Prooflikes...in non-proof years?

[rmpsrpms]

I have some 1949-S Cents that look prooflike to me, but no proofs were struck in 1949 so these could not be from re-used proof dies. What is the mechanism for prooflikes? Why would the dies have been polished so much? Are there examples of prooflikes from non-proof years that have been certified? Sorry for the questions, I'm just not up to speed on how prooflikes were created...Ray

[physics-fan3.14]

There are plenty of prooflikes from non-proof years. The 40's and 50's S-mint coins which are prooflike are often from late die states which have been repolished, often to repair evidence of clashing. These usually exhibit strong die polish, and the surface created during the polishing is responsible for the prooflike effect. There are quite a few prooflikes certified during years which no proofs were made.

 

Old proof dies being used to strike business strike coins, thus leading to prooflike coins, is a far more common occurrence during the 19th century, particularly the Bust and Seated series. I can only think of one year in the 20th century (1959 Franklins) which are known to have business strike prooflike coinage struck from proof dies. I suspect that some of the Superbird Washingtons could be prooflike, but I have not seen or heard of any.

[cladking]

Many times it's just that the die is basined but I believe there are several things that can cause or contribute to the degree a coin is PL. Most are related to a polished die but polished planchets strike up differently than normal ones. There are a lot of variables in coin production and these all affect PL's as well. If the coins has "mirrors" then it was a basined die but early strikes from basined dies don't look quite like later strikes unless the dies were also polished.

[rmpsrpms]

Thanks guys, I knew you'd have some good info for me! Interestingly, these 49-S Cents are fully-struck, making the edges a bit wider, and they are also a bit shinier, than I'm used to seeing. First glance in a clear tube makes these look almost like proofs, but they are not quite well enough struck to make the edges wide enough for the rims to be flat. Odd coins...I will take a pic and post soon...Ray

[physics-fan3.14]

Post a pic, or PM me a pic, if you can. I'm very interested in seeing these.

[RWB]

See "From Mine to Mint" for information on die polishing, etc.

[CaptHenway]

There are plenty of prooflikes from non-proof years. The 40's and 50's S-mint coins which are prooflike are often from late die states which have been repolished, often to repair evidence of clashing. These usually exhibit strong die polish, and the surface created during the polishing is responsible for the prooflike effect. There are quite a few prooflikes certified during years which no proofs were made.

 

Old proof dies being used to strike business strike coins, thus leading to prooflike coins, is a far more common occurrence during the 19th century, particularly the Bust and Seated series. I can only think of one year in the 20th century (1959 Franklins) which are known to have business strike prooflike coinage struck from proof dies. I suspect that some of the Superbird Washingtons could be prooflike, but I have not seen or heard of any.

 

What he said.

 

I have a question about the Type B reverse dies used by the Philadelphia Mint to coin business strikes. Were they lightly sandblasted to remove the Proof finish?

 

Another question: if the Philadelphia Mint was recycling used Proof quarter dies to make business strikes, wouldn't it make sense that they would have done so for all five denominations? Just because we cannot recognize them because they are from the same hubs, unlike the quarters, shouldn't they be out there?

[rmpsrpms]

OK, here is the 1949-S Cent, Obv, Rev, and Edge...Ray

 

 

The strike is full, with no weakness. The O in ONE and P in PLURIBUS are struck up fully, and the shoulder shows full detail and topography/texture. Very unusual for any Cent, especially SF minted.

[zboyle04]

looks promising, how many do you have?

[CaptHenway]

Well struck, but I would not call "Proof-like."

 

Just for the heck of it, check the weight. Might be a thick planchet, which could help with the strike.

[rmpsrpms]

Well struck, but I would not call "Proof-like."

 

Just for the heck of it, check the weight. Might be a thick planchet, which could help with the strike.

 

Hmm, not sure what you're looking for. The mirrors are deeper than a lot of PL Morgans I've seen! But the Cent has so many scratches. Obverse is more PL than reverse.

