Relationship between cost of proof and MS coins?

MtMan

Can anyone explain to me the wide price discrepancies found between proof and MS examples of the same coin? I can usaully understand proofs being worth more expensive as they are usually rarer and made to have better eye appeal. What I dont understand is when a MS is more valuable than a proof.

If you needed a certain coin and the proof was half the cost of the MS in the same grade wouldnt you just buy the proof?

Do most collectors tend to pursue either proof or MS but not both?

How much do the prices of proofs and MS within a series affect one another?

If anyone can shed some light on this topic I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Russ

<< <i>What I dont understand is when a MS is more valuable than a proof. >>



If you're talking about high grades, generally speaking it's because it is much harder to achieve a high grade in a business strike then it is to do so in a proof. Proof coinage uses a more careful minting process and gets special handling so that the coins arrive in better condition.

To give you an example in my series. For the 1964, there are over 1300 proof JFKs in PR68 grade and over 1100 in PR69 grade. Yet, for the same year, there are only 17 business strikes in MS67 and none higher.

Russ, NCNE

MtMan

Let me put it another way. Say I want a certain coin in MS 66. There are 1000 proofs in this grade but only 200 Business strikes in this grade. Sure the business strikes are rarer but so what. I would think that most collectors would be just as happy to have the proof coin. Effectively it would appear to those collecting business strikes that there were 1200 coins out there in that grade. As a result the value of business strikes would always be equal to or less than that of proofs. Obviously this isnt the case. I was wondering why a regular collector would pass up a cheaper coin in the same grade just because it wasn't a business strike. It seems counter intuitive to me.

Russ

<< <i>I would think that most collectors would be just as happy to have the proof coin. >>



Those who collect business strikes would not be just as happy with a proof coin. If they were, they would be proof collectors, not business strike collectors.

I understand where you're coming from, since I find proofs far more attractive then MS coins. But, there are many, many people who feel the opposite.

Russ, NCNE

baccaruda

i don't quite understand it either, but it's supply and demand. works out well for me tho.


it's like seeing a beautiful ferrari and next to it a yugo in pretty good shape.

now are you gonna pass up that ferrari because every ferrari is in great shape and go for the yugo because there aren't many around (and they're probably more rare than a ferrari now)?

a lot of people would apparently.

MtMan

Hmmm, I thought most people collected coins by series and type sets, not by the manufacturing technique. Do you prefer hand crank or hydraulics presses? :-)

baccaruda

that's not true. proofs and business strikes are deemed 2 totally separate things.

Elcontador

Re 19th Century type, PF 65 & 66 coins are often much more readily available than MS 65 & MS 66 business strikes, so they cost less. A generic MS 66 Liberty Nickel can cost triple the PF 66 coin of the same date, assuming you can FIND an MS 66 in the first place.

TRADERBOBZ

i would in most cases prefer a ms-coin in high grade than a proof coin,of course it depends on the series but russ has it down pat...good explaination.

coynclecter

<< <i>To give you an example in my series. For the 1964, there are over 1300 proof JFKs in PR68 grade and over 1100 in PR69 grade. Yet, for the same year, there are only 17 business strikes in MS67 and none higher. >>



What this means is that if you want a 1964 half in high grade you can get an MS67 for hundreds or a nicer MS68 for a whole lot less. Bottom line is that it's the same coin, they are both mint state. Why turn down a proof because it has a better strike and nicer surfaces. It goes against the "quality" drive that has fueled high end prices.

Some day, when collector/investors stop buying lowest pop numbers in an attempt to "own rarity" and instead buy the coin with the best quality they will find the prices will start to level by availability independent of proof or Mint State. 100 years from now collectors will not be paying $50,000 for an MS67 when they can get a PR68 for lunch money.

So, to paraphrase a saying around here, "Buy the coin, not the pop numbers."

coinnerd

There is nothing wrong with mixing MS and proofs and sometimes it's unavoidable, but many collectors try to get a uniform look in date and year sets wether they are collecting VGs or MS-65. If you have a nice MS-63-64 set of Barber Halves a proof 63-64 dosen't have the same look as the mint state coins, so they go for the MS coin.

BNE

MtMan -- To underscore what was said about these coins being "two different things," there are many collectors who limits their collections to business strikes, since these are "real coins," meant to circulate and be spent. They get a little "uppie" when they find a pristine example of a circ strike because the minting process is cruder and the coins get banged up when they are bagged. It's harder to find a pretty example.

Proof collectors, I think, tend more to look for the "ultimate" -- the apotheosis of the coin -- and don't mind the stigma attached to the fact that proofs are specially created for the collector market. The look of the coins is very different, especially if one likes the cameo effect.

Then, there are collectors who are "bi" (polynumismatically perverse) and collect both without discrimination, and can see the merits in each.

With respect to relative price, however, there are no hard and fast rules about which is more valuable. Mintage, the existence of cameo or deep cam on the proof, pops in higher grades: all of these affect the price.

shylock

I look at proofs as test-tube babies in which faults are a surprise, and MS coins as orphans of which a special few surprise us with their prooflike attributes. But the keyword in prooflike is "like" since they're totally different coins with different esthetic appeal. The finest MS IHs, for example, have qualities of tone and lustre that appeal in a different way than the finest proofs. And the satisfaction of finding a circulated coin that beats the incredible odds against surviving as a superb gem adds to the appeal as well.

Pushkin

As a polynumismatically perverse collector I'm happy that the proofs are sometimes cheaper. I can afford to pay $2,000 for a 1872 PR64 RD Indian Head cent, but not the $10,000 that a 1872 MS64 RD would cost me. Those test tube babies help some of us who want quality coins but can't afford the business strike prices for some of the dates in our series. With Indians the prices flip back when you get to the 1900s with the proofs going for more - then we (the poly-perverse) adopt the orphans.

For me, personally, I sometimes prefer the amazing iridescent blues, purples, oranges and greens that you can almost never find in anything but a proof (and rarely there), but I also agree with Shylock about those intriguing errors and subtle differences that only the commercial strikes offer. Ah, to dream, to dream about having both!

cladking

Uncs are uncs and proofs are proofs. Some may have an interest in a date and
not care if the coin is proof or unc but most people want either a proof or an unc.
Uncs were made for circulation and to a large degree that is what they've done- -
circulate. Many US coins are quite difficult to find in unc, hence the frequently high-
er prices. In many series there are significantly fewer collectors for the proofs also,
though most collectors have an interest in both and simply find the uncs harder to
find. Don't forget too, that most moderns don't exist in both proof and unc (ie there
is no proof 72-D dime or unc 72-S).