Proof vs Non-Proof

GottaGetCoins

What is more challenging to put together type sets?

What area is more flexible? Interesting?

Looking for opinions

mdwoods

It depends on how far back, datewise, that you are starting your collection. Lately, I like early proof copper but most of the coins are way out of my price range.

razorface1027

For me, it was the 5 coin Liberty Gold circulation strikes set consisting of the (1, 2.50, 5, 10, & 20) ranging from AU 58 to MS-62, cracked out and placed in a Capital Plastics holder, complete I'll add. Now, it's my quest for the proof RB or RED 2 cent piece collection. This will be a challenge!...

edsondl

For a type set, I would probably go proof if in holders, AU business strikes for an album.

The proof coins will definately show you exactly what the type should look like, but proofs don't do well in albums with acetate slides due to ease of hairlines in fields and accelerated toning.

Sequitur

There is no hard-and-fast rule here. It depends on the coin and the year.

For modern coins, business strikes (or "non-proof," as you say) are my preference, and some can be quite tough to acquire in pristine condition, even from the 70s to the 2000s. I find modern proofs much less interesting, and you can acquire PQ modern proofs pretty easily.

Old coins, especially gold, I prefer proofs. But look at some of the prices for old proof gold: stratospheric.

For moderns, some will say proofs are more interesting to collect. For example, review past messages here about proof Mercuries, Buffaloes, Ikes, Franklins and Kennedys, and the quest for the holy grail: deep cameo proofs. I've come to appreciate the quality of these coins. Now, are these proofs better to collect than their business strike brethren? Well, that's up to you.

relayer

It's like mdwoods said - it depends how far back you go. Morgan and Barber proofs are much more expensive then their MS counterparts.

In my type album I use modern proofs and circulation strikes for pre-1964 coins