 

And it is normal weight, just well struck. I have a 1954-S without PL surfaces that is also struck like this.

[physics-fan3.14]

Well struck, but I would not call "Proof-like."

 

Just for the heck of it, check the weight. Might be a thick planchet, which could help with the strike.

 

Hmm, not sure what you're looking for. The mirrors are deeper than a lot of PL Morgans I've seen! But the Cent has so many scratches. Obverse is more PL than reverse.

 

And it is normal weight, just well struck. I have a 1954-S without PL surfaces that is also struck like this.

 

It is hard to gauge the depth of the mirrors with these photos. I see some glimpses of reflectivity, but not enough to adequately determine if it meets the PL criteria. Those aren't scratches, they are die polish.

[rmpsrpms]

I should have said die scratches...too early in the AM.

 

The semi-axial technique shows good surface detail but not proof contrast. I should shoot it again to emphasize the mirrors.

 

Too many should's and should-have's for a Sunday morning!

[physics-fan3.14]

I should have said die scratches...too early in the AM.

 

The semi-axial technique shows good surface detail but not proof contrast. I should shoot it again to emphasize the mirrors.

 

Too many should's and should-have's for a Sunday morning!

 

After you finish your cup of coffee and newspaper, try and reshoot it

[RWB]

You mean reflective fields, right?

[rmpsrpms]

Here's a shot that shows the reflective fields a little better. I prefer bright field proof shots rather than dark field as IMO dark field can obscure field detail and hide hairlines and such, though bright field shots can do the same thing if the field is overexposed. So this shot makes the fields as bright as they can be while still showing field detail such as the evidence of die scratches. I still blew-out some field highlights but hopefully this gives the right impression of contrast. Prooflikes are tough to image... ;-)

 

 

 

[RWB]

Nice example of repaired and lightly polished die. Maybe you should think about putting together a denomination set from cent through dollar of PL coins. Then explain how they were made and out it all in a nice display for the next ANA convention.

 

Would be interesting and informative, in my opinion. (Many collectors do not understand why PL (semi-mirror) surfaces occur or how they are created.)

 

[johnny9434]

thats a wicked nice cent, rpms

[rmpsrpms]

I looked through a big group of OBW 53-S rolls and found some more "PL" Cents. They are a bit lower contrast than the 49-S but still show well-polished fields with subsequent die scratches. They appear to be very early die state, as there is little or no wear at the edges of the devices, so I don't believe they are worn and repaired.

 

These "PL" or Semi-PL coins really stand out against the "normal" looking business strike coins. They also seem to all have excellent, hammered strikes.

 

I'm still going through rolls I've purchased over the last few years and haven't had time to search, so I am hoping to find more and/or different dates and MM examples, and will post them here as I find them...

 

This 53-S doesn't really follow the original thread title since they indeed made proofs in 1953, but I figured it's better to add to this thread than starting a new one...

 

[coinman_23885]

I don't think either of those would receive a designation from NGC. Die polish lines alone aren't sufficient enough to garner a PL designation.

[rmpsrpms]

I don't think either of those would receive a designation from NGC. Die polish lines alone aren't sufficient enough to garner a PL designation.

 

You may be right, but I don't have much interest in slabbing these anyway. I just find them very interesting, having found quite a few in my roll searching. Their PL characteristics (hammered strike; polished die fields; cameo or semi-cameo contrast) really make them stand out in contrast to normal business strikes.

[physics-fan3.14]

"PL characteristics" has absolutely nothing to do with hammered strike, polished die fields, or semi-cameo contrast. PL characteristics means mirrored surfaces with reflectivity. Prooflike is a somewhat misleading term and refers ONLY to mirrored surfaces.

[rmpsrpms]

"PL characteristics" has absolutely nothing to do with hammered strike, polished die fields, or semi-cameo contrast. PL characteristics means mirrored surfaces with reflectivity. Prooflike is a somewhat misleading term and refers ONLY to mirrored surfaces.

