• 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.

What constitutes a proof

13 posts in this topic

My favorite purchase from FUN was a pedigreed one sided proof 1837 reeded edge half. It is listed in Breen as a one sided proof and referenced in several major auction catalogs. The obverse is a full cameo proof and the reverse is satiny. It has a magnificent strike with a wire edge rim. The coin overall is the equal of my Norweb 1838-O [with the exception of the frosty reverse].

 

I had the pleasure of meeting Rick Montgomery at the show when he stopped by Legend's table and I asked him about this coin. He stated that he didn't think it would get a special designation at NGC because of the satiny reverse. That made me stop and think about what actually constitutes a proof.

 

The obverse die was obviously specially polished and the coin was obviously struck more than once to realize the detail. It is not the case of a deceptive business strike from fresh dies. Does the frosty reverse necessarily mean the coin is not a proof? Shouldn't it at least be deserving of the Specimen designation?

 

Opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never heard of this coin before, so this is just a guess. Is it possible that the obverse was used to strike the (4?) proofs of that date and when no more proofs were needed, they just paired it with a normal MS reverse die?

 

It was fairly common to use old proof dies to strike coins for circulation after they were no longer needed or usuable. I've owned an 1855 1¢ and 1875-S 20¢ that were both struck with proof dies.

 

Perhaps it was the other way around. The obverse die was being tested and they paired it with an MS reverse die for the test. Perhaps it was a strike before the other proofs were struck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg: anything is possible, but you'd think a coin would have to be struck twice to bring up the wire rim and full, crisp detail on this coin. Why strike a non proof twice?

 

The mint definitely knew how to make proofs back then - one look at a coin like the Norweb 38-O or the Pittman 38 proof and it makes you think twice about some of the coins called proofs these days (IMO the Queller 39-O was not a proof - it just didn't have the same fabric as other accepted proofs of the time period).

 

Funny that the most obvious proof obverse of the period would be paired with an obvious business strike reverse!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it was a "special made" coin by some mint worker late at night? wink.gif

 

I don't know why it was made like this, but it sure is interesting and I'd love to hear the answer if you ever find it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TDN,

 

My experience has been that the major grading services are inclined to use the term "specimen" rather than "proof" when :

 

1) There is no documentation of a particular coin/issue having been struck in proof. This would apply to a coin which looks like a proof in every way, but for which there is no known special occasion for it to have been struck.

 

2) When a coin looks special in some way, but the grading service is afraid to call it a "proof" - yes, a copout in some way but in some cases I don't blame them. Take a recently sold 1793 Wreath Cent or 1794 Half Dime, for example

 

Regarding the coin you mentioned - I am not familiar with it but if it was indeed struck more than once, from specially prepared dies, I would have no problem with it being called a one-sided proof. Perhaps "specimen" would be a good compromise, though, as whomever made it, didn't take the time or care to make both sides special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Proof" status can be argued ad nauseum. I quote from an unpublished article in progress:

 

Before proceeding, we would like to encourage readers to define to themselves exactly what defines a proof coin. Some collectors may feel that proof status can only be properly conveyed when the mint has specifically announced the intention to strike proofs and has marketed the coins as such. Others may believe that any coin manufactured with a polished die, polished planchet, and sharp strike is eligible for the proof attribution. Of course, there are many degrees of die preparation, and this quickly becomes a subjective exercise.

 

For reference, we quote portions of the Red Book definition of a proof coin here:

 

"A proof is a specimen striking of coinage for presentation, souvenir, exhibition, or numismatic purposes.....The term proof refers to the method of manufacture and not the condition of a coin.....Proof coins can usually be distinguished by their sharpness of detail, high wire edge, and extremely brilliant, mirrorlike surface. All proofs are originally sold by the mint at a premium."

 

The Red Book definition is somewhat contradictory, as it states that "proof" refers to the method of manufacturing, but then also states a marketing requirement, i.e. ALL (emphasis mine) proofs have to sold by the mint at a premium. So, which is it, manufacturing or marketing?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has always been my understanding that a coin MUST be struck at least twice to be considered a true proof, so even if a coin was struck from specially prepared dies on a polished planchet that it cannot be considered a proof if stuck only once. I think that is why you see the term Specimen used on pieces that look prooflike but do not appear to have been struck more then once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites