1972 Looks like Proof no mint mark

Autocorrect. That’s what I get posting with my phone.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Do you understand how you're reasoning? You need to start there. Newbies are suckers for this kind of reasoning. "Who's to know? Therefore, I got it!" "Just like the famous list of proof coins without a mint mark. Therefore, I got it!" "One day there could be a new discovery. Therefore, I got it." "There could be others out there. Therefore, I got it!" That's sucker-think, my friend. You need to get your head out of that whirlwind and onto the diagnostics for a proof.

Now, this "Oldbie" told you, and you ignored it, and I'm telling you, again, get out those S-proofs you say you got. You said two, right? That's enough. You got them in hand. No photos of proofs from the Internet required. Look at how photoed this coin is in this thread. I have it at 16. Let's see 16 photos of each of these two proofs you say you got, in reasonably-similar orientations, to these 16, and we'll put your nose right in the diagnostic differences, I guarantee it. Then, you've got the three coins in hand. You can keep them together as a reference, so you don't go off like this, again.

 

At this point, think of these coins as lottery tickets. The chances are, even if the lottery ticket is real, the chances of it being a winner are very remote.

Now some will still check the numbers to see if they have won and others will just decide the chances are so slim it's not even worth the time to check. And still others will only check if there have been reports a winning ticket has not been turned in.

None are right or wrong.