determining 63 nickel proof vs. early MS?

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by midtncoin, May 25, 2018.

  1. midtncoin

    midtncoin Well-Known Member

    Going through rolls of nickels tonight, I came across what I believe is a 1963 proof. However, I'm not 100% sure since Philly in 63 produced both proofs and circs.

    It has the deeply mirrored fields like I would expect from a proof but there is no cameo frosting. I don't believe the cameo's were typical in the 60's and, since it was found in a circulated roll, I don't know (assuming it is a proof) how much affect the circulation has had on it.

    Are there any specific die markers to assist in proving that this is a proof. I don't want to mis-attribute it to find later that its simply a very early die state.

    Sorry, I've tried multiple times to get a pic but with my phone, I just can't seem to capture the luster.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. midtncoin

    midtncoin Well-Known Member

    Here's the best pic I've been able to get...

    nickel.jpg
     
  4. *coins

    *coins Well-Known Member

    I would definitely say that is a proof. Mostly because of the mirror fields and cameo.
     
    Spark1951 likes this.
  5. Michael K

    Michael K Well-Known Member

    Looks good. But the photo is deceptive. It could be plated.
    Let's see the reverse.
    If it has FS it's a proof.
     
  6. Blissskr

    Blissskr Well-Known Member

    Based on obverse pic looks like a proof to me. Fun fact before I really got involved with numismatics one of my first threads was a similar one regarding determining if a nickel found in a bankroll was a proof.
     
    Randy Abercrombie likes this.
  7. midtncoin

    midtncoin Well-Known Member

    Here are some more pics. I placed a normal 2001 beside it so you can compare the luster without having to factor in camera effects. Also a closeup of the reverse. It has 6 FS but I can't capture them with my camera. (I've got to get some kind of micro-camera for this type of work). Based on the FS, I'm leaning towards proof. This would be my first "non-S roll-find proof".

    obverse.jpg reverse.jpg steps.jpg
     
  8. Pickin and Grinin

    Pickin and Grinin Well-Known Member

  9. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    It's definitely a Proof. No '63 business strike ever had a reverse strike like that.
     
    Lehigh96, Kentucky and C-B-D like this.
  10. midtncoin

    midtncoin Well-Known Member

    Awesome! Thanks for the input, folks.

    I don't believe proof singles were sold as late as the 60's so that means this little fella was rescued from a proof set -- meaning that its 4 siblings are floating around out there somewhere.
     
    Stevearino likes this.
  11. halfcent1793

    halfcent1793 Well-Known Member

    The edge would be the best way to tell if it's a real proof.
     
  12. midtncoin

    midtncoin Well-Known Member

    That is what I thought but I couldn't tell much difference.
     
  13. ldhair

    ldhair Clean Supporter

    It's a proof.
     
  14. wxcoin

    wxcoin Getting no respect since I was a baby

    No doubt a proof.
     
  15. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    In most cases that's a good diagnostic. But there's a much easier one with nickels, that is unique to nickels, particularly older nickels - and that is the quality of strike of the reverse.

    Try to find a business strike nickel with a fully struck reverse, one where you can see every detail in Monticello. You can't do it because there aren't any.
     
    Dynoking likes this.
  16. Conder101

    Conder101 Numismatist

    That is correct, the last year they sold singles was 1942. Starting in 1950 proofs were sold in sets only.
     
  17. thomas mozzillo

    thomas mozzillo Well-Known Member

     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page