1992 No S Mintmark Is this a Proof? 0

[Kevine84]

This is a beautiful coin whichever vote it gets...

 

Is it a Proof?  It was in a set...

 

 

 

 

[Crawtomatic]

Looks like a 1990 Philadelphia business strike issue to me.  The proof coins from 1990 are almost exclusively deep cameo and that's not present here.

[l.cutler]

Absolutely not a proof, just a normal business strike.  What kind of set was it in?

Edited February 4, 2020 by l.cutler

[Kevine84]

I found another set that had a token in it.  These were in a set with an Uncirculated Philadelphia token

[Kevine84]

You break my heart with that news btw...

[Just Bob]

Did it look like this?

[Kevine84]

yes

[Greenstang]

Then it not  a Proof. Those are business strikes in those sets.

The Proof Sets have " Proof Set" marked on them instead of Uncirculated Coin Set.

Edited February 5, 2020 by Greenstang
Correct typo

[Kevine84]

OK

I have som e proof sets too.  I understand the difference now.  I was a little cloudy before.

 

I actuall have both and have pulled around 20FScoins to be graded.  Long journey.  Thanks for the feedback.

[Just Bob]

If by "FS" you are referring to sending in nickels to get the Full Step designation, be aware that the proof coins will not be designated as such, regardless of how many steps they have, since it is assumed that every proof coin will be fully struck. If your "FS" means something else, then ignore what I just said. Or, file it away for future reference.

[Kevine84]

Thanks

 

No the nickels are Uncirculated and Business strike coins.  1993D here

[JKK]

57 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

If by "FS" you are referring to sending in nickels to get the Full Step designation, be aware that the proof coins will not be designated as such, regardless of how many steps they have, since it is assumed that every proof coin will be fully struck. If your "FS" means something else, then ignore what I just said. Or, file it away for future reference.

My ANA Grading Standards guide (7th Ed, 2013) must be obsolete in this area, then. Its listed standards for proof coins include the grading of strike, from sharp ranging downward. My understanding has always been that strike weakness was one of the factors that could limit a proof coin's grade no matter how well it scored in the areas of surface, lack of marks, eye appeal, and so on.

[Just Bob]

40 minutes ago, JKK said:

My ANA Grading Standards guide (7th Ed, 2013) must be obsolete in this area, then. Its listed standards for proof coins include the grading of strike, from sharp ranging downward. My understanding has always been that strike weakness was one of the factors that could limit a proof coin's grade no matter how well it scored in the areas of surface, lack of marks, eye appeal, and so on.

Does that include moderns? I gave away my ANA grading book, so I can't look for the answer to this question.

[JKK]

18 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

Does that include moderns? I gave away my ANA grading book, so I can't look for the answer to this question.

With moderns, I think it's more that strike is rarely a factor because today's proof strikes are likely to be full. You might be right about whether or not they give the FS designation to modern proof Jeffs. I would be interested to know if/when they stopped giving it, when it became a baseline expectation rather than something nice to hope for. For all I know, maybe they never did give it to proof Jeffs. But my copy leaves no doubt that at least for some proofs, strike sharpness or weakness matters in grading.

[Just Bob]

Just now, JKK said:

With moderns, I think it's more that strike is rarely a factor because today's proof strikes are likely to be full. You might be right about whether or not they give the FS designation to modern proof Jeffs. I would be interested to know if/when they stopped giving it, when it became a baseline expectation rather than something nice to hope for. For all I know, maybe they never did give it to proof Jeffs. But my copy leaves no doubt that at least for some proofs, strike sharpness or weakness matters in grading.

A look through the NGC census turned up no Full Step Jeffersons, Full Band Mercs, Or Full Torch Roosevelts, so I assume they never handed these out. That implies that modern proofs are expected to be struck fully.

That may not have always been the case, though. Here is a quote from an earlier thread by Mr. Roger Burdette:

"First, another mechanical fact: proof coins of that era were struck once with a special medal press. No press of that era was capable of maintaining consistent dies-to-planchet-to-collar alignment beyond one blow."

In the quote, "that era" refers to an 1879 Morgan that was the subject of the thread. One may assume that coins that were struck only once could run the risk of being weakly struck. This is, admittedly, an area in which my knowledge is sorely lacking.