Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;desertgem, post: 886959, member: 15199&quot;]It is somewhat misleading to put so much emphasis on the surface. Yes in modern times, the enhancements in the minting process, and the demand for proof sets led the economically hampered treasury to start producing more sellable sets of coins they would not expect to be spent for goods ( Similar to the Post Office issues of the time). &quot;Frost&quot;, MS-68+ surfaces, experimental surfaces were to entice the multitudes to buy the sets.</p><p><br /></p><p>Originally Proofs were to demonstrate the artistic and minting ability of the Mint, that is why matte, satin, brilliant, and other surface treatments were/are done. But the proof will also have special preparation of the dies, striking pressure, and even the number of strike&nbsp; blows to set the coin surface. The edges will be sharper, sometimes deeper, devices full, etc.</p><p><br /></p><p>This forum sees very often a person asking if they have a proof, almost always based on how &quot;shiny&quot; reflective it is. Often the replies are also based on the reflectivity of the surface. More emphasis should be on the characteristic of the strike. As was mentioned, sometimes in past, the mint either used proof quality planchets with business strike dies, or business strike planchets with proof dies, so the surface would not be a good indicator.[/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