< Pf-67... Why not? 1 1

[Henri Charriere]

That's correct, and if it's not, why not?

If a Proof coin is produced from specially prepared polished planchet and minted for non-circulation, it is a PROOF.

If a Proof coin, becomes impaired and incurs damage, it is a PROOF.

If a coin is minted as a Proof, its provenance is of irreproachable virtue regardless the indignities visited upon it.  If it was born a Proof, to the manor born, it remains a PROOF for LIFE.  But if it is defaced or defiled -- or chop-marked, what then?  It is a PROOF with a disability.

I should like to propose an extension of the Sheldon scale to embrace all Proof coins, whatever the infirmity.  The ceiling, Pf-70, is palatable, but why should the minimal grade, arbitrarily set (and apparently widely-accepted) as Pf-60 be the point of departure?

If anyone rejects this with a violent objection, speak up and feel free to suggest how I have been led astray, or forever hold your piece (with the applicable and valid carry permit).   😉 

[Sandon]

   Coins made as proofs that have wear but are identified as proof strikes are given the same numerical grades as circulation strikes, with the "PF" prefix given by NGC and "PR" by PCGS.  I own a slightly abraded proof-only 1877 copper nickel three cent piece that PCGS graded "PR 58". I've seen coins given the proof prefix with much lower numerical grades than that.

   I don't recall seeing how the grading services describe proof coins that have both wear and impairments such as "cleaning" or damage, but uncertified pieces have been described as, for example, "impaired proof, Extremely Fine details, scratched".

[J P M]

It is still a proof even if it is found in a roll of common bank coins.

[Henri Charriere]

Thank you Messrs. Sandon and J P M.  You will excuse me now while I put on my suit of armor and await a response from the "nattering nabobs of negativism."  (distinctive alliterative phrase purportedly written by William Safire for use by Spiro Agnew, Nixon's Vice-President and former governor of Maryland.)

[BillJones]

"Proof" refers to a coinage process, not a a grade. Therefore a coin which was struck as a proof, which was circulated, is graded by the degree of wear. 

Sometimes it's impossible to tell if a coin was Proof piece after it has been circulated. For example 1955 Proof cent that is put into circulation might look the same as a 1955 business strike piece if it is worn down to something like Fine condition. If however, a 1969-S quarter were to be found in circulation with considerable wear, you would still know that it is a Proof because the San Francisco Mint did not produce any business strike quarters that year. All of them were Proofs. 

[Mike Meenderink]

The term you gentlemen are searching for is called an impaired proof. A proof coin struck as a proof but with surface imperfections from wear/circulation and/or from improper handling or storage. Most TPGs consider any proof that grades below PF60 to be an impaired proof. Or as I like to call them... impaired poops.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Mike Meenderink
spelling

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/10/2023 at 12:00 AM, Sandon said:

   Coins made as proofs that have wear but are identified as proof strikes are given the same numerical grades as circulation strikes, with the "PF" prefix given by NGC and "PR" by PCGS.  I own a slightly abraded proof-only 1877 copper nickel three cent piece that PCGS graded "PR 58". I've seen coins given the proof prefix with much lower numerical grades than that.

One of the MCMVII Ultra High Relief Saints is graded PR-58.

[zadok]

On 12/12/2023 at 1:36 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

One of the MCMVII Ultra High Relief Saints is graded PR-58.

...theres hope for u yet, Santa mite bring u one for Christmas instead of coal....

[RWB]

On 12/10/2023 at 11:31 AM, BillJones said:

"Proof" refers to a coinage process, not a a grade. Therefore a coin which was struck as a proof, which was circulated, is graded by the degree of wear. 

Absolutely correct. Further in the 19th century it was normal practice to put unsold proofs (and ones that failed inspection) into circulation at their face value. They were, after all, legal tender coins. Also, when families faced economic hardship, coin collections were among the first possessions to be sold or spent.

[RWB]

On 12/9/2023 at 11:23 PM, Henri Charriere said:

suggest how I have been led astray,

I've never been a cigarette or cigar smoker so I don't have any ash trays. (Used to make 'em in kindergarten, though.)

Edited December 12, 2023 by RWB

[BillJones]

On 12/12/2023 at 4:05 PM, RWB said:

Absolutely correct. Further in the 19th century it was normal practice to put unsold proofs (and ones that failed inspection) into circulation at their face value. They were, after all, legal tender coins. Also, when families faced economic hardship, coin collections were among the first possessions to be sold or spent.

Many years ago, the late coin dealer, Robert Bachelder, had an original 1904 Proof set that had everything but the silver dollar. He told me that the owner had spent the silver dollar during the Great Depression when he was short of cash. 

There was another story about a depression era dealer, I think it might have been Abe Kossoff, declining to buy a complete 19th century gold set. He paid something like $5 for three dollar gold, but declined to buy the $20 gold. Why? He was concerned that he didn't have a customers who could pay $20 floor that was under the value of the piece. I suppose that he didn't have heart to take the coin to the bank. and lose a couple dollars if he didn't sell it. 

Of course, all of these coins would be collectors' treasures today, which would be worth many thousands of dollars. It's hard to believe how tough times were then. My parents were lucky. My father lost $75 in gold coins he won for graduating 1st in his class from high school when he deposited it into a local bank that failed. My mother's family survived the Depression and kept their house, farm and store, but she was scared by the experience was very concerned about money, even when they were doing well in the 1950s. 

