Specimen proof (SP) Vs. Proof

[RWB]

How to identify Specimen Coins:

 

If a copper coin turns green in the little cup, you’re OK;

If a silver coin turns green in the little cup, you’re sick;

If a gold coin turns green in the little cup, you’re headed to a hospital;

If a gold bar fizzes in the little cup you’re dead.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

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

 

Mr. Flynn, FWIW, I think you have put forth an honorable effort to unravel the conundrum presented by the OP. However accurate or inaccurate it is, when applied to foreign issues, such as the one presented by the OP, the coin has to first be researched for basic info, such as which Mint struck it. How and why the TPGs designate a particular foreign coin leaves a lot to be desired, especially when it is done for no reason except the opinion of the Grader. That may be an acceptable reason as to why it happened, and it may be an acceptable explanation to state that it is just an opinion, but all this does is add to confusion.

 

The "evidence" required is not of value, when the position is "that is what the TPG wants, and if you question it, take it up with their expert, and it does not matter if it is a foreign coin". I would suggest that the Mint that struck the coin , and what a SP or Proof coin is, in the opinion of the mint that struck the coin, is of far more value than a stated Rule, especially when the fate of the coin is left to the opinion of a Grader that was given the Rule, and is then giving an opinion. The logic flow is missing. The OP coin would seem to have been graded without criteria that can be supported by research of the Mint that struck the coin (and it appears on the suraface without knowledge of which Mint did strike the coin. I would wonder if the Mint that struck the coin would have an opinion about the proof required to call a coin a Proof, or an SP. I suspect they would.

 

My opinion is that the designation given this coin is of no value to the OP, because the designation can not be supported by fact. The opinion may, or may not be valid concerning a numeric Grade, but the method of striking is not settled.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Another thought; the OP excluded Canada from the discussion, in reference to foreign coins and his coin. It may be of some value to consider that this coin, and many others from NZ, have been struck by Canada and UK. What do their Mints have to say about a Proof or SP? What does NZ have to say? Actually, they have quite a lot to say, and have.

[Kevin J Flynn]

the coin has to first be researched for basic info, such as which Mint struck it.

I would suggest that the Mint that struck the coin , and what a SP or Proof coin is, in the opinion of the mint that struck the coin, is of far more value than a stated Rule

 

How and why the TPGs designate a particular foreign coin leaves a lot to be desired, especially when it is done for no reason except the opinion of the Grader. That may be an acceptable reason as to why it happened, and it may be an acceptable explanation to state that it is just an opinion, but all this does is add to confusion. The OP coin would seem to have been graded without criteria that can be supported by research of the Mint that struck the coin (and it appears on the suraface without knowledge of which Mint did strike the coin.

 

The "evidence" required is not of value, when the position is "that is what the TPG wants, and if you question it, take it up with their expert,

 

My opinion is that the designation given this coin is of no value to the OP, because the designation can not be supported by fact. The opinion may, or may not be valid concerning a numeric Grade, but the method of striking is not settled.

 

I absolutely agree, what a coin actually is, is based upon what the intentions of the Mint was, did they strike, distribute, and sell as a proof or other.

 

I would ask David Lange as to the determination of foreign coin status, he is normally the one who researches and decides this stuff.

 

I would respectfully disagree on your statement about evidence, I have found through communication, that Lange and JD are open minded, when I presented them evidence.

 

I agree that the method of striking for these coins is not settled, what does a business strike look like, what did the Mint who struck these say about them, what evidence on the coin or records say about the coin. This is what I would present to NGC.

 

With all due respect, you say that the SP designation is not support by fact, what facts clearly demonstrate that the Mint struck this as a proof? When this is answered, I would again present to NGC.

 

Kevin

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

the coin has to first be researched for basic info, such as which Mint struck it.

I would suggest that the Mint that struck the coin , and what a SP or Proof coin is, in the opinion of the mint that struck the coin, is of far more value than a stated Rule

 

How and why the TPGs designate a particular foreign coin leaves a lot to be desired, especially when it is done for no reason except the opinion of the Grader. That may be an acceptable reason as to why it happened, and it may be an acceptable explanation to state that it is just an opinion, but all this does is add to confusion. The OP coin would seem to have been graded without criteria that can be supported by research of the Mint that struck the coin (and it appears on the suraface without knowledge of which Mint did strike the coin.

