• 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 is a proof?

15 posts in this topic

We seem to define this concept fairly concisely these days with the definition of the proof coin minting process - highly polished planchets and dies, extra strikes to bring up full relief, special device effects applied directly to the dies. (I'm sure this is an incomplete attribution list).

 

But what are proofs historically? If we consider just the definition of "proof" in the context of artistic production, we have, "A trial to examine the state of a work in progress." or "The fact or condition of turning out well or producing good results; good condition or quality." or "A coin or medal struck as a test of the die. Later, any of various preliminary impressions of coins struck as specimens."

 

Given these various definitions, it seems that any of a number of coins produced prior to "proof coinage processes," if you will, could be considered proofs. Some of the trial cents that bore George Washington's portrait (and presented to him, much to his disgust) could all be considered proofs.

 

Must a proof be borne of a particular and formulaic process, or are we forced to consider a broader definition, especially with early coinage? What examples must we rely on?

 

Hoot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not an expert, but I think I could subscribe to some of your broader definition of proof. The trial piece definition seems reasonable, but I would still separate patterns from trials. To me the Washington Cents, and other sundry pattern coins, are mere experiments in trying to design a new coin. A trial is a test striking of a coin destined for production, once the pattern is developed, then you may start striking a few coins to test and refine the production process. Sometimes you end up with very few of these pieces, other times like the HR saints, you end up with a larger number. Today, the proof coin has evolved into a big process, but it's origins are really among the trial strikes and presentation pieces for dignitaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points jtryka, and it helps to illustrate that our modern day concepts of "proof" are off a bit. The highly frosted devices and mirrored fields are created today as a specific effect for the mass production of presentation coins. In yesteryear, Dies may have been treated a variety of ways (including polishing the fields and frosting the devices) and still, the "proofs" were the trial strikes. Perhaps those pieces were struck harder or more times than the business strikes in order to show clearly the potential for the dies.

 

But why presentation pieces? Because they were the first off of fresh dies? Because they were more maticulously produced? Because they were better struck? All of the above? (And why give these to so-called "dignitaries"?)

 

And if these things are true, then where are the arguments made for the "first proof coinage" in the U.S.? Couldn't the first trial pieces for any denomination (not patterns) be considered proofs?

 

TDN? EVP? You guys have argued well over this!

 

Hoot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at it from the Tool Engineering side, generally a Proof is the First Article Run to Qualify a Die Set. I wonder if this could be the origin of the name? tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie,

 

The conventional numismatic usage of the term ``proof'' is, IMO, incorrect. Your definition, from our beloved Industrial Engineering classes, is more on mark. I think the term ``specimen'' is a better word for our hobby.

 

Since Mark seems to want me to chime in, I'll offer my view on this...

 

Based on my earlier comment, I'll assume that the real question is ``what is a specimen?''

 

All freshly prepared dies are very nice, and will impart considerable specimen-like qualities upon the planchet. In order for me to drop the ``-like'' suffix, I'd have to guage intent. Or, in most cases, assume intent. From 1858, the distinction between a real specimen striking and one that is specimen-like is almost always considerable and easily discernible. For earlier issues, the distinction frequently isn't dramatic.

 

I haven't read this thread in great detail, but I think others have commented on the technical aspects of what makes up a specimen. Basically, I think I have no quarrel with what's been said so far. However, to qualify as a true specimen, I think you need to try to guage intent (i.e., was it struck as a show piece?) and that the specimen-like attributes are uniformly imparted on the planchet (e.g., the mirrors should be on the fields as well as in between the shield lines).

 

EVP

 

PS Sharpness of strike is not a primary characteristic for many 19th century specimens.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But do there have to be mirrors? What about other "specimen" finishes? Isn't the intent to show the full artistic and engineered capacity of the dies?

 

Hoot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First Article parts are the first true production parts, ready to be inspected by QA and meet pass/fail criteria. Pass, they are ready to start Provisional Production. Fail, back to the Drawing Board. tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I belief (historically) the Canadian and the British did call them "Specimens". It is we that muddied the waters. tongue.gif

 

These Specimen coins were mirror finish, cameo coins, just like our proofs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some might find this interesting...

 

On page 41 of the Stack's Queller catalog, there is a few paragraphs on the issues surrounding what is a proof.

 

What you'll read isn't useful at all in determining precisely and conclusively what constitutes a proof. Perhaps, given the odd reference to Ray Merena, what Stack's are trying to say is that there just is no good way to settle this issue!

 

(It always strikes me as foolish whenever someone refers to Merena as if he actually knew anything about numismatics! But, that's not relevent to this discussion!)

 

DWL - you're the research director for NGC. How do *you* differentiate?

 

EVP

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member: Seasoned Veteran

The criteria for determining proof status vary from one period to another. Many of the proof nickel coins from the late 1870s and early '80s don't look like proofs at all, while currency strikes of the gold dollars from those same years are typically quite prooflike. As for the early years (pre-1830), many coins from fresh dies were prooflike in their surfaces but not necessarily in their strikes. These can be very deceptive and are frequently offered by auction catalogers as proofs. John J. Pittman owned a number of prooflike coins that may have been offered as proofs by a less diligent cataloger than David Akers, but Akers, much to his credit, called them as what they were.

 

Unfortunately, so many of the early proofs have been carelessly cleaned or otherwise mishandled over the years that making a determination of proof status can be quite difficult. One thing that has helped me tremendously is viewing the Smithsonian's collection of record proofs saved by the U. S. Mint since the 1820s and later transferred to the Smithsonian in 1923. While the copper and silver pieces have been cleaned repeatedly and are, in some instances, nearly ruined as proofs, the gold proofs are typically pristine. These have served me as a guide to what real proofs look like, versus the many prooflike currency pieces we see at NGC.

 

The Smithsonian's early proofs are not on display and can be viewed only by prior arrangement with the curators. To see some beautiful vintage proofs more easily, check out the ANA's Museum in Colorado Springs, where the Bass Collection is on display.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To further muddy the waters, the Branch Mint proofs often struck a few "Presentation Pieces" and then were put into regular production. At this point when do the coins struck by these dies stop being Proofs?? tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EVP - Thank you for the resurrection of this thread and for the reference to a description of proof. Not having the catalog you mention, would it be too much to quote or summarize the catalog's description?

 

David - Thank you as always for your history and guidance!

 

Hoot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, Stack's wrote that there is much debate over what is a proof. Their rule of thumb, apparently, is from Ray Merena: ``If you have to ask yourself if it's a proof, then it probably isn't.''

 

Judging from Stack's description of the '39-O and the 47/6, I'd have to say that they didn't bother to ask themselves any questions whatsoever.

 

EVP

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites