Featured Gold Dollars from the 1880s, Proof vs. Proof-Like

PL = a way to make people pay MS 65+ prices for a MS 63 coin. PT Barnum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Sorry, but it’s the other way round. PL = a way to say the coin has “special” surfaces for a 63. Collectors pay 65 prices, because they appreciate this coin more than an average 63.

 

Anyone interested in Proof gold may like to borrow United States Proof Coins Volume IV by John Dannreuther. The set is expensive $250 so borrowing a copy from the ANA may be a better way to go. One basic thing I have found that usually works on a large number of proofs in every series is to look for a very wide flat rim with a fin.

Back in the 70's we received a lot of PL Large cents that the submitters thought were Proofs. At first it was very hard to decide - until I saw a real proof Large cent. The difference between a gem PL coin and a Proof strike was evident from a foot away! Tons of PL dollar coins have been sold as proof strikes over the years by folks who probably did not know their error.

 

I believe you hit the nail on the head. I was always taught to look at the formation and detail of the devices, rims and even minute formation and spaces between denticles. These details were the telltale Proof of the Proofs (Terrible Pun intended). The early proof sets were struck in very small quantities with very detailed and highly polished dies. Struck at a higher pressure multiple times. Coins were critically hand inspected and discarded for remelting if imperfections were noted. This caused near perfect formation of rims and edges of letters and numbers. All elements were squared and very uniform throughout the mirrored or matte fields. In summary a lot more imperfections on Proof like coins when critically reviewed against the real proofs. We can agree that all Proof-Like business strikes are the very few early strikes of well made production dies in use on a properly calibrated press. They still had to survive the bag marks in handling and transportation.

 

I am sorry but I have a real problem with the use of the word "official" when it comes to a hobby. Who is the "officer" in charge of enforcing the definition? A dollar coin from 1888 is an official issue of the US government. It is not officially a "Morgan dollar" common though the term may be in our community.

I do not know what makes "PL" (proof-like) a "technical" grade. Is it in the ANA Gradiing Guide? The Red Book? The PCGS tutorial? Has the US Mint ever in 230 years reported the production of "proof like" coins?

I do understand that among some hobbyists, just for example, there is "deep mirror prooflike" as a description that depends on how many inches of a standard foot ruler you can see in the field. But it is not "official."

 

I did not compete in your marketplace, but with everything closed and all, I finally realized what I was lacking -- and I bought an unc half eagle online. It arrived the other day. Your coins are much prettier, but looking at those, I can see more in this one than I would have without the standard for comparison. Thanks.

 

It's been said that Teddy Roosevelt characterized all of the U.S. coinage designs as “atrociously hideous.” Actually there were two designs that he liked, the Type III Gold Dollars, shown above, and the Flying Eagle Cent.



Here is the best $5 gold Liberty that is in my type set. It is graded MS-64, but it is high end for the grade. The 1886-S is a common date.

 

Yes. Prooflike has been a widely accepted part of the grading standard for many, many decades.

No, because, by definition, Prooflike coins are not specially prepared. They are just a happy accident, and sometimes we get lucky enough to get them.

If the mint intentionally creates a burnished piece, or a reflective piece which isn't a proof, then it will report those separately (but, they are often considered "specimen" pieces, not prooflike).

It's the same as FBL or FS - the mint doesn't report those because its just a part of the production process for normal business strike coins.

It's not "official" in the sense that there's some hobby-wide regulating body putting out a "standard." However, PCGS has published their criteria (in inches of reflectivity) for PL and DPL. If you consider the TPG as the "official" arbiter of grade, then that is the "official" standard for PL. "Official" has a *very* loose meaning here.

 

Lucky enough for me, I have a PL example of that one, too

 

um.... how many of those have been graded PL?

 

At NGC there have been 11 Flying Eagle cents designated as PL (for the entire series), out of a total 8940 coins graded. So, they are actually surprisingly common.

Compare that to, for example, Indian Head cents where there have only been 7 for the entire series, out of 83400 coins graded.

 

You have a lot more collector patience that I do. Given those population numbers, which might be inflated by resubmissions, I’d throw up my hands and say “forget it.” I’d buy a Proof or a really nice Unc.

 

Obviously, the word "many" means something different to you than it does to me. Collectors did not even care about mintmarks until a hundred years ago. And "ten" is not "many, many" of anything.

I did some searching.\
in the ANS DONUM
Have you ever seen a prooflike 1876-CC trade dollar?.
by White, Weimar.
In: Gobrecht Journal Vol. 17, no. 51 (July 1991), p. 17-18

In the ANA Library
Silver dollar fortune telling (1st ed)

Author: Fox, Les
Call Number: DD121.Fox.L 1977
Location: Main Stacks
Publisher: Closter, NJ. Carson City Associates Inc. 1977.

The accugrade system; a comprehensive guide to Eisenhower dollars
Author: Hager, Alan
Call Number: DD121.Hag.A V3 1986
Location: Main Stacks
Publisher: Greenwich, CT. Accugrade Inc. 1986.

So that puts it back to the 70s, perhaps, with the run-up in collecting because of the precious metals boom. Still not "many, many."

So, I went to The Numismatist online.
See attached. For those from 1942, I will grant one "many." Thanks for providing the challenge.

February 1942. [second one down] 1867 Unc V. brilliant prooflike...


November 1942, Bottom right $20.00 1896-S Ex. Fine Slight Proof Sur.

(BTW -- Gold was selling for the price of gold. There were no serious restrictions on gold as far as numismatists were concerned.)

 

Okay, my perception of many may be slightly skewed. But, it's clearly a well ensconced idea, for generations of collectors.

 

I think you may be having this disagreement because some things occur due to common usage. For example, it takes time for many universally used words to become "officially recognized" by an "official" dictionary of the English language.

In the same way, a descriptive term - "Proof like" was used in the distant past by some unknown numismatist to describe a coin having the similar reflectivity of a Proof surface. The term caught on and is still in use as "Prooflike" (PL) today. Two more things happened while I've been a collector. Someone coined the word "Semi-prooflike" for coins that were close to PL or had an incomplete Proof surface. That once very popular, often used word has virtually been dropped completely from our language while in the meantime another "someone" came up with DMPL. While nothing "official" has been found, the industry has "officially" adopted these terms and they have been defined in numismatic dictionaries and publications for decades.

Nothing "official" though.

 

@kaparthy If I knew the word “official” bothered you so much I would have used another term :-D

Note that I replied to the comment “I have never seen a semi-prooflike label” trying to confirm that “semi PL” is not used by the TPGs.

The PL designation is widely used though, e.g. https://www.pcgs.com/news/pcgs-announcement-about-prooflike

Does this make sense?

 

If you can't find the coin, maybe Barnaby Jones can help you find it......