 

The "evidence" required is not of value, when the position is "that is what the TPG wants, and if you question it, take it up with their expert,

 

My opinion is that the designation given this coin is of no value to the OP, because the designation can not be supported by fact. The opinion may, or may not be valid concerning a numeric Grade, but the method of striking is not settled.

 

I absolutely agree, what a coin actually is, is based upon what the intentions of the Mint was, did they strike, distribute, and sell as a proof or other.

 

I would ask David Lange as to the determination of foreign coin status, he is normally the one who researches and decides this stuff.

 

I would respectfully disagree on your statement about evidence, I have found through communication, that Lange and JD are open minded, when I presented them evidence.

 

I agree that the method of striking for these coins is not settled, what does a business strike look like, what did the Mint who struck these say about them, what evidence on the coin or records say about the coin. This is what I would present to NGC.

 

With all due respect, you say that the SP designation is not support by fact, what facts clearly demonstrate that the Mint struck this as a proof? When this is answered, I would again present to NGC.

 

Kevin

 

Thank You, Mr. Flynn.

 

I think we agree across the Board, if we eliminate my poor method of conveying my thoughts.

 

The statement about evidence, was and is an intention to convey that the evidence that any TPG requires is subjective and subject to the opinion of the Grader, not to fact. This is most telling when 2 coins, being equal in all respects, receive 2 different designations. Human element? Of course. Fact? That is the question-which coin designation would be correct, and what is the basis?

 

The question you present in the last paragraph, about SP fact...while somewhat valid, triggers the opposite question: what fact supports the TPG position that it is a SP, and would that negate the designation of another coin designation, such as what Mr. BRG presented?

 

Of course the TPG would welcome the question and make every effort to clarify the OP question. The problem is, there are so many unexplained designations that it becomes very frustrating to collectors like the OP to know what is or what isn't.

Yes, if presented with Proof to the contrary, the TPG would change. Then why designate the coin at all, if there is the strong possibility of a question? Better to wait until research is complete and base the "opinion" on researched supportable fact. After all, isn't that the reason the collector submits such a coin to the TPG?

I am not referring to numeric grade.

 

Isn't that the reason you are an excellent numismatic researcher... to determine the facts? Of course it is. The collector submitting the coin to the TPG desrves no less than fact, when discussing method of strike that effects the designation of the coin. It should not be based on a Graders' opinion.

 

I do think we are closer of opinion, than apart.

 

With Respect,

John Curlis

[brg5658]

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

 

The coin I posted pictures of from Monaco is graded as "SP" by PCGS. Other coins of the same type (small mintage of 500 pieces) are graded as either "MS" or "PF" by NGC, but never as "SP". So, using that as the example, I think you have to admit that there is no consensus or consistency in how these designations are assigned to FOREIGN coins like essai strikes, pieforts, probas, etc.

 

You make it sound so cut-and-dried, when indeed coins produced outside the USA don't fit in the "definition" of what the coins of the USA have historically followed. I agree with everything you wrote with regard to the history of proofs and patterns in the USA, but that isn't the question at hand. You answered point 1 in the eyes of USA produced coins and the US Mint. Accordingly, your point 2 answer doesn't then follow. And it is NOT an issue of just NGC. PCGS has the same issues with consistency (e.g., the Satin Finish USA mint set coins were graded as "MS" from around 2005 through 2008 or 2009, at which time PCGS started grading them as "SP"). NGC has never graded the satin finish coins as "SP", but rather as "MS" with a designation of "SMS" (which, IMO is more correct than what PCGS does).

 

 

[Kevin J Flynn]

Thank You, Mr. Flynn.

 

The statement about evidence, was and is an intention to convey that the evidence that any TPG requires is subjective and subject to the opinion of the Grader, not to fact. This is most telling when 2 coins, being equal in all respects, receive 2 different designations. Human element? Of course. Fact? That is the question-which coin designation would be correct, and what is the basis?

 

The question you present in the last paragraph, about SP fact...while somewhat valid, triggers the opposite question: what fact supports the TPG position that it is a SP, and would that negate the designation of another coin designation, such as what Mr. BRG presented?

 

Of course the TPG would welcome the question and make every effort to clarify the OP question. The problem is, there are so many unexplained designations that it becomes very frustrating to collectors like the OP to know what is or what isn't.

Yes, if presented with Proof to the contrary, the TPG would change. Then why designate the coin at all, if there is the strong possibility of a question? Better to wait until research is complete and base the "opinion" on researched supportable fact. After all, isn't that the reason the collector submits such a coin to the TPG?

