Proof vs. Proof-like : What is more "valuable"?

The proof die could be polished two or three times before it was retired. They also specially prepared the dies by hand polishing them with "the best rouge" , then masking the fields and sandblasting the details.

Basically, the DMPL business strikes were the first strikes from brand new or well polished dies, but they were struck on a different press.That's why only Philadelphia had proof Morgans. But the DMPLs could be just as well made as a proof, as long as the dies were changed every 200 strikes!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You are being far too general. It realistically depends on the series. For Morgan Dollars and antebellum 19th century coins, the proof coins are typically more expensive. I just sold a PL Classic Half Cent for a strong premium and it is much lower than if the coin were a proof despite having a great strike, deep mirrors, and a touch of cameo on the obverse to boot. This is also consistent with the prices realized at Heritage.

After the Civil War, there is variation. I would agree that on most 20th century stuff, the PL coins are worth more but that is probably in part due to the fact that the proofs are largely common as dirt. This was, obviously, not always the case.

 

Only the first coin is a proof. The others are proof like (with the exception of the 1880 which isn't even PL IMHO). The key is the strike and the rim. The rim will be squared and flat rather than rounded on a proof coin. Another trick is to look at the protected areas (especially for e.g. Seated Liberty Coins). If there is a significant accumulation of mint frost rather than mirrors in the protected area (e.g. shield on Seated Liberty Coinage), you are looking at a business strike rather than a true proof.[/QUOTE]

 

I would suspect that modern proof like coins would have a higher premium that the common readily available proofs. For coins prior to around 1940; I would suspect that a proof of the same numerical grade would command a higher premium. And I've shown it before many times, but this proof Morgan is one of my favorites.

This one was my first Morgan dollar proof. Though both of these coins are PCGS PR-64s, clearly the 1880 is far superior. I still like it though.

 

PL WLH and Buffalo Nickels are rare. PL pre-1950 Lincolns and Mercs are scarce enough to be more valuable than proofs of the same era. Your thinking is on track, but you need to push the date back.

 

I forgot about that edge trick. A member on here mentioned that edge rounding trick recently, I forget who. I think it was in the World coins forum. Thanks for the reminder.

Anyway, I can't tell the rounding of the edge on the second and fourth coins, since it's a straight shot. I bet an angled shot would be easier to tell. The third one looks obviously rounded. The first one has very sharp edges without that secondary circumference border (which is what I'm looking for to determine if it's a rounded edge, given a straight shot / bird's eye view photo).

 

The 1880 makes me weak.

 

Yes, you are correct. I should have been more specific. I was thinking in terms of modern, clad coins.

Chris

 

The first (1895) is a proof. The rest business strikes. To me in the series of Morgan dollars I'd prefer the proofs as their rarer and far more pricy then pl business strike coins. In many other series the proofs often cost less then a comparable business strike. Including seated and barber coins shield and Liberty nickels and many coins of the 1860-1900 period an 1877 ihc in pr 64 red much less expensive then a ms 64 red for example

 

There really is no hard and fast rule as to the relative value between PL and Proof strikes. Each series is different. For the Morgan, it is almost always readily apparent which one is proof and which one is prooflike (the differences go way beyond the character of the mirrors). You can look at a fantastically DMPL strike and a brilliant proof of the same date - and, for someone who knows what they are looking at, the difference will still be immediately obvious (usually). This is for Morgan Dollars, of course. For the same grade, the Proof will (usually) be more expensive than the DMPL. Again - there are no absolutes, because for every rule, there is an exception.

The discussion becomes far trickier when you move to other series beyond the Morgan. For example, take a look at the coins shown below. The Flying Eagle cent was struck from dies known to have struck proof coins (the PR-1 die pair). However, if you look at the "fabrique" of the coin, it is clearly a business strike (and is so designated by NGC). A proof of the same grade would be worth about 5x more than the business strike.

Now look at the 3CS. It was struck from dies which are predominantly known for business strikes (and exhibits quite a bit of die polish, which is less common on proofs). The planchet has a couple of notable flaws. However, the rims are squared, and the "feel" of the coin is a cameo proof. Dealers and experts are split 50/50 over which it is. A proof would be worth about 1/3 of the value of the business strike (NGC called it MS).

When collecting 19th century coinage, be aware that proof dies were often used for business strikes (Bust halves and seated coinage are especially well known for this). Determining proof vs. prooflike can be tricky, and expert knowledge is required. The Morgan is relatively straightforward, comparatively.

 

I love that '62 and remember debating about its method of manufacture a while back. I forget what I called it then, but I would call it a proof today if I were asked. The only thing holding me back is the incomplete luster within the devices of the reverse C. They aren't always completely frosted on proofs, but I've never seen a PL business strike with complete frost. If I ever see this area frosted, I can say very little question that it is a proof strike. I think that you have a small error in your post though. Assuming that this is a MS-65, a proof of the same grade would be far more valuable than a normal business strike (though a nice PL example like this would certainly fetch a premium). Did NGC give it the PL designation?

 

Oops, you are correct. NGC called it 67 * PL, with CAC. I misread the price guide for a proof (I read it as $1250, its actually $12250)