Mint or Proof?

[Kominsky Collection]

Given your druthers would you rather have a high grade proof state or mint state of your imaginary favorite coin? To me proofs can look so dramatic and beautiful but others seem to prefer mint states and I'm curious to hear why.

[bsshog40]

As I love proof coins, high grade mint coins are harder to get and more desirable.

[jpcienkus]

Tough question. My initial thought was high grade proof. I love the mirrors and the possible cameo or ultra cameo. That being said, a high grade MS is a close second.

[cpm9ball]

PF70UC's (moderns) are becoming as common as dirt. I'll take the MS68 any day.

 

Chris

[World Colonial]

Personally, I think the general preference for high grades for both are grossly over emphasized and over rated in US coinage and by US collectors. The actual differences in quality and appearance are usually actually trivial. There frequently isn't a dime's worth of real difference between coins one grade and sometimes even multiple grades apart. No one cared about these differences when coins were much cheaper and money is the biggest reason it matters to so many now.

 

My preference is coin specific. It depends upon which one is harder to find. If a proof is actually rare, I would likely far prefer it over its business strike counterpart. I do not need a "conditional rarity" or near it. I can buy the business strike in AU-58 or lower MS grades that looks almost as good.

[TD Henson]

Classic coins - it's a toss up.

 

Modern - Mint state hands down.

 

The reason for the distinction on modern coins for me is that most all proofs are high grade, while most all mint state coins are not. Ultra Cameo proofs can be quite beautiful.

[cladking]

I prefer the best of both worlds; PL's.

 

They aren't always availabe and can be overly expensive so a lot of the time I'll go with my second choice which is high end MS or third choice which is just a nice solid Unc with no trace of wear, no spotting, and nice attractive coin. I call it a nice "no-question Unc" and it can be anywhere from MS-61 to MS-63 and on up.

 

Of course, it always depends on the specific series. I collect some coins in lower grades.

[okbustchaser]

I want "real" coins--not made for collectors bullion. Give me the business strike every day.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

One of my top 3 favorite coins is a 3CS PF50.

It may be my favorite, over all.

Sort of the best of both worlds.

[MarkFeld]

I want "real" coins--not made for collectors bullion. Give me the business strike every day.

 

I like business strikes, as well as Proofs. And I believe there are a good many Proofs which are a far cry from "made for collectors bullion".

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I want "real" coins--not made for collectors bullion. Give me the business strike every day.

 

I like business strikes, as well as Proofs. And I believe there are a good many Proofs which are a far cry from "made for collectors bullion".

 

I am happy to find out that my 3CS PF 50 might have a chance at being worth more than buliion.

 

 

[okbustchaser]

I want "real" coins--not made for collectors bullion. Give me the business strike every day.

 

I like business strikes, as well as Proofs. And I believe there are a good many Proofs which are a far cry from "made for collectors bullion".

 

You're right...some proofs weren't make for collectors. Some were presentation pieces for dignitaries. Still not my cup of tea. There is no sense of history generated by a coin which did nothing at all but leave the mint and go straight into a cabinet.

 

Of course, that's also the reason that I own very few mint state business strikes.

[MarkFeld]

I want "real" coins--not made for collectors bullion. Give me the business strike every day.

 

I like business strikes, as well as Proofs. And I believe there are a good many Proofs which are a far cry from "made for collectors bullion".

 

I am happy to find out that my 3CS PF 50 might have a chance at being worth more than buliion.

 

 

John, sorry to break it to you, but your coin might not be one of those "good many Proofs which are a far cry from 'made for collectors bullion'".

[World Colonial]

I want "real" coins--not made for collectors bullion. Give me the business strike every day.

 

I like business strikes, as well as Proofs. And I believe there are a good many Proofs which are a far cry from "made for collectors bullion".

 

You're right...some proofs weren't make for collectors. Some were presentation pieces for dignitaries. Still not my cup of tea. There is no sense of history generated by a coin which did nothing at all but leave the mint and go straight into a cabinet.

 

Of course, that's also the reason that I own very few mint state business strikes.

