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

[mumu]

Do all proof coins have mirrored fields?

[coinman_23885]

No. Matte proofs/sand-blasted proofs do not.

[FishyOne]

I didn't argue but certainly know many proofs do not have mirrored fields. Satin proofs, sandblast proofs, impaired proofs, etc.

[mumu]

How about some of those shoddy proof sets of the 60s, the Franklin halves and the Washington quarters, are all those proofs reflective? Are they as reflective as say some of the say 2000's era black and white Kennedy halves.

How about the WLH proofs...do they all have mirrors? Are they all still proofs?

[coinman_23885]

I need context for this thread. Please post a link.

[michael]

Do all proof coins have mirrored fields?

 

no........................ but they still are proofs

 

and

 

it all depends on ORIGINAL mint records ( if they still exist and/or if there were any in the first place) and method of manufacture along with the fabric of the original coin in question

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mumu]

I need context for this thread. Please post a link.

 

It has come up in a few threads now, basically any time anyone refers to their Peace dollar as PL or PL-ish or in the case of the last coin to trigger it, semi-PL

 

The Feld side argument has basically been that we should not refer to certain Peace dollars as proof like, even if they are clearly different and in some cases have been awarded stars for their differentness, because they do not reach the level reflectivity, or more abstractly reach the arbitrary qualities TPGs have set for Morgan and other more commonly designated PLs.

[MarkFeld]

I need context for this thread. Please post a link.

 

It has come up in a few threads now, basically any time anyone refers to their Peace dollar as PL or PL-ish or in the case of the last coin to trigger it, semi-PL

 

The Feld side argument has basically been that we should not refer to certain Peace dollars as proof like, even if they are clearly different and in some cases have been awarded stars for their differentness, because they do not reach the level reflectivity, or more abstractly reach the arbitrary qualities TPGs have set for Morgan and other more commonly designated PLs.

 

Are you trying to make the point, that just because not all Proof coins display mirror-like surfaces, business strike coins with less than PL surfaces, can still accurately be labeled "prooflike"? If so, I disagree. And if not, what point are you trying to make?

 

"Proof" is a method of manufacture and, as already noted by others, not all proof coins display mirror-like surfaces. Such coins would accurately be labeled "Proof" but not "PL". As the latter is typically used to denote a level of reflectivity.

 

The fact that certain Peace Dollars stand out because they are somewhat, though not fully reflective, need not be used as an excuse to label them "PL". What's wrong with referring to a coin as "semi-prooflike" or as "displaying prooflike tendencies" instead of "prooflike" when it displays less than fully PL surfaces?

[BillJones]

No. The Matte Proofs are the exception. Here is a Matte Proof two pound gold piece.

 

[World Colonial]

The fact that certain Peace Dollars stand out because they are somewhat, though not fully reflective, need not be used as an excuse to label them "PL". What's wrong with referring to a coin as "semi-prooflike" or as "displaying prooflike tendencies" instead of "prooflike" when it displays less than fully PL surfaces?

 

I agree with this sentiment completely.

 

I do not know about the original poster, but generically I suspect that any reason for objecting is because NGC and PCGS will not assign the "PL" designation on the slab and therefore, the coin sells for less than it would otherwise. Otherwise, why would anyone care? The coin is the same coin regardless of whether the TPG identifies it as such or not.

 

I have only owned a few PL coins but I find the designation as subjective as for RD versus RB and RB versus BN on copper and bronze or DCAM/UCAM, CAM and regular proofs. With these coins, I have often disagreed with the designation in both directions.

[Coindude]

Bill that is an exquisite piece!

 

On another note, I also completely agree with Mark.

[RWB]

Very very nice double sovereign! Do you have the rest of the set?

[BillJones]

Very very nice double sovereign! Do you have the rest of the set?

 

No, that is just my example of an Edward VII gold coin. PCGS only graded the Matte Proof 63, which I thought was a point too low. There is a tiny shiny spot on Edward's brow, but that's it.

 

Yes, shiny spots are a bad thing on "dark" Matte Proof gold coins.

 

Here is a 1908 Matte Proof $10 gold I sold to a customer more than ten years ago. The red spots are not on the coin; they are a reflection of the light from the camera which I tired to diminish via bit of "picture doctoring." PCGS graded this one as PR-65.

 

[RWB]

Nice sandblast eagle!

[Kurtdog]

How about some of those shoddy proof sets of the 60s, the Franklin halves and the Washington quarters, are all those proofs reflective? Are they as reflective as say some of the say 2000's era black and white Kennedy halves.

How about the WLH proofs...do they all have mirrors? Are they all still proofs?

Of course they're still proofs. What kind of question is that? If you want to just differentiate on the surface attributes, they don't have cartwheel luster.

[mumu]

Bill that is an exquisite piece!

 

On another note, I also completely agree with Mark.

 

Well, while you both say you are agreeing with Mark, you are actually agreeing with me based on World's text below the "I agree with Mark" intro. My entire point is that it is subjective and also relative. While Mark throws a hissy fit every time the letters P and L are in the same thread as a Peace dollar.

