Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;ToughCOINS, post: 2795524, member: 20480&quot;]I too think they should have characterized the design differently.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>The word &quot;proof&quot;, in our industry, has taken on an unintended meaning . . . a proof was originally meant to represent the final incarnation of the design of a coin design before going into production.&nbsp; That early collectors unexpectedly saved the proofs, thereby making them popular - even preferred by many, gave rise to their eventual marketing and sale by the Mint as special collectibles.&nbsp; For that reason, they are no longer viewed as samples dedicated to the internal approval process . . . a proof by today&#039;s numismatic definition is a classic misnomer.</p><p><br /></p><p>Returning to the name &quot;reverse proof&quot;, I think those coins would have been better described as possessing &quot;inverted contrast&quot; . . . but what do I know?&nbsp; I disliked those coins to begin with.[/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