The recent thread about MPL's has me pondering. I have never actually seen a matte proof struck coin and I am wondering if anyone can explain the visual differences between a matte proof and a satin proof. I know that matte proofs were made from 1907-1916 and have textured surfaces created by sandblasted dies. However, I don't understand why they are difficult to distinguish from mint state coins which usually have a more satin appearance. I own a satin proof Buffalo Nickel and it looks almost exactly like a mint state coin. It seems illogical that both satin proofs and matte proofs can look different from each other yet both still be mistaken for a mint state coin. Here is a photo of my satin proof Buffalo. Furthermore, I have no idea what a roman finish proof looks like which is supposed to be a hybrid between a brilliant and matte proof bearing similar qualities to a satin proof. If anyone can shed some light on the situation for me, I would appreciate it!
In recent threads I've tried to explain several times, but just can't be done with words. It can't be done with pictures either. You have to see the coins in person, side by side to see the differences because the diffrences are subtle. But I'll try one more time. Think of the various finishes on coins like the various finishes of paint. They even use the same names - for obvious reasons. The finsihes are listed in rankings according to the way they reflect light, just like paint is. Those listed first reflect the least amount of light. Those listed last reflect the most amount of light. They are - 1 - matte 2- satin 3 - business strike 4- brilliant Proof The only thing I can say about a Roman finish is that it is like a satin finish, but a bit rougher in texture. And in the end texture is it for all of them. As the texture becomes smoother and smoother then the more light it reflects.
So run down to one of the Baltimore shows and look at them. It isn't like it's along ways off for you.
