What exactly is "proof-like"?

1952-FS. There are plenty of other examples. From the PCGS CoinFacts site.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

All Canadian coins in mint sets after 1968 are prooflike in appearance. They do a great job. Don't pay extra for Canadian coins listed as prooflikes unless it is before 1967.

 

You're comparing something that is extremely thinly traded (3 total PCGS sales) and over a large period of time (most recent PCGS sale being in 2020 vs NGC in 2014). Also, each coin needs to be examined for toning as nice color will make a huge difference. Look at the majority of the dates and it won't be like this.

And CoinFacts has errors too. I was just looking at a coin today that apparently sold for a tiny fraction of guide; the issue was they linked a proof coin instead of a business strike.

 

Here's another date, 1947-S. In all fairness the real fortunate collector is one who owns neither PCGS nor NGC graded coins for the series. Few series have been hit harder over the past 15 years, with prices for high-end coins tumbling to a fraction of what they once were regardless of grading service. I can say this much for certain: I doubt anyone ever tries to cross one of these FS coins from a PCGS holder to an NGC holder. Of the coins sent to PCGS to cross, few make the grade.

 

It looks like there are a few top pops (or near top pops) where you are right about the price difference. I'm guessing it's a combination of registry fever and marketing. I looked back at a few examples and the linked NGC coins were 5FS. PCGS only requires 5 steps while NGC has both a 5FS and 6FS.

I also doubt there are many cross attempts for the high end grades (and I could see NGC rejecting quite a few too-some based on not meeting their FS definition and some just because they can).

 

Here are my thoughts:

"Proof-like" is a completely made up term used by sellers to extract more from the pockets of buyers: "Ooh, look, it's a nice one. If I put the word 'proof' in the description somewhere I'll get more for it". It's marketing, nothing more.

To me it is simply another (more sales-worthy) term for an early-strike. More desirable? Yes, but not to the extent suggested by all this slabbing crap.

However, as long as people keep buying the plastic instead of the coin, this sort of nonsense will continue.

 

And yet most if not all languages had a word for proof-like long before the existence of TPGs. The coins look very different from typical business strikes and react to handling in a way that is very different from typical business strikes. They are not merely early strikes, as the vast majority of early strikes do not produce proof-like coins. These are pairings of freshly prepared obverse and reverse dies where the coin has mirrored surfaces and frequently frosted devices.

For many classic issues where proofs were either not produced or are exceedingly rare, proof-like examples are a way to have a coin that has the look of a presentation piece. They are absolutely not marketing hype, and in many cases, it is exactly these special properties being prized by previous generations of collectors that led to the coins being preserved to reach us today.

 

I agree with @Jaelus
It is not hype; prooflike examples can often make a coin more eye appealing than a traditional business strike.

 

You seem to contradict yourself, unless I've misunderstood:

Freshly prepared obverse and reverse dies? Mirrored surfaces and frosted devices? You might as well be describing a proof. Nevertheless, I consider the term "proof-like" to be a modern concept designed to relieve collectors of their hard-earned. Call me cynical if you will - I am.

This is the part of your post that confuses me. You explain the production of "proof-like" coins in the first paragraph, and then apply it to older coins (I assume this is what you mean by "classic issues" being passed down over generations) where this method of production didn't take place. How does an older coin get to be designated "proof-like" when it was produced in exactly the same way as its contemporaries? What differentiates it being as "proof-like"? As far as I can see, only by being a pleasing early strike.

 

Sometimes being proof-like can actually detract from the grade because any abrasions in the fields are so much more noticeable. Hence, a coin that might have otherwise slabbed as MS64 will end-up multiple points lower because of the marks in the fields that wouldn't even be detectable on a frosty coin. And so I kind of agree that PL is maybe a bit of marketing schmaltz especially for low-end UNC coins. On coins in the MS64 and above grade, PL deserves all the accolades it gets for the remarkable state of preservation required to reach that grade in PL.

Here's an MS60 that while not labeled PL, clearly is PL. None of the marks would be detectable if struck from frosty or worn dies. They were easy for the grader to see because they were served-up on a mirrored platter that made them obvious.

