"Proof Coins are 'untouched by human hands'" (??)

lsica

"Proof Coins are 'untouched by human hands' "

Does anyone else remember being told that by old-timey collectors waaaaaay back when (1970s)? If so does anyone have any idea where that came from?

jmlanzaf

@lsica said:
"Proof Coins are 'untouched by human hands' "

Does anyone else remember being told that by old-timey collectors waaaaaay back when (1970s)? If so does anyone have any idea where that came from?

Largely referring to circulation. They are also handled by gloved hands.

It's just one of those sayings. Don't take it too literally.

"Uncirculated" coins often circulated.

BustDMs

That’s why the mint employees so many chimpanzees.

PerryHall

I thought they used plastic coin tongs to lift the struck coin off the die. They also wear cotton gloves.

Onastone

@PerryHall said:
I thought they used plastic coin tongs to lift the struck coin off the die.

Homer holding a newly minted proof coin!

JBK

Mint employees didn't touch them, and they were put into mylar or cases (modern proofs).

I think that is where it came from.

There might also have been a paper slip included with early 1960s proof sets that mentioned it.

Coinosaurus

I heard that too when I was a kid. From the Guide Book maybe?

Jzyskowski1

1962 red book sez. Not real clear

thefinn

And yet the TPGs do not wear gloves.

thefinn

@Jzyskowski1 said:
1962 red book sez. Not real clear

A lot of falsehoods in those pages:
• Proofs are only struck in Philadelphia
• Proofs only have mirrored finishes

jmlanzaf

@thefinn said:

@Jzyskowski1 said:
1962 red book sez. Not real clear

A lot of falsehoods in those pages:
• Proofs are only struck in Philadelphia
• Proofs only have mirrored finishes

1962 red book. There were no branch mint proofs prior to 1968.

Jzyskowski1

I love my book collection. My 1952 is a hoot hand drawn pictures of coins 😉

ricko

I can only verify the proofs that I own have never been touched by my hands. As long as a 'proof' I am considering for purchase, has no fingerprints, then I will evaluate it further. Cheers, RickO

CaptHenway

One of the Authenticators already working for ANACS when I started there in 1978 told me a funny story. As a representative of the ANA, he got a VIP tour of the SFAO somewhere in the 1970's. As part of the tour of the building, the guide, some middle management flack, took him into the Proof Set packaging era. The guide explained how employees with gloved hands placed each coin in the cutout plastic holder both face up and upright before the holder was placed into the clear plastic shall and that shell sealed.

As they were walking down the production line, they came across a woman who, between sets, was reaching her gloved hand into a bag of potato chips and putting a potato chip into her mouth before using that same gloved hand to assemble the next set. When my colleague told me the story he laughed at how the guide almost exploded before hustling him out of the room. I can just imagine the conversation he had with her later.

Batman23

When I started collecting that is exactly what I thought. I was about seven at the time and I don't recall if I was told that or where that idea came from. This was right around 1980 so fits in with your 1970s statement. My grandfather had a bunch of coins, mostly rolls and books, some odd stuff like two cent pieces and tokens. But no bought coins in his collection and no proofs. I have no formal collective guidance, no coin collecting friends and most of what I have learned is from books and this forum.

I remember looking at a red book and the grade progression XF, AU, MSxx, MSxx, PR or something like that. I really believed at the time that a proof was a coin that had never been touched by hands. I remember thinking that the mere act of touching a PR coin makes it MS and a huge loss of value. Anyway it was many years before I actually realized there there was a difference in dies for being a proof. It sure would have been nice to have a person show me the basics.

cameonut2011

@jmlanzaf said:

@lsica said:
"Proof Coins are 'untouched by human hands' "

Does anyone else remember being told that by old-timey collectors waaaaaay back when (1970s)? If so does anyone have any idea where that came from?

Largely referring to circulation. They are also handled by gloved hands.

It's just one of those sayings. Don't take it too literally.

"Uncirculated" coins often circulated.

The term “proof” states nothing about specific handling methods per se.

Calling a circulated coin uncirculated is blatantly lying.

@jmlanzaf said:

@thefinn said:

@Jzyskowski1 said:
1962 red book sez. Not real clear

A lot of falsehoods in those pages:
• Proofs are only struck in Philadelphia
• Proofs only have mirrored finishes

1962 red book. There were no branch mint proofs prior to 1968.

Matte proofs? Satin proofs?

sellitstore

Yes, I remember the claim, too. Just inaccurate sensationalism to make the coins seem even more "special".

kimber45ACP

"Washed in a solution of cream of tartar." Saying potassium bitartrate would have been better. I picture a 16 year old at Long John Silver's washing planchets while deep frying fish filets.

MasonG

@cameonut2011 said:

@jmlanzaf said:
"Uncirculated" coins often circulated.

Calling a circulated coin uncirculated is blatantly lying.

Not if you're describing the condition of the coin.

jmlanzaf

@cameonut2011 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@lsica said:
"Proof Coins are 'untouched by human hands' "

Does anyone else remember being told that by old-timey collectors waaaaaay back when (1970s)? If so does anyone have any idea where that came from?

Largely referring to circulation. They are also handled by gloved hands.

It's just one of those sayings. Don't take it too literally.

"Uncirculated" coins often circulated.

The term “proof” states nothing about specific handling methods per se.

Calling a circulated coin uncirculated is blatantly lying.

@jmlanzaf said:

@thefinn said:

@Jzyskowski1 said:
1962 red book sez. Not real clear

A lot of falsehoods in those pages:
• Proofs are only struck in Philadelphia
• Proofs only have mirrored finishes

1962 red book. There were no branch mint proofs prior to 1968.

Matte proofs? Satin proofs?

