South Africa Proof vs Proof-Like

[tommy44]

I recently received a batch of world coins that I submitted and have some questions about three pieces from South Africa.

 

- 1952 5S cert 4328220-047

- 1953 5S cert 4328220-048

- 1963 50C cert 4328220-049

 

All three were purchased in the mid-70s as part of 11 and 9 coin "proof sets" including the two gold pieces housed in the velvet lined blue holders and all three came back from NGC designated as proof-like.

 

Is there a obvious difference in appearance between proof and proof-like? (I did indicate PF in the MS/PF column.

 

Did they put proof-like coins in those holders?

 

Did I get "deceived" when I bought them as proof sets over 40 years ago?

 

Does it matter?

 

Should I ask NGC?

 

 

[World Colonial]

I have collected South Africa Union since 1998. The answer to your questions are:

 

Yes, there is an obvious difference in the appearance. Assuming you have examples of both, it should be apparent to you. However, NGC (or PCGS) do on occasion make errors. In one instance, I submitted a 1947 proof 2/6 (half crown) which came back MS-63, a much scarcer coin. Subsequently before I sold it (as I suspected it was attributed incorrectly) I sent it in for conservation and a regrade. It came back correctly as a proof.

 

The SA Mint to my knowledge would not have substituted a PL for a proof though I cannot prove it. Most likely, a prior owner performed the switch as the coins were not sealed in the cases.

 

Were you deceived? If you wanted a proof, sounds like you did though this is a question of intent. The seller possibly didn't know if you bought it from someone in the US, since the coins are not widely collected here.

 

Does it matter? Not financially. The value of the coins is very similar in the same grade, though not exact. The relative scarcity differs depending upon the date as well.

 

[tommy44]

I have collected South Africa Union since 1998. The answer to your questions are:

 

The SA Mint to my knowledge would not have substituted a PL for a proof though I cannot prove it. Most likely, a prior owner performed the switch as the coins were not sealed in the cases.

 

Were you deceived? If you wanted a proof, sounds like you did though this is a question of intent. The seller possibly didn't know if you bought it from someone in the US, since the coins are not widely collected here.

 

Thanks for your answers to my questions. Regarding the above answers I did buy the three sets from three different dealers so unlikely each of them substituted coins, although all three dealers were in Rochester NY so I suppose they may all have come from the same person at one time. Also, even though I haven't submitted the gold yet they do look like proofs in my opinion.

 

Perhaps NGC attributed them wrong but as you stated, probably no monetary difference,

 

Thanks again for your response.

[RWB]

The complete SA sets are quite impressive in the original cases. In slabs, not much...

[World Colonial]

The complete SA sets are quite impressive in the original cases. In slabs, not much...

 

Agree. These are a lot harder to find than they used to be.

[World Colonial]

There are no circulation strikes for the 1953 gold.

 

For the 1952 gold, circulation strikes are listed and I own one graded by NGC. I have no information as to why they were struck since SA was no longer on the gold standard and these coins were not offered in sets to my knowledge. The coin I have differs from proofs but I don't have any point of reference for what one of these coins is "supposed" to look like as a circulation strike. There are "PL" listed for 1959 and 1960 but its my opinion they are probably proof rejects.