Swiss UNC or Proof Mint Set?

In that particular era, Swiss uncirculated (fleur de coin) sets were in black inserts, proof sets were in red inserts. I agree the quality is stunning whether you purchase uncirculated or proof sets from Switzerland. Very high quality, regardless.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

My 1974 coins are much more PL and not the deep mirrors. But now has me wondering about the 1985s and whether the unc mints sets were specially made from regular circulation pieces...

 

I've got a 1983 set that I bought while on a hail research project in central Switzerland in 1983.

 

FDC is a way of describing the condition of the coin and has no relation to being a circulation strike or a proof strike. What FDC means varies, just like someone using the term Gem. While the original FDC was to describe a near perfect coin (fresh off the dies), it is generally used to describe a gem/MS65 coin today.

The set pictured is a mint set, not a proof set. The strike is lacking on some coins (look at the rounded rims), some of the fields still show unstruck planchet (most visible on the 5R & 20R), and the cameo, while present, is not very thick on most of the coins.

Here is a 1985 Swiss Proof Set: https://www.ebay.com/itm/255475685749

 

Nice. Thanks for your post. I was a little suspect on the 1 and 5 rappen for sure. My next question is the uncirculated mint set seems proof like so did the Swiss mint make all the circulated strikes PL or just those they put into the mint sets?

 

Hmmm, admittedly not my series but look at the 1974 PL coin above; it clearly is PL. The coins in the OP 1985 do not appear similar at all with much greater cameo contrast. Also, the rims are buried into the plastic holder at many locations thereby making at least to my eyes it difficult to determine if rim edges are rounded in the manner of a currency type uncirculated coin. Look at wiring and even near finning on such as the 2 Franc & orange peeling on the fields on both the 2 and 5 francs as further examples of proof characteristics and not just mirror reflectivity which can be seen on the finest of DMPL (sorry for the US coin terminology) specimens.
Then look at sonlarson's examples where this 1985 set is much closer to the 1987 proof set than the 1974 uncirculated set. What may be apparent cameo contrast on the denomination datals on the 20 c. coin is seen on other proofs; there appears to me at least to be friction at the plastic coin interface in the fields around the numerals that I am not at all sure reflect an incompletely struck flans.
Also, in general I am not impressed with cases used to define the coins within although they can provide a clue. I am as I said not a specialist in Swiss issues but have seen holders or cases that can be misleading.
As an additional point, "Fleur de Coin" as most readers know essentially and nearly directly translated as "flower of the coin". Most definitions in sources describe these coins as perfect and as they left the dies - the first conditional tends to push us toward thinking of proof coins although in a much perhaps currency coins might fit. I would think that such a currency coins would be of higher quality than MS 65 IMHO.
In the end, how does each coin stand on its own and does it really matter what we call it.

 

The ones in their Mint Sets are intended to be PL. I do not know when this started, probably mid-1970's.

The Swiss make incredible quality coins. Many of their circulation strike coins can be found in various states of PL. I've opened up many original rolls (mainly pre-68 silver) and found full PL/Cameo coins in them.

 

One of the problems with using "proof characteristics" to declare something a proof is that you're going to run into situations like this, where most collectors who don't have a lot of knowledge in the specific area will see PL and cameo and say proof. Even experts do this sometimes.

Looking through old auction catalogs you can find lots of 19th century US coins that were sold as proofs because they had sharp strikes and deep PL surfaces, and sometimes cameo contrast. However, today we know with certainty that they are MS because they don't match the known die characteristics of the proofs.

Take this coin with a sharp strike, PL surfaces, and deep cameo contrast. Many people would instantly say proof, but it's not. It's 100% MS.



Here is what a proof looks like, and you can easily see the difference.




If you were to physically compare OP's coins to actual 1985 Swiss proofs, I believe you'd easily see the difference. Both have nice strikes, both are PL, both have cameo contrast, but they will not look the same. The surfaces on the proof will be more watery and the cameo have a more uniform, thicker frost.

Unfortunately, many times the cameo/PL look confuses even the best. Take these 3 coins. Full deep cameo contrast and DMPL mirrors. All 3 are graded PCGS PR69 DCAM. All 3 are MS. Other than the fact that excluding the cameo/PL they don't look like proofs, I know they are MS as I took them out of German Mint Sets.

 

Greg, I think I covered this to some degree in comments about packaging and I think your examples demonstrate my point. If a coin is superbly struck and has squared off rims with sharp detail of devices, cameo contrast, orange peeling within the "proofy" fields, sharp reeding, sharp lettering, lettering and devices more deeply struck than currency and consistent with multiple deep strikes then IMO it is not a mistake to call such a coin a proof no matter what it is labelled.
I for one do not really care what the packaging is but rather what the actual coin is and its characteristics.
You can trot out the German examples, and I can trot out some of the recent British sovereigns that are called "brilliant uncirculated" that have extraordinarily sharp strikes - in fact some struck with up to SIX times (on some occasions although not all) repeated higher pressure strikes. These coins have all of the characteristics (and more) listed and would likely and IMO appropriately be called "proofs" even though labelled else wise - some of us have had some good laughs on this and how the Royal Mint have to some degree painted themselves into a corner. Labelled proofs may have been struck even more times, and are proofs, but inspection of the actual coins in the former circumstance (BU coins) show that they fit many if not most of the proof characteristics that would satisfy.
How would bbI think that it is possible to agree to disagree.
This discussion very much reminds me of the lumpers versus splitters arguments in biology. We can artificially pigeonhole a coin or other entity but the individual merits of a particular item or specimen is what creates the issue and would not consider such a judgement to be a "mistake" but rather a lesson in semantics.

 

Thanks for the great discussion, which is exactly why I posted the set to begin with. I would agree that in most cases the black mint set would qualify as proof, however with the red set in the same year as an obviously proof set, the black set can at best be PL. Further evidence is on the set package with unc. circled here in the English side of the translation.

 

It's a testament to the quality of Switzerland's coins in the past few decades that we can have this discussion. Even their circulation issues can easily be confused with proofs by an untrained eye.

These aren't the best pics, but here's my 1984 proof set, which includes my avatar:


Notice the lack of cartwheel luster on the 5 Francs compared to the UNC set coin.

 

Nice set there, Sir.
One thing that is interesting is that Proof is a means of manufacture rather than condition, then which criteria are used in judging (other than the label that something or some coin is given)?
- Special planchet with polishing & prep? Check
- Dies used of special prep? Check (probably)
- Planchet struck multiple times [with better than currency struck up details in all their manifestations]? Check (probably)

Anyway, I guess this is about beaten to death.