Proof v Circulated

As a newbie I'd like to know where everyone stands on circulated coins vs Proof coins. My question is. What do you collect, Proof or Uncirculated coins?

Discuss....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Both, however, what you like is more important so do you like Proof or MS?

 

Porque no las dos?

 

I personally collect both, I don't think it's a good idea to section yourself off to one are of collecting. I like to have a bit of everything, although most of my coins are pretty low value. I just recently got a '76 proof set, but I also collect older coins especially since I got a job and my budget has increased. In fact my most recent purchase is an 1865 two cent coin, one I've been trying to get my hands on for a while. Old coins are wonderful to collect because of the history that they hold, and new coins are fun to collect because they're shiny. (Also there are many different types and different things to look for). All in all, I just collect what I like and I think you should too. I'm not in it to make money, I'm in it to have fun.

 

Hello and Welcome. I like to collect Mint State as well as Proof although proof seems to be an issue at times with the fields of the coin. I don't buy too many "raw' of either and prefer graded .

 

The vast majority of my collection is circulated coinage. Most of what I collect is obsolete U.S.coinage (Canadian as well). Circulated coins have travelled through many hands and from my perspective are a piece of history. What were they used to purchase, where did they travel, etc. Proof coins are great for those that want some of the best examples or specimens. I prefer my coins to have signs of use.

 

Both... Proof coins are absolutely beautiful to look at. The bulk of my collection is obsolete business strikes. But I will not turn away from a dripping wet proof coin.

 

I suppose I'm just trying to understand who buys what. I regard myself as proficient in Proof coins specifically. My career has been proof and I prefer them to uncirculated.

 

That's the great thing about coin collecting.... You can't do it wrong!

 

I started with circulated and uncirculated, and swore off proofs or medals until about 1999 and the state quarters series, then I got into proof coins, however I can take them or leave them, My collection since a child has been coins pulled from circulation and bank rolls and that's where I'm staying but I do buy proofs from the mint when it catches my eye or I have the extra cash.

Still have no interest in medals at all. I guess, in general, for my actual collection, I really don't buy anything except supplies. I spend some money with the mint each year if I like something. My collection may not be high value, but it's kept me busy in my free time and I'd say overall it must be worth more than face values. That's good enough for me.

What I don't like about proof coins, they just look too good. I feel like it's art at that point and should be handled delicately which honestly goes against the way I happen to collect, on a circulated coin, a finger isn't going to make a difference on the obverse or reverse, on a proof coin it looks like a disaster hit it. But proof coins are beautiful....

 

I prefer coins that have worked for a living. In 70 plus years of collecting I haven't made any money. But, my collection has energy, potential energy for my heirs.

 

Proofs?
Not deliberately, except:
When they announced the states quarters series, I went & got the 1932 to 1964 in all uncs, except for 3 that were cost prohibitive [the 1932 D & S, 1936 D= in AU.]

The finished the quarters to 1998, all conditions, unc, Silver proof & clad proofs.

The few other proofs were because I saw something that I really liked, like an 1892 Proof dime in ANACS 62, with an unlisted RPD.

Plus some modern proof sets that I had to buy when buying collections.

 

I don"t collect proof coins as an objective. But I do buy nice proofs for my IHC and US Type collection IF and ONLY if the year of the proof also had business strikes in that year. Kind of quirky but that's my policy. Now for some collections like the Lincoln cents, there are some years and mints where only proofs were minted, like the years when SF only struck proofs. In those cases, proofs are the only thing available to fill the hole.

As a further exception to the rule, there are cases where a nice, high-grade example is too pricey but the proof of that year or type in a high grade is more reasonably priced. In those cases, the wallet rules. Barber half dollars are a good example of this.

 

To each their own. I collect ALL types, from AG, detailed, to proof. A coin is a coin, is a coin.

 

When it comes to 'moderns' I like to collect both proof and uncirculated issues. With 'classical commemoratives', uncirculated is quite enough. With 'modern commemoratives' I collect both proof and uncirculated, with the exception of the gold issues which my liking is mainly uncirculated. It gets a little pricey collecting both.......

 

I used to collect both, but somewhere along the way I decided that I wanted the coins in my collection to represent real working coins. So I ditched the proofs and focused solely on business strikes — UNC whenever possible, but otherwise same as the coins people carried in their pockets to engage in commerce.

Full disclosure: I still have a few NCLT commemoratives among my crown sized world coins, but they're business strikes, not proofs, and just too darn cool to get rid of.

 

I collect both. I enjoy early proofs for my type set but it will never be complete. Many are just out of my price range. The past few years I became hooked on Bust Half Dollars.

 

Both. I think the Mint started making Proof coins in 1936.
If you collect older coins, well .. they'll be non-Proof coins.
I collect coins going back to when the nation was started as colonies. They didn't make Proof coins back then either.

 

Depends on the series, really.

IHC's and Seated coinage is affordable and available in proof, in some cases moreso than circulated issues. Capped bust coinage is the other way around.

Honestly, 95% of the time I don't really care for proofs unless they are toned or have extreme eye appeal.

 

I like both, acknowledging that they are different animals.

Proofs do go back quite a ways. Here are business and proof Indian Head cents, for example. I like them both, even though the surfaces and devices differ in sharpness. It’s just a difference in intent.



Yes, that’s an eyelash stuck to the proof. It may have been there for many decades - there is no way of knowing. I’m leaving it there rather than risk damaging the coin.