1909 VDB MATTE PROOF LINCOLN with an unusual label?
BUFFNIXX
Posts: 2,719 ✭✭✭✭✭
Here is a 1909 vdb matte proof Lincoln cent that mentions "UNC detail" when calling a coin "PR"
shouldn't this logically be "PROOF detail" or "PR detail" rather than "UNC detail"? Methinks the current
label should be changed. The terms proof and unc do not mix well together, denoting two different
methods of manufacture.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
0
Comments
Unc details implies it would grade PR60 or better if not for the cleaning. PR details would say nothing. Could be PR10 or PR6?.
Just maybe the PR is the error and it should be PL. I'll watch for more insightful replies. 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, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
The label is correct.
Proofs can grade under 60 so the UNC describes the grade it would get if it was numerically graded. Below 60 would be PR AU Details and so on.
If you used PR PR Details than a coin that would grade PR10 and one at PR60 would be the same.
Coin Photographer.
It is definitely a proof. All the diagnostics are there.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
Uncirculated means it shows no wear, not that it is a business strike coin. Mint State is the terminology used for business strike coins. I see no issue with the label.
I agree with robec's opinion, it is definitely a proof.
-Paul
not to stir the pot but there are a LOT of coins out there struck from proof dies with exact diagnostics that don't merit the PR, SP etc designation.
the flans require special preparation and striking to be labeled as SP, PR, etc. so it takes more than just diagnostics. (unfortunately for us, especially with impaired coins)
i know you know all this but for posterity and all.
@LanceNewmanOCC
PCGS called it a proof, so if it’s not a proof the buyer is covered by the PCGS Guarantee.
Coin Photographer.
Show me one with all the obverse and reverse diagnostics. You “might” and I say that very loosely find one with an obverse or a reverse but the odds of finding a VDB business strike struck from MPL Obv die #1 and Rev die#1 are longer than winning the lottery.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
.
i wasn't necessarily saying the coin in the OP isn't a proof but the thought did go through my mind because of the details part.
does the guarantee still cover detail coins? what the tpgs back and don't any more has changed a fair bit over the past several years. although this isn't part of the intent of my post to this thread.
I do know of one date in particular that has been found with obverse markings. I’ve seen a few 1916’s with all the proof diagnostics around the date.
Good question on the guarantee. I would think so but don’t know for sure.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
Looks like a proof coin to me.... I have no issue with the label as is. Cheers, RickO
.
you are technically correct about the method of manufacture and the terminology for it and when/where it is either applicable or most applicable.
there is a specific designation for circulated PR/SP or whatever, being called, impaired aka circ., so having a specific term(s) for PR/SP or whatever specifying uncirculated (while being PR/SP does specify a method of manufacture, does NOT specify that it is still in fact legal tender and spendable aka circulatable and subject to terminology specifying UNC or CIRC) but detailed w/o using the term UNC, may have a place in the future.
i'm not coming up with anything for a possible term (anyone for some suggestions?) for PR/SP or whatever that has not been circulated but gets away from the method of manufacture vernacular of UNC for detailed (not-gradable) coins/medals/tokens etc.
it would perhaps have a more professional/accurate "feel" to it not to have PR and UNC on the same label 99% of the time. (not 100% as i can't think of every instance possible and the <1% time where we may need even a further specification)