Home U.S. Coin Forum

What is an "Impaired Proof?"

Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

A long time ago, before all the #'s, grading was much simpler. For example, we had Uncirculated, and Choice Uncirculated. Proofs were graded as Proof, Choice Proof, and Impaired Proof.

What is an Impaired Proof? Does it have a grading designation such as PR-58, PR-60, or PR-higher #'s. Is there an amount of "impairment" that would cause the coin to be problem graded?

«1

Comments

  • sellitstoresellitstore Posts: 2,415 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The amount of impairment that defines an "impaired proof" has always been at least somewhat subjective.

    I don't think that anyone would consider light hairlining a significant impairment but most would consider a staple scratch or wear to be a significant impairment. Both are technically impairments, but it's where one draws the line of acceptability. The line between "impaired proof" and "proof" is somewhere in between and different people will define it slightly differently.

    Is a VG 1895 dollar an impaired proof? I'd say yes, so impaired proofs can be quite worn. On the high end I'd guess that a heavily hairlined PR61 or perhaps 62 would be the highest numerical grade for an "impaired proof", and, certainly, an impaired proof could be impaired enough to receive a problem grade.

    Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
  • coinbufcoinbuf Posts: 10,715 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I was told many years ago by a local dealer that an impaired proof was one that had damage or had seen use for commerce. In fact I find quite a few proof qtrs in my weekly change, enough that I have been wondering if I could do a full state qtrs. run in impaired proofs.

    My Lincoln Registry
    My Collection of Old Holders

    Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
  • CoinstartledCoinstartled Posts: 10,135 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JBK said:
    All circulated proofs are impaired, for example. Impaired means any damage not consistent with the manufacture of a proof coin.

    That's the way I see it. ;)

    That is my definition as well.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 11,921 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JBK said:
    All circulated proofs are impaired, for example. Impaired means any damage not consistent with the manufacture of a proof coin.

    That's the way I see it. ;)

    What about non-circulated Proofs with problems?

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • PerryHallPerryHall Posts: 45,301 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @JBK said:
    All circulated proofs are impaired, for example. Impaired means any damage not consistent with the manufacture of a proof coin.

    That's the way I see it. ;)

    What about non-circulated Proofs with problems?

    Good point. Non-circulated Proof coins with milk spots or carbon spots come to mind. I'm sure some people consider proofs with heavy tarnish to be impaired. Whether a coin is impaired or not is frequently in the eyes of the beholder.

    Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.

  • JBKJBK Posts: 14,643 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @JBK said:
    All circulated proofs are impaired, for example. Impaired means any damage not consistent with the manufacture of a proof coin.

    That's the way I see it. ;)

    What about non-circulated Proofs with problems?

    Within my original comment: "any damage not consistent with the manufacture of a proof coin".

    You can decide for yourself at what point natural aging tips the balance to impaired, but damage, scratches, etc. due to mishandling are impairment, at least to me.

  • oih82w8oih82w8 Posts: 11,869 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I was under the impression that an "impaired proof" (not intended for circulation) was a proof coin that was circulated in commerce.

    oih82w8 = Oh I Hate To Wait _defectus patientia_aka...Dr. Defecto - Curator of RMO's

    BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug...
  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If numismatics ever gets real standards (defined, measurable, repeatable standards), this forum - and the hobby - will become much more subdued (that is to say, disagreements and discussions about grade will be minimized). Cheers, RickO

  • messydeskmessydesk Posts: 19,642 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Since proof coins usually earn grades of 60, 61, and 62 because of the amount of hairlines they have, and those hairlines typically come from mishandling that would earn business strikes a body bag, the point of contention is really whether or not a proof without circulation wear could be called impaired because its surfaces are impaired.

  • mustangmanbobmustangmanbob Posts: 1,890 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I cannot imagine how many metric tons of later date proofs are circulating, worn, pulled out as a treasure, held for a while, then dumped back in as the unimpaired are only worth face value, lather rinse repeat.

    I have sent a bunch of proofs off to circulating commerce land.

    Years ago, my son did a high school math class practical application study. (Statistics and attenuation) We ordered ($1000 $$, don't remember exact, as it has been too long) group of half dollars. He went through every one, sorted and counted. Large $$ amount was high enough to have statistical validity. He mapped the number he found as a percentage of the total, with the mintage of that year / mint mark as a percentage of the total, to see if what was circulating matched what was minted, and what the differences were.

    Among the outliers were the proof coins.

