Specimen proof (SP) Vs. Proof

[coinsandmedals]

So my question may be very simplistic but despite my knowledge I struggle to come up an answer to this question. Is there a technical difference a specimen proof strike and a proof strike, if so what is it? Does it involve the preparation of the planchet prior to strike or is it some other issue? I’m not asking this question geared to U.S. coins but rather to foreign coins (NOT CANADA) in which a particular issue is only struck as business PL or Proof. However I managed to receive SP as the designation so my question is mainly geared toward what accurate interpretation of the coin should be according to NGC its not a PL coin and its a proof coin so what is it? Any suggestions would be much appreciated, as i said this may be a simplistic question but I’m a little lost. For contextual information the PL coin is very common and the proof is very rare (approximately 10) , and there is no mention of an SP issue and the graded population (NGC have not checked PCGS) of the SP coins is 1 by each denomination, with virtually no proofs graded.

[RWB]

A "proof" made by the US Mint up to about 1995 had specific mechanical and visual characteristics.

 

The term "specimen" is loosely applied to anything that is not a "proof" but looks different than a circulation strike, and for which there is little or no documentation. Examples would be 1927 nickels made from chromium plated dies, and a couple of unusual 1921 double eagles.

 

In my opinion, modern use of “specimen” has been corrupted by those with a monetary interest in a particular coin, and cannot be trusted to convey any useful information – except possibly greed.

 

[bsshog40]

A "proof" made by the US Mint up to about 1995 had specific mechanical and visual characteristics.

 

 

 

In my opinion, modern use of “specimen” has been corrupted by those with a monetary interest in a particular coin, and cannot be trusted to convey any useful information – except possibly greed.

I thought that specimen coins were actually treated differently for example, the 1994 & 1997 jeffersons. Didn't these have a different finish to be able to distinguish them from others? I also thought that they were specially prepared for the specific purpose of being a specimen type. I think they are actually considered SMS coins but graded with an SP designation.

[brg5658]

You will get more useful replies if you tell us what coin and from what country your coin comes. Pictures would be even better, since you specifically said it was not a US or Canadian coin...yet, you posted your question in the "U.S. Coins" forum.

[jimjum12]

A "proof" made by the US Mint up to about 1995 had specific mechanical and visual characteristics.

 

 

 

In my opinion, modern use of “specimen” has been corrupted by those with a monetary interest in a particular coin, and cannot be trusted to convey any useful information – except possibly greed.

I thought that specimen coins were actually treated differently for example, the 1994 & 1997 jeffersons. Didn't these have a different finish to be able to distinguish them from others? I also thought that they were specially prepared for the specific purpose of being a specimen type. I think they are actually considered SMS coins but graded with an SP designation.

 

.... this is what I thought, also. Now, I too, am confused. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[MarkFeld]

A "proof" made by the US Mint up to about 1995 had specific mechanical and visual characteristics.

 

 

 

In my opinion, modern use of “specimen” has been corrupted by those with a monetary interest in a particular coin, and cannot be trusted to convey any useful information – except possibly greed.

I thought that specimen coins were actually treated differently for example, the 1994 & 1997 jeffersons. Didn't these have a different finish to be able to distinguish them from others? I also thought that they were specially prepared for the specific purpose of being a specimen type. I think they are actually considered SMS coins but graded with an SP designation.

 

.... this is what I thought, also. Now, I too, am confused. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

You two gentlemen are speaking of modern coins designated "Specimen" and are correct. I believe that RWB was speaking of older/classic coins designated "Specimen". And I agree with his definition below. Thus, I think all of you are right.

 

"The term "specimen" is loosely applied to anything that is not a "proof" but looks different than a circulation strike, and for which there is little or no documentation. Examples would be 1927 nickels made from chromium plated dies, and a couple of unusual 1921 double eagles."

