history of proof coins

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by OldSilver, Aug 8, 2011.

Page 2 of 3
  1. Lawtoad

    Lawtoad Well-Known Member

    I agree. At least this is what the US Mint terms proof coins as. Info from the US Mint website indicates that the first proof coins were most often made as a die test. In order to bring out every detail in the design, each proof coin was struck more than once. The National Archives hold the first letters that talk about proof coins, which were called "specimen coins" or "master coins" at the time.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Gene
     
    Lawtoad, Aug 9, 2011
    #21 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Conder101

    Conder101 Numismatist

    The earliest generally accepted US proof are a few 1817 large cents.
     
    Conder101, Aug 9, 2011
    #22 + Quote Reply
  4. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    No they didn't change it to the way things are made today. In fact, the way Proofs are made today was copied from the way they made them 400 years ago. And I don't mean that the machinery was copied, but rather the method was copied. And THAT'S what Proof is to begin with - a method of manufacture. And that method is, special planchets, special dies, and struck more than once. And that same method has been with us since the beginning. Remember - milled coinage was first invented in 1643. The first Proof coin was struck in 1653 - only 10 years later.

    And you can't use the definitions of words having to do with various subjects to try and prove your point because every different subject there is ha stheir own unique set of definitions that apply only to that specific subject. The definitons of words having to do with coins are unique to coins.

    That's true to a point, but nevertheless even the first US Proofs were struck from specially prepared dies and specially prepared planchets, and struck more than once. That is the method.

    What you are trying to do is to use the reason they were struck to define the term instead of the method used to strike them defining the term. Also remember that the reason for Proofs being struck has changed over the years, from that that you describe, to the reason we have today. But while the reason has changed, the method never has. And since Proof is a method of manufacture, well you should get the idea by now.

    Also remember this, everything there is written in Wikipedia is just a compilation of words written by folks just like you and me. Anybody can go and write in whatever they want in Wikipedia. It is not exactly considered to be a reliable source.
     
    GDJMSP, Aug 10, 2011
    #23 + Quote Reply
  5. OldSilver

    OldSilver New Member

    Hahahahaha. Thank you for that correction hobo but i really cant take u seriously with that profile pic lol
     
    OldSilver, Aug 10, 2011
    #24 + Quote Reply
  6. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    I understand Doug, and you are exactly right. I was just asking if it was a case that "proof" was created for the same reason artist proofs are made, simply a best example for the powers that be to approve production. I have read about this in many fields involving mass production of a artistic nature, (the dies of coins being artistic devices). I only linked the wikipedia definition because it was handy, I have read the same definition in multiple publications.

    I 100%, fully, completely agree that "modern" proofs are your definition, and its a great definition because it is provable. Your definition is eminently provable, and as such is the best definition for 99% of all collectors.

    My question is just lies at the base of what a "proof" is. Yes, I am arguing that any coin, struck from fresh dies, specially selected, (or prepared), flans, and is intended to be the finest quality the mint can produce, to me is that mint's "proof". I even have a real world example. I was discussing with a mint master of one of those medieval reenacting groups. He said the procedure was he crafted a new die for the new "king", got a perfect flan and polished it, struck it as well as he could, and then had to show the new "king" the coin before the "king" approved production. To me, that would be a "proof" of his new design. Yes, I know another term would be trial strike, but in this case it wasn't a normal strike and a normal flan, but specially prepared to be the best example possible. The new "king" even keeps it as the best example of his new coinage.

    I know Doug, I am probably out there. Hobo's examples of SMS and mint sets show that just a good quality coin cannot ever be a proof, it has to be the best possible at that mint, which the SMS and mint sets aren't. My defintion sucks for collectors because intent is almost unprovable, making "proof" designation almost unprovable.

    Chris
     
    medoraman, Aug 10, 2011
    #25 + Quote Reply
  7. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Chris your definition of Proof is quite true in many cases - meaning something that is produced for approval. The word proof is used when talking about an artist's piece to be used to make prints from. The word proof is used is when talking about photographs when you go and have your protrait done at a studio and they let you look at the "proofs" to pick out the one you like. But even those two things are different even though the same word is used. The artist's piece is the best they can produce. The picture proofs are far from the best, they are often even of inferior quality. But then they are only used so the customer can pick out the pose he likes best. So again, here we have the same word, with many similarities regarding usage, but with different and specific definitions.

    With coins it is no different, we have a different definition. And that is why we also have different words used to describe different things. When a coin was produced for approval that coin is called one of two things. It is either called a specimen or a pattern. But it is not called a Proof. And that is because a specimen/pattern is an entirely different thing than a Proof.

    And again, this is what screws people up - a Proof is not a thing. A specimen or a pattern is a thing. Proof is a method of manufacture. A specimen or a pattern is not a method of manufacture. And the definitions for these words only apply when you are talking about coins. They are specific to coins and to nothing else.
     
    GDJMSP, Aug 10, 2011
    #26 + Quote Reply
  8. Conder101

    Conder101 Numismatist

    Milled coinage dates back more than 100 years earlier than that. The first English milled coins were made in the early 1560's and they were made in France and Italy before then. I do believe you are right about the date of the first proof coins though.
     
