Three reasons why I don't like proof coins.

SethChandler · July 3, 2003 9:42AM

1) They're not REAL coins as coins were intended to be.

2) The purpose of the US Mint was to make coins to be used in commerce. Therefore an (older, real) proof coin constitutes less than .00001% of the productivity of what the Mint was created to perform.

3) The older proofs are way overpriced compared to a high grade business strikes of the same year--take Seated coins, and many issues for gold.

Let's face it, the Mint didn't even start selling proof coins to the public until after 66 years from when they started.

Proof coins are a cash cow money making scam for the US MINT

Happy Fourth,

Seth

itsnotjustme · July 3, 2003 9:46AM

Did you know every dollar profit for the mint goes to the US Treasury, and represents taxes we do not need to pay?

MadMarty · July 3, 2003 9:48AM

I kinda sorta agree, I think all proof coinage (Modern) should be made of silver. No clad proofs!

MrEureka · July 3, 2003 10:08AM

Seth - I love you icon! DMPL?

relayer · July 3, 2003 10:19AM

<< Seth - I love you .... >>

what a difference an r makes

Russ · July 3, 2003 10:21AM

Three reasons why I like proof coins.

Russ, NCNE

Baley · July 3, 2003 10:23AM

why, those 3 coins look very much like each other!

cosmicdebris · July 3, 2003 10:26AM

Here are three of mine reasons why I like 'em:

RGL · July 3, 2003 10:32AM

Proofs are the pinnacle -- the high point -- of the minter's art! Produced for those who appreciate the meeting of a die and planchet, these coins are to be admired. Commerce coins are just that, produced for day-to-day transactions for those who do not dwell for a moment on what they hold. But, proofs are for those who appreciate the design, the frost, the strike, the mirror edges, the beauty of a coin purposely struck for those who could appreciate it. They are coins that are produced, and should be treasured, by all true numismatists. They are for us.

MrEureka · July 3, 2003 10:34AM

...but here's what I really think:

My preferences have nothing to do with the method of manufacture and EVERYTHING to do with the purpose of manufacture. Generally, I'm averse to coins that were struck for the collector market. They don't have much of a story to tell. The few proofs NOT struck for the collector market are often, from my perspective, highly desirable.

trozau · July 3, 2003 10:34AM

and here's 3 of mine:

Bear · July 3, 2003 10:36AM

Yes Proof coins are a cash cow.

The profits go to the Federal treasury.

No one is forced to buy said Proof Coins.

No ones taxes are used to support this program
as it is a self supporting endeaver.

You dont like em, great. Dont buy em.

ksteelheader · July 3, 2003 10:36AM

Here is one of mine.......Ken
..

coinlieutenant · July 3, 2003 10:41AM

Seth,

I like you and all but think you are being a little short sighted on the proof thing......and probably a little facecious as well.

1) They're not REAL coins as coins were intended to be.

Proofs are real coins. If you can hold them, they are real.

2) The purpose of the US Mint was to make coins to be used in commerce. Therefore an (older, real) proof coin constitutes less than .00001% of the productivity of what the Mint was created to perform.

Uhhhhh, so?

3) The older proofs are way overpriced compared to a high grade business strikes of the same year--take Seated coins, and many issues for gold.

If they were overpriced then no one would buy them. I think (some) proofs represent real value in today's market. For relative rarity, they are cheap...

Dont get me wrong, I love business strikes but proof coins represent the mint's intent and expertise.

John

Askari · July 3, 2003 10:44AM

Here are my 2 Pfennings' worth:

Russ · July 3, 2003 10:46AM

<< why, those 3 coins look very much like each other! >>

Baley,

Now that you mention it, they do. They all come from the same family. Two are twin brothers, and the other is a first cousin.

Russ, NCNE

roadrunner · July 3, 2003 10:51AM

Proof seated material on the whole IS overrated compared to the rarity of the Mint State pieces. The coins are more available and the dealers push them on to the collecting/investing community. Many people are told that proofs are superior to MS and they take that a step further to mean they are "rarer" and more valuable. The extra demand is currently keeping many proofs priced in the same range as much rarer business strikes. I can remember being awed by proof coinage as a young collector......I was told it was the best there was. "Better" if you will.

