2019 for me was focused primarily on building my modern Hungarian type set. In working on this set, I discovered something that is not documented well in any English or Hungarian catalog that I have found, which is that there are three distinct strike types for ultra-modern Hungarian coins. I consider the modern coinage period for Hungary to have started in 1946 for various reasons I have discussed before on this forum, however, I have not talked much about Hungarian ultra-moderns. After Hungary regained independence from the Soviets in 1989, there was a brief transitional coinage period, followed by a major transition for the Hungarian Mint. The mint incorporated in 1992, becoming the Hungarian Mint Ltd., with the National Bank of Hungary as the major shareholder (they would become the sole shareholder in 1996). This transformation of the mint began what I consider to be the ultra-modern period of Hungarian coinage. The issues of 1992 were sparse, with a high mintage for the new 1 forint and 2 forint coins, and a relatively low mintage for the 5 forint coin. The higher denomination coins of 10, 20, 50, and 100 forint, however, were issued only in MS and PP (proof) mint sets with a mintage of only 2000 business strike sets and 1000 proof sets (any 1992 mint set will bring about $300-$400 in today's market). The mint began minting these new coins with appreciable mintages in 1993. Although they inadvertently used some pattern obverse dies for the 1993 mint sets, the mint products for 1993 were fairly typical for what had been produced up to that point. Starting in 1994 things got confusing with the mint sets. Some proof sets had coins in them that were not proof issues, and they started striking coins that did not look like the typical business strikes. Confusingly, the mint referred to these coins as "BU", however, this is not the same as what American collectors would consider to be BU coins! Most collectors of Hungarian moderns apparently opt for the "BU" coins available in these sets as they are high grade, and use them for examples of the business strike type, however, they are not business strikes! There are several key differences between the BU coins, the typical business strikes (the mint calls these "UNC" now, so I will use that term here), and the PP (proof) issues: UNC (business strike) issues: Rims: Rounded Fields: Matte Devices: Matte BU issues: Rims: Squared Fields: High Gloss Devices: High Gloss (no cameo) PP (proof) issues: Rims: Squared Fields: Mirrored Devices: Frosted (cameo) As you can see from the above, the BU issues have more in common with the proof issues than with the business strikes, but they still have a distinct appearance that is very different from proofs. Mint sets all became "BU" starting with the 1994 sets, and all non-proof mint sets contained "BU" coins, through the 2011 mint sets. As for the business strikes, the only way to get actual high grade business strike issues from 1994-2011 was to pull them from circulation or to order mint bags or rolls. As you can imagine, high grade business strikes from this period are much harder to come by once you realize that the mint sets contain a different product. In 2012, Hungary changed it's name from "The Republic of Hungary" to "Hungary" and accordingly updated the legends on their coinage. At the same time, the mint also started issuing year sets in UNC, BU, and PP (proof), so you could get high grade business strikes again in mint sets starting in 2012. For commemorative issues, however, not all were released in all three sets, and a few circulating commemoratives were only released in mint bags and rolls. More recent commemorative issues have also been released on numbered "first day" cards. This was a special mint product that tended to contain high grade (MS67-69) examples of business strikes, as apparently they received much better handling than examples released through other methods. BU and PP (proof) issues continue to be available exclusively through BU or PP mint sets. NGC had been slabbing these BU issues as MS coins - in one case I saw a seller on eBay with an entire 2004 mint set (BU issues) where every single coin had been slabbed with the DPL designation. A true MS DPL set like that would be an extreme rarity and most likely doesn't even exist. I pointed out to NGC that as these coins had been intentionally struck with that finish, they do not meet their definition of prooflike (as it is a distinct mint product). Based on the information I sent to them about the BU mint sets, they have changed their position, and are now treating these coins the same as the Canadian PL issues. They have now correctly slabbed coins for me dated as early as 1995 with the new Hungarian modern PLxx designation. Here are some examples of the three strike types, how they differ in appearance, and how NGC now grades and catalogs them: Hungary 2003BP 20 Forint (Deák Ferenc) NGC MS66 (UNC Issue) As this is a pre-2012 coin, it is available only through mint bags/rolls, or circulation in this finish. Hungary 2003BP 20 Forint (Deák Ferenc) NGC PL66 (BU Issue) From BU mint sets only. Hungary 2003BP 20 Forint (Deák Ferenc) NGC PF67 ULTRA CAMEO (Proof Issue) From proof mint sets only. Some additional examples of a non-commemorative issue. The sourcing is the same as for the above coins. Hungary 2009BP 200 Forint NGC MS67 (UNC Issue) Hungary 2009BP 200 Forint NGC PL68 (BU Issue) Hungary 2009BP 200 Forint NGC PF69 ULTRA CAMEO (Proof Issue)
This is the world famous Széchenyi Chain Bridge (1849) that joins Buda and Pest together across the Danube. It is one of the great jewels in the heart of the city.