    Outliers:

    1) Only a couple pre 1971 (obvious, they had silver)
    2) 2 90% silvers, one Franklin, one Walker.
    3) Virtually no later dates (minted but not released for circulation)
    4) Proofs (Minted but not intended for circulation). Definitely impaired, he kept them, and sold them, one for $10, to a dealer at a coin show.

    Coins were well mixed as far as date went, and also P versus D. There was almost no roll off due to age (virtually no attenuation except for silver content).

    He was able to build almost a complete set of the common circulating coins.

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:
    I think that generally speaking, proofs which grade less than 60, are what were described as “impaired” Proofs in the old days. That said, I also see quite a few Proofs graded 60-62 which might have also once been described as “impaired. Many of them are noticeably wiped or cleaned.

    That makes sense. Proofs don't often have contact marks. Most imperfections I see are spots or hairlines. The ANA standards allow for continuous hairlines over the entire surface for a 61. The 62 or 63 grade can have a noticeable patch. How should scratches be considered? Are they treated as contact marks and evaluated for location, and severity (length & depth)? I call any wide scratch a "gouge" and that is rare to fine on a Proof.

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Dreamcrusher said:
    In the ANA Fundamentals of Grading class, we define an impaired proof as a proof coin that is a problem coin (cleaned, scratched, etc.) or due to circulation, cannot be graded as mint state. Always remember that the term "proof" describes a method of manufacturing and is not a grade.

    I agree! Apparently, the ANA is not doing enough to educate many folks. Therefore subjectivity, value, rarity, and "market acceptability" must be the answer. I guess an Impaired Proof is "impaired" depending on who's opinion is given. ;)

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @oih82w8 said:
    I was under the impression that an "impaired proof" (not intended for circulation) was a proof coin that was circulated in commerce.

    I think if I wrote that a Mint State coin was "impaired" because it had a hole in it, - most would agree. Thus, it should follow that a Proof coin with no trace of wear would also be impaired if it had a hole or significant scratches.

  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭

    to follow on what Mark said, I've been impaired on Proofs that were less than 60, it just takes more effort and consumption. my best impairment was from some Military Grade grain alcohol used in the Corrosion Control Department of my Squadron back in the 70's. a couple friends of mine had a five gallon can and the Squadron was really worried, they begged whoever had it to please return it, no questions asked.

    it showed up, about a Quart light and went under closer security.

  • Namvet69Namvet69 Posts: 8,624 ✭✭✭✭✭

    What @JBK said. Peace Roy

    BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52

  • ElmhurstElmhurst Posts: 768 ✭✭✭

    Under 40% alcohol by volume.

  • Skrill90Skrill90 Posts: 264 ✭✭✭

    I figured it was a proof coin that was in circulation or was considered a details coin.

  • santinidollarsantinidollar Posts: 1,055 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 23, 2019 3:25PM

    I’ve always considered an impaired proof one that shows circulation.

  • logger7logger7 Posts: 8,022 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I believe there are "liner" impaired coins, ie the toning and originality may compensate for some light cleaning. I had a Proof Seated dime I paid strong Greysheet money for, the dealer who sold it to me raw thought it was a solid 63/64. NGC called in PR details cleaned, ICG called it PR63. Should a lightly cleaned decent coin never get a numerical grade?

  • BackroadJunkieBackroadJunkie Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭✭✭

    OT, but since it's Friday...

    @Justacommeman said:
    I’ve had some moonshine that I would categorize as such

    m

    I wanted to try some real honest-to-goodness moonshine, so I contacted some friends I know in Georgia and Tennessee.

    I thought I'd have a hard time finding some, but darned if every uncle and family friend of everyone I knew 'shined. o:)

    I've got a mason jar of the stuff, but it gives me a headache just looking at it. I think a couple of shots might kill me. Hate to imagine the congeners in that jar. I need to get some gunpowder and proof the stuff out. Maybe I'll try running it though a water filer a few times to clean it up.

    I've decided to stick with my standby, Knob Creek. At least I know I won't go blind... :D

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @BackroadJunkie said:
    OT, but since it's Friday...

    @Justacommeman said:
    I’ve had some moonshine that I would categorize as such

    m

    I wanted to try some real honest-to-goodness moonshine, so I contacted some friends I know in Georgia and Tennessee.

    I thought I'd have a hard time finding some, but darned if every uncle and family friend of everyone I knew 'shined. o:)

    I've got a mason jar of the stuff, but it gives me a headache just looking at it. I think a couple of shots might kill me. Hate to imagine the congeners in that jar. I need to get some gunpowder and proof the stuff out. Maybe I'll try running it though a water filer a few times to clean it up.