"Uncirculated" refers to the degree of preservation not actual circulation. A coin could well have passed through a few hands and not show any noticeable wear. Do you really think all of those MS60 Morgan dollars left the Mint that way?

There's nothing dishonest about it unless you take the term "uncirculated" too literally.

Even a coin you pulled from a fresh bank roll was technically placed "into circulation" already.

FrankH

@CaptHenway said:
One of the Authenticators already working for ANACS when I started there in 1978 told me a funny story. As a representative of the ANA, he got a VIP tour of the SFAO somewhere in the 1970's. As part of the tour of the building, the guide, some middle management flack, took him into the Proof Set packaging era. The guide explained how employees with gloved hands placed each coin in the cutout plastic holder both face up and upright before the holder was placed into the clear plastic shall and that shell sealed.

As they were walking down the production line, they came across a woman who, between sets, was reaching her gloved hand into a bag of potato chips and putting a potato chip into her mouth before using that same gloved hand to assemble the next set. When my colleague told me the story he laughed at how the guide almost exploded before hustling him out of the room. I can just imagine the conversation he had with her later.

Now she has to eat crickets.

JBK

And by the way, just a reminder for those who might benefit, "proof" refers to a method of manufacture, not condition.

jmlanzaf

@JBK said:
And by the way, just a reminder for those who might benefit, "proof" refers to a method of manufacture, not condition.

Yeah. A proof-12 has been touched by a lot of hands

cameonut2011

@jmlanzaf said:

@cameonut2011 said:
The term “proof” states nothing about specific handling methods per se.

Calling a circulated coin uncirculated is blatantly lying.

>
"Uncirculated" refers to the degree of preservation not actual circulation. A coin could well have passed through a few hands and not show any noticeable wear. Do you really think all of those MS60 Morgan dollars left the Mint that way?

There's nothing dishonest about it unless you take the term "uncirculated" too literally.

Even a coin you pulled from a fresh bank roll was technically placed "into circulation" already.

I interpreted your original comment as a reference to grading obviously slider AU coins as mint state, a pervasive problem in this hobby. It is understood that the definition is operational rather a purely theoretical one; we can only reference what we see on the coin and there may be no evidence of wear initially.

If you are condoning the practice of grading slider AU coins as uncirculated as originally contemplated on the other hand, then you’re are supporting lying. We can argue all day about whether the scale that treats light friction worse than bag marks is rational. I see the distinction as arbitrary and would support a revision of the grading system. That is not the scale we have though, and trying to morph the word uncirculated into something other than it was originally understood and obviously implied by the literal meaning of the adjective used is dishonest. It is just one example of words having no meaning in this hobby and various individuals and corporate entities engaging in linguistic gymnastics to make a quick buck off of collectors.

cameonut2011

Was the idea originally a Breenism?

cameonut2011

@CaptHenway said:
One of the Authenticators already working for ANACS when I started there in 1978 told me a funny story. As a representative of the ANA, he got a VIP tour of the SFAO somewhere in the 1970's. As part of the tour of the building, the guide, some middle management flack, took him into the Proof Set packaging era. The guide explained how employees with gloved hands placed each coin in the cutout plastic holder both face up and upright before the holder was placed into the clear plastic shall and that shell sealed.

As they were walking down the production line, they came across a woman who, between sets, was reaching her gloved hand into a bag of potato chips and putting a potato chip into her mouth before using that same gloved hand to assemble the next set. When my colleague told me the story he laughed at how the guide almost exploded before hustling him out of the room. I can just imagine the conversation he had with her later.

Think of the possible rainbow toning. On the other hand, maybe some of the haze really is decades old potato chip grease.

jmlanzaf

@cameonut2011 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@cameonut2011 said:
The term “proof” states nothing about specific handling methods per se.

Calling a circulated coin uncirculated is blatantly lying.

>
"Uncirculated" refers to the degree of preservation not actual circulation. A coin could well have passed through a few hands and not show any noticeable wear. Do you really think all of those MS60 Morgan dollars left the Mint that way?

There's nothing dishonest about it unless you take the term "uncirculated" too literally.

Even a coin you pulled from a fresh bank roll was technically placed "into circulation" already.

I interpreted your original comment as a reference to grading obviously slider AU coins as mint state, a pervasive problem in this hobby. It is understood that the definition is operational rather a purely theoretical one; we can only reference what we see on the coin and there may be no evidence of wear initially.

If you are condoning the practice of grading slider AU coins as uncirculated as originally contemplated on the other hand, then you’re are supporting lying. We can argue all day about whether the scale that treats light friction worse than bag marks is rational. I see the distinction as arbitrary and would support a revision of the grading system. That is not the scale we have though, and trying to morph the word uncirculated into something other than it was originally understood and obviously implied by the literal meaning of the adjective used is dishonest. It is just one example of words having no meaning in this hobby and various individuals and corporate entities engaging in linguistic gymnastics to make a quick buck off of collectors.

I don't think it was ever used literally. It was always about degree of preservation.

BuffaloIronTail

@CaptHenway said:
One of the Authenticators already working for ANACS when I started there in 1978 told me a funny story. As a representative of the ANA, he got a VIP tour of the SFAO somewhere in the 1970's. As part of the tour of the building, the guide, some middle management flack, took him into the Proof Set packaging era. The guide explained how employees with gloved hands placed each coin in the cutout plastic holder both face up and upright before the holder was placed into the clear plastic shall and that shell sealed.

As they were walking down the production line, they came across a woman who, between sets, was reaching her gloved hand into a bag of potato chips and putting a potato chip into her mouth before using that same gloved hand to assemble the next set. When my colleague told me the story he laughed at how the guide almost exploded before hustling him out of the room. I can just imagine the conversation he had with her later.

Thanks Tom. Unfortunately your story doesn't surprise me a bit.

Pete