Options
What constitutes "deep mirrors" on a proof?
dan1ecu
Posts: 1,573
I often see proof coins advertised as having deep mirrors, yet they are heavily toned. Could "flashiness" count as deep mirrors, even if you can't see your reflection when you look into the coin? What would you expect from a coin that's advertised as having deep mirrors?
Dan
Dan
0
Comments
Not to mention caked on frost.
Russ, NCNE
Dan
mcinnes@mailclerk.ecok.edu">dmcinnes@mailclerk.ecok.edu
<< <i>It would be difficult to find an early proof coin that looks like that. >>
At the PNNA a couple years ago, I saw a proof Seated Half that looked like that. I sprouted instant wood!
Russ, NCNE
If it's original it might be impossible. Early proofs were often stored in tissue paper or mishandled. High grade (PR67+) early proofs are a true rarity, considering mintage as well. Though you can find nice affordable CAM examples in MS64-66 still.
Here's one toned with nice mirrors --
TPN
Often proof coins have striations in the fields. This makes the fields less reflective. Almost every proof Mercury dime and many proof Walkers I see are this way, it is rare to find them with deep mirrors.
Early proof Jefferson nickels have good fields that are reflective. They often are not perfect mirrors, especially at the rims. The best grade one that is not perfect at the rims can get is around 67. It takes perfect mirros to get a PR 68, IMO.
A proof coin can have deep mirrors that are obscured by toning. NGC seems to reward a coin like that (as long as the toning is desirable) while PCGS seems to deny it DCAM or maybe 1/2 a point or both.
Proof coins sometimes have a touch of "cartwheel" luster. These coins do not have the deepest, most reflective mirrors. Yes they reflect light, but they scatter it slightly and don't reflect a perfect "mirror" image. On the other hand sometimes coins with deep mirrors and no luster are described as having flashy luster which is technically incorrect in my opinion.
<< <i>Though you can find nice affordable CAM examples in MS64-66 still. >>
You mean PR64-66
Cameron Kiefer
Proof -- my bad.
TPN
Dan
mcinnes@mailclerk.ecok.edu">dmcinnes@mailclerk.ecok.edu