Finish On 1951 British Commemorative Crown ?

DoubleDime

I have a coin to me looks like a Proof. One reference book I have says Proof and another says Proof-Like. Web sights I've checked seem to say Proof-Like as well. Is there a difference as to why one would say Proof and another Proof-Like ?

Sapyx

"Proof" has a technical definiton: it needs specially polished dies, specially polished blanks, and must be struck by the coin press not just once, but twice.

If a coin can claim some of these features but not all of them, it might fall under the classification of "prooflike". Classic American prooflikes, for example, are struck using proof dies but on regular blanks and are struck only once.

I believe Festival of Britain crowns were struck only once; thus cannot be technically "proof". But they look proof-ish, so are classed as prooflike. I believe this "only struck once" restriction is also why Canadian NCLT are called "specimen" rather than "proof".

I believe there were a tiny number of actual proofs made of this coin; like about 20 or so. These are of course much harder to find, and much more expensive.

DoubleDime

Thank you. Another reference guide I checked said " Highly Proof Like."

7Jaguars

Besides the excellent rundown by Sapyx the actual proofs generally also have at least a slight cameo appearance. You can see this on viewing google or through the pop census viewing on our host's site here.

coinkat

There are some different reverse die varieties that have not gained much interest which is unfortunate. And that was not part of the question.