 

This is where the difference of proof-like as a type of strike and proof-like as a descriptor of a mint state coin comes into play. The first paragraph of the post you quoted describes the former. The second paragraph describes the latter.

 

In Canada, the term proof-like is used by the Royal Canadian mint and Canadian coin guides. It is not a made-up term here and has a specific definition.

 

Thanks. Given that, then to me it's still all about marketing. The first paragraph describes modern coins made for collectors. Those are all about marketing.

The second paragraph describes older coins that weren't specially minted, but are particularly appealing due to quality of strike, freedom from blemishes etc. That doesn't make them proof-like in my eyes, it makes them a nice early strike. The "proof-like" tag is just spin. I would allow that currency coins struck from dies previously used for proofs could be described as such but it seems to be much more widely applied.

You might have guessed it's not a term I'm a big fan of.

 

Might as well be describing a proof? Yes, that's literally the whole point. Proof-like, meaning, like a proof. In some cases, proof-like coins are all but indistinguishable from proofs, except maybe the squared edges and some difficult to articulate aspects of general appearance. Technically though, the method of manufacture differs between proofs and proof-like coins. While the dies may be equivalent, the planchet preparation is different, as is the method of striking of the coin.

Yes, by classic issues, I mean broadly the coins issued after the adoption of the steam press, but prior to the modern coinage period (the dates differ by country but generally early 19th century to mid 20th).

I have in my collection a pair of exceptional gem 1892 korona with the same extremely distinctive pattern of cabinet toning. This is a key date, and this pair came from an old European collection. One of the coins is a matte business strike, and the other is a proof-like business strike. This pair of coins was collected and preserved together because they were prized for their different finishes. This is neither a modern concept nor marketing hype. These strikes are and have historically been significant to collectors. You are simply wrong on this point.

It has the appearance of being a proof without being a proof. The surfaces are mirrored and impair like the surfaces of a proof, and the devices are frosted. And this is because it wasn't produced in the same way as its contemporaries. The proof-like example was struck with a pair of freshly polished dies. This produced a few proof-like examples, after which it very quickly produced matte business strikes. The dies themselves changed after those initial strikes. This is in the same way that a coin with shattered dies was struck "in the same way" as the coins struck while the die was intact. Yet the coins struck with shattered dies are collected and studied for that reason and are special, frequently designated as LDS or TDS (late or terminal die state).

From my collection, I present the following two examples of the exact same issue for comparison:

Hungary 1869KB AR 20 Krajczár KM-446 (1868-1869)
NGC MS65


Hungary 1869KB AR 20 Krajczár KM-446 (1868-1869)
NGC MS64+ PL


If you want a US example, here's another pair of identical issues from my collection, an 1880S Morgan dollar, both a typical business strike and a proof-like example.



Surely you see the marked difference between the above pairs of coins, yes? Toning notwithstanding, the eye appeal of a proof-like coin will usually surpass a matte business strike graded significantly higher. For example, I kept an MS61PL gold issue in my collection over upgrading to an MS64 a couple years ago, since the 61 had superior eye appeal.

Whether or not you take stock in the designation "proof-like" itself, can you not appreciate that these coins are significantly different and that a way to describe these coins to collectors is both very meaningful and necessary? It is why you see this terminology used in all markets, which predominantly includes raw coins for world issues. Not because it is a modern marketing ploy, but because it is a significant property to point out to collectors.

 

Then I don't get it. There isn't any need for a coin that's not quite a proof but a bit better than BU unless it's to sell to collectors for profit. It's nonsense! What shall we have next? A super-proof?

Yup. Sorry. I'd be curious to know when the PL korona was first described as "proof-like"? Were there any tickets with the old European collection? How was it described?

They're both business strikes though? Minted in the same way, just differing in the order they came off the press? If this is the case then why doesn't the term early strike apply in a similar way to LDS or TDS - that's exactly what you describe here, surely? It lacks consistency.

I have an issue with the term "proof-like" being used for both these and the modern proof-like coins. The two are poles apart.

I do appreciate the difference in the coins you've shown, nice examples thank you. I get what you're saying.