I am not referring to numeric grade.

 

Isn't that the reason you are an excellent numismatic researcher... to determine the facts? Of course it is. The collector submitting the coin to the TPG desrves no less than fact, when discussing method of strike that effects the designation of the coin. It should not be based on a Graders' opinion.

 

I do think we are closer of opinion, than apart.

 

With Respect,

John Curlis

 

John,

 

Please call me Kevin, I keep looking over my shoulder for my Dad when you say Mr. Flynn.

 

From talking to Dave Lange, if there is a question, such as a foreign coin, whether it is called a proof or specimen, would go to Dave and his expertise, unless someone at NGC knows more about the subject. For PCGS it is JD, who in my opinion knows more about proofs than anyone alive.

 

For the difference in designation for essentially the same coin, I agree this adds confusion. It could be simply one TPG is more conservative, it could be an old PCGS holder that at the time was called proof and today would be called specimen. Remember NGC guarantees there designations, if they did not have evidence to back up their claim, they would be liable.

 

Why proof designation for some coins has changed is simple. First research, new archive records found to prove one way or another. Second, as I said previously, TPG have previously designated coins by what was accepted, rather than what the evidence proved.

 

The criteria that is now used is to be called a proof, requires evidence to support, otherwise it is called a specimen. In my opinion, it is a good standard, but obviously others will disagree.

 

For me, I am writing a book on each U.S. series, so I address those coins with questionable designations one at a time. I agree, for foreign coins, it presents a bigger challenge, especially if it has not been researched.

 

I have been fighting this battle since 1990, especially with coins called proofs by Breen, so I support the use of evidence over what was accepted or was in writing in a book.

 

I still believe the best answer to the specific question herein is if we ask the grading services, I agree this does not help the larger scope issue, but just the specific one.

 

Thanks

Kevin

 

[Kevin J Flynn]

The coin I posted pictures of from Monaco is graded as "SP" by PCGS. Other coins of the same type (small mintage of 500 pieces) are graded as either "MS" or "PF" by NGC, but never as "SP". So, using that as the example, I think you have to admit that there is no consensus or consistency in how these designations are assigned to FOREIGN coins like essai strikes, pieforts, probas, etc.

You make it sound so cut-and-dried, when indeed coins produced outside the USA don't fit in the "definition" of what the coins of the USA have historically followed. I agree with everything you wrote with regard to the history of proofs and patterns in the USA, but that isn't the question at hand. You answered point 1 in the eyes of USA produced coins and the US Mint. Accordingly, your point 2 answer doesn't then follow. And it is NOT an issue of just NGC. PCGS has the same issues with consistency (e.g., the Satin Finish USA mint set coins were graded as "MS" from around 2005 through 2008 or 2009, at which time PCGS started grading them as "SP"). NGC has never graded the satin finish coins as "SP", but rather as "MS" with a designation of "SMS" (which, IMO is more correct than what PCGS does).

 

I am not saying the designation is correct, or the determination of what is a proof is absolutely cut and dry, but I am saying what criteria each grading uses to determine what is a proof is pretty cut and dry. Currently if there is evidence that supports it being called a proof, else a specimen.

 

Of course different TPG services might view the evidence differently, which I have also seen and addressing, one at a time.

 

I do not, nor have I ever worked for a TPG service.

 

I am not an expert on foreign coins.

 

I have written 44 books on U.S. coins, I have been researching the National Archives for the past 25 years, I know that the methods have changed, what they called them has changed, that coins were made illegally, and so on, and so on, A lot to consider, which adds to the complexity, and therefore have to be addressed for each coin/variety on their own merits.

 

Did the original Mint call these proofs?

Also, is it possible that the same dies were used to strike proofs, then business strikes?

Can you show a EDS business strike for the same or close to that date.

 

I do not disagree with you that the grade and/or designation for the same coin can be different on subsequent submission. I am not trying to defend the grading services. Graders typically examine a coin with a 5x loop for 5-10 seconds, the final grader normally has the final say, if there is a question, it goes to Dave L or JD or another expert.

 

I sent a 1974D silver Ike to PCGS, they took forever, as they showed it to several experts before designating.

 

You said that the definition of a proof does not apply to foreign coins. In my basic definition, it goes to the intention of that Mint who struck them, what method was used, how they were distributed, for example, were they sold to collectors or dumped into circulation. Please example what other countries have done which is different?