 

 

[jimjum12]

(thumbs u

[coinsandmedals]

Hi all, I posted this in the U.S. section because it receives considerably more traffic than the world coin forum which to my experience is basically a ghost town. The coin/coins I'm referring to are from New Zealand, if I can access my photo bucket account I will post pictures as soon as I can. I don't have the intent to sell these coins so the intent of greed is not the reason why I ask this question, I'm genuinely interested in the differences.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

A "proof" made by the US Mint up to about 1995 had specific mechanical and visual characteristics.

 

 

 

In my opinion, modern use of “specimen” has been corrupted by those with a monetary interest in a particular coin, and cannot be trusted to convey any useful information – except possibly greed.

I thought that specimen coins were actually treated differently for example, the 1994 & 1997 jeffersons. Didn't these have a different finish to be able to distinguish them from others? I also thought that they were specially prepared for the specific purpose of being a specimen type. I think they are actually considered SMS coins but graded with an SP designation.

 

.... this is what I thought, also. Now, I too, am confused. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

You two gentlemen are speaking of modern coins designated "Specimen" and are correct. I believe that RWB was speaking of older/classic coins designated "Specimen". And I agree with his definition below. Thus, I think all of you are right.

 

"The term "specimen" is loosely applied to anything that is not a "proof" but looks different than a circulation strike, and for which there is little or no documentation. Examples would be 1927 nickels made from chromium plated dies, and a couple of unusual 1921 double eagles."

 

 

Good Evening, Mr. Feld.

 

The OP is asking the question in relation to foreign coins.

 

Whether or not the coin was struck at a U. S. Mint has not been determined.

 

The date and Country has not been determined.

 

I would also state that the observations made so far could mislead a person to interpret the modern Era as post 1995. We should establish what Modern is, in relation to the OP question, and keeping in mind that it would not neccessarily be the same with Foreign issues.

 

It is possible the OP might think it is a rare issue, having received the SP deignation, and may not want to share the information at this time.

 

However, I have a slightly different opinion than yours and and Mr. RWB.

 

There are 19th Century Foreign SP coins, that do not fall under the specific criteria described by you two learned gentlemen, as an example, the 1867 Hungary SP.

 

As usual, Mr. Feld, and as you often mention, more information would be needed to be able to answer the question.

 

[MarkFeld]

A "proof" made by the US Mint up to about 1995 had specific mechanical and visual characteristics.

 

 

 

In my opinion, modern use of “specimen” has been corrupted by those with a monetary interest in a particular coin, and cannot be trusted to convey any useful information – except possibly greed.

I thought that specimen coins were actually treated differently for example, the 1994 & 1997 jeffersons. Didn't these have a different finish to be able to distinguish them from others? I also thought that they were specially prepared for the specific purpose of being a specimen type. I think they are actually considered SMS coins but graded with an SP designation.

 

.... this is what I thought, also. Now, I too, am confused. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

You two gentlemen are speaking of modern coins designated "Specimen" and are correct. I believe that RWB was speaking of older/classic coins designated "Specimen". And I agree with his definition below. Thus, I think all of you are right.

 

"The term "specimen" is loosely applied to anything that is not a "proof" but looks different than a circulation strike, and for which there is little or no documentation. Examples would be 1927 nickels made from chromium plated dies, and a couple of unusual 1921 double eagles."

 

 

Good Evening, Mr. Feld.

 

The OP is asking the question in relation to foreign coins.

 

Whether or not the coin was struck at a U. S. Mint has not been determined.

 

The date and Country has not been determined.

 

I would also state that the observations made so far could mislead a person to interpret the modern Era as post 1995. We should establish what Modern is, in relation to the OP question, and keeping in mind that it would not neccessarily be the same with Foreign issues.

 

It is possible the OP might think it is a rare issue, having received the SP deignation, and may not want to share the information at this time.

 

However, I have a slightly different opinion than yours and and Mr. RWB.