 

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.

 

And the issue of proof being a method of manufacture is a moot points, because if that matters then there would be no such thing as an MS coin that has PL designation as the method would not have been applied. I think it is more accurate to say that to reach the level of detail and strike quality of what is considered a proof requires a special method of manufacturer. But you cant say the word itself means that method.

[RWB]

"Proof" is not subjective. It is fundamentally a mechanical operation, and that operation imparts distinctive characteristics to the coin. These characteristics cannot be completely duplicated by some other minting process or equipment.

 

"Proof-like" is an ill-defined moniker usually identified with a coin having somewhat mirror-like fields. Dave Bowers has tried to get collectors to use "mirror" in relation to real proofs but it hasn't stuck.

[MarkFeld]

Bill that is an exquisite piece!

 

On another note, I also completely agree with Mark.

 

Well, while you both say you are agreeing with Mark, you are actually agreeing with me based on World's text below the "I agree with Mark" intro. My entire point is that it is subjective and also relative. While Mark throws a hissy fit every time the letters P and L are in the same thread as a Peace dollar.

 

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.

 

And the issue of proof being a method of manufacture is a moot points, because if that matters then there would be no such thing as an MS coin that has PL designation as the method would not have been applied. I think it is more accurate to say that to reach the level of detail and strike quality of what is considered a proof requires a special method of manufacturer. But you cant say the word itself means that method.

 

Show me a single "hissy fit" post of mine on this subject - unless, by "hissy fit", you mean I said something to the effect that in order to deserve a PL designation, a coin should actually be PL (and not just different from most others). Why can't you try to make your points without the use of hyperbole? That was a rhetorical question, as I think the answer is obvious.

 

In answer to your question, however, a coin should be reflective in order to deserve the "PL" designation, because as commonly used over a long period of time, the term "PL" has been applied to coins with a certain degree of reflectivity. It has not typically been used to describe business strike coins which resemble certain Proofs lacking mirror surfaces. It sounds like that's what you're wanting to do.

 

I didn't come up with the widely recognized standards for "PL" coins and am not trying to apply my own standard. You, on the other hand, appear to wish to ignore or change the qualifications.

 

"PL" according to PCGS: "Clear reflection in the fields on both sides from 2-4 inches away. A misty effect or striations may impede the reflectivity."

 

I didn't see a definition from NGC or would have posted it. Perhaps someone else can provide that.

 

I'm now done with this thread - I'm not convinced that you're being sincere or seeking information and honest discussion/debate.

[physics-fan3.14]

Prooflike does not mean "like a proof".

 

It means reflective.

 

I feel like we've had this conversation multiple times now. The word means what it does. You can't change the meaning of a word because you don't like it, or don't like the way it is commonly accepted to be used.

[orifdoc]

It depends on what the definition of "is" is.

 

 

Prooflike is a poor term but we're sort of stuck with it.

 

I've not personally seen a Peace dollar with actual mirrors but I'd sure like to....... a genuine one that is. I don't think it's very likely though...... perhaps from a freshly polished die it could have happened. I've seen a few with greater than average "shininess".

[physics-fan3.14]

I've not personally seen a Peace dollar with actual mirrors but I'd sure like to....... a genuine one that is. I don't think it's very likely though...... perhaps from a freshly polished die it could have happened. I've seen a few with greater than average "shininess".

 

I've seen one, and NGC has seen 2 (or the same one, twice).

 

I also own one of the "controversial" Star graded coins with semi-prooflike surfaces. Or prooflike tendencies. Or minor reflectivity. Or whatever mumu wants to call it these days.

[AHFreak]

Wow.... this conversation is a head scratcher for sure!

 

Does a proof have to have a mirrored field or certain level of reflectivity to be considered, referred to, or labeled as a proof? NO, absolutely not. As has been mentioned, a proof coin is made from a very specific minting process.... If you had the last "proofs" minted from worn dies, using less than perfect planchets, IT IS STILL A PROOF. I love the 1964 Kennedy proofs, and I can tell you, it is not hard to find one that has white and extremely shallow, almost non existant mirrors. it is still a proof regardless.

 

 

As far as this pointless comparison of "proof-like" business strikes, and actual proofs, it is a comparison that shouldn't be made, as it is like apples to oranges. They have nothing to do with one another.

 

"proof-like" business strike coins are defined with relatively specific, very well defined characteristics... because of how straightforward the definition of a proof-like coin is, the "subjectivity" factor is very minimal IMO. To be a legit PL or DMPL coin, the mirrors must be a certain "depth". They either are or they are not....

 

Just cause a business strike coin has a "mirred" finish, versus a satin finish for instance, does not automatically mean that coin is a "Proof like" coin.

 

Basically, I agree with Mark on this one.

 

Just my two cents.

[World Colonial]

A few more comments.