 

On this particular coin, if you wish, send me the photos/evidence you have, I will send to JD/Dave L and get their feedback, maybe this will help. I know Dave L is easy to speak to, he is also at the major shows such as Baltimore.

 

Kevin

[brg5658]

You said that the definition of a proof does not apply to foreign coins. In my basic definition, it goes to the intention of that Mint who struck them, what method was used, how they were distributed, for example, were they sold to collectors or dumped into circulation. Please example what other countries have done which is different?

 

Kevin, I was not referring to your definition of "proof" or "specimen", per se. I was pointing out that the use of those two terms and their descriptions for USA coins does not translate clearly or in a one-to-one way for foreign coins.

 

The coin I posted from Monaco is termed an "Essai" strike. It is struck at a slower speed, higher pressure, and on a planchet of a metal composition different from the circulation strike pieces -- but I do not believe it is struck more than one time. The term "Essai" translates to English literally as "trial". In my mind, this is closest to what we would call a "pattern" coin in the USA. But things are complicated a bit, because even though it sounds similar to a "pattern", the coins were marketed/distributed in 500 sets to collectors in special box-set packaging, more like a proof set. This paradigm doesn't really fit into any pre-defined USA analogy. These types of sets are quite common in European countries, and even some African countries. In particular, France, Hungary, and Poland commonly issue small run coins of this type -- and even the UK Maundy sets are similar to this idea.

 

If the goal of having the specimen (SP) designation at the TPGs is to cover these non-standard small issue coins that don't quite fit the idea of a proof or a circulation strike coin, then that's fine with me. But, what is frustrating and confusing (particularly for newer collectors) is that there is no consistency. Again, my example coin is an extreme example -- but, how can a coin from a run of 500 pieces all struck on the same day, on the same type of planchets, and using the same dies be designated as "PF" sometimes, and "MS" other times by NGC?

[coinsandmedals]

Alright here we go, I looked back in the Krause book (I know not perhaps the most accurate information but its a starting place). The Krause book lists five different possible mints that struck pre-decimal coins, they are as follows:

 

 

1. British Royal Mint (Llantrisant)

 

2. Royal Australian Mint (Canberra)

 

3. Royal Canadian Mint

 

4. Norwegian Mint

 

5. South african mint (pretoria)

 

 

Now for the fun part, and the inaccuracy of this information. Lets skip #1 and come back to it later so lets move on to #2 the Royal Australian Mint. The Royal australian mint as best as I could tell is a possibility seeing how they began production in 1965 as best as I can tell , however there is a problem with this possibility that will be discussed with the British Royal mint.

 

http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/mob/collection/database//?irn=386553&search=war&images=&wloc=&c=0&s=0

 

Next we have the Royal Canadian mint, well according to the info I found (follow the link) RCM did not strike coins for new zealand until 1978 which is accurately presented in the book. So that information effectively eliminates the RCM as a possible candidate.

 

http://www.coinscan.com/for/newz.html

 

 

Lets move on to the #4, well to say the least I really couldn’t find any information on this mint.

 

 

For number five we have the south african mint which from what little I could find about the mint they didn't really seem to start producing foreign coins until the late 1990’s.

 

 

http://www.wbcc.fsnet.co.uk/af-sou2.htm

 

With that information considered only one good option remains, the British Royal Mint , I have not done extensive research on this mint I actually started from the bottom up but I did find a 1965 mint set with the tag that read produced at the Royal Mint, London. As mentioned in the Royal Australian Mint point the information provided about the tag makes it highly unlikely that the Australian mint produced any of the SP or Proof coins.

 

 

 

 

[coinsandmedals]

Now to complicate matters even further I just found this:

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=3014&lotIdNo=71012#Photo

 

Which led me to look back at the NGC census data which shows a total of two Proof New Zealand Pennies graded when I checked earlier this info did not pull up but there is no mention of the SP coins. So now my question is how did NGC designate these coins as proofs but he ones I have as SP. Going off of what Kevin said one may think that it may e a difference in interpretation due to different grading times, however these coins are in the edge view holders so the time frame cant be that drastically different unless these coins were sent for a reholder or a crossover. What are your thoughts on this everyone?

 

 

 

[Kevin J Flynn]

Kevin, I was not referring to your definition of "proof" or "specimen", per se. I was pointing out that the use of those two terms and their descriptions for USA coins does not translate clearly or in a one-to-one way for foreign coins.