 

There are 19th Century Foreign SP coins, that do not fall under the specific criteria described by you two learned gentlemen, as an example, the 1867 Hungary SP.

 

As usual, Mr. Feld, and as you often mention, more information would be needed to be able to answer the question.

 

Fair points, John.

 

Unfortunately, the OP did not reveal that he was asking about a foreign coin, until after a number of us had posted replies. Obviously, that could make a significant difference. It certainly does in my case, as I don't feel I am qualified to offer expert opinions on foreign coins.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

A "proof" made by the US Mint up to about 1995 had specific mechanical and visual characteristics.

 

 

 

In my opinion, modern use of “specimen” has been corrupted by those with a monetary interest in a particular coin, and cannot be trusted to convey any useful information – except possibly greed.

I thought that specimen coins were actually treated differently for example, the 1994 & 1997 jeffersons. Didn't these have a different finish to be able to distinguish them from others? I also thought that they were specially prepared for the specific purpose of being a specimen type. I think they are actually considered SMS coins but graded with an SP designation.

 

.... this is what I thought, also. Now, I too, am confused. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

You two gentlemen are speaking of modern coins designated "Specimen" and are correct. I believe that RWB was speaking of older/classic coins designated "Specimen". And I agree with his definition below. Thus, I think all of you are right.

 

"The term "specimen" is loosely applied to anything that is not a "proof" but looks different than a circulation strike, and for which there is little or no documentation. Examples would be 1927 nickels made from chromium plated dies, and a couple of unusual 1921 double eagles."

 

 

Good Evening, Mr. Feld.

 

The OP is asking the question in relation to foreign coins.

 

Whether or not the coin was struck at a U. S. Mint has not been determined.

 

The date and Country has not been determined.

 

I would also state that the observations made so far could mislead a person to interpret the modern Era as post 1995. We should establish what Modern is, in relation to the OP question, and keeping in mind that it would not neccessarily be the same with Foreign issues.

 

It is possible the OP might think it is a rare issue, having received the SP deignation, and may not want to share the information at this time.

 

However, I have a slightly different opinion than yours and and Mr. RWB.

 

There are 19th Century Foreign SP coins, that do not fall under the specific criteria described by you two learned gentlemen, as an example, the 1867 Hungary SP.

 

As usual, Mr. Feld, and as you often mention, more information would be needed to be able to answer the question.

 

Fair points, John.

 

Unfortunately, the OP did not reveal that he was asking about a foreign coin, until after a number of us had posted replies. Obviously, that could make a significant difference. It certainly does in my case, as I don't feel I am qualified to offer expert opinions on foreign coins.

 

Thank you Mr. F.

 

I am going to hate myself for what comes next, because it will constitute the 3rd time in 6 days that the issue of comprehension has had to be discussed with you.

 

Here goes: The OPs' OP specifically states it is a foreign coin.

 

At this point, I am cautioning you to slow down, get off the busy overworked lifestyle you have recently undertatken ,and for goodeness sake, stop speed reading. You are going to have a heart attack.

 

Respects,

John

 

Oh, and when you go back and scan over this Thread, you will see a reference to a certain country by the OP. To assist, that country also had SP coins that are at odds with the aformentioned criteria

[coinsandmedals]

Im not asking this question geared to U.S. coins but rather to foreign coins (NOT CANADA) in which a particular issue is only struck as business PL or Proof.

 

Mr. Feld I do appreciate your contribution to the thread but I did state in the original post that this question was geared toward world coins.

 

Here are a few pictures I hope it helps.

 

 

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Im not asking this question geared to U.S. coins but rather to foreign coins (NOT CANADA) in which a particular issue is only struck as business PL or Proof.

 

Mr. Feld I do appreciate your contribution to the thread but I did state in the original post that this question was geared toward world coins.

 

Here are a few pictures I hope it helps.

 

 

 

 

Good Evening, Mr. candm.