[RWB]

Bill's anecdotes are on the nose and were once common discussion among collectors. Now, I guess they have become new insights for new collectors. They can also be a reminder for collectors to examine any coin of interest closely -- What might appear to be a "proof like" of limited value, could also be one of the proofs put  into circulation by the Philadelphia Mint. This kind of find requires a thorough understanding of how proof coins were made, the kind of presses used, die treatment, handling, and mechanical details - the "big find" would be any circulated proof gold coin.

To begin preparation for the hunt, read all the MODERN books you can about mint machinery, equipment and mechanics. (A little  - hint: look in my books, especially From Mine to Mint, for facts and details. Add my Numismatist article, "A Brief History of United States
Proof Coins" [2022] on the basics of proof coins. Also, get familiar with language relating to 19th/early 20th century proofs by searching on NNP. For example you'll find

RG104 E-6 Box 28 Vol 2 Jan 2 1885- Dec 27 1886-Medal Clerk.pdf

RG104 E-6 Box 29 Vol 3 June 16 1888- Mar 2 1889-Medal Clerk.pdf
RG104 E-6 Box 29 Vol 1 Dec 14 1887- June 16 1888-Medal Clerk.pdf

RG104 E-6 Box 30 Vol 2 Nov 23 1892-Nov 18 1893 Medals-Proofs.pdf

RG104 E-6 Box 31 Vol 1 Oct 18 1893-Aug 1 1894 Medals Proof.pdf
RG104 E-6 Box 31 Vol 2 Aug 2 1894-July 1 1895 Medals Proof.pdf

All of these describe proof coin and medal orders by collectors, and include occasional complaints.

Here's a little technical detail about the screw press used for medals and proof coins. It's damaged and not clear but it's a little more we didn't have:

[On back of letter] Sept 1, 1860.

 The diameter of eccentric shaft is 4-3/4 inches. Face of arch 26-inches.

Distance from center of eccentric shaft to point of striking is 30-1/4 inches.

Width of slide -- 6-3/4 inches.

W. depositing other moving pieces slide moves – 6-1/4 inches.

Distance between uprights supporting [xxx] sections – 19-5/8 inches.

            Which are the trapped pivot [xxx] to which is attached the carriage motion rod.

Edited December 31, 2023 by RWB

[powermad5000]

I believe the terms proof like and deep proof like are used to refer to coins not produced through the process of making proof coins using extra pressure and extra strikes to produce the best image possible while using highly polished dies and select planchets, but are the surfaces of standard struck coins with exceptional fields that are mirror like, typically produced when the dies are first put into use as the die surfaces have not suffered from excessive strike wear, a set of dies maybe better polished than other sets, and also from planchets that have a better surface than others used to strike normal issues. Also, any given set of dies even if never used are not guaranteed to make such strikes depending on the polishing or lack thereof and the quality of the planchets being used.

As for the original topic, PF is still going to be used for coins produced as proofs but the grade can suffer sometimes greatly due to improper handling, accidental drops, scratches, storage, accidental or incidental circulation, or environmental conditions (as well as man made conditions such as PVC contamination and I could only guess from poorly struck Proofs even though they were supposed to be produced of exceptional quality). Some proof Trade Dollars are graded as low as F and XF from 1880-1883 (at least by NGC).

[RWB]

On 12/29/2023 at 2:53 AM, powermad5000 said:

I believe the terms proof like and deep proof like are used to refer to coins not produced through the process of making proof coins using extra pressure and extra strikes to produce the best image possible while using highly polished dies and select planchets, but are the surfaces of standard struck coins with exceptional fields that are mirror like, typically produced when the dies are first put into use as the die surfaces have not suffered from excessive strike wear, a set of dies maybe better polished than other sets, and also from planchets that have a better surface than others used to strike normal issues.

Nope...well, not quite.

The non-proof but somewhat reflective surfaces are the result of ordinary die maintenance, including rebasining and polishing, to remove small cracks, damage and other defects. The terms "proof-like" and "deep proof-like" are arbitrary appearance descriptors and have no relationship to planchets or how coins were struck; i.e., these were not purposefully made.

Added: the final step in die preparation for 19th and 20th century US coinage was a dip of the die face into nitric acid. This was done to remove any "fire scale" or oxidation produced when the die received final hardening and tempering. The original die surface was satin-like, but quickly faded to 'luster.'

Edited January 1 by RWB

[powermad5000]

On 12/31/2023 at 4:08 PM, RWB said:

have no relationship to planchets

So then you are saying a substandard planchet of low quality can produce a PL or DPL coin.

[RWB]

On 1/1/2024 at 2:53 PM, powermad5000 said:

So then you are saying a substandard planchet of low quality can produce a PL or DPL coin.

Yes. Polish is only on a die and deteriorates quickly unless planchets are also polished. However, overall surface smoothness of planchets was good. The range of "PL" appearance depends on the extent of die repair performed, and the number of pieces struck. (I think some of the Morgan dollar VAM collectors have examples of this for the same die pair...but look on VAMWorld for the data.)

Our hobby bias also ignores coins with one PL side and one normal, and gives a lower opinion to coins with deep mirror on one side and ordinary mirror on the o0ther. We don't see these described in a special way because collectors expect "PL" to be present on both sides. The hobby thus self-selects for only a portion of coins that have some, but not all, PL surfaces.