Obviously a proof. Give it shot. Tried to take a pic with 2 different light positions. I went take a new pic of the darker reverse because I thought a thread was on the slab. That’s on the coin.... proof die crack?
So, I will admit it took some time to convince myself this was raised metal and not a scratch. It’s like looking at a 3D drawing that you can twist in your brain. Even though I think it would be impossible to make a jagged scratch like and make it go on the rim and across letters. But, I was able to shine a light on it at a steep angle and then put some mag to it. If it’s raised metal.... the the reflected light on the mark will be on the same side as the light source. If it was a scratch or trench, then the light reflection would be on the opposite side. Hopefully this pic proves that:
PF 67 ...possibly with a star for obverse cameo. 1956 is one of the dates in the Franklin series that comes with strong cameo....based on the photos here, the reverse would hold the coin back from receiving a cameo designation.
PF67* I think it gets a * because of the nice cameo on the obverse...but there isn't enough on the reverse to give it the CAM label.
You too, huh? I’ve slipped that question into this thread and the 1956 proof set thread where I also posted this coin. I cant get any feedback on it. Not that I think it is valuable or anything... I’ve just never seen one.
It happens, but it is rare. Remember, proofs are specially made with more care and attention than regular coins, and are inspected more thoroughly. If the mint technicians start to see obvious die cracks, they replace the die. Also, the dies aren't used nearly as long (die cracks *usually* occur late in die life, especially for modern dies like this. They may appear as early as when the die is created, but that die wouldn't typically be used for proofs).
