A Question for Mark Feld - and anyone who argued in the Peace dollar thread

[mumu]

Another thought is that such a rigid definition of PL as purely meaning reflective would validate the term Artificial Proof-liking to describe polished coins.

[TonerGuy]

Artificial Proof-liking to describe polished coins.

 

I like that... APL

[coinman_23885]

Well its not designated PL. So it must not be anything at all then?

 

No one ever made a derogatory comment regarding the other coins, and no one disputed the use of the star designation for such coins. The issue is whether coins that fail to meet the requirements that are generally considered required for a PL designation may be accurately described as "PL" or "Proof-like" rather than having "proof like tendencies" or being described as "semi (not full) PL." You are intentionally misconstruing Mark's point. And if you think I am wrong in my comments, please show where Mark, myself, or the others who posted in the the other threads, said the coins weren't "anything at all."

 

I just checked the NGC and PCGS census. NGC has certified two PL Peace dollars, both 1934-D. PCGS has zero.

 

Just to clarify for those that might not know, PCGS does not regularly attribute all U.S. regular coin series as PL or DMPL (its analog of NGC's DPL designation). It applies the term to Morgan Dollars and select modern issues. I cannot comment on world coins, however. NGC will designate all regular U.S. issues as being PL or DPL when appropriate.

 

All Im saying is Peace dollars with those kind of qualities should be differentiated somehow. Maybe not the PL term since Morgans have set a very distinct precedence to what PL and DMPL looks like. But at the end of it all, if proof like is only deemed by a coins reflectivity then its a horrible term to begin with.

 

Then why must a term that has an accepted, common meaning be used when it does not apply? Why not use another descriptive term like "semi-PL"?

[RWB]

How many adjectives does it take to (...fill in the blank...)

[RWB]

"KoS" = "Kind of Shiny" ?

 

Peace dollars with shiny surfaces are so uncommon, that they can probably withstand the added verbiage and close examination they receive. Just don't confuse with "satin" which is a real thing on Peace dollars.

[coinman_23885]

And that is the point of my questions. If a proof coin, need not be reflective to be a proof, then why should a proof-like or "a coin that is like a proof" as the term implies HAVE to be refeltive to be proof like? or even more extremely so reach certain levels of reflectivity such as X inches et cetera? Im just showing that there is more to it than reflectivity. Maybe that isn't defined especially for Peace dollars but reflectivity seems to be the end all for that conversation from MF et al.

 

With the exception of the sand-blast/roman finish/matte proof coins discussed above, all proofs tend to have reflective surfaces, so I don't see the problem with requiring reflectivity for a proof like designation. And for the few series that do not have mirror proofs, then the answer should be fairly obvious: The proof coins, although they do not possess mirrored fields, are created using special processes such as sand blasting of the dies and special treatment of the planchets which are not used in the normal minting process of business strike coins. Should such a coin happen to exist, then a special term would likely be applied. For instance, such coins might be accurately described as "specimens." Proof-like coins, are produced from the normal striking process for business strike coins, and are the first strikes from a fresh die or a freshly polished die, and hence these pieces have reflective fields. It is these coins that numismatists have described as PL and have done so for a long time.

 

Another thought is that such a rigid definition of PL as purely meaning reflective would validate the term Artificial Proof-liking to describe polished coins.

"KoS" = "Kind of Shiny" ?

 

Peace dollars with shiny surfaces are so uncommon, that they can probably withstand the added verbiage and close examination they receive. Just don't confuse with "satin" which is a real thing on Peace dollars.

 

Not to be confused with the "POS" designation for the polished/whizzed coins described above.

 

[coinman1794]

It is, perhaps, a minor point, but PCGS only recognizes the PL designation on Morgan dollars and a few modern commemoratives; so one could never appear in the PCGS pop report.

[coinman1794]

Another thought is that such a rigid definition of PL as purely meaning reflective would validate the term Artificial Proof-liking to describe polished coins.

 

Many Proof coins show a degree of die polishing, as well, and I would not refer to them as artificial Proofs

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

SP

[coinman_23885]

SP

 

Are you suggesting that the Peace Dollars mentioned be labeled as specimens (SP)?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

SP

 

Are you suggesting that the Peace Dollars mentioned be labeled as specimens (SP)?

 

No. Only that SP as a type of Proof was left out of the entire discussion, and not commented on one way or another.

 

Your Post simply preceded my thought.

[RWB]

"Only that SP as a type of Proof was left out of the entire discussion"

 

Specimen (SP) is not a "type" or other descriptor for a proof.

 

Specially prepared coins were originally called "master," "specimen," or "proof" with no distinction. Only in the later 1850s and 1860s did the word "proof" become firmly associated with coins struck on a medal press using polished dies and sometimes polished planchets.

 

Modern TPG use of "specimen" really means "it looks kind of different but we don't really know anything else." I.e.; it just means "different."

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

"Only that SP as a type of Proof was left out of the entire discussion"

 

Specimen (SP) is not a "type" or other descriptor for a proof.

 

Specially prepared coins were originally called "master," "specimen," or "proof" with no distinction. Only in the later 1850s and 1860s did the word "proof" become firmly associated with coins struck on a medal press using polished dies and sometimes polished planchets.

 

Modern TPG use of "specimen" really means "it looks kind of different but we don't really know anything else." I.e.; it just means "different."

 

Exactly my point. It may help in the discussion, that things are sometimes just different.

 

As to "type" as a descriptor, take it up with the TPG/4PG, which is the thrust of the discussion; what they do and don't label things and why.

[Kurtdog]

Prooflike does not mean "like a proof".

 

It means reflective.

As in, "mirror-like" in place of "cartwheel-luster." That's all.