Aside form the fact that a Proof Like coin can also be a Proof coin, but a Proof coin doesn't necessarily have to be Proof Like. Please clear the determining aspects up between the two when there is both a Proof and regular Issue of the coin. How can one determine if a coin is Proof or Proof Like? Thanks Ben
Proof is a method of manufacturing....specially made dies, more than 1 strike, etc. PL is appearance, frosty devices and mirror fields. A 1881-S Morgan can't be a proof, they didn't make proof Morgans at the San Fran mint, but they sure can be PL!!
Oh yes, I'm aware of all that. My question is for example- How can one determine the difference between an 1881-P Proof and an 1881-P Proof-like Morgan?
I always wondered about the more than one strike part about proofs. That would seem to lead to error coins.
Ohhh, sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking. Now you are talking varieties. You could check for die markers specific to the proof or the business strike. In other words VAM it. You have to remember though, in some cases the proof dies were used for business strikes after the proofs were made. Very tough to tell, and I can't remember for sure if the Morgan proofs had the specially prepared planchetts like the moderns do or not. I will see if I can find some answers. Maybe someone else knows for sure....I do know that hard square rims will be a major tell. On the error issue, you will sometimes see machine doubling, but it rarer than you would think. Usually no premium for them.
"Could" is the operative word. VAM ID "could" determine... or not. If the same die was used to make proof and busines strikes, they would have similar characteristics, and one could be fooled into thinking a circ was a proof. So the question remains... if a coin is sitting in front of you, exactly what criteria uniquely and categorically ID it as a proof ? I'm tempted to say "Proofs sure are purty...I know 'em when I see 'em." I'm hoping there's something better than that. I think it's tougher on the older 19th century stuff, especially if toned. Sometimes experts disagree, so there's some subtlety. Maybe this has something to do with characteristics of the fields, devices, and strike. Since they are special polished dies and planchets, proof fields have much smoother texture when viewed under a 16x loupe; uncirc Business strikes tend to have more the "orange peel" effect. But that's not good enough; I've seen some P/L Morgans with very smooth surfaces, but they weren't proofs. I'm thinkin' there's still more to it. I'm eager to hear from the old hands on this one !
I found a reference in the VAM book about proof vs. proof-like. The planchets were specially polished and struck twice on the proofs. It also said to look to the rims, they should be flat. This is a subject I have done a little research on because I have a coin I suspect (and I bought) as an impaired(AU58) proof. The fields near the devices glow, there is no other word for it. The frost is certainly there. I need to break down and send it somewhere to authenticate it one way or the other. Here is a close-up... I need to take a new pic....
I think VAM is one of the best numismatic books ever written - a wealth of knowledge about all sorts of things. I suppose it is good for discerning business strike vs. proof for Morgans... but not other types. I'm wondering about general rules for all types (and perhaps even nations...)
Ben, There are a few things I look at in this situation. First of all, I look for sharp, squared off rims. If you are comfortable enough in your ability not accidentally fingerprint your coin, you can gently rub your finger across the rim to feel if it is sharp (don't worry it won't cut you). Of course, you should also look for a very crisp strike, and the fields should be deep and reflective. There have been cases of DMPL coins getting graded as proofs for Morgans, and there are even branch mint proofs out there, which are very nice, but very, very scarce. I hope this was at the very least somewhat helpful.
The term 'Proof-like' was actually coined (a pun!) by Jim Charlton to describe the quality of some of the Canadian coins,which were better than Unc.,but not good enough to be regarded as Proof. Aidan.
If you were comparing an '81 Proof to an '81 DMPL, you might have a problem differentiating. But with a PL the difference would be obvious. But even with a high quality DMPL, most of the time, the difference is readily apparent to the trained eye. As Zane has said, the squared rims and the sharpness of the legends and devices make the Proof coin stand out. Also, a Proof coin has a different luster than a business strike, even a DMPL.
If it's so easy as described here with large silver coins then how come TPGs can't do it with the three new ASE coins. Why do they body-bag those orders they receive which've been opened (Mint Sealed Packaging) if Proofs and Mint State examples are so easy to distinguish. To me it seems either they don't want to take the time or don't have the skill to determine the difference between, say a reverse proof or a PL MS-69 example.
That's not it all Bone - they can tell the difference in a heartbeat. And they are not body-bagging the coins at all - they slab them every time. They just will not put the Anniversary Set notation on the slab if the pakages were opened.
Ok, I have a William and Mary farthing, proof in silver (!) (1694). It is in F condition, and does not look like a proof. I know it is a proof because it is made of silver. I might have a 1697 William III farthing, in bright mint state with full lustre, and although it looks like a proof, it can't be, because none were made.
The rims of a Proof coin should look "square-shouldered" versus the rounded look of even the most sharply struck business issue. This is due to Proofs being struck twice, which brings out the most minute details not normally present in most general circulation strikes. Sometimes image doubling can be detected under 10x to 20x magnification, but it takes a good eye and a steady hand to determine this. Use a stereoscope if you can access one. Also on Proof coins, the spaces between the reeds should show some reflectivity, and should extend the entire width of the coin's edge, not appear to be rounded off. Hope that helps.
