Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;messydesk, post: 3306985, member: 1765&quot;]My long-standing quibble is that &quot;reverse proof&quot; makes no numismatic sense.&nbsp; A proof is a coin made with a specific method of manufacture, not with a specific type of finish.&nbsp; Reverse proof indicates the opposite of that process, or doing it backwards.&nbsp; Had they called it &quot;reverse cameo,&quot; I&#039;d be fine with it.&nbsp; Of course, if coins are designed leveraging the die texturing technology, and the design doesn&#039;t have a traditional delineation between field and device (such as the Apollo 11 coins), then using the term &quot;cameo&quot; doesn&#039;t make much sense either, since the entire coin is a mix of varying degrees of frosted and non-frosted surfaces.&nbsp; Working dies are scrapped long before the frosting changes appearance, too, so there doesn&#039;t much need to be a term designating the fact that the frosting is still there.&nbsp; There&#039;s nothing special about it.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in