    I've decided to stick with my standby, Knob Creek. At least I know I won't go blind... :D

    I thought there is "licensed" shine being sold in the south. They were drinking it on a radio show in NY. It even came in flavors.

  • mustangmanbobmustangmanbob Posts: 1,890 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I tried goggling it, but what is the lowest PR graded coin?

  • MattTheRileyMattTheRiley Posts: 806 ✭✭✭✭

    @mustangmanbob said:
    I tried goggling it, but what is the lowest PR graded coin?

    There is a 1895 Morgan in PR6 in the pop report.

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    We certified several 1895 Morgan dollars that graded lower than VF in the 1970's and 1980's. They had the die polish of Proofs. I never could understand how that many Proofs could get worn down that far. I cannot prove anything but I think business strikes were made of this date.

  • MattTheRileyMattTheRiley Posts: 806 ✭✭✭✭

    @Insider2 said:
    We certified several 1895 Morgan dollars that graded lower than VF in the 1970's and 1980's. They had the die polish of Proofs. I never could understand how that many Proofs could get worn down that far. I cannot prove anything but I think business strikes were made of this date.

    Aren't there mint records showing 12,000 business strikes were produced? Where the coins are, who knows?

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    One of the mysteries of numismatics. I recall reading several theories.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 11,921 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MattTheRiley said:

    @Insider2 said:
    We certified several 1895 Morgan dollars that graded lower than VF in the 1970's and 1980's. They had the die polish of Proofs. I never could understand how that many Proofs could get worn down that far. I cannot prove anything but I think business strikes were made of this date.

    Aren't there mint records showing 12,000 business strikes were produced? Where the coins are, who knows?

    Many people believe the coins were produced, but melted.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • BJandTundraBJandTundra Posts: 383 ✭✭✭✭

    @Insider2 said:

    I thought there is "licensed" shine being sold in the south. They were drinking it on a radio show in NY. It even came in flavors.

    Go to Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Moonshine distillery on every corner. Even comes in Cotton Candy and Watermelon flavors. You won't go blind but, you can go broke.

  • TwoSides2aCoinTwoSides2aCoin Posts: 43,796 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Any proof handled improperly is impaired. And most, which are handled , show the impairments.

  • BackroadJunkieBackroadJunkie Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Insider2 said:

    @BackroadJunkie said:
    OT, but since it's Friday...

    @Justacommeman said:
    I’ve had some moonshine that I would categorize as such

    m

    I wanted to try some real honest-to-goodness moonshine, so I contacted some friends I know in Georgia and Tennessee.

    I thought I'd have a hard time finding some, but darned if every uncle and family friend of everyone I knew 'shined. o:)

    I've got a mason jar of the stuff, but it gives me a headache just looking at it. I think a couple of shots might kill me. Hate to imagine the congeners in that jar. I need to get some gunpowder and proof the stuff out. Maybe I'll try running it though a water filer a few times to clean it up.

    I've decided to stick with my standby, Knob Creek. At least I know I won't go blind... :D

    I thought there is "licensed" shine being sold in the south. They were drinking it on a radio show in NY. It even came in flavors.

    Yep, there is, but what they're calling moonshine is really just unaged whiskey. It's still a quality product, regulated (and taxed). I wanted to try the raw, unregulated, high-octane, rotgut stuff. Every whiskey drinker should. It would make them appreciate what they're drinking that much more... :)

  • HigashiyamaHigashiyama Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @TwoSides2aCoin said "Any proof handled improperly is impaired. And most, which are handled , show the impairments."

    This simple definition seems accurate, and I particular like the additional point "most ... show the impairments"

    When I think of an impaired proof, I immediately tend to think of hairlines on the (now partially) mirrored fields, or perhaps a very dipped out coin..

    The consensus above seems to disagree with me on the following point: I would not tend to call a circulated proof an impaired proof. For example, Gobrecht dollars or 1895 Morgans in EF45 seem like "circulated proofs" rather than "impaired proofs". The distinction I would make is that the circulated proofs, at first glance, look pretty much like a business strike. The impaired proofs look like proofs that have been mishandled, but are still clearly proof in manufacture.

    Higashiyama
  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 11,921 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Higashiyama said:
    @TwoSides2aCoin said "Any proof handled improperly is impaired. And most, which are handled , show the impairments."

    This simple definition seems accurate, and I particular like the additional point "most ... show the impairments"

    When I think of an impaired proof, I immediately tend to think of hairlines on the (now partially) mirrored fields, or perhaps a very dipped out coin..

