• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PROOF 12? I thought the lowest graded proof was a PR50

Started by mkman123,

27 posts in this topic

mkman123

mkman123

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Mark or anyone else, whats the lowest possible number you can give for a proof? Proof 01 or ???

 

How do you know to put PR12 vs PR13, etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman_23885

coinman_23885

Posted
Posted
1881 is a Proof-only issue, so, no matter how worn an example of that date is, Proof is the (only) correct attribution.

 

While I agree, my understanding was, at least at one point, that PF coins grading XF or lower would not bear the proof attribution in PCGS holders. They would be graded and designated as if they were mint state pieces. I'll try to find the source of information where I believe I saw this on there site (at one time long ago).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TomB

TomB

Posted
Posted

At one time braddick owned a PR2 or PR3 Trade dollar, if I recall correctly. Additionally, one of my favorite coins in my collection is a PR10 Gobrecht dollar.

 

BTBJ1836P10.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dimefreak

dimefreak

Posted
Posted
I have seen a PCGS PR04 1895 Morgan

 

The lowest grade I see for an 1895 on their pop report is a PR6.

 

There is a thread on it...... Ill see if I can find it. It was sold by that ebay guy that shills at the last second. I think he is done selling now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skippy

skippy

Posted
Posted
1881 is a Proof-only issue, so, no matter how worn an example of that date is, Proof is the (only) correct attribution.

 

While I agree, my understanding was, at least at one point, that PF coins grading XF or lower would not bear the proof attribution in PCGS holders. They would be graded and designated as if they were mint state pieces. I'll try to find the source of information where I believe I saw this on there site (at one time long ago).

 

Putting proof coins in business strike holders would be very bad policy, especially in those cases where business strike coins are worth far more than proof coins (e.g., 1880 shield nickels).

 

Proof is a method of manufacture. The method of manufacture does not change no matter how worn the coin gets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brg5658

brg5658

Posted
Posted
1881 is a Proof-only issue, so, no matter how worn an example of that date is, Proof is the (only) correct attribution.

 

While I agree, my understanding was, at least at one point, that PF coins grading XF or lower would not bear the proof attribution in PCGS holders. They would be graded and designated as if they were mint state pieces. I'll try to find the source of information where I believe I saw this on there site (at one time long ago).

 

Kenny, I've never heard of that before, and I've scoured about every page on the pcgs.com website over the past 2-3 years. Also, it doesn't make any sense why they would do that, as a proof coin is a method of production -- it doesn't matter how much it has circulated, it's simply always a proof. (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FishyOne

FishyOne

Posted
Posted
At one time braddick owned a PR2 or PR3 Trade dollar, if I recall correctly. Additionally, one of my favorite coins in my collection is a PR10 Gobrecht dollar.

 

BTBJ1836P10.jpg

 

Miss Liberty was curling some serious iron before that pose! She's got biceps like Charles Atlas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brg5658

brg5658

Posted
Posted
At one time braddick owned a PR2 or PR3 Trade dollar, if I recall correctly. Additionally, one of my favorite coins in my collection is a PR10 Gobrecht dollar.

 

BTBJ1836P10.jpg

 

Miss Liberty was curling some serious iron before that pose! She's got biceps like Charles Atlas!

 

I had to Google Charles Atlas (Fishy you must be old!) ;) , but :signfunny:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James_OldeTowne

James_OldeTowne

Posted
Posted
For a proof-only issue worn down to Poor condition, Proof-01 would be the correct grade.

The lowest graded proof coin I've ever personally owned was an ANACS PF-03 1877 Indian cent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BillJones

BillJones

Posted
Posted

Does anyone else think that this coin is a bit over graded? It looks like a nice PR-10 to me, just short of PR-12, and yet it has a green bean. ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman_23885

coinman_23885

Posted
Posted
1881 is a Proof-only issue, so, no matter how worn an example of that date is, Proof is the (only) correct attribution.

 

While I agree, my understanding was, at least at one point, that PF coins grading XF or lower would not bear the proof attribution in PCGS holders. They would be graded and designated as if they were mint state pieces. I'll try to find the source of information where I believe I saw this on there site (at one time long ago).

 

Kenny, I've never heard of that before, and I've scoured about every page on the pcgs.com website over the past 2-3 years. Also, it doesn't make any sense why they would do that, as a proof coin is a method of production -- it doesn't matter how much it has circulated, it's simply always a proof. (shrug)

 

I agree with your point, and I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of logic or policy. I still recall reading this somewhere. I am still trying to find out where I read this. I know I am not crazy; I remember thinking the same thing when I first read this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RWB

RWB

Posted
Posted

“Proof” (or “specimen” or “master coin,” etc.) refers ONLY to the method of production. It has no bearing on the state of preservation of the coin.

 

If a coin can be identified as a proof-only issue, or as a proof that has circulated or been abraded, then it should be called a “proof” and the condition identified by the numeric.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
braddick

braddick

Posted
Posted

TomB, I still own that coin.

Was in a PR02 small white ANACS holder and I had it crossed into PCGS plastic many years ago.

PCGS awarded the coin, PR03.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
L1ncolnF4n

L1ncolnF4n

Posted
Posted
Does anyone else think that this coin is a bit over graded? It looks like a nice PR-10 to me, just short of PR-12, and yet it has a green bean. ???

 

Agreed.

 

I've found a few proofs in circulation before, one was a Lincoln cent, 1984-S in about PF-20BN, the other was a state quarter in about PF-40.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing