Proof Like Grading? 0

[pogohatesme]

Hi all,

 

Its been awhile since I've been here and really since I've done anything collecting wise. As I am still a complete newbie for the most part and really unsure about grading thought I would pose this question.

Would or could a coin be considered proof like if only 1 side is proof like? IE: the reverse looks proof but the obverse does not. Or would it require both sides?

 

Thanks

[Sandon]

    In my experience, a coin must have both sides meet the grading service's standards for "prooflike" for a grading service to place the term "prooflike" on the holder. NGC may give a coin that is prooflike on one side, most likely the obverse, a star ("*") grade if the coin has overall good eye appeal. I've seen star grades on NGC graded Morgan dollars with prooflike obverses and frosty reverses. Only NGC uses star grades, which are not recognized by the ANA grading standards.

   I suspect that PCGS and possibly other grading services may give coins with prooflike obverses an extra point or so for superior "eye appeal". The grading services all tend to place more emphasis on the obverse in grading.

[pogohatesme]

On 3/28/2023 at 7:03 PM, Sandon said:

    In my experience, a coin must have both sides meet the grading service's standards for "prooflike" for a grading service to place the term "prooflike" on the holder. NGC may give a coin that is prooflike on one side, most likely the obverse, a star ("*") grade if the coin has overall good eye appeal. I've seen star grades on NGC graded Morgan dollars with prooflike obverses and frosty reverses. Only NGC uses star grades, which are not recognized by the ANA grading standards.

   I suspect that PCGS and possibly other grading services may give coins with prooflike obverses an extra point or so for superior "eye appeal". The grading services all tend to place more emphasis on the obverse in grading.

Thank you. It needing both sides was about what I suspected but wanted to double check. The rest of your statement I was unaware of and very informative. Thank you.

[RWB]

FYI "proof-like" is not a grade. It is a subjective description of the clarity of reflection off the fields of a coin.

[pogohatesme]

On 3/29/2023 at 9:08 AM, RWB said:

FYI "proof-like" is not a grade. It is a subjective description of the clarity of reflection off the fields of a coin.

Yeah, I realized that. I kind of attribute it to the FBL on Franklin halfs or 5FS on Nickles. Now I realize those can/are actually more 5echnical as opposed to subjective, but to me still not an actual "grade". I have just seen where some of those designations can fetch higher premiums. Perhaps my title was misleading and if so I apologize.

To be honest I am in no way attempting to grade. What I thought I knew (which is VERY little ), went out the window when I recently acquired 2 1898 O Morgans. Both graded MS64 but looking at them to me 1 would have graded higher. 

[RWB]

The independent grading businesses promised consistency. They have failed. They are so inconsistent that learning to grade coins, circulated or uncirculated, is not only difficult but the "rules" change almost monthly. There are no true empirical standards, and the lie of "market grading" simply means that greed has tainted what were supposed to be fact-based professional opinions.

A result is that collectors must now settle on their individual opinion of "grade" and how that relates to value. TPG opinions continue to roll downhill. I don't know when bottom will be reached.

Edited March 29, 2023 by RWB

[Zebo]

On 3/28/2023 at 7:10 PM, pogohatesme said:

Hi all,

 

Its been awhile since I've been here and really since I've done anything collecting wise. As I am still a complete newbie for the most part and really unsure about grading thought I would pose this question.

Would or could a coin be considered proof like if only 1 side is proof like? IE: the reverse looks proof but the obverse does not. Or would it require both sides?

 

Thanks

Who is Pogo?

[rrantique]

https://www.pogo.com

On 3/29/2023 at 12:01 PM, Zebo said:

Who is Pogo?

 

[Cozdred]

On 3/29/2023 at 11:26 AM, RWB said:

The independent grading businesses promised consistency. They have failed. They are so inconsistent that learning to grade coins, circulated or uncirculated, is not only difficult but the "rules" change almost monthly. There are no true empirical standards, and the lie of "market grading" simply means that greed has tainted what were supposed to be fact-based professional opinions.

A result is that collectors must now settle on their individual opinion of "grade" and how that relates to value. TPG opinions continue to roll downhill. I don't know when bottom will be reached.

