Is this a dirty 1964 D proof?

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by EatYourWheatPennies, Feb 6, 2019.

  1. EatYourWheatPennies

    EatYourWheatPennies Active Member

    The back doesn't show it, the camera might not show the difference but Lincoln is less shiny than the background. IMG_1961.JPG IMG_1962.JPG IMG_1964.JPG IMG_1965.JPG IMG_1966.JPG IMG_1967.JPG IMG_1968.JPG
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Collecting Nut

    Collecting Nut Borderline Hoarder

    It's a very nice circulation strike. Not a proof.
     
  4. Razz

    Razz Critical Thinker

    In 1964 proofs were struck in Philadelphia and so don't have a mint mark. D is for the Denver mint.
     
  5. coloradobryan

    coloradobryan Well-Known Member

    Only one small problem with being a proof....the D mint mark.
     
  6. SorenCoins

    SorenCoins Well-Known Member

    The mint had a lot of issues in 1964-66 and in 1965 and (I think maybe 66) they also minted coins with the 64 date on it. Some of the dies were taken from old retired proof dies and used to strike circulation strikes, giving some a PL effect. Can't say if this is on this one but still, an intereting story.
     
  7. Razz

    Razz Critical Thinker

    There were no proofs minted in 65 or 66 and I thought that proof planchets were specially prepared and polished as were the dies that struck the coins...
     
  8. Razz

    Razz Critical Thinker

    Proof is a method of manufacture and so the best it could be is Proof Like (PL). I am no expert and could be wrong but I don't recall seeing PL designation for LMCs.
     
    thomas mozzillo likes this.
  9. SorenCoins

    SorenCoins Well-Known Member

    Yes, some have a prooflike appearance, though it would be difficult to get a TPG to attribute it as so unless particularly strong. They used 1964 retired dies, but used it for business strikes, so they did not quite carry the same luster.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page