    Conder101, Aug 10, 2011
    #27 + Quote Reply
  9. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    You might want to check that Conder because the Frenchman who invented the system for Louis XIII in 1643 is the guy who went to England, afterwards, and taught them too.
     
    GDJMSP, Aug 10, 2011
    #28 + Quote Reply
  10. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    This memory is going back a ways, but didn't England have equipment to do milled coinage, but the mint workers break it as to not lose their jobs? Then they went back to hand struck for another few decades? That would explain how they had it, but later a Frenchman had to reteach them.

    OTOH, maybe that memory is too old.
     
    medoraman, Aug 10, 2011
    #29 + Quote Reply
  11. Conder101

    Conder101 Numismatist

    First English milled coins were issued by Elizabeth I in the 1560's. Here is an image of a milled English sixpence of Elizabeth I from 1562

    [​IMG]

    The first French milled coins were issued under Henry II in 1551 by Guillaume de
    Marillac (Comptroller General of Finance).
     
    Conder101, Aug 10, 2011
    #30 + Quote Reply
  12. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Fair enough, I stand corrected. Turns out what I was remembering was the actual adoption of milled coinage as opposed to the first experiments with milled coinage, which you have related below. On that count at least I was correct. And oddly enough it was a German, Marx Schwab, who first sold the idea of milled coinage to Henry II. But France, and later England, abandoned the experiments with milled coinage because of opposition from from the coiners guild. France finally adopted the universal use of milled coinage in 1643 and England did not adopt it until 1662.
     
    GDJMSP, Aug 11, 2011
    #31 + Quote Reply
  13. brg5658

    brg5658 Supporter! Supporter

    An original study done back in 2005 found that Wikipedia was essentially the same quality of information as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Several subsequent studies have also found the same conclusions. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

    It's tangential to the point of this posting, but for all intents and purposes, Wikipedia is an accepted resource for reliable information. This is mostly because it has been highly adopted by academics and professionals, and the editing process is highly supervised by reviewers and peers. In fact, Wikipedia is sometimes the preferred source of recent scientific articles, as the update of information is more "organic" than the standard research process employed by such publications as Britannica.

    I'd trust what I read on Wikipedia any day over the garbage and mis-reporting I see on television.
     
    brg5658, Aug 11, 2011
    #32 + Quote Reply
  14. Hobo

    Hobo Squirrel Hater

    I didn't know unions existed back then.
     
    Hobo, Aug 11, 2011
    #33 + Quote Reply
  15. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Guilds have existed since the Roman Empire. And by medieval times they exerted great power.
     
    GDJMSP, Aug 12, 2011
    #34 + Quote Reply
  16. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    True, and by late medieval times guilds who's members all worked for the same employer were starting to show the same signs as modern unions, job security, working conditions, etc.

    Before that guilds were more merchant associations of individuals with the same small businesses, and the guild helped settle squabbles concerning customers, complaints, territories, pricing, etc.

    Like I said earlier, I believe it was the coiners guild in England that objected to the new milled equipment, thinking it would reduce jobs, that sabotaged the first equipment there. They never assume the equipment will enable them to produce more coins and create more jobs, they always assume the same number of coisn will be needed, so therefor fewer jobs. IDK why unions always assume a zero sum game, just like today.
     
    medoraman, Aug 12, 2011
    #35 + Quote Reply
  17. TheNoost

    TheNoost huldufolk


    What about The Starr Specimen 1/2 dime. Is it a proof, specimen or just a business strike?

    http://www.usrarecoininvestments.com/coin_info/half_disme.htm

    ​
    This is probably the finest known example, and it is certified by PCGS as a Specimen strike, the only such piece to receive this designation. A roster of more than two dozen high quality pieces, below, shows the position of the Starr coin as the only Specimen strike, and the probable finest known. .....

    edited

    info from
    http://www.usrarecoininvestments.com/coin_info/half_disme.htm
     
    TheNoost, Aug 12, 2011
    #36 + Quote Reply
  18. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    It's a Specimen, which is why PCGS called it a Specimen. A Specimen and a Proof are two different things.
     
    GDJMSP, Aug 13, 2011
    #37 + Quote Reply
  19. brg5658

    brg5658 Supporter! Supporter

    If this is the case, then I think there is even some confusion amongst the TPGs. For some ESSAI or PIEFORT ESSAI strikes of World Coins the SP vs. PF grade seems to be interchangeable. The example I give is an Essai Monaco 100F from 1950, with a mintage of only 500 coins. The PCGS coin is mine, the other is from the BAY and verified through pictures at NGC.

    1950_Monaco_NGC_PCGS.jpg

    1950_100F_Monaco_SP65.jpg
     
    brg5658, Aug 13, 2011
    #38 + Quote Reply
  20. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    And you can't see the difference between those 2 coins ? The NGC coin is a Proof, the PCGS coin is a Specimen. And Specimen and Proof are not grades - they are methods of manufacture.
     
    GDJMSP, Aug 13, 2011
    #39 + Quote Reply
  21. brg5658

    brg5658 Supporter! Supporter

    Those two coins are EXACTLY THE SAME and 2 of only 500 coins minted of this type. Sorry, but you are wrong in this case.

    EDIT: All 500 of these coins were minted on the same press in the same way. So you are missing the point.
     
    brg5658, Aug 13, 2011
    #40 + Quote Reply
7 more messages...
Page 2 of 3
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page