 

The coin I posted from Monaco is termed an "Essai" strike. It is struck at a slower speed, higher pressure, and on a planchet of a metal composition different from the circulation strike pieces -- but I do not believe it is struck more than one time. The term "Essai" translates to English literally as "trial". In my mind, this is closest to what we would call a "pattern" coin in the USA. But things are complicated a bit, because even though it sounds similar to a "pattern", the coins were marketed/distributed in 500 sets to collectors in special box-set packaging, more like a proof set. This paradigm doesn't really fit into any pre-defined USA analogy. These types of sets are quite common in European countries, and even some African countries. In particular, France, Hungary, and Poland commonly issue small run coins of this type -- and even the UK Maundy sets are similar to this idea.

 

If the goal of having the specimen (SP) designation at the TPGs is to cover these non-standard small issue coins that don't quite fit the idea of a proof or a circulation strike coin, then that's fine with me. But, what is frustrating and confusing (particularly for newer collectors) is that there is no consistency. Again, my example coin is an extreme example -- but, how can a coin from a run of 500 pieces all struck on the same day, on the same type of planchets, and using the same dies be designated as "PF" sometimes, and "MS" other times by NGC?

 

Nice description, From this, I would be of the opinion that the Monoco Mint struck and distributed these as proofs. I would use this and the fact that PCGS strikes them as proofs and provide to NGC, probably to David Lange that these are in fact proofs.

 

The same problem, that the different TPG services designates coins differently is also seen on US coins. I deal directly with them to correct issues when I know something is wrong.

 

Kevin

[Tradedollarnut]

I find it somewhat amusing that the thread was posted on the US coin forum and then half the thread covers why responses don't pertain to foreign coins....

[brg5658]

I find it somewhat amusing that the thread was posted on the US coin forum and then half the thread covers why responses don't pertain to foreign coins....

 

Nice of you to contribute something useful.

 

The OP already clarified why it was posted here.

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I find it somewhat amusing that the thread was posted on the US coin forum and then half the thread covers why responses don't pertain to foreign coins....

 

Good Day. Mr. TDN.

 

Some might find it amusing that you would read an entire Thread about foreign coins to reach the conclusion that half the Thread is about why it does not pertain to foreign coins.

[Tradedollarnut]

I find it somewhat amusing that the thread was posted on the US coin forum and then half the thread covers why responses don't pertain to foreign coins....

 

Nice of you to contribute something useful.

 

The OP already clarified why it was posted here.

 

 

Because nobody here cares enough about foreign coins to actively post in the foreign coin forum?

[Kevin J Flynn]

I stongly believe that controversy and open discussion such as this is a great thing.

 

First, we all learn from each other's knowledge, which is the essence of the hobby.

 

Second, when we transition from depending on others for information, in this instance in the grading services opinion of designation, to researching, and discovering the truth, then we have enhanced our knowledge, we will have a sense of accomplishment, and we enjoy the hobby more. I know I learned something about foreign coins in this discussion.

 

I have met collectors, espeically in the 90s, that if something was in writing, would believe it to be true, no matter what absolute evidence you provided, especially with older timers and Breen's books. This was extremely fustrating. Today, I see that many collectors are skeptical about subjects such as grading, and have taken steps to improve their knowledge on grading, not depending solely on TPG.

 

As an author, I believe for questions which do not have an absolute answer, to show all sides of the argument, especially presenting other individuals with opposing points of view. The objective is not to confuse, but to show the reader that the question is not solved, and to inspire them to research the answer themselves and form their own opinion.

 

The fact that different TPG services have a different opinion of the designation of the same coin might be a pain, but not worth the fustration. The coin still is what it is, anyone who is purchasing, if they know these coins, will know what it is, it is irrelevant what the plastic says on the holder to someone who truly knows the coins.

 

Kevin

 

[Tradedollarnut]

Tis indeed a good thing - just mildly amusing is all.

[brg5658]

I stongly believe that controversy and open discussion such as this is a great thing.

 

First, we all learn from each other's knowledge, which is the essence of the hobby.

 

Second, when we transition from depending on others for information, in this instance in the grading services opinion of designation, to researching, and discovering the truth, then we have enhanced our knowledge, we will have a sense of accomplishment, and we enjoy the hobby more. I know I learned something about foreign coins in this discussion.

 

I have met collectors, espeically in the 90s, that if something was in writing, would believe it to be true, no matter what absolute evidence you provided, especially with older timers and Breen's books. This was extremely fustrating. Today, I see that many collectors are skeptical about subjects such as grading, and have taken steps to improve their knowledge on grading, not depending solely on TPG.