    The consensus above seems to disagree with me on the following point: I would not tend to call a circulated proof an impaired proof. For example, Gobrecht dollars or 1895 Morgans in EF45 seem like "circulated proofs" rather than "impaired proofs". The distinction I would make is that the circulated proofs, at first glance, look pretty much like a business strike. The impaired proofs look like proofs that have been mishandled, but are still clearly proof in manufacture.

    Based on your distinction, if a Proof has circulated just a little bit and still looks like a Proof, it’s “impaired”. But the same coin, once circulated to the point that it no longer looks like a Proof, is not “impaired”. I can understand it, but think it’s somewhat of a contradiction.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • JustacommemanJustacommeman Posts: 22,847 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @BackroadJunkie said:

    @Insider2 said:

    @BackroadJunkie said:
    OT, but since it's Friday...

    @Justacommeman said:
    I’ve had some moonshine that I would categorize as such

    m

    I wanted to try some real honest-to-goodness moonshine, so I contacted some friends I know in Georgia and Tennessee.

    I thought I'd have a hard time finding some, but darned if every uncle and family friend of everyone I knew 'shined. o:)

    I've got a mason jar of the stuff, but it gives me a headache just looking at it. I think a couple of shots might kill me. Hate to imagine the congeners in that jar. I need to get some gunpowder and proof the stuff out. Maybe I'll try running it though a water filer a few times to clean it up.

    I've decided to stick with my standby, Knob Creek. At least I know I won't go blind... :D

    I thought there is "licensed" shine being sold in the south. They were drinking it on a radio show in NY. It even came in flavors.

    Yep, there is, but what they're calling moonshine is really just unaged whiskey. It's still a quality product, regulated (and taxed). I wanted to try the raw, unregulated, high-octane, rotgut stuff. Every whiskey drinker should. It would make them appreciate what they're drinking that much more... :)

    Indeed you got to get the old timey family recipe down in the hollow

    m

    Walker Proof Digital Album
    Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
  • HigashiyamaHigashiyama Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said: "Based on your distinction, if a Proof has circulated just a little bit and still looks like a Proof, it’s “impaired”. But the same coin, once circulated to the point that it no longer looks like a Proof, is not “impaired”. I can understand it, but think it’s somewhat of a contradiction. "

    I agree it may be hard to apply my definitions in AU grades, and some may find it weird that a coin might go from "impaired" to the less offensive "circulated"!.

    My bias probably comes from the Gobrecht example, and the fact that impaired has a highly negative connotation among collectors. Most people (I think!) would view a naturally circulated Gobrecht as a highly desirable coin.

    (However, at risk of lurching towards the dangerous topic of intent ... one might note that some 1836 and perhaps some 1839 Gobrechts were released into circulation by the authorities; impaired seems to imply mishandling, so perhaps if circulation is the intent, it should not be called impaired. )

    Higashiyama
  • fiftysevenerfiftysevener Posts: 896 ✭✭✭✭

    @PerryHall said:

    @MFeld said:

    @JBK said:
    All circulated proofs are impaired, for example. Impaired means any damage not consistent with the manufacture of a proof coin.

    That's the way I see it. ;)

    What about non-circulated Proofs with problems?

    Good point. Non-circulated Proof coins with milk spots or carbon spots come to mind. I'm sure some people consider proofs with heavy tarnish to be impaired. Whether a coin is impaired or not is frequently in the eyes of the beholder.

    Many high grade proof 65 coins have milk and / or carbon spots

  • TwoSides2aCoinTwoSides2aCoin Posts: 43,796 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I like your perspective Higashiyama.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 11,921 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Higashiyama said:
    @MFeld said: "Based on your distinction, if a Proof has circulated just a little bit and still looks like a Proof, it’s “impaired”. But the same coin, once circulated to the point that it no longer looks like a Proof, is not “impaired”. I can understand it, but think it’s somewhat of a contradiction. "

    I agree it may be hard to apply my definitions in AU grades, and some may find it weird that a coin might go from "impaired" to the less offensive "circulated"!.

    My bias probably comes from the Gobrecht example, and the fact that impaired has a highly negative connotation among collectors. Most people (I think!) would view a naturally circulated Gobrecht as a highly desirable coin.

