I notice that sometimes they don't designate that a coin is a Reverse Proof on the label -- any reason why ? Also, if it is a Reverse Proof -- frosty mirrors, shiny devices -- shouldn't the grade be a PF70, PF69, etc ? I see and have some coins that have MS instead of PF. I guess for modern coins the distinctions aren't that important as with classic coins, huh ?
I believe for most new coins that were issued as Reverse Proof, they are labeled as "PF" along with some notation of reverse proof (with different ways of abbreviating it).
An example I can think of that would be labeled as "MS" would be the Perth Mint coins. While they have a similar look to reverse proofs, these are actually bullion coins and thus properly labeled as "MS" (some other countries might have similar examples too). (Note: all examples pulled from a variety of sources via google images)
Yeah, that's who I was thinking of....I have a few Wedge-Tailed Eagle silvers that are clearly Reverse Proof but they don't say it and the designation is MS not PF. I think PCGS or NGC even uses RP at times in the past.
I recall seeing some series 1 Lunars that were graded as 'PF" by either NGC or PCGS, but I believe that was when they just started grading them and weren't quite sure how to treat them. Perth makes proofs (which are sold for more than the bullion versions). And while well made, they still call these coins bullion (and thus the method of manufacturing them isn't quite "proof").
In the past, proofs had special dies and strikes but if you can get the same finish today with regular dies and strikes, then what's the difference, right ?
In appearance (practically) it is probably close but there are technically some differences. I believe the true reverse proofs are still prepared more carefully and better struck.