 

I just checked the NGC and PCGS census. NGC has certified two PL Peace dollars, both 1934-D. PCGS has zero. I don't recall whether you ever mentioned if your coin is graded but if so, apparently neither of them believe it to be and collectively, they have seen thousands of these coins. I also presume that there must be other Peace dollars which look like yours also "rejected" because its unlikely yours is the only one.

 

Second, I presume that no one else here has seen your coin. However, with this qualification, if the opinions expressed here are reflective of what collectors think of your coin, then for all purposes, your coin is not PL because as I stated and you agreed, it is subjective. (I see a post above which claims it is not subjective, but I am dubious.) And apparently, subjectively the grading services (if your coin is graded) and other collectors don't agree with you, at least now.

 

Now that I have checked the census, the only reason I can see why you care is because the coin will be worth more or a lot more with the "PL" on the label. Otherwise, it is exactly the same coin regardless.

[copper toning]

I agree with PL actually meaning reflective.

 

I can also understand where a designation for a matte proof like could be desired.

 

Although I do not think the coin in question would qualify for that either.

 

I have an early wheat I would love to see with a matte prooflike designaton, but that would be one confusing holder.

[A.Phillips]

And probably very few of PL Peaces have been graded by ANACS. I would buy one of those PL Peace so that I can send it to several different collectors who want to look closer at that coin and determine if it's a PL or nay. It's really interesting discussion on this thread (I have no idea about the PL Peace though). I will read several more on NGC's old posts later on.

 

1934 D Peace Dollar ANACS MS62PL

 

1934 D Peace Dollar NGC MS64PL

[rrantique]

PL= very well defined characteristics of Proof coins for a particular series .

[mumu]

Prooflike does not mean "like a proof".

 

It means reflective.

 

I feel like we've had this conversation multiple times now. The word means what it does. You can't change the meaning of a word because you don't like it, or don't like the way it is commonly accepted to be used.

 

It may mean reflective because of what TPGs end up actually doing but I don't think youd be able to supply a reference to that in pure terms. I get that's what the TPGs have decided but my argument is that they are wrong, at the very least in using the word Proof in the designation verbiage. So you would be basically trying to "defend the bible by using the bible" with your argument.

 

You of all people should agree here. You have shown off your own peace dollar and as usual posted it as "The greatest Peace dollar yada yada I have ever seen with such qualities yada yada yada". Well its not designated PL. So it must not be anything at all then?

 

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.

[mumu]

A few more comments.

 

I just checked the NGC and PCGS census. NGC has certified two PL Peace dollars, both 1934-D. PCGS has zero. I don't recall whether you ever mentioned if your coin is graded but if so, apparently neither of them believe it to be and collectively, they have seen thousands of these coins. I also presume that there must be other Peace dollars which look like yours also "rejected" because its unlikely yours is the only one.

 

Second, I presume that no one else here has seen your coin. However, with this qualification, if the opinions expressed here are reflective of what collectors think of your coin, then for all purposes, your coin is not PL because as I stated and you agreed, it is subjective. (I see a post above which claims it is not subjective, but I am dubious.) And apparently, subjectively the grading services (if your coin is graded) and other collectors don't agree with you, at least now.

 

Now that I have checked the census, the only reason I can see why you care is because the coin will be worth more or a lot more with the "PL" on the label. Otherwise, it is exactly the same coin regardless.

 

I do not have any such coin so my discussion isn't meant to defend a bias or anything. It is also not meant to ruffle any feathers too hard. I did own such a coin but I sold it long ago and it never failed any designation attempt of any sort. Physics and others had seen the coin in pictures but that's neither here nor there.

 

However somewhat related to this conversation, having shown Physics the coin at the time without any mention to its PL qualities, he predicted that the coin would not holder at all as it looked scratched and polished. It was when I put that coin side by side with his pictures that he realized that those qualities that made the coin look different were in fact "something", I wont say PL since neither was designated as such.

 

Personally I think these Peace dollars have an aluminum paper kind of look to them. Not exactly reflective, but a certain smoothness to them that should definitely somehow be noted if not by the PL term.

 

Then there is the matter of die polish coins. I have seen many coins get PL designation, mostly world coins come to mind, but some Morgans have too, that have no reflectivity, but heavy die polish, and end up as MS 61 or 62 PLs.

[coinman_23885]

Personally I think these Peace dollars have an aluminum paper kind of look to them. Not exactly reflective, but a certain smoothness to them that should definitely somehow be noted if not by the PL term.

 

I'm not sure if I agree with the analogy to aluminum look or smoothness of the fields, but if the coin is qualitatively different and has superior eye appeal, then isn't that what the star designation is for?

[mumu]

Personally I think these Peace dollars have an aluminum paper kind of look to them. Not exactly reflective, but a certain smoothness to them that should definitely somehow be noted if not by the PL term.

 

I'm not sure if I agree with the analogy to aluminum look or smoothness of the fields, but if the coin is qualitatively different and has superior eye appeal, then isn't that what the star designation is for?

 

The stars association with color leaves a lot of questions on white coins, peace dollars or otherwise.