Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;messydesk, post: 8285488, member: 1765&quot;]They have their place.&nbsp; I bought this for the 1997 slot in my prime number set because I think it is the earliest US Mint attempt at the concept, which they sadly abandoned in 2004.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://varslab.com/misc/97pthalf-8627.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>I also bought this 2017 Ozark (same set) because it works well with the design.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://varslab.com/misc/17smo25c-6351.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Both also happen to illustrate my point that the term &quot;Reverse Proof&quot; is numismatic nonsense.&nbsp; Neither coin is a proof.&nbsp; A more correct term would be &quot;Proof with Reverse Cameo,&quot; but the Mint saw fit to bungle the vocabulary.</p><p><br /></p><p>For all the modern proofs that use it, it&#039;s almost necessary for the sake of the design not being obliterated by the 60-grit cameo finish they use. A slightly less mirror-like device would probably be an improvement, as the design wouldn&#039;t be so lost in the reflectiveness of the coin.&nbsp; The water on the quarter above I believe is rendered with a more mirror-like finish than the border background.&nbsp; Totally appropriate for the design.[/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