 

I acknowledge that business strike coins represent what money is actually intended for, but the historical aspects are exaggerated. The historical aspect of coins has been discussed here a number of times. In most instances, no one knows what it actually is and what collectors have in mind is invented or imaginary.

[Conder101]

I prefer a nice AU coin. They show the design as will as the MS coins do, they have done their job a a true coin, circulating as money, and cost a fraction of what the MS or PF coins do so I can afford to have many many more examples of nice coins.

[World Colonial]

I prefer a nice AU coin. They show the design as will as the MS coins do, they have done their job a a true coin, circulating as money, and cost a fraction of what the MS or PF coins do so I can afford to have many many more examples of nice coins.

 

I am with you on this one, most of the time at least.

[Kurtdog]

I prefer a nice AU coin. They show the design as will as the MS coins do, they have done their job a a true coin, circulating as money, and cost a fraction of what the MS or PF coins do so I can afford to have many many more examples of nice coins.

I am with you on this one, most of the time at least.

Hey, me too. The kids in my kid's coin club? Let's just call it, they still got a lot to learn...

[Raisethis2]

Proof coins were struck twice on specially prepared planchets with specially prepared dies. While often dramatic in appearance, they're intended to be.

 

Business strikes with they're own dramatic appearance in high grade are survivors. In every sense of the word.

 

I prefer business strikes for this reason.

[RWB]

Proof coins were struck twice on specially prepared planchets with specially prepared dies.

 

Nope. Double striking did not start until the special Schuler preses were purchased.

 

Did you knnow that the 5 oz silver parks coasters are all struck twice?

[BillJones]

As I got further along in my type set, I started to appreciate the Proof coins more and more. They often provided the best and sharpest representation of the artwork that appeared on each design, and quite often they were priced lower than their Mint State counterparts. As a result I have tried to get as many Proof type coins as possible, given the very high prices and rarity of pieces dated prior to 1858.

[RWB]

I like peppermint in my 90 proof vodka.

[Raisethis2]

I like having RWB around. The guy knows everything about numismatics. He should write a book or something.....wait,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,wut?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for the correction Roger.

[World Colonial]

As I got further along in my type set, I started to appreciate the Proof coins more and more. They often provided the best and sharpest representation of the artwork that appeared on each design, and quite often they were priced lower than their Mint State counterparts. As a result I have tried to get as many Proof type coins as possible, given the very high prices and rarity of pieces dated prior to 1858.

 

I'm not sure how scarce pre-1858 proofs generally are versus the comporable business strikes, but based upon what I know now, I agree with you. From the estimates I have seen, I think many of them are under rated.

 

The exception appears to be with a small number of the highest graded specimens where I cannot understand the relative price differences. An example is the 1857 quarter in NGC PR-63 which NEN sold maybe five years ago for $5750 and I believe one has sold for less since. I know that a 63 is not the sharpest looking coin for a proof of this issue but I don't see how other Liberty Seated issues in 65 or 66 that aren't really that much scarcer sell for around $250k. I just do not get it.

[MarkFeld]

As I got further along in my type set, I started to appreciate the Proof coins more and more. They often provided the best and sharpest representation of the artwork that appeared on each design, and quite often they were priced lower than their Mint State counterparts. As a result I have tried to get as many Proof type coins as possible, given the very high prices and rarity of pieces dated prior to 1858.

 

I'm not sure how scarce pre-1858 proofs generally are versus the comporable business strikes, but based upon what I know now, I agree with you. From the estimates I have seen, I think many of them are under rated.

 

The exception appears to be with a small number of the highest graded specimens where I cannot understand the relative price differences. An example is the 1857 quarter in NGC PR-63 which NEN sold maybe five years ago for $5750 and I believe one has sold for less since. I know that a 63 is not the sharpest looking coin for a proof of this issue but I don't see how other Liberty Seated issues in 65 or 66 that aren't really that much scarcer sell for around $250k. I just do not get it.

 

I'm not sure which dates/issues in 65 or 66 you're speaking of, which have sold "for around $250K", but my guess is that they're MUCH scarcer than the 1857. Can you provide a couple of examples?