My personal tastes have always been to MS pieces. I love luster over mirrors and always will. I also find the MS pieces easier to grade consistently. Hidden hairlines on proof surfaces are very difficult to discern in unfamiliar lighting. While I can see all the hairlines on a proof coin out of the holder, it is very difficult to detect the smaller ones through vinyl and plastic. I do not have that problem with non-P/L MS pieces.

roadrunner

docday2003 · July 3, 2003 11:37AM

<< 

<< Seth - I love you .... >>

what a difference an r makes >>

lclugza · July 3, 2003 11:47AM

What dates of Seated coins are rarer as business strikes than as Proofs? (including all the circulated coins in the business strike total)

cacheman · July 3, 2003 11:56AM

I like mine a little older....

satootoko · July 3, 2003 1:22PM

Even the French give us reasons to love proofs:

michael · July 3, 2003 1:41PM

for me proof coins are real coins and are moneyitized as such

but i absolutely hate proof coins

way overrated as such

and completely common

here are three reasons why i absolutely hate proof coins as per the images below
totally ugly
extremely common coins

sincerely michael

numonebuyer · July 3, 2003 1:58PM

<< 1) They're not REAL coins as coins were intended to be.
2) The purpose of the US Mint was to make coins to be used in commerce. Therefore an (older, real) proof coin constitutes less than .00001% of the productivity of what the Mint was created to perform.
3) The older proofs are way overpriced compared to a high grade business strikes of the same year--take Seated coins, and many issues for gold.
Let's face it, the Mint didn't even start selling proof coins to the public until after 66 years from when they started.
Proof coins are a cash cow money making scam for the US MINT >>

I could not DISAGREE more with your statements.

A Proof coin is just made differently than a business strike coin. The dies are polished differently. Each coin is struck (at least) twice (depends on the material). Each coin is handled with care, etc.

The US Mint does a lot more than just make coins for commerce. The US Mint makes coins according to the desires and guidelines of congress.

To talk about coins that are overpriced is silly. The coins are worth what buyers are willing to pay. This is true for every coin that exists. Any price paid over face value (or melt) for any coin is due to speculation on the part of the buyer.

I do not own a single Proof coin at this time. However, I find them to be beautiful works of art and epitomize the best the US Mint can produce.

Numonebuyer

raycyca · July 3, 2003 3:12PM

Michael: That 67 proof half must be tyhe ugliest coin ever minted!! I'll do you a favor and take the coin from to to save your poor soul. I know you'll feel much better after yu get it out of your hair! Only kidding. Beautiful coin! Thanks for sharing. Ray

doops · July 3, 2003 3:13PM

<< Three reasons why I like proof coins.

Russ, NCNE >>

russ, you should see a fully caked and scooped on first strike off the first die pairs for the a/h. i was fortunate enough many years ago in a sealed deal off coin net from a bumkin upstate ny dealer get the very first 100-pc box of 1964 sets with the a/h and pointed 9 dimes,where all five coins were first assembled monster cameos,fully caked as assembled when the production year began. i hadnt seen a standard 64 "moose" paper white example that comes close to any of those accented hairs in these 100 sets. also, dont be fooled by "percieved rarity" and "die life for cameos" hype. you couldnt see an inkling of a teeny frost break on the first coin in any of the 100 sets in that box. i turned that 600 bux into like 30k (which was stupid cheap at the time,about 1991). 50 of them are still in one of my oldest cam collectors possession in ft worth i've been selling to for 25 years who's entire cameo collection will be sold back to me, as confirmed by him last year and is in his will to be dispersed by me (he's 80 yrs old now,a retired NASA engineer for 25 or so years) his main gig which he would pay super stupid money for were first assembled still intact as issued first all 5 coin cameo proof sets 50-70 boxes,flat packs,sms sets and the monster of all monsters 68,9 & 70. the first ones assembled for each year. he's left them all that way. take your best,most frosted first strike 56 "ultra superb" full Moose" cameos you could find and add about 5 cogs on top. that's what the first monster a/h's look like. i venture to say according to all the mint records i have obtained the die pressure and process changed dramatically to the weaker ones that yes, will even fetch dcam designations. this will be a major news item amongst the cam nuts when these hit

ElectricEye · July 3, 2003 4:08PM

SHHHHHHHHH** Seth maded a statement and not a question!!!!!!!