 

Please know that a certain method and finesse is in order when discussing a slight correction to a Post by Mr. F, or for that matter, anyone.

 

Blurting it out throws away the Poker game, and risks an unfortunate interpretation of the method used in the correction.

 

Now, having said that, I would refer you to authoritative information that already exists on this piece, and the reason it is designated a SP. It is readily available.

 

We all research information about our particular interests. That is what makes the Hooby enjoyable. If, after a personal effort of research, it does not yield the answer, there are many on these Boards that would be qualified to discuss the particulars.

 

But (there is always a "but"), it is expected that the effort be made to self answer.

 

Just a thought, and given with no intention of Malice.

 

John Curlis

[MarkFeld]

Im not asking this question geared to U.S. coins but rather to foreign coins (NOT CANADA) in which a particular issue is only struck as business PL or Proof.

 

Mr. Feld I do appreciate your contribution to the thread but I did state in the original post that this question was geared toward world coins.

 

Here are a few pictures I hope it helps.

 

 

 

 

My apologies to you and the forum for not having read your entire post before replying. AND for incorrectly stating that you did not initially mention that you were speaking of a foreign coin. I would chide others for the same.

 

I will leave, rather than edit my (offensive/guilty) comments as a reminder and lesson to myself to slow down. Sometimes I am too eager to lend assistance, and, as can be seen here, that can be a bad thing.

[comicdonna]

 

My apologies to you and the forum for not having read your entire post before replying. AND for incorrectly stating that you did not initially mention that you were speaking of a foreign coin. I would chide others for the same.

 

I will leave, rather than edit my (offensive/guilty) comments as a reminder and lesson to myself to slow down. Sometimes I am too eager to lend assistance, and, as can be seen here, that can be a bad thing.

One would normally assume, that a thread in the US coin section, would be about a US coin.

 

Also, I am sure most anyone here is grateful for your contributions, Mark.

[MarkFeld]

 

My apologies to you and the forum for not having read your entire post before replying. AND for incorrectly stating that you did not initially mention that you were speaking of a foreign coin. I would chide others for the same.

 

I will leave, rather than edit my (offensive/guilty) comments as a reminder and lesson to myself to slow down. Sometimes I am too eager to lend assistance, and, as can be seen here, that can be a bad thing.

One would normally assume, that a thread in the US coin section, would be about a US coin.

 

Also, I am sure most anyone here is grateful for your contributions, Mark.

 

Thank you for your graciousness.

[bsshog40]

 

My apologies to you and the forum for not having read your entire post before replying. AND for incorrectly stating that you did not initially mention that you were speaking of a foreign coin. I would chide others for the same.

 

I will leave, rather than edit my (offensive/guilty) comments as a reminder and lesson to myself to slow down. Sometimes I am too eager to lend assistance, and, as can be seen here, that can be a bad thing.

One would normally assume, that a thread in the US coin section, would be about a US coin.

 

Also, I am sure most anyone here is grateful for your contributions, Mark.

Ditto!!

[coinsandmedals]

First and for most, I do not wish to respond any manner that would offend. My goal here is take something from this thread more specifically knowledge. I did not intend to "attack" Mr. Feld I simply wished to point out the fact that I stated I was talking about foreign coins. I do not feel that I should have to defend my position on that matter, I was simply making a clarification.

 

As to the second point yes I tried to research the coins in question myself but I could not find any valuable information. I turned to this board because of people LIKE MR. FELD who are always there to help. Seeing now that this discussion will most likely turn into a bitter exchange that initial goal is useless.

[MarkFeld]

First and for most, I do not wish to respond any manner that would offend. My goal here is take something from this thread more specifically knowledge. I did not intend to "attack" Mr. Feld I simply wished to point out the fact that I stated I was talking about foreign coins. I do not feel that I should have to defend my position on that matter, I was simply making a clarification.