I'm distressed at how often I encounter coins with very obvious wear on the high points that have been graded as high as MS61.  It's almost like some of the graders are physically blind, and were only hired in order to satisfy some DEI quota.  What's really sad is how many times I browse through an online auction and see high bids placed on seriously overgraded coins.  There are simply too many people who buy coins based on what it says on the holder, without even bothering to view the coin itself.  PCGS is notorious for misidentifying varieties of coins, and I've also seen cases where a very large amount was paid for a coin that had the wrong variety listed, when the true variety sells for a small fraction of that price.  

I recall that one of the original rationales for TPG was that dealers could purchase coins from each other sight unseen, and be assured of what they would receive. IMO anyone who does that is a total insufficiently_thoughtful_person. I've even seen CAC coins that had such negative eye appeal that I wouldn't want it at any price, so I don't even trust them. 

 

 

[ just noticed that where I used the word "I d i o t" the software changed it to "insufficiently_thougtful_person".  Looks like the thought police caught me! ]

Edited April 18, 2023 by Cozdred
Amusing spellcheck override!

[EagleRJO]

On 4/17/2023 at 11:24 PM, Cozdred said:

It's almost like some of the graders are physically blind, and were only hired in order to satisfy some DEI quota.

Didn't you hear that starting in 2021 the TPGs and the US mint went woke, with new DEI hiring requirements that have nothing to do with actual qualifications.  That's how you end up with a 2022 quarter struck on silver planchet error when the new DEI hire for forklift operator grabbed the wrong coil to punch out the 2022 quarter planchets.  

On 3/28/2023 at 7:10 PM, pogohatesme said:

Would or could a coin be considered proof like if only 1 side is proof like? IE: the reverse looks proof but the obverse does not. Or would it require both sides?

I guess it's possible that a proof coin has one die that is polished more than the other, or perhaps a proof coin was in circulation and one side had more wear than the other resulting in it appearing to be less proof like.

[RWB]

On 4/18/2023 at 9:19 AM, EagleRJO said:

I guess it's possible that a proof coin has one die that is polished more than the other, or perhaps a proof coin was in circulation and one side had more wear than the other resulting in it appearing to be less proof like.

Available data indicates that in the 1930-40s approximately 1/3 of proof coins were rejected by the Mint's Medal Dept., and therefore do not appear on inventories of proofs. A similar situation occurred in the 1880s-90s. All coins that were legally OK were put into circulation. Also in the 19th and early 20th centuries leftover (unsold) proofs were put into circulation through the Cashier.

[powermad5000]

On 4/17/2023 at 10:24 PM, Cozdred said:

[ just noticed that where I used the word "I d i o t" the software changed it to "insufficiently_thougtful_person".  Looks like the thought police caught me! ]

LOL! I had that word a couple times in another post and it seems the mods designed the chat board to change some words used to politically correct versions....LOL!

To try to remain on topic, back to the OP's question, BOTH sides of the coin must exhibit the same depth of reflectivity in the fields to get the PL or DPL designation. If only one side has reflectivity and the other not, then it will not be attributed. In the case of Morgan dollars, say, this can happen when different die pairs were married to finish producing the run. I own a few Morgans where one side is quite reflective and the other side is normal mint luster.

[Cozdred]

On 4/18/2023 at 10:29 AM, RWB said:

 Also in the 19th and early 20th centuries leftover (unsold) proofs were put into circulation through the Cashier.

I'm extremely interested to learn this. I wonder if this practice also occurred in Australia in the 19th Cent.  I've seen so many coins dated in the 1880's and 1890's from the Melbourne mint that were almost certainly struck on polished planchets, but there's only a few proofs listed for that year, or sometimes no record of Proofs being produced at all. Maybe they only counted the ones that got sold. 

Here is an image of one example that I personally own, 1884-M gold sovereign. Mint records show a few proofs being produced in 1883 and 1885, but none in 1884. The coin was graded MS63+ by PCGS since they could not verify that any proofs were produced in this year. 

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by Cozdred
added an image

[RWB]

I don't know about the Australian Mint practices. Probably similar to the Royal Mint in London.

The coin pictured above is a very nice example of an 1884-M sovereign, but not nearly sharp enough to have been struck as a proof. A question relating to that is: Did the other mints have the equipment to actually make proof coins, or were they all made in London from dies intended for distant mints? In US coinage, it is clear than no branch mint had the equipment or expertise to make a legitimate "proof" coin.

Edited April 19, 2023 by RWB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/29/2023 at 10:08 AM, RWB said:

FYI "proof-like" is not a grade. It is a subjective description of the clarity of reflection off the fields of a coin.