    (However, at risk of lurching towards the dangerous topic of intent ... one might note that some 1836 and perhaps some 1839 Gobrechts were released into circulation by the authorities; impaired seems to imply mishandling, so perhaps if circulation is the intent, it should not be called impaired. )

    Agreed about the negative connotation of “impaired” vs. “circulated”. And has been mentioned in this thread, some non-circulated examples deserve the “impaired” label. At the same time, a number of circulated ones look perfectly nice.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • PerryHallPerryHall Posts: 45,301 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @fiftysevener said:

    @PerryHall said:

    @MFeld said:

    @JBK said:
    All circulated proofs are impaired, for example. Impaired means any damage not consistent with the manufacture of a proof coin.

    That's the way I see it. ;)

    What about non-circulated Proofs with problems?

    Good point. Non-circulated Proof coins with milk spots or carbon spots come to mind. I'm sure some people consider proofs with heavy tarnish to be impaired. Whether a coin is impaired or not is frequently in the eyes of the beholder.

    Many high grade proof 65 coins have milk and / or carbon spots

    Agree. In many cases these milk spots occurred after the coin had already been slabbed. Many times it was a result of improper rinsing after being dipped.

    Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.

  • mustangmanbobmustangmanbob Posts: 1,890 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Justacommeman said:

    Yep, there is, but what they're calling moonshine is really just unaged whiskey. It's still a quality product, regulated (and taxed). I wanted to try the raw, unregulated, high-octane, rotgut stuff. Every whiskey drinker should. It would make them appreciate what they're drinking that much more... :)

    Indeed you got to get the old timey family recipe down in the hollow

    m

    One of my friends in the Army wound up with the PHD in organic chemistry, and was from "Up Thar" in the mountains of Tennessee. After he got out of the Army, he returned to the hills and "tidied up" old time recipes for 'shine and had it sold legally.

    This is a different Army friend, and we were roomates for a while:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/obituaries/dave-pickerell-dead.html

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 25, 2019 8:19AM

    @Higashiyama said:

    "I would not tend to call a circulated proof an impaired proof. For example, Gobrecht dollars or 1895 Morgans in EF45 seem like "circulated proofs" rather than "impaired proofs". The distinction I would make is that the circulated proofs, at first glance, look pretty much like a business strike. The impaired proofs look like proofs that have been mishandled, but are still clearly proof in manufacture."

    @MFeld added: "Based on your distinction, if a Proof has circulated just a little bit and still looks like a Proof, it’s “impaired”. But the same coin, once circulated to the point that it no longer looks like a Proof, is not “impaired”. I can understand it, but think it’s somewhat of a contradiction."

    I REALLY LIKE the direction this is going. Once a Proof has a very tiny amount of wear (PR-58) - just grade it and mention any significant problems just as we do with MS coins. Then any Proof with no actual friction (except the tiniest amount of "cabinet rub" (not enough to call it PR-58 by our modern standards) could be called "impaired" for this reason or the usual spots, hairlines, etc. it may have. A major TPGS could easily force the market to adopt this new and great way (IMO) of doing things.

    On second thought, this won't work because it would eliminate all the 1930's and up Proofs that are given 60 to 69 grades based on their value due to some "impairment." :(

    NEVERMIND

  • BaleyBaley Posts: 22,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 24, 2019 1:14PM

    "Impaired" is a tough word, even if accurate. Perhaps better to use euphamisms or better yet, avoid offensive adjectives and just numerically Net grade the coin for the impairments, um, no, let's say naturally occurring features.

    Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry

  • FullHornFullHorn Posts: 1,124 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I purchased this about 15 years ago as an "impaired proof". I am curious to hear opinions on its grade or impairments.

  • BaleyBaley Posts: 22,658 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It appears to have some staple scratches, no, darn it, sorry, say "minor marks" as well as some spotting/corrosion from liquid contact, um, apologies, say "toning unevenness"

    Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry

  • SwampboySwampboy Posts: 12,876 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @oih82w8 said:
    I was under the impression that an "impaired proof" (not intended for circulation) was a proof coin that was circulated in commerce.

    Same here

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 11,921 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Swampboy said:

    @oih82w8 said:
    I was under the impression that an "impaired proof" (not intended for circulation) was a proof coin that was circulated in commerce.

    Same here

    Same here, to an extent. But as has been mentioned in this thread, there are also some non-circulated Proofs with problems, which can also accurately be labeled “impaired”.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • BAJJERFANBAJJERFAN Posts: 30,977 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Dreamcrusher said:
    In the ANA Fundamentals of Grading class, we define an impaired proof as a proof coin that is a problem coin (cleaned, scratched, etc.) or due to circulation, cannot be graded as mint state. Always remember that the term "proof" describes a method of manufacturing and is not a grade.

    Better yet a method of manufacture and not a guarantee or indicator of quality or condition. Proof coins can be given grade.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file