 

As to the second point yes I tried to research the coins in question myself but I could not find any valuable information. I turned to this board because of people LIKE MR. FELD who are always there to help. Seeing now that this discussion will most likely turn into a bitter exchange that initial goal is useless.

 

You did not attack me in any way - your response to my mischaracterization of your initial post was perfectly reasonable and called for. And, as I mentioned, you have been most gracious.

 

I am extremely confident that if posters read our entire posts : ), there will be no bitter or even unfriendly exchange here.

 

My apologies for derailing this thread and hopefully, someone will be able to help answer the original questions. Best of luck.

[comicdonna]

If you don't get your answer here, maybe try the Ask NGC forum. I believe your question/thread remains hidden, until a NGC representative replies.

 

Good luck.

[coinsandmedals]

Alright, catching up the posts, thank you Mr. Feld for the further clarification and words of encouragement. That is an excellent idea comicdonna I may have to post this question there to receive the information I'm looking for.

[DaveG]

While I hate to interrupt this cavalcade of graciousness and get this thread back on track, this is what NGC says:

 

coins displaying proof characteristics indicative of special handling that are not true proofs are described with the grade prefix PL, prooflike, or SP, specimen.

 

I suppose that I were interested in New Zealand coins, I might call NGC and ask customer service how exactly they distinguish among New Zealand half pennies of 1965.

[dadams]

As to coinage wouldn't "Specimen" refer to a coin that was neither a circulation strike nor meant for collectors? Rather, the term should be applied to trial coinage, and such, where few in number were made. I think it has been the TPGs that have abused the term as was used in the past and find myself in alignment with RWB.

[MarkFeld]

As to coinage wouldn't "Specimen" refer to a coin that was neither a circulation strike nor meant for collectors? Rather, the term should be applied to trial coinage, and such, where few in number were made. I think it has been the TPGs that have abused the term as was used in the past and find myself in alignment with RWB.

 

Some "Specimen" coins are produced in large numbers, specifically for collectors. See here with respect to coins from the Canadian Mint.

 

And, as another example, in the case of U.S. coinage, there are specially made "SMS" coins from the mid 1960's.

[brg5658]

There is a lot of confusion about the use of the "SP" prefix for world coins.

 

About 2 years ago I purchased this coin, a silver essai strike minted in a quantity of only 500 coins. The one I own is graded with the descriptor "SP" by PCGS.

 

 

==================================

Since that time, I watched this same strike and variety sell on Heritage, graded with a descriptor of "PF":

 

 

==================================

AND, to complicate matters even more, NGC has graded a total of 10 of this KM-E34 variety -- but 4 were graded with the "MS" descriptor and 6 were graded as "PF" pieces.

 

 

==================================

Now, try to make sense of that garbled mess. I have a hard time believing an essai piece struck in a quantity of 500 was manufactured in 3 different ways!!

 

My take has been that it depends not only on the TPG but also on the particular person or group of persons, and likely the year/timeframe the coin was graded. In the end, I would say that if you are going to be a collector of world coins, you better know what you're doing and what you're looking for if you are buying TPG slabbed coins.

 

Cheers,

-Brandon

[Kevin J Flynn]

One of my favorite subjects as it drives me nuts.

 

The determination that a coin is struck as a proof is primarily based on the intention of the Mint. The laws governing proof and pattern coins changed over time, but the biggest change was in 1873 and 1874, see one example below. Intentions can be seen also through actions, for example, what method was used to strike, how were sold and distributed.

 

There is a little complexity in that a coin struck as a pattern can be sold as a proof is first year of issue, same design and alloy.

 

Some coins were specially struck, for example, the planchets for all Isabelly quarters were polished. 50 or so of the New Rochelle commems were on polished planchets. Neither of these are considered proofs.

 

Then we have the problem that the Mint did not sell as a proof, but someone decided at some point, perhaps with a motivation of profit, that a coin was a proof. The 1894-S barber dime was struck as a business strike, but was called a proof first in the 1940s. A 1875-S Twenty cent was called a proof in the 1930s, then again by Breen in the 60s. These coins were not called proofs by the Mint, released into circulation, not sold or distributed as proofs. The 1838-O Half, 10 were first struck at New Orleans before the die broke, these have been called proofs because of their rarity, but were not struck or distributed as proofs. Obviously these coins should have well defined design elements as they are from fresh dies.

 

The Third Party grading services have transitioned to only calling proofs that which can be proved through archive records, witness accounts, or other which can substantiate that they are proofs. For example, we have letters from the San Fran Superintendent on the 1855 quarter and half proofs from SF. We have a newspaper account of 1892 Columbian Half Dollar proofs.

 

Others, which are far superior that normal business strikes, but do not have the official validation of being called a proof are now called specimen coins. NGC has certified a 1906-D Barber Dime as a specimen coin. When I asked David Lange about this, he stated that the coin was far superior than any other business strike he had ever seen.

 

If you look at Breen's Proof book, he designates a number of branch mint proofs. He is wrong an many of these. Each variety needs to be evaluated on its own merit.

 

I am working on books covering each of the Liberty Seated series, The first dimes were struck at the New Orleans Mint on May 8, 1838. Thirty specimens were struck, 1 was sent to Director Patternson, 10 of which were deposited in the corner stone of the New American Theater that was laid on the same day, and the remainder were distributed to Mint employees mementos. Striking these coins as souveniers does not classify them as proofs.

 

Of course, a proof coin should have the attributes of a proof, including detailed design elements, full rims, squared corners, brilliant fields reflective so to speak of the methods used to make them. We can use attributes of the coin to help determine the methods and intentions of the Mint when these coins were struck. But it needs to be considered, that the methods changed over time. For example, in researching a book on Lincoln cent matte proofs, I found for some years, business strikes had better design detail and fuller rims that some proofs.

 

Taking the above to foreign coins, obviously the actual coins can teach us about the methods used to create them. But do early die states of business strikes look the same or close? How was the mint of that country distributing proof coins, in sets? To the public? What differences are the grading services using as a standard to make a determination?

 

Another thing to remember is that the third party grading services have transitioned and evolved over the years, coins such as the 1894-S barber dime that used to be certified as proofs are now called specimen by PCGS and NGC. Also, NGC guarentees attributions which was confirmed with in speaking to Scott Schechter at NGC. If NGC called a coin a proof, but could not validate it was a proof, would they then be liable for this?

 

Also, grading is simply the opinion of the grader. Some have more experience than others, some have more specialization than others. I have seen PCGS and NGC coins certified as mint state that I knew were proofs and had them subsequently resubmitted as proofs. If you believe your coin is in error, I would suggest writing NGC or PCGS, show your evidence, and ask them to support their designation.

 

On this particular coin, I would agree that they look like they were from the same working die and appear equal in strike and surface texture. The denticles are stronger on the left side of the obverse than the right, the letters around the obverse have good definition, the details in the face and hair show well, except for one spot in the middle of the back of the hair, the details on the reverse are very clear and show very distictly all lines, curves of the design.

 

How does this variety compare against an early die state business strike?

 

To answer your question, technically, it is possible that a specimen coin can have the same or better qualities in strike, luster, and other attributes as a proof coin.

 

As to whether it is relevant that these coins are foreign or not, I believe it is not. We are still talking about PCGS and NGC's interpretation and usage of the designation of Proof vs Specimen. I believe the same criteria is being applied, but that is has evolved over time. Was the coin certified as a proof a recent or old certification.

 

Kevin

 

 

The following was listed in Record #108 at the National Archives, Medal Account Book of the Chief Coiner.

 

Regulations for the striking and sale of medals and the furnishing of proof coins and specimen pieces at the Mint of the United States at Philadelphia under the Coinage Act of 1873.