And sometimes it is self-evident and other times it is not.

[Cozdred]

On 4/19/2023 at 6:48 PM, RWB said:

I don't know about the Australian Mint practices. Probably similar to the Royal Mint in London.

The coin pictured above is a very nice example of an 1884-M sovereign, but not nearly sharp enough to have been struck as a proof. A question relating to that is: Did the other mints have the equipment to actually make proof coins, or were they all made in London from dies intended for distant mints? In US coinage, it is clear than no branch mint had the equipment or expertise to make a legitimate "proof" coin.

Agree the coin shown is not strictly proof, since it also doesn't show the usual frosting on the devices. I was thinking it's a Special Presentation (SP) piece struck on polished planchet. The coin in hand shows mirror reflection on both sides, as well as the tell-tale scratchiness in the fields produced by early polishing methods.  I've compared it to a picture of NGC graded 1885-M PR64 coming up for sale in May, shown below, and the level of detail seems quite similar.  Branch mint proofs rarely match the quality of those produced by the central mint, but they are still classified as proofs since that's how they are listed in the official mint records.

My understanding is that in the 19th century, all sovereign dies were produced by the main mint in London and then shipped (literally) to the branch mints. Each branch then punched in its own mintmark on each die received. Planchets were locally produced, especially the case of Australia in order to make efficient use of the huge local supply of precious metals. 

 

Edited later as an afterthought, to add a close-up pic of the coin in the PCGS holder. Level of detail is much more apparent, especially in Her Majesty's hair and hair ribbon.  Very attractive girl ! 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Cozdred

[RWB]

The coin shows normal die maintenance. The field was polished down a little to remove surface cracks, spalling, or damage. Very common on coins from many world mints in the 19th and first part of the 20th centuries.

Your coin is not some sort of "special" piece. If it was accompanied by specific documentation, that might be different. However, by appearance, there is nothing unusual including in design detail.

The American TPGs toss around claims of "specimen" "presentation piece" and other undefined gibberish without any justification or independent research or validation. It is a corrupt and false historical practice that will only serve to 'coinfuse' others.

[RWB]

On 4/19/2023 at 9:20 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

And sometimes it is self-evident and other times it is not.

It is easy to publish standards and empirical measurements, but the all-knowing-and-omnipotent-TPGs refuse to do so -- leading to inevitable confusion and customer dissatisfaction.

[J P M]

Very Nice coin, I agree RWB. Everyone wants to change history now days.     

[EagleRJO]

On 4/19/2023 at 9:20 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

And sometimes it is self-evident and other times it is not.

On 4/19/2023 at 10:24 PM, RWB said:

It is easy to publish standards and empirical measurements, but the all-knowing-and-omnipotent-TPGs refuse to do so -- leading to inevitable confusion and customer dissatisfaction.

PCGS publishes their grading standards, starting with a general guide, and which includes a visual grading resource for each US coin (PCGS CoinFacts) as well as a book on how they grade coins.  I have a copy of the book, and it's pretty well done although there are still some black and while photos which I think could be updated.

PCGS General Grading Guide

PCGS CoinFacts - Visual Grading Resource

PCGS Book on Coin Grading

The PCGS CoinFacts resource in particular is an excellent grading reference as you can call up images for how each US coin is graded.  Maybe they will eventually extend this resource to world coins like the Australian 1884-M Gold Sovereign above.  I think NGC should do the same thing, so their grading standards are clear.

Edited April 20, 2023 by EagleRJO

[Cozdred]

On 4/19/2023 at 9:20 PM, RWB said:

On 4/19/2023 at 9:20 PM, RWB said:

The coin shows normal die maintenance. The field was polished down a little to remove surface cracks, spalling, or damage. 

The American TPGs toss around claims of "specimen" "presentation piece" and other undefined gibberish without any justification or independent research or validation. It is a corrupt and false historical practice that will only serve to 'coinfuse' others.

 

The entire surface of both sides is highly polished, which can be seen when the coin is rotated in light.  No way to present that in this forum with a flat image, so I can understand your mistaken opinion. 