[World Colonial]

I'm not sure which dates/issues in 65 or 66 you're speaking of, which have sold "for around $250K", but my guess is that they're MUCH scarcer than the 1857. Can you provide a couple of examples?

 

Here is one from the Newman sale. While the estimated number of survivors is less (6), I would not call that "much scarcer" than the 1857 which according to a Heritage listing has an estimated number of 30-40 from an original mintage of 69. I do not call it "much scarcer" because this number only appears to be for the "small date": variety and not even for the date generically. I think the 1842 should sell for more or a lot more, just nowhere near this price difference.

 

The example I just used, its also one of many where I find an absurd apparent emphasis on die varieties when the coin itself is already very scarce. In the recent FUN auction, the same thing was noted in the listing for the 1826 MS-66 half eagle. As if the fact that there are apparently only 11 known isn't already enough. The number of variety collectors for the entire series must be either none or almost none in the last few decades given the cost of these coins.

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1188&lotNo=5587 1842

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1201&lotNo=4177 1857

[MarkFeld]

I'm not sure which dates/issues in 65 or 66 you're speaking of, which have sold "for around $250K", but my guess is that they're MUCH scarcer than the 1857. Can you provide a couple of examples?

 

Here is one from the Newman sale. While the estimated number of survivors is less (6), I would not call that "much scarcer" than the 1857 which according to a Heritage listing has an estimated number of 30-40 from an original mintage of 69. I do not call it "much scarcer" because this number only appears to be for the "small date": variety and not even for the date generically. I think the 1842 should sell for more or a lot more, just nowhere near this price difference.

 

The example I just used, its also one of many where I find an absurd apparent emphasis on die varieties when the coin itself is already very scarce. In the recent FUN auction, the same thing was noted in the listing for the 1826 MS-66 half eagle. As if the fact that there are apparently only 11 known isn't already enough. The number of variety collectors for the entire series must be either none or almost none in the last few decades given the cost of these coins.

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1188&lotNo=5587 1842

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1201&lotNo=4177 1857

 

To my knowledge, the only proof 1842 Quarters are small date variety examples. So we have the 1842, with fewer than 6 survivors estimated (for both the variety and the "date generically"), compared to the 1857, with an estimated 30-40 survivors. The 1842 certainly sounds "much scarcer" to me. In fact it is estimated to be at least six times scarcer.

[World Colonial]

I'm not sure which dates/issues in 65 or 66 you're speaking of, which have sold "for around $250K", but my guess is that they're MUCH scarcer than the 1857. Can you provide a couple of examples?

 

Here is one from the Newman sale. While the estimated number of survivors is less (6), I would not call that "much scarcer" than the 1857 which according to a Heritage listing has an estimated number of 30-40 from an original mintage of 69. I do not call it "much scarcer" because this number only appears to be for the "small date": variety and not even for the date generically. I think the 1842 should sell for more or a lot more, just nowhere near this price difference.

 

The example I just used, its also one of many where I find an absurd apparent emphasis on die varieties when the coin itself is already very scarce. In the recent FUN auction, the same thing was noted in the listing for the 1826 MS-66 half eagle. As if the fact that there are apparently only 11 known isn't already enough. The number of variety collectors for the entire series must be either none or almost none in the last few decades given the cost of these coins.

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1188&lotNo=5587 1842

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1201&lotNo=4177 1857

 

To my knowledge, the only proof 1842 Quarters are small date variety examples. So we have the 1842, with fewer than 6 survivors estimated (for both the variety and the "date generically"), compared to the 1857, with an estimated 30-40 survivors. The 1842 certainly sounds "much scarcer" to me. In fact it is estimated to be at least six times scarcer.

 

I am not aware of any 1842 "large date" either, but if there aren't any, there is no point in mentioning this distinction in the auction listing.

 

In any event, I still don't think the price difference is justified. A large one yes, but not nearly that large. I actually think by US coin standards that the 1857 proof quarter is a reasonably decent value. It is one of the few among US coinage that I see from a numismatic aspect. The 1842 I consider to be a very poor one. Its typical of an innumerable number of US coins which are rare but not prominent at all but still sell for huge inflated prices.