I'd love to know where the term "proof-like" was first used to describe these EBS (Early Business Strike ) coins? I'd have my money on an auction house catalogue somewhere...

 

Here's the big difference between Proof, Mint State, and PL.
Proof: A coin struck with special dies on specially prepared planchets that was originally sold at a premium by the mint producing the coin.
Mint State: An uncirculated coin originally available at face value.
Proof-Like: A coin exhibiting many of the traits of a proof, but which was never intended to be a proof nor sold for a premium.

Which necessarily means the Canadian coins sold as PL for a premium really weren't PL at all, but either Mint State or Proof.

 

I think the difference in your thinking is exemplified with your use of the word "better" here. It's not better. It's different. The surfaces of the coin are different to the extent that they impair differently than matte business strikes do. Just as the LDS/TDS coin from my previous example is also not better, it is different. And we all know numismatics is all about calling out and naming miniscule differences, and yet this is a fairly significant difference in finish, not some minor rotation or position difference on one of the devices like we call out for classic varieties.

In my own collection, I treat these coins as a different strike type altogether, and will never use a proof-like coin to fill a business strike slot. For many issues that have known proof-likes, I endeavor to find an example of both a proof-like and a business strike for every date in the set.

I don't have the ticket, but it is clear why both examples were kept together in the collection. This was not only the first year of issue, but it was a new denomination altogether, and the mintage was extremely low (unknown, but most likely less than 10,000). Examples in a state of preservation like mine (MS65+) are just not out there, and to have a pair of them like this, I suspect (without any proof of course) that they may have been presentation coins. They would not have called the one coin proof-like, but the equivalent of first strike.

Why does there have to be consistency about this term between different languages? For example, every European language I am aware of calls what we call a pattern the equivalent of test strike. And yet in English, I would say test strike has a different connotation than pattern. In other languages they do not differentiate between these terms.

So do I.

So most of the world calls proof-like coins first strikes. I think proof-like is a better name, since you can certainly have a first strike that is not proof-like in appearance, and you can have a proof-like that is not technically what we think of as a first strike (in modern usage - when the term was coined abroad it was true). But hey, the coin looks like a proof, so proof-like isn't a bad name, but something like proof-like business strike would be more precise.

As for the modern collector finish issues, I blame Canada for calling their coins proof-like, as the TPGs latched on to this and then started labelling the collector finish coins from other countries PL for consistency. For example, the Hungarian mint calls their collector finish "BU", which honestly is an even worse name than proof-like. I see auctions for Hungarian coins by English speakers and they will put BU in the auction title in reference to the grade, but the coin will also have a BU (read: collector finish) version, and thus the term becomes ambiguous. So now the TPGs will label these Hungarian BU issues as PL to be consistent with the Canadians. Personally, I refer to these modern issues collectively as "collector finish" coins. I think this is a much better term, as while different countries have different names for this finish, the one commonality is that they were all made specially for collector sets or the like, but are not proofs.

Thank you.

Absolutely not. Numismatic jargon specifically describing these coins (regardless of the term used) dates back at the very least to the early 17th century. In Europe, they would sometimes strike the first coins from new dies in a special metal like silver or gold, even if it was a base metal issue, and/or they would take the first strikes and use them as presentation pieces for a Lord or other dignitary. They were well aware that the first strikes from new dies had a special appearance where the coin would strike up fully and it would (for lack of a better word) look like what we think of as a proof. So these coins frequently would have had special handling in contrast with the successive business strikes, and absolutely had special significance to the mint and to numismatists.

 

Ok, I agree. Let's blame Canada.

Thank you for a better understanding.

 

Yes, it's all the Canadians fault. If only Ottawa had taken the time to create coins that really were proof none of the ensuing confusion would have occurred.

 

From 54-67 Canada coined PL in sets from cent through to dollar. They weren't issued separately. Almost across the board an MS65 is worth 10 to 20 times what a PL is. Now, in some varieties a PL might be more than a comparable MS, but not too many. Collectors up here hate the PL designations as well as you world coin folks. Many collectors have been really screwed by buying what looks like an MS65 for $1500 and sold as such and find out it's a PL worth $75.