Question about grading standards for Proof Morgans

Well, at least on gold and silver coins. They have the deep-mirror look...that's what I meant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

No. Plenty of examples of straight graded circulated proofs.

 

thanks

 

then the 4 i have are not proof, or not circulated, or not impaired?

 

charley, asked: "circulated proofs are encapsulated as impaired, no?"

No, see above.

charley, asked: "what tpg or 4pg grades using 20x?"

None. I believe the standard magnification "they say they use " is 5X.

charley, posted: "i am probably wrong, but, i don't think so."

I don't think so either or I missed something. Not all proofs have a mirror surface. This is either due to the finish done at the mint - matte for example, or the coin's alloy - some 3c and 5c nickels .

 

How the hell can they/we even TELL that PR40 coin is a proof ?

It's old....doesn't look like any of the modern proofs we see....only a "40" condition....I guess when you see thousands of these they stand out, huh ?

 

Most assuredly from die markers only present on dies used exclusively for proof strikes.

 

Right, that's what confusing to some of us who are NOT experts or are doing this for a shorter period of time. In my collecting experience since the 1970's, proof means those super-polished mirror-like fields that can look black on coins and very reflective and shiny on silver.

So when I see the Proof Saints or Morgans without that look, it can get very confusing. And leads me to wonder how a grader like you, Insider, can tell that a coin like that one above (the PF40) is a proof when even if it had been better preserved and were in Mint State it wouldn't have the reflectivity and shiny mirrors that easily identify modern proofs.

Do you look for special swirling lines or finish ?

This is NOT an exact science, BTW...look at the controversy on "Proof" Saint-Gaudens coins, for instance. NGC says they exist, PCGS says they don't.

 

What kind of "die markers" or identifiers, Jaelus ?

The way the coin looks compared to business strikes...swirls on the finish especially in the fields....?

Also, isn't it somewhat surprising that a Proof Morgan -- usually handled by expert collectors -- got mishandled over the decades to a 40 ? The Proofs usually went straight to the people who'd preserve them as close to original Mint State as possible, no ?

 

GoldFinger1969, posted: "Well, at least on gold and silver coins. They have the deep-mirror look...that's what I meant."

A prominent deceased numismatist once paraphrased something I've heard expressed since. We all tend to judge things from our time on earth. Things went on before we were born and will continue after we are gone. For example, I cannot comment with any authority about numismatics in the 1950's except what I have read by researchers and folks who were alive back then. So I'll repeat that all gold and silver proofs DO NOT have a mirror look in spite of what you posted.

GoldFinger1969, posted: "How the hell can they/we even TELL that PR40 coin is a proof ?"

They can USUALLY tell by the die used to make the coin. In some cases a die used to strike Proofs is used to strike MS specimens

GoldFinger1969, posted: "Right, that's what confusing to some of us who are NOT experts or are doing this for a shorter period of time. In my collecting experience since the 1970's, proof means those super-polished mirror-like fields that can look black on coins and very reflective and shiny on silver.

So when I see the Proof Saints or Morgans without that look, it can get very confusing. And leads me to wonder how a grader like you, Insider, can tell that a coin like that one above (the PF40) is a proof when even if it had been better preserved and were in Mint State it wouldn't have the reflectivity and shiny mirrors that easily identify modern proofs."

Answered above by another member.

Do you look for special swirling lines or finish ?

This is NOT an exact science, BTW...look at the controversy on "Proof" Saint-Gaudens [1907 HR] coins, for instance. NGC says they exist, PCGS says they don't."

So one of them is wrong.

GoldFinger1969, asked: "What kind of "die markers" or identifiers, Jaelus ?

The way the coin looks compared to business strikes...swirls on the finish especially in the fields....?

Also, isn't it somewhat surprising that a Proof Morgan -- usually handled by expert collectors -- got mishandled over the decades to a 40 ? The Proofs usually went straight to the people who'd preserve them as close to original Mint State as possible, no ?"

I guess this statement is not true in all cases.

 

Spacing between letters, a particular die gouge, alignment of dentils versus devices, alignment and placing of devices, etc. That sort of thing. If those features are unique to a proof only die, and the features are on the coin, you have a proof.

 

So, I think you're conflating the condition of the coin with the strike type. Proofs are struck from different dies than business strikes. There are clear distinctions between the die types that allow graders to identify whether a coin is a proof or business strike. It has nothing to do with the condition.

Now, proofs are generally found in uncirculated condition because they are treated as numismatic pieces rather than coins meant to be spent. However, sometimes they enter circulation just like any other coin. That explains why you can have circulated examples of proof coins.

 

Jaelus, posted: "Spacing between letters, a particular die gouge, alignment of dentils versus devices, alignment and placing of devices, etc. That sort of thing. If those features are unique to a proof only die, and the features are on the coin, you have a proof."

Question: Why would the characteristics in "bold" above NOT be exclusive to a proof die?

 

I'm not understanding your question. Any coin with letters has spacing between the letters, etc. But classic dies tended to not be identical so you can identify the die from the coin. If the die is a proof only die, then it's a proof. If it's a proof die but used for business strikes, then you can also look at the die marriage. For example a coin may be struck with obverse and reverse dies that were used for both proof and business strikes, but the pairing of those dies together may exist only for proofs.

 

Jaelus, posted: "I'm not understanding your question. Any coin with letters has spacing between the letters, etc. But classic dies tended to not be identical..."

Thanks. Now I understand you answer. Yes, before most parts of the die were hubbed, they were punched separately causing spacing differences.

 

Wow...so you can't tell from the finish and surface of the coin, you have to look at the striking traits, huh ?

 

GoldFinger1969, asked: "Wow...so you can't tell from the finish and surface of the coin, you have to look at the striking traits, huh ?"

On one hand, I think you are making this a lot harder than it is. On the other hand, you can see why in some cases the determination is hard and there may be some disagreement; especially in cases where a retired proof die was used for business strikes.

In the old days, especially for "classic" issues, if it looked like a proof (mirror surface, strong strike, lack of impact marks, etc) it was considered to be one. Things are different today. Collectors want PROOF!

 

Not at all. Many of these proofs sold for near face value decades after their issue. I've seen letters from the 1800's posted where dealers tell the collector that the 30 year old proof set is worth only a few percent above face value and there is very little demand.

Assume you're a collector who has a 1880's proof set with $40 face value in it and you need money. Do you take it to a dealer (if there is one in your city) who would react to it the same way a dealer today would look at you bringing in a 2000 clad Proof set and hope that the amount above face value they will pay (assuming they will actually buy it) is more than your cost to get to the dealer (cars, what cars?) and time you took off work or do you just spend the coins?

 

Right, we just call those Specimens today.

 

Yup, and I think not being sure of all the working parts in how a coin is actually made -- I have to see some recent videos posted here -- that leads to confusion on my part.

The dies...collar....hub....etc....have to understand it all to understand the different coins and how they were struck.