 

As an author, I believe for questions which do not have an absolute answer, to show all sides of the argument, especially presenting other individuals with opposing points of view. The objective is not to confuse, but to show the reader that the question is not solved, and to inspire them to research the answer themselves and form their own opinion.

 

The fact that different TPG services have a different opinion of the designation of the same coin might be a pain, but not worth the fustration. The coin still is what it is, anyone who is purchasing, if they know these coins, will know what it is, it is irrelevant what the plastic says on the holder to someone who truly knows the coins.

 

Kevin

 

Kevin, despite my first reply to your long post, your input in this thread has been most helpful. Sorry I came across as "brash" at first -- but I agree with you -- open dialog about the complexities of these designations is a good thing. And, though the OP was specifically referencing a non-USA coin, I think it's also good for those who only focus on USA coins to realize there is something outside their niche.

 

TDN apparently has nothing better to do than troll the boards looking for ways he can exert his "superiority" to all...even if it means contributing nothing to the discussion other than a snide comment. By contrast, you (Kevin) have shown yourself to be a numismatist interested in the truth -- not just what PCGS and NGC proclaim as truth.

 

Cheers.

-brg

[Kevin J Flynn]

Kevin, despite my first reply to your long post, your input in this thread has been most helpful. Sorry I came across as "brash" at first -- but I agree with you -- open dialog about the complexities of these designations is a good thing. And, though the OP was specifically referencing a non-USA coin, I think it's also good for those who only focus on USA coins to realize there is something outside their niche.

Cheers.

-brg

 

brg

 

It was a good discussion, I never thought you came across as brash, you were very focussed on seeking the truth and presenting arguments/counterarguments on several issues.

 

Another way to bring this issue to light, incorrect/conflicting designations is to write an article on the subject with the clear examples herein. Especially given that TPG are seeking to expand more in the foreign coin market. Send the article to CW and NN, see if they will publish. I remember when the grading issue came up, CW sent the same coins several times to the same and different TPG services to show the differences in grade for the same coin that can be obtained.

 

Kevin

[Tradedollarnut]

TDN apparently has nothing better to do than troll the boards looking for ways he can exert his "superiority" to all...even if it means contributing nothing to the discussion other than a snide comment. By contrast, you (Kevin) have shown yourself to be a numismatist interested in the truth -- not just what PCGS and NGC proclaim as truth.

 

Interesting. You being an individual_without_enough_empathy has interfered with my amusement

[Kevin J Flynn]

Interesting. You being an !@#$ has interfered with my amusement

 

TDN,

 

With all due respect, and no disrespect intended, I believe your initial observations had a tendency to sidetrack the discussion at that point.

 

Obviously you have been around for a while, whether foreign coins or U.S., what is your experience, thoughts of incorrect/inconsistent designations of proofs, and the use of specimen vs proof status?

 

If Trade Dollars are your speciality, have you observed TDs in the incorrect holders, or different grading services calling them something different.

 

Kevin

 

[Tradedollarnut]

Yes, I have seen 1873 and 1877 trade dollars designated incorrectly. All proof trade dollars from 1873 have a die line across Liberty's gown - if you look in Heritage's auction results you will find a few so called proofs without said feature.

[Kevin J Flynn]

Yes, I have seen 1873 and 1877 trade dollars designated incorrectly. All proof trade dollars from 1873 have a die line across Liberty's gown - if you look in Heritage's auction results you will find a few so called proofs without said feature.

 

Interesting, I did not know this, nor have I examined many Trade Dollar proofs, assuming these business strikes were early die state business strikes that had reflective fields and perhaps cameo design elements, such as seen on some Morgan Dollars?

 

Did you notify David Stone at Heritage of this, I know David would keep an eye out for it and add the appropriate comments to the notes.

 

Because it was a first year issue, the Mint was permitted to strike and sell Trade Dollar proofs outside the silver proof sets. In addition, they were permitted to sell patterns as proofs, if they were of the same design, same alloy, weight, etc. Is it possible that in 1873, a different obv pattern of the same design was sold as a proof and has different diagnostics, in addition, there would only have been a limited number produced? I have the delivery counts and dates if you need them.

 

Without the die line, does it still look like a proof in strike, field texture, luster?

 

Kevin

[Tradedollarnut]

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=144525&highlight_key=y&keyword1=1873&keyword2=Trade

 

Unfortunately, the image links are broken