Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;rmpsrpms, post: 1624852, member: 31773&quot;]The whole concept of proof coins being so different from circulating coins is just plain wrong in my view. A &quot;proof&quot; is an example to prove the quality of the product, and should not be a product on its own. In the case of coins, it should be to prove that the dies, machinery, etc are able to produce an acceptable product for circulation. This is similar to what is done for photographs, ie you look at the proof page and decide which photo you want printed. Now, we can&#039;t go that far with coins, but we could do a bit better than we do now:</p><p><br /></p><p>No polished planchets</p><p>No double-striking</p><p>Any special process during die or planchet preparation also gets applied to circulation strikes</p><p>Improved handling after striking to ensure essentially PF70 quality on every coin</p><p><br /></p><p>In this way, the coins are truly proofs of the circulating coinage. Personally I&#039;d like to see every die be &quot;proofed&quot; and these proof coins shipped to the public. No special dies for proofs, no special planchets, no special process except handling. I would see no issue devoting a particular press to proofs, as long as it was substantially identical to a production press. The workers would &quot;proof&quot; every die used in the production presses on that machine. Alternately, the first coins struck after a die pair is replaced on the production machines could be used to proof the dies. </p><p><br /></p><p>Is this practical to do? No. Would it be popular with the public? No. But I can no longer consider the &quot;proof&quot; monstrosities that the mint produces for &quot;collectors&quot; as anything other than tokens, or possibly bullion.[/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