I believe the process you're talking about is correctly called "die lapping", which this is definitely not a case of.  Die lapping actually removes metal from the surface, thus causing a partial loss of shallow details, and there's no evidence of that here that I can see. One of the shallowest raised areas on the obverse is the "kiss curl" in front of her ear, and this shows almost exactly the same level of detail as in the 1885-M proof coin.  I've seen examples of plenty of coins struck from both minimally and heavily lapped dies, and they don't show mirroring across the entire surface, as in this case. 

Not sure where you get the idea that special presentation pieces don't really exist.  Have you never heard of the Special Mint Sets produced by the US mint 1965-1967?  They were produced from polished dies and planchets, but without being struck multiple times and not polished to the same degree as true proofs. Thus they do not quite match up in appearance.  Polishing blanks is rather easy to do, even in the 19th century, so many branch mints would do this in order to strike presentation pieces to give to local officials on special occasions. Prime examples of this would be the Edward VII gold sovereign presentation pieces produced by the Ottawa mint in 1908 and 1909, which are generally known as "Satin Finish" but which TPGs call "Special Presentation".  Just different terminology for the same thing, not "gibberish" as you propose. Mint records frequently account for such "special" pieces, which is where the published mintage figures derive from. However, early mint reports frequently misrepresent presentation pieces by including them in the total of normal circulation pieces. 

Thanks for your comments and opinions, but in the future do try to keep them civil and polite, and not derogatory.  Thanks!  

[Jason Abshier]

On 4/19/2023 at 9:22 PM, Cozdred said:

Special Presentation (SP)

No SP stands for specimen SP is not really a grade in my opinion but more of way describing a coin should be treated like a Proof coin … I see SP given on a lot of older world coins and medals how they determine that ? I have no idea sometimes I look at a SP coin I see no real difference compared to regular business strike … perhaps a SP coin is struck more better or so the proof finish looks differently compared to later proofs … but the coin you show above in the post will probably maybe get a PL along with a grade number I can’t see the coin in my hand … But I have heard some old mints around the world when they struck a quota of proofs they had some left over instead of destroying them they held on to them for later years of they needed to meet that quota on a business strike they used up proof planchet to make the quota and these proof coins were sent into circulation… This might be why you are seeing this coin in that proof looking condition 

the joys of collecting world coins I find myself often wondering digging around for information why a coin looks like a Proof when there nothing in the books saying they produced any proofs in that year or mint branch where the coin was struck … I share your frustration 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Jason Abshier

[RWB]

On 4/20/2023 at 6:45 AM, EagleRJO said:

PCGS publishes their grading standards

"Proof-Like" is not a grade. It is a description of obverse and reverse surfaces. This confuses a lot of people because there is no fixed specification for this. I've repeatedly outlines a very simple apparatus and scale for defining "PL" and "Deep PL," but no one in the TPG business gives a hoot....Do they make too much from "re-submissions" and floating opinions?

[RWB]

On 4/20/2023 at 7:52 AM, Jason Abshier said:

No SP stands for specimen SP is not really a grade in my opinion but more of way describing a coin should be treated like a Proof coin

"SP" or other such terms have NO accepted meanings. They are tossed out by TPGs to boost prices of otherwise ordinary coins. They also have nothing to do with proof coins.

Several have proposed a very simple and easy approach.

1) Any special designation, such as "specimen," "presentation," "prototype," "special proof," MUST be supported by official documentation AND independent research.

2) Prior to use on any specific coin, the data and research MUST be presented to a group of numismatists expert in US coinage, process, techniques, mechanical operations and research for INDEPENDENT assessment.

3) Review of facts by the research group must be published in hobby publications and open for comment for at least 60 days.

This takes the commercial TPGs out of the loop of inventing terms, and avoids the current problem of secret decisions regarding certain coins. This kind of independent review is what occurred prior to the TPG-invention, but it was on an informal basis.

This also mitigates any self-interest and bias on the part of TPGs or coin owners by relying on fact not fiction.

[RWB]

On 4/20/2023 at 7:12 AM, Cozdred said:

The entire surface of both sides is highly polished, which can be seen when the coin is rotated in light.  No way to present that in this forum with a flat image, so I can understand your mistaken opinion. 

I believe the process you're talking about is correctly called "die lapping", which this is definitely not a case of.  Die lapping actually removes metal from the surface, thus causing a partial loss of shallow details, and there's no evidence of that here that I can see. One of the shallowest raised areas on the obverse is the "kiss curl" in front of her ear, and this shows almost exactly the same level of detail as in the 1885-M proof coin.  I've seen examples of plenty of coins struck from both minimally and heavily lapped dies, and they don't show mirroring across the entire surface, as in this case. 