ER · July 3, 2003 5:04PM

Thread title renamed: WHY DON 'T I LIKE PROOF COINS?

Baley · July 3, 2003 5:33PM

Proof or prooflike, I like em! Sure, the new kind they make these days are perfect and pretty in a modern kind of way, and they have a history of a few years or tens of years, but a 100 year old proof coin is something different, because each one is different.
to me, the older the better, if a coin was made back when the art was less perfected, when fewer proof coins were made, and not stored in sealed inert plastic but got put in a velvet box or a lined coin drawer and risked being handled and mishandled, and somehow survived to be halfway presentable, now that's an honorable coin that has a bit of history, that we can be proud to be a part of, even
if it's just an affordable and slightly impaired example in an album:

Baley · July 3, 2003 5:39PM

One minted a generation before had to be subjected to a decade or two more potential abuse in the hands of it's owners, but at least we can take care of it while we own it

Baley · July 3, 2003 5:45PM

the US really started minting proof coins in quantity for collectors sometime in the mid 1850's, isn't that right? I'm pretty sure the dime is a proof, and I'm fairly confident the half dollar is not, but it looks PL and nice enough still

cosmicdebris · July 3, 2003 8:39PM

What about Matte Proofs?

trozau · July 3, 2003 11:12PM

<< SHHHHHHHHH** Seth maded a statement and not a question!!!!!!!

>>

And we are making statements, not answering a question!

docday2003 · July 4, 2003 12:05AM

<< 

<< Three reasons why I like proof coins.

Russ, NCNE >>

russ, you should see a fully caked and scooped on first strike off the first die pairs for the a/h. i was fortunate enough many years ago in a sealed deal off coin net from a bumkin upstate ny dealer get the very first 100-pc box of 1964 sets with the a/h and pointed 9 dimes,where all five coins were first assembled monster cameos,fully caked as assembled when the production year began. i hadnt seen a standard 64 "moose" paper white example that comes close to any of those accented hairs in these 100 sets. also, dont be fooled by "percieved rarity" and "die life for cameos" hype. you couldnt see an inkling of a teeny frost break on the first coin in any of the 100 sets in that box. i turned that 600 bux into like 30k (which was stupid cheap at the time,about 1991). 50 of them are still in one of my oldest cam collectors possession in ft worth i've been selling to for 25 years who's entire cameo collection will be sold back to me, as confirmed by him last year and is in his will to be dispersed by me (he's 80 yrs old now,a retired NASA engineer for 25 or so years) his main gig which he would pay super stupid money for were first assembled still intact as issued first all 5 coin cameo proof sets 50-70 boxes,flat packs,sms sets and the monster of all monsters 68,9 & 70. the first ones assembled for each year. he's left them all that way. take your best,most frosted first strike 56 "ultra superb" full Moose" cameos you could find and add about 5 cogs on top. that's what the first monster a/h's look like. i venture to say according to all the mint records i have obtained the die pressure and process changed dramatically to the weaker ones that yes, will even fetch dcam designations. this will be a major news item amongst the cam nuts when these hit >>

Phew, long sentences...

Seriously, though, all those darkside coins are making me SICK. Its good to see a few Kennedy's which all look identical. I mean French coins? Why would anyone post such trash on the US coin forum! Get thee hence...back to the abyss

Barry · July 4, 2003 1:07AM

<< Seth,
I like you and all but think you are being a little short sighted on the proof thing......and probably a little facecious as well.
1) They're not REAL coins as coins were intended to be.
Proofs are real coins. If you can hold them, they are real.
John >>

You really cannot touch them, because then they lose value. That's why I like circulated coins.