 

1. Dies of a national character may be executed by the Engraver and National and other medals struck by the Coiner of the Mint of the United States at Philadelphia under such regulations as the Superintendent with the approval of the Director of the Mint may prescribe.

2. The Superintendent shall have the general supervision of the manufacture of medals and the striking of proof and pattern pieces. All communications relating thereto must be addressed to that officer.

3. All dies other than medals and the regular coining dies, expect when in actual use by the Coiner, shall be in the custody of the Superintendent, who shall also keep all models from which experimental dies have been prepared. All hubs of teh regular coining dies shall remain in the custody of the Engraver. Hubs of pattern dies shall be destroyed at the close of each year.

4. The Coiner shall on the written order of the Superintendent prepare all medals required and shall keep an accurate record of those manufactured, with a description of the metal employed therein, and the number struck, and in the case of gold and silver medals, shall furnish the Superintendent with duplicate accounts charging the amount of bullion employed, and the amount lost in the manufacture of the same. He shall also keep an accurate account of all medals manufactured, with the amount of bullion contained therein, and loss sustained in the manufacture of the same.

5. The Melter and Refiner shall deliver to the Coiner upon the latters' requisition, approved by the Superintendent, fine gold and silver to be employed in the manufacture of medals, charging the Coiner with the number of ounces of fine gold and silver, with its standard might calclated.

In the settlement of this account the Coiner shall from time to time, as may be convinient, redeliver to the Melter and Refiner all the fine or other bullion remaining after medals have been manufactured, in the form of clippings, strips or ingots, and any deficiency between the amount of fine bullion received and delivered shall be made up in its equivalent of bullion.

6. All medals, proof coins, and specimen or pattern pieces, shall be delivered by the Coiner to the Superintendent, or one of his clerks, to be called the Medal Clerk, who shall keep an accurate account of all the medals sold by him, and also of those delivered to him by the Coiner, pay for the same out of the Medal Fund, or proceeds of the sale of medals, and receive and give appropriate vouchers for all medals received and sold.

He shall render an acount quarterly, to the Director of the Mint of the sale medals, and pay into the Treasury quarterly at such other times as may be required by the Director the profit accruing from such sales, reserving in a fund sufficient to meet the incidental expenses attending the manufacture and sale of medals.

7. Proof coins and pattern pieces may be struck and sold subject to these regulations.

8. The price of medals, proof coins, pattern pieces shall be fixed by the Superintendent of the Mint with the approval of the Director.

9. No coins or pattern pieces shall be struck after the year of their date, or in any other metal or alloy than that in which the coin is issued or was intended to be issued, except experimental pieces in copper or other soft metal to prove the dies, under the direction of the Superintendent. The dies shall be defaced at the end of each year, and such impressions as the Engraver may find necessary to take while preparing the dies, shall be destroyed in the presence of the Superintendent when the dies are finished.

10. When a pattern piece is adopted and used in the regular coinage in the same year, it will then be issued as a proof at a price near its current value; or if it comes out early in the year it will be placed in the regular proof set. The Director reserves the right to furnish a pattern piece without charge to any incorporated numismatic society in the United States. In such cases, if the pattern is in gold or silver, the value of the metal will be required.

11. The price of the regular proof set of gold will be fourty three dollars in gold; the proof set of silver and copper, three dollars in silver, or its equivalent in currency as heretofore.

12. A statement of the medal and pattern pieces struck and sold each year will be forwarded to the Director of the Mint at the close thereof.

13. The Superintendent will prepare a price lsit in the form of a circular, and which also shall embrace such portion of these regulations as may be deemed proper for the information of persons making inquiry upon the subject, and submit the same for the approval of the Director, and which will be subsequenty printed.

 

[brg5658]

@ Kevin J Flynn: I think it is highly relevant that the OP is asking about a non-USA coin. All of what you wrote is USA coin specific -- except the part where you assume that it applies to foreign coins. I think that is a massive jump of logic that makes the rest of your post irrelevant. Not being mean, just being honest.

