My Camera sucks but it's definitely different from Philly 1990. Proof and I've compared to every coin have? What are your thoughts?
In my opinion the surface of that coin has been altered/damaged some way. Wait for more experienced opinions...
It looks like the coin was plated after it left the mint. You can see it starting to wear off on the rims and lower shoulder. Also compare it to proofs of that era. Way too many rolling/plating anomalies to be a proof
110% sure this is not a proof. There are no proof qualities about this regular business strike. Keep on keepin' on.
Yes. Have a look at the proof posted by @tommyc03. Look at the rim of the Proof and then look at the rims of the Business strikes you posted above. You'll note that the Proof has even, squared rims. If you were to stack your cents with the Proof, you would see that the proof has a thicker appearance because the formation of the rim is more precise and uniform. Additionally, the proof will have a finer finish, mirror-like and sometimes the bust/devices have a frosted appearance. When you find a proof in circulation, most times there are still details common to a proof still visible. That said, I've found proof nickels that look just like a business strike given the wear-and-tear of circulation. Other diagnostics help to confirm what you have. If you haven't already found a proof in circulation, it may only be a matter of time before you do. Many 'liberated' proofs are out there in circulation, especially nickels, quarters, and halves.