@Jaelus Thanks for your informative post, can clearly see the differences, glad NGC agreed. How large is the Hungarian coin collecting community? Is it fast growing or ?
We have a local club in the DC area. It's small, but very active. Anyone's guess how many there are throughout the US, but there are a lot of collectors in Europe. Hungarian coins also have a lot of overlap with taler, ducat, and Habsburg collectors, so there's quite a bit of competition at auction, and the market has been growing.
Well explained! It's nice to hear that NGC listened to your solid argument and is now correctly designating the coins.
Your "Prooflike" PL designated Hungarian coins remind me of the coins in South Korean 2000-2004 "Foreign Gift set" mint sets. These coins were also rather different from previous Korean frosted proofs and Mint strikes. The Koreans made these to hand out to both foreign hosts and guests when Bank of Korea/Mint employees hosted visitors or themselves visited foreign Mints. They also gave them out to Korean citizens who turned in counterfeit currency. I believe NGC has given these coins "Proof" PF designation, probably since they appear more like reverse proofs than your Hungarian PLs. This is what they look like:
Very cool. If it's a unique product it should get a designation. Something like the US SMS sets get when slabbed.
I had noticed a sharp uptick in the number of Hungarian coins that come across my PL searches. I actively avoid buying intentionally produced PL's like the ones you describe (special finishes made for collectors), but I wasn't sure if that was the case with these or not. Thank you for an excellent description!
Yeah, keep in mind these will all be 1994 or later, and not all issues had them. I'm working on compiling a list, but it's a significant effort. Any PL issues prior to 1994 will be legit PL coins. Once you know the look, these are easy to spot. They basically look like proofs with slightly textured fields and an absolute lack of any cameo. I have seen more Hungarian moderns getting slabbed, so this was becoming an issue. Of course the high grade coins people want to submit are from the mint sets, and most are these PL issues. I think people don't even realize they are not business strikes except for the advanced Hungarian modern collectors. Hopefully they will start doing this correctly and consistently going forward, but it doesn't help fix the ones that are out there already incorrectly designated as MSxx PL or MSxx DPL (I've seen both). Coins intentionally struck as a prooflike product should be ineligible for the PL or DPL designations by NGC's own rules. I started this process with NGC and sent them some of the preliminary lists I had put together of modern issues and their available strikes, and have been working with them on this for the better part of 2019. I actually did a test where I submitted 5 coins on a larger modern submission that were BU strikes, but I listed them as MS on the submission form to see what happened. They all got identified as BU (even ones that weren't on my list) and slabbed correctly as PLxx, so it's promising.
I get why they call them PL. They have reflective fields like proofs but they aren't proofs. PL is the term used by many mints, and many collectors, for this type of finish. What I do appreciate, however, is when they grade it "PL-68" instead of "MS-68 PL". To me, that is an important distinction that lets me know this was an intentional PL strike, instead of a prooflike coin. It's not 100% consistent, but I know both TPGs do this (certain South African, Canadian, Russian, and Austrian coins receive this treatment, for example).
Yes, exactly. And this is now NGC handles these now. I had asked them to treat them the same as they do for Canadian PL issues. Keep in mind, by NGC's own rules, the PL designation cannot be applied to a coin that is intentionally struck as prooflike. So while I can see why they would have thought that, it was purely because they thought (incorrectly) that they were prooflike business strikes, and not prooflike strikes for a collector product.
Quote Keep in mind, by NGC's own rules, the PL designation cannot be applied to a coin that is intentionally struck as prooflike. So while I can see why they would have thought that, it was purely because they thought (incorrectly) that they were prooflike business strikes, and not prooflike strikes for a collector product. end quote That is the way it should be. PL is/are for certain MS coins. Gary in Washington
Thanks to the original poster for the informative write-up. The bridge is very recognizable, even on a coin!