 

There is a world outside of USA coins -- many countries have a coinage history that is multiples of that of the US. Has the USA ever struck a piefort, or an essai or "proba" that isn't strictly a pattern? Lots of foreign countries do, and whether they should be deemed PF or SP or MS by the USA-based TPGs is not as simple as one might think.

[coinsandmedals]

Thank you Mr. Flynn there is a lot of great information in your post which has attributed to my knowledge on U.S. specimen and proof coins. With that being said as well worded as your contribution is the info contained within as pointed out brg5658 is not necessary relevant to the question at hand.

 

brg5658 you seem to be seeking a similar line of settlement for questions regarding issues such as these in regards to foreign coins. I read your post above and I understand what you are talking about this is a very complex issue in my minds eye and it doesn't seem as though there is really going to a generally accepted answer.

[Kevin J Flynn]

@ Kevin J Flynn: I think it is highly relevant that the OP is asking about a non-USA coin. All of what you wrote is USA coin specific -- except the part where you assume that it applies to foreign coins. I think that is a massive jump of logic that makes the rest of your post irrelevant. Not being mean, just being honest. There is a world outside of USA coins -- many countries have a coinage history that is multiples of that of the US. Has the USA ever struck a piefort, or an essai or "proba" that isn't strictly a pattern? Lots of foreign countries do, and whether they should be deemed PF or SP or MS by the USA-based TPGs is not as simple as one might think.

 

Actually all of what I said is relevant to foreign coins and to this discussion. The fact that these coins were certified by PCGS or NGC as proofs, and now certified as Specimen, is in parallel to a change/transition/evolution of the TPG now wanting evidence coins are proofs, where before evidence was not necessary, whether US or not. This is applicable to coins certified by TPG, which is the underlying question/point under discussion. In discussing this point several weeks ago with JD from PCGS, calling a coin a proof requires evidence that it is a proof. What defines a coin as a proof is what I outlined.

 

The coins certified by OP are not certified by foreign countries on entities, and I do not believe he was requesting information about that, especially when his examples were NGC and PCGS certified coins.

 

In 2006 when I was writing a book on the 1894-S barber dime. At that point PCGS and NGC were calling them proofs. When I presented David Lange with the evidence they were not proofs, he said NGC knew they were not proofs, but used the designation as it was accepted. This has changed since then which I applaud. Now they are called specimens. Call it what it is, or what the evidence and coin say it is.

 

I also believe is one has evidence that a coin should be of a certain status, that David Lange of NGC, or JD at PCGS would be open to suggestions, logic, reason, and evidence, especially taking under consideration what experts in foreign countries do.

 

Kevin

[Kevin J Flynn]

Thank you Mr. Flynn there is a lot of great information in your post which has attributed to my knowledge on U.S. specimen and proof coins. With that being said as well worded as your contribution is the info contained within as pointed out brg5658 is not necessary relevant to the question at hand.

 

brg5658 you seem to be seeking a similar line of settlement for questions regarding issues such as these in regards to foreign coins. I read your post above and I understand what you are talking about this is a very complex issue in my minds eye and it doesn't seem as though there is really going to a generally accepted answer.

 

Your original questions was two part

 

1. Is there a technical difference between SP and Proof, I answered that in my original post

 

2. What is the interpretation of what the coin should be by NGC. Specifically the SP designation, whereas the same coin previously received a proof designation.

On this question, your concern and focus is why did you received a SP by NGC. In answering this, I explained previously how, irrelevant of country, to be designated as a proof, the TPG services require evidence that a coin was struck as a proof. Then I went into what evidence was acceptable to designate a coin as a proof.

 

I would suggest writing NGC's expert David Lange, who is the top researcher at NGC. David will be able to answer why NGC graded this SP.

 

Kevin