Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;messydesk, post: 25122155, member: 1765&quot;]If I look at how the coins are made, I see a lot of &quot;distinction without a difference&quot; in your list.</p><p><br /></p><p>For me, there are business strikes, proofs, and stuff in the gray area in between.&nbsp; It used to be that the gray area was coins that were neither struck completely in the manner of business strikes nor proofs.&nbsp; The 1965-67 SMS coins fit in this category.&nbsp; Earlier than that, a lot of other coins now collectively referred to as &quot;specimen&quot; were in that category as well.</p><p><br /></p><p>It used to be that a proof coin was the most ideal representation of a coin of that year/mint.&nbsp; Nothing to do with finish, as my stack of matte proof Lincolns tells me.&nbsp; Proofs are specially struck to be these idea coins on specially prepared planchets with specially prepared dies and handled with special care.&nbsp; Business strikes have none of these traits.&nbsp; The &quot;standard&quot; proofs today are actually not the most ideal representation of a coin, as the cameo finish degrades the design with lots of noise.&nbsp; &quot;Reverse proof&quot; is a nonsense term that means something more like &quot;reverse cameo&quot;.&nbsp; These actually have a better rendering of the design because the design isn&#039;t obliterated with a cameo finish.&nbsp; The other special finishes currently used are basically just different proofs, as I think they&#039;re manufactured the same way.[/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