Could a proof coin ever be graded MS?

ctgreatone

I was wondering if it has ever happened. What I need to know I guess is if older proof coins such as 1936 to 1940 Washington Quarters or for that matter any coin that was made as a proof coin always be detected as a proof coin. I know that the proofs are better struck coins, and polished better but ,I wonder the older ones, could they be graded as regular coins. What is SO different about them that would make them always be distinguished as proof coins?

michael

happens all the time on some pre 1916 proof coinage

BigMoose

It happened to me a few years ago. Bought a very nice NGC MS66 1860 Indian Cent, prooflike and with nice color, totally mark free. Sent the coin to PCGS for crossover and it crossed as PCGS PR66! Rick Snow later confirmed that the coin was made from proof dies. It was a nice score for me.

roadrunner

Happens all the time as Michael said. And from PF to MS or MS to PF.
First strike coins from the 1870's and 1880's (esp. nickel type) are well known for this. Early bust coins don't often look like they were proofs so those are a diff animal altogether. But I would say that modern proofs from 1936 to date, it's very rare not to be able to differentiate. I have an 1879 3c nickel in an old PF66 holder than I bought as a MS65 originally. Looking at it today I'm torn between sending it back. It still looks closer to MS to me, but then again, a lot of 3c nickels are close calls. The services will tend to err on the lower side of the $$ spectrum and call them proofs.

roadrunner

BigE

There is some confusion on certain early commems also-----------------BigE

LanLord

A few months ago I picked up a really nice 1871 3 cent nickel as an ms63. Had great color and really nice mirror fields.

The more I look at it, especially the rims and edges, the more I believe it's a PROOF that was mis-identified as an MS.

It can happen.

BWRC

This has happened to me twice. A 1860 IHC and 1861 IHC. Both of these coins were in NGC holder's and indentified as MS coins. The 1860 ended up a NGC PF65 and the 1861 ended up a PCGS PR65. The latter coin was a very recent score.

goose3

happens on the 56 flyers but is usually the other way around although I have seen it the way you state.

BWRC

Yep, 1856 Flyers are really fun,

You have got so many potential combinations if you "know the coin" With MS and PR holders and about 8 different dies its like a treasure hunt.

morgannut2

To answer your question: yes its not the polished dies (the first struck business coins have them by definition). The tip off for coins in general is the more fully completed devices and sharp edges/denticles. On others 1856-80, you really have to know the die pairs on documented proofs to figure it out. On some comm.'s (ask Jade) they are so close the services are almost chicken to step up and grade proofs as proofs due to liability.

tradedollarnut

Are 1894-S dimes really proofs? After all, one was sent to the Assay Commission - who would normally receive circulation strikes. And they were accounted for on the Mint's books ... which would normally not account for proof coinage [proofs were considered medals, not coins].

Seems to me that they're just prooflike first strikes ... but they all end up in proof holders!

morgannut2

Grading the 1894S $.10 as proof is an excellant example of one of the first struck business strikes seeming to be proofs but lacking any documentatin or real evidence (of which I am aware). Could they be called "Specimens" or "Branch Mint Proofs"--maybe. But the denticles and other striking qualities should show some clear and convincing evidence of 2 or more strikes. Otherwise they should be part of the normal run of business strikes, unless TDN is aware of Proof the the contrary on the 94S Legend just bought!

ctgreatone

thanks, I feel that I know more about detection of proof coins now. Rims and edges and 3 cents can be real tough, as well as some older proofs.

tome20

I just sent in an 1889 Nickel for my collectors club special. I craked it out of a PCGS MS64 holder and it just came back PR65. I thought this coin had a good shot at a 65, of course I was thinking ms65. The value may have gone up a little but i'm not happy with it. I really don't recall it looking like a proof but i'm no expert on differentiating the two.