Some proofs struck in 1950 had a satiny appearance, not quite like the satin proofs from '36, but with a unique finish only seen that year. They are obviously proofs with all the right characteristics, but they also have an overall luster which is similar to that of a VEDS business strike. RonSanderson's coin is an excellent example. I have a Cent and Nickel with similar appearance, and recently saw a Quarter showcased on another forum. There are several theories about these. Some folks say they were struck late in the life of the proof dies, and the luster is due to die wear. Others say that the mint had "forgotten" how to make proofs, and had to re-learn, while still others say the mint knew perfectly well what they were doing, and were simply cutting costs. I am a scientist in these matters, so I prefer to examine available evidence, form a hypothesis, and see if it holds up to scrutiny... The evidence is: The features have evidence of die polishing similar to previous and later proofs The surfaces have a uniform subtle luster with underlying subtle mirrors The individual coins are often not fully struck Areas which have not filled the die show evidence of planchet abrasion This evidence points me toward the following hypothesis: The dies were specially prepared for use in striking proofs, but the planchets received minimal or no special preparation. The coins were also either not double-struck, or there was insufficient pressure, or both. I can't hypothesize on the reason for making proofs this way, but it seems that the argument for cost-cutting could be supported. The evidence does not support the worn-die hypothesis. It could certainly support the "forgot how" hypothesis, but that seems less likely to me than cost-cutting. . No matter how or why they were produced the way they were, I find the satiny finish very beautiful. Eventually I will put together a full set.
They almost seem like SMS coins from the 60s. For whatever reasons, I also like the strikes if they're eye catchers.