Hey all. Here's a straight forward question. Shouldn't require any photos, either. How does a person determine if a coin is a proof minted w/o a mint mark(ex. 1971 Jeff. nickel)? Obviously, 1971 predates the U.S. Mint using mint marks on Philly minted nickels. So, how would one determine a proof w/o a mm versus a Philly minted coin? Thanks. PS And CladKIng, thx for the heads up on the '90 cent "mm-less" proofs
There are extremely PL BU's but I've seen only a couple which might be mistaken for a proof and both would be very low on the quality scale for proofs. Generally the PL's just won't have the square rims, basining, and high luster of proofs. Even where they do, they'll very rarely be struck on a polished planchet. There are more "burnished" PL's since '87, but it's not usually a big issue. I would recommend care be taken if purchasing a '90 No-S cent and have heard of PL dimes being substituted into '68 sets but these shouldn't have been very convincing.
Not sure what dates your referring to. If supposed to have an S for recent proofs and nothing there it would depend on if it was in the original Mint Package. Possibly there are always people out there that can do amazing things with coins such as removing the Mint Mark. Why? Just for fun. As to how to identify, just don't know.
I agree with Cladking...I have seen less than 5 business strikes from the 80's to date that would get PL...so I think it would be easy to tell if it is a proof or not....a trained eye is needed--that is one thing I'm still working on that Speedy
If I recall, there were a few San Francisco minted proof dimes in the 70's with no mintmark. Very rare as I recall... the 1975 especially.
So, the gist of what y'all are saying is the only way to determine a '71 proof nickel, or a '90 proof cent, or a '75 proof dime (all w/o mm's) is by the innate quality of a proof coin vs a business strike, right? Even though these hypothetical proofs have been in circulation for 20-30 yrs? Guess I'm gonna need to upgrade my glasses, as well as all my magnifying stuff. AND study the hell out of some known proofs! Thanks for answering this question...It's been kinda bugging me periodically for a while.
I know that proof nickels from 1958 - 1964 or so (maybe later) don't have mintmarks. I have several hundred of them... I think they are the only proofs without (though I'm not sure). And yep, the only hint is the quality... I can image a well circulated one could be very hard to identify as a proof.
Right....but most of these proofs haven't been in circulation...they aer in proof sets...so that won't be hard....and even if they are circulated it wouldn't be too hard....I tell you what....post photos here of one you think might be one and we wil help you. Speedy
Not exactly. Proof is a different method of manufacture it's not just a higher quality. Basining of dies is polishing the face flat and smooth. Coins are struck multiple times so the entire die is usually visible. Planchets are polished so there is a high luster on the finished coin. What complicates things is that these same processes sometimes ap- pear on business strikes either intentionally or accidently. Sometimes they don't appear on proofs accidently. There are cases where business dies are inadvertantly prepared and used as proof dies and where retired proof dies were used to coin business strikes. There is normally a hard and fast line between proof and business strikes but this line is sometimes blurred because of mint practices or errors.
Thanks, Cladking...Nah, I don't have any suspect coins. I've just read about these isolated incidences from a variety of resourses, and the issue just piqued my curiousity. However, I do have several double died nickels (particularly a '38 and a '69s) that are EF grade or better, that I'd like to have looked at IF you have a sec. Really just curious as to possible value/collectibility. Just need to work out the photo set up deal. Thx
And Thx Speedy... I don't have any suspect mm-less proofs. My question was strictly academic, as I've read about these isolated instances, and was merely curious. I do have several doubled die Jeffersons that I would like to post pics of, to get your opinion on value/collectibility. Just need to play with the photography aspect to obtain useful images. Thx for the info.
there is a 1983 (plain) proof dime and that's genuine date/type, as all philly dimes that year have a P. There's also a 1982 (plain) dime that got into circulation. Kind of an error, but there's about 20K of them that were made, being a key of the FDR series. The '83 (plain) is THE key of the series.
Mintmarkless proofs Hey ericl...Yep, I realize there have been beaucoup incidences of various coin denominations throughout the years having been struck mmless proofs. My question specifically was directed at those coins that were struck as mmless proofs prior to the year when the Philadelphia mint began marking it's issue (ex. 1971 Jefferson). The gist of my question was how would one distinguish a mmless proof that has been in circulation for 3-4 decades from a business strike of the same year, minted at Philly before the Philly mint began marking it's coins. Admittedly, I'm pretty much a novice inre coin collecting. However, I assure you, if I come across ANY "silver" or nickel US coins minted post 1980 that lack a mintmark, I'm going to spend some time studying that bad boy fer sure! Thanks for the infne thing I have discovered since being snagged by the collecting thing...The more I learn, the more I realize how little I knew. Thanks again. Boj
There were 1,655 1971 "No S" proof nickels minted. On rare occasions you will hear of someone finding a proof coin in circulation. This is usually the result of someone using a stolen collection for cash, or dealers putting impaired proofs into circulation. I would have to think that the odds of there being any 1971 "No S" proof nickels in circulation are so astronomically low, that it isn't worth considering.
Proofs in circulation Hey Jody...Thx for the info. I realize the chances of finding a proof coin in circulation are about slim and none. As I mentioned before, my question was purely academic in nature. I'm now thinking I should've been more precise with my inquiry. What I was curious about was whether the US Mint employed subtled die design differences to differentiate proofs from business strikes, an example being the "AM" spacing deal with late '80's/early'90's cents. From what input I've recieved from folks here, I gather the one absolute distinction between a proof and a BS of any denomination and/or mint year is the overall quality differences between the two, which is obviously significant. So, I'm assuming that IF a proof coin w/o a mm was to turn up after having been circulated for years, and if because of wear and tear that proof was damaged to the point it no longer possessed the inherent higher quality characteristics that distinguish proofs, then the coin is worn beyond any collectable value anyhow. Ergo, whether it's a mmless proof or a BS is mute. The abstract logic involved here vaguely reminds me of an old Star Trek episode...Any Trekkies around??? dd: Thanks Jody Boj
Hi Boj, I can't find any reference to die design differences in regards to the Jefferson nickel issues we discussed. I have access to some pretty good research materials, but so far, none of them mention anything about that. I think it's likely that all the dies may have been hubbed from the same master. There was a reverse design modification in 1971, but my reference indicates that all issues of that year incorporated it.
There are minor differences in many of the proofs and minor differences in more of the circulation issues. Really the basining of proof dies shouldn't be written off so quickly. Even after these coins have worn considerably you can still see that the dies were basined. Even the square rims will be evident on coins down to VG. I recieved a '68-S proof quarter about eight years ago that had worn down to VG and knew it was a proof before looking at the mintmark. Fields are rarely flat on business strikes and that's probably more true now days.