 

Most if not all the coins I have been finding have some degree of cameo contrast, so appear to have only been polished in the die fields. The 55 -S I found has some areas of the bust showing polishing but this may have been "overpolishing" from work done on the die fields. Most have stronger than normal strikes resulting in fully brought up rims and wide, flat edges, making them look like proofs when viewed from the edges.

 

I realize the main criteria the TPG's use is mirror reflectivity, but I am more interested in the details than just whether a coin will achieve the PL designation.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

"PL characteristics" has absolutely nothing to do with hammered strike, polished die fields, or semi-cameo contrast. PL characteristics means mirrored surfaces with reflectivity. Prooflike is a somewhat misleading term and refers ONLY to mirrored surfaces.

 

Most if not all the coins I have been finding have some degree of cameo contrast, so appear to have only been polished in the die fields. The 55 -S I found has some areas of the bust showing polishing but this may have been "overpolishing" from work done on the die fields. Most have stronger than normal strikes resulting in fully brought up rims and wide, flat edges, making them look like proofs when viewed from the edges.

 

I realize the main criteria the TPG's use is mirror reflectivity, but I am more interested in the details than just whether a coin will achieve the PL designation.

 

 

Physics is right, that the depth of mirrors is dispositive. Cameo contrasts are immaterial (although having a cameo PL is desirable and increases the value over non-cameo piece). Die polish lines, while sometimes present on proof like coins, can also appear on non PL pieces. Also strike can be variable. PL coins result from either fresh dies (and can have strong strikes) or a repolished die (and having weaker strikes). All in all, the coins sound interesting and attractive, but without the requisite depth of fields, I wouldn't describe them as PL. Maybe semi-PL, but again, that is a question of depth of fields. I have seen coins with blazing luster that I still wouldn't consider semi-PL. That is also a possibility.

 

Edited: If the coins still have cameo contrasts, even without a designation, a star could be applied. I would love to see one of the cameo examples. Even if not fully PL, I'm sure you could probably get a premium for them.

[coinman_23885]

Going back to your initial post regarding PL pieces in non-PL years/issues, this does occasionally happen. This was the case with some San Francisco minted Washington Quarters in the 1940s. In addition to the designated pieces, there are a number of semi-PL pieces out there in star holders. Mercury Dimes also exist in the same period, especially in 1943, and there are also S minted PL pieces for 1941 (even though a proof year, a non-proof mint) and some of the other dates as well.

[rmpsrpms]

 

Physics is right, that the depth of mirrors is dispositive. Cameo contrasts are immaterial (although having a cameo PL is desirable and increases the value over non-cameo piece). Die polish lines, while sometimes present on proof like coins, can also appear on non PL pieces. Also strike can be variable. PL coins result from either fresh dies (and can have strong strikes) or a repolished die (and having weaker strikes). All in all, the coins sound interesting and attractive, but without the requisite depth of fields, I wouldn't describe them as PL. Maybe semi-PL, but again, that is a question of depth of fields. I have seen coins with blazing luster that I still wouldn't consider semi-PL. That is also a possibility.

 

Edited: If the coins still have cameo contrasts, even without a designation, a star could be applied. I would love to see one of the cameo examples. Even if not fully PL, I'm sure you could probably get a premium for them.

 

I have no contention with the designation and criteria for the TPGs to grade a coin PL, I just personally look at more than the mirrors and consider other factors. Unfortunately I've never perfected my photographic technique for proof or prooflike coins, so am not showing the reflectivity of the fields very well. I'm thinking of setting up a reflectivity example, though am not sure of the true criteria for this, ie how far away you should be able to read text, or whatever. Any suggestions? This may be easier to photograph effectively than the blown-out mirrors that I see on many proof or prooflike photos, and would allow a more objective assessment of the field reflectivity. Any suggestions?

 

edited to add: all of the "PL" or semi-prooflike Cents I've come across have been from San Francisco.