs were all made the same through the 1800s and early 1900s using an acid dip followed by polishing the dies until about 1970, when they were experimenting with sandblasting and chrome plating the dies which produced far more cameo strikes then using the old method. The Mint packaging used from 1950 onward thru 1954 and part of 1955 was of very poor quality, and not much better thru 1964. The method of delivery was also very poor which led to a very low survival rate for this era. Even though the coins may have been of good quality, after a couple of years, most were either toned, had rust problems from the staples used in the packaging which created hairline scratches, mis-handling by the collector, had milk spotting problems from not properly cleaning of the planchets, and had even more hairlines added by the newer plastic wrapping used until 1964. Even with all the problems with proof production, packaging, and poor handling, a large number of finest quality proofs were somehow saved for collecting today, even in the case of the 1950, with several fine quality cameos, ultra cameos, and many brilliant proofs to choose from.

 

The best way to be sure it's a proof is to look at the edge.

 

I fully agree with your last statements, having also collected proofs most of my adult life. I also contend that having tried to find any superb proof coins from the 1936 to 1942 era is a nearly impossible task. I sincerely believe that the craft was lost post 1918, and in 1936 and in 1950 as mint employees attempted to re-establish proof making techniques, they had to start from scratch as none of the employees had any real experience first hand. This would explain the rarity of nicer proofs being made at the beginning of 1950, copying the old proof making methods of pre 1918 and on back into the 1800s.

 

Agreed, but they exist in such few numbers that much improvement was needed to make decent examples at a higher rate. They had to overhaul their habits by making more and better dies and using them on fewer strikes before re-working the dies. Instead of striking only 15 or 20 coins per die, they probably made hundreds causing many more poorer strikes than nicer ones. Weather or not mint practices were poor technique or economic, they made a swift recovery and by late 1950 into 1952 and onward, used the same practices up until 1964.

 

If the early Proofs of both 1936 and 1950 were inferior because the "knack" of striking Proofs had been forgotten, the Mint could have responded to complaints in both years and improved the quality by the end of Proof production for the year.

Therefore, it is possible that the craft was indeed lost at the start of the year, and recovered before the end of the to account for the DCAM and CAM coins that, as you say, do exist.

 

A great book which discusses all of these questions is "Cameo and Brilliant Proof Coinage of the 1950 to 1970 Era" by Rick Tomaska. Rick covers all of these topics aforementioned in detail, and is credited for establishing a reference guide for Brilliant and Cameo thru Deep Cameo Proofs for the TPGs. Rick has also authored "A guide book of Franklin and Kennedy Half Dollars third edition, which also discusses Walking Liberty Proofs from 1936 thru 1942. In this book, he explains each date in great detail.