SethChandler · July 4, 2003 10:30AM

OK, OK....I got a few of the responses that I wanted.

Sooo lets say you have a rare Seated Dollar were the pop reports looks like this

Mint State 60/3 61/2 62/2 63/2 64/1 65/1
Proof 60/5 61/5 63/8 63/11 64/7 65/6 66/1

Now, also assuming the MS65 is a Satinity monster and the PR66 is a DCAM with awesome rainbow toning...would you still rather have the proof? Not me! The MS coins are not supposed to survive in that grade, it is so incredibly rare for a coin to survive that long is that state of preservation. But the Proof on the other hand is supposed to look like that.....theres no fun there? Any thats most of the fun!

Seth

roadrunner · July 4, 2003 11:34AM

Once you get into regular proof production around 1859 the business strikes tend to be rarer than the proofs. I do not consider circulated coins as part of the comparison. They are a whole diff
animal IMO. A more valid comparison is between UNC pieces and Proof pieces (60 and higher). Circs are a 3rd way to collect and should not be part of the comparison. You don't see commem or Morgan or Merc buyers looking at the circ pops when determining what an UNC is worth. That's ludicrous. Why should seated be any different? Less seated UNC pieces have survived as a rule than proofs. That's a fact. Figure that 300-500 pieces or more of each post 1858 piece likely survived in proof yet except for a few small hoard dates, the UNC survival is almost always much smaller. They were not meant to survive so it's no surprise they did not. It's no surprise that the value of many low mintage philly MS dates is held down by the easy availability of proofs (1867 MS vs PF half). This can't be said for mint marked pieces and is a major reason why that
area entices me so much more.

Forget the Cam and DCAM hype of the proofs. Yet another means to bolster their rarity and value. So why don't we designate UNC pieces for their strike, rarer varieties, PL surfaces, etc. They would become much rarer and valuable too. One can breakdown the surviving coins of any type into a small enough group to make them appear "rarer" than they might be.

I use from .5% to 2% as typical survival rates of all unc/circ pieces. For some dates (like an 1872-s quarter) that number is as low as .1 to .2% of the orig recorded mintage. Frankly, many of the recorded mintage figures have to be wrong or many were melted shortly after production.....that tends to skew results too.

roadrunner

Trime · July 4, 2003 11:10PM

Well it appears that some of you like only business strikes, some like proofs, some like both. I find a the mirrored surfaces and sharp strike of a beautifully toned well preserved 19th century proof hard to deny. So for those of you who have been feeling sick about the coins that fit the above description in your collection, unload those hateful dogs on me and relieve yourselves of all the pain.

BillJones · July 5, 2003 1:40AM

<< 1) They're not REAL coins as coins were intended to be. >>

Proofs ARE real coins. They are legal tender and you can spend them.

<< 2) The purpose of the US Mint was to make coins to be used in commerce. Therefore an (older, real) proof coin constitutes less than .00001% of the productivity of what the Mint was created to perform. >>

That's a very narrow interpretation of the Mint's role. I guess you and Herbert Hoover would have had a lot in common. He opposed the striking of Proof coins as well as all commemorative coins. It made life pretty dull for collectors.

<< 3) The older proofs are way overpriced compared to a high grade business strikes of the same year--take Seated coins, and many issues for gold. >>

I'd take issue with that. Many Proof coins can be purchased for LESS than their 19th century Mint State counterparts. For some collectors who are looking to fill a key date hole in their collections for hundreds or even thousands less, a Proof coin can be purchased in it's place. For example I had one collector who could not afford a Mint State 1877 Indian cent that would go with his Mint State collection. I got a Proof for him that cost almost $2,000 less than a comparable Mint State piece would have cost. The same can be done with 1885 and '86 liberty nickels.

Three reasons why I don't like proof coins.

Comments

Leave a Comment