• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

1992 No S Mintmark Is this a Proof?
1 1

15 posts in this topic

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 by Greenstang
Correct typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1