Not sure where you get the idea that special presentation pieces don't really exist.  Have you never heard of the Special Mint Sets produced by the US mint 1965-1967?  They were produced from polished dies and planchets, but without being struck multiple times and not polished to the same degree as true proofs. Thus they do not quite match up in appearance.  Polishing blanks is rather easy to do, even in the 19th century, so many branch mints would do this in order to strike presentation pieces to give to local officials on special occasions. Prime examples of this would be the Edward VII gold sovereign presentation pieces produced by the Ottawa mint in 1908 and 1909, which are generally known as "Satin Finish" but which TPGs call "Special Presentation".  Just different terminology for the same thing, not "gibberish" as you propose. Mint records frequently account for such "special" pieces, which is where the published mintage figures derive from. However, early mint reports frequently misrepresent presentation pieces by including them in the total of normal circulation pieces. 

Sorry you object to the truth. Maybe you should learn more before making assumptions.

FYI "lapping" "basining" and polishing are not the same thing. Lapping is/was done with a vertically rotating emery wheel as part of normal die maintenance; fine detail at the junction of field and relief would be lost only if the operator was poorly trained or inattentive. Basining was done with a rotating disc of iron which had been charged with abrasive. The disc was made with a specific radius of curvature. It was used to adjust the curvature of the field of a die that deviated from specification, or to accommodate differences in presses and blank upsetting at different mints. Polishing can refer to either of the previous in a generic sense; but, also to use of a wooden emery stick on parts of a die to remove minor cracks or clash marks without affecting the full die surface.

On 4/20/2023 at 7:12 AM, Cozdred said:

One of the shallowest raised areas on the obverse is the "kiss curl" in front of her ear, and this shows almost exactly the same level of detail as in the 1885-M proof coin.

Correct polishing of a new die for use in striking proofs will not alter relief. The Royal Mint's large steam-powered proof & medal presses (in use until at least 1901) brought up all the detail in a die pair (and edge). Did Melbourne or Calcutta or Perth have one of  these presses? If not, how could they make an authentic proof?

"Special" or any other undefined term as used by TPGs and others is truly meaningless gibberish. Such terms MUST be backed by FACTS!

"Presentation pieces" certainly exist -- but not in an information vacuum as you imply. There MUST be documentation about the circumstances that caused a "special" coin to be made. Absent facts, visual opinions that something is "special" and not part of normal production or die use, are of no value.

I wish you well. Please learn more before you feign knowledge.

[Jason Abshier]

@RWB I can see the SP be giving to off struck metal trial strikes, essai or piedfort of sort along with some solid documentation and information to back it up… then and only then should SP be used   

[EagleRJO]

On 4/20/2023 at 12:46 PM, RWB said:

"Proof-Like" is not a grade.

Regardless, it is addressed in the grading standards under "Surface".  Definitions, including PL, are included on page 9 of the PCGS Guide I referenced which addresses the "Surface", with a detailed discussion in the grading standards book I referenced.

[EagleRJO]

On 3/28/2023 at 7:10 PM, pogohatesme said:

Would or could a coin be considered proof like if only 1 side is proof like?

This must be on both sides to be designated "prooflike" according to the standards I referenced above.

[VKurtB]

On 4/20/2023 at 12:40 PM, Jason Abshier said:

@RWB I can see the SP be giving to off struck metal trial strikes, essai or piedfort of sort along with some solid documentation and information to back it up… then and only then should SP be used   

Then what, in your opinion, are the nickels in the 1993/94 and 1997 Coin & Currency sets? They are unlike ANY OTHER Jefferson nickels of their years. Both you and Roger are to be congratulated and honored for your research and writing contributions, but I swear that SOME of the stuff you spew is simply unsupportable dogma. The absence of documentation does NOT mean a particular thing doesn't exist. In fact. MANY things exist absent prose written about them. No one EVER wrote about the special 1994 nickels in the Jefferson C&C Set until I did, in Numismatic News. Government agencies are seldom known for being forthcoming with truth, even in their archives.

Edited April 21, 2023 by VKurtB

[EagleRJO]

Also see the following announcement by PCS$ on the "prooflike" designation ...

https://www.pcgs.com/news/pcgs-announcement-about-prooflike