North of the border help - are proof-like sets

golddustin · February 28, 2006 1:19AM

considered the same as specimen sets, but with different packaging? It seems Canada has so many different presentations from year to year, it's difficult to tell which is which. The coins from the specimen sets state that they are "the first and best coins minted from a pair of dies", and the coins appear to be quite similar to those in the proof-like sets. I assume the difference is the early strike in the specimen sets?
Then, there are the proof sets and the "double-struck" sets, from back in the 70's and 80's. The proof sets show very nice cameo, but the double struck sets, in nearly the exact same packaging, show no evidence of cameo on the coins, and the coins look an awful lot like the specimen sets - was there a name change (to proof-like) sometime in the 80's? Then, there are the regular, uncirculated sets.....this can drive a person nuts!!!

For those who have submitted Canadian coins to PCGS, do you indicate the type of set the coin came from, or let PCGS graders decide how to designate the coin? The only time I submitted any, I sent the entire set intact in the original Canadian Mint cello pack, so there would be no confusion - they all came back PL66-69.

Thanks for any help!
Chuck

PBRat · February 28, 2006 1:33AM

I need to write a book on this. Someday.

ajaan · February 28, 2006 1:52AM

<< For those who have submitted Canadian coins to PCGS, do you indicate the type of set the coin came from, or let PCGS graders decide how to designate the coin? >>

PCGS does what they want to do. I listed a coin as MS and it was graded PL. The thing is, there were no PL coins from that year.

PBRat · February 28, 2006 2:04AM

PCGS does what they want to do. I listed a coin as MS and it was graded PL. The thing is, there were no PL coins from that year.

What year? PL's have been around since 1953, with a few that meet the criteria of PL as early as 1949.

ajaan · February 28, 2006 2:28AM

<< with a few that meet the criteria of PL as early as 1949. >>

This is where the definition of PL gets tricky. Is PL a grade adjective or a minting process? With US coins you wil see a grade like MS64 PL. The coin I had graded was a 1949 $. These coins have PL surfaces, but they are really MS as the ICCS flip I cut it out stated. PCGS graded it PLxx not MSxx PL.

PBRat · February 28, 2006 3:03AM

PL is determined by certain characteristics on the coin, like flatter letters and sharper edges. These characteristics are produced by strike methods / die preparation that are different from business strikes. This is quite different from the adjective PL, that is used with US coins.

If PCGS gave a 1949 a PL grade, I'll presume it's a silver dollar. In 1949, there were three different quality dollars produced. Specimens were produced, similar to the high quality specimens of the era. Business strikes were also produced. Then, a quantity of middle-quality coins were also produced. These middle-quality coins are the PL's.

A quote from 1999 Charleton:
"Note: The 1949 business strike dollar was shipped from the Mint in rolls of 20 coins. This method of packaging resulted in high quality dollars reaching collectors. Most of these coins saved by collectors were of proof-like quality. Another striking for sets resulted in specimen coins. Two varieties emerged, a superior specimen coin on full planchets and super strikes with wide square rims. It is said that these examples were prepared by Thomas Shingles, designer of the 1949 dollar."

The is one example of why a PL/SP/MS discussion gets so tricky. There are a few general rules (ie: pliofilm = PL), but many many exceptions.

ajaan · February 28, 2006 3:10AM

So, ICCS doesn't use the PL for 1949 Silver Dollars? The coin I submitted was in a MS65 ICCS flip.

PBRat · February 28, 2006 3:31AM

So, ICCS doesn't use the PL for 1949 Silver Dollars?

I'm not sure what ICCS does for the mid-quality coins. I do know that there are SP's and MS's.

golddustin · February 28, 2006 4:28AM

Paul - thanks for the insight...you are "the man" when I need info on the Canadian coins. What about those "double-struck" sets? Are they considered poor proofs, or nice uncs? The packaging is exactly the same as the proof sets of similar years (I'm sure you know...) - but the coins do not appear to be proof in nature. I PM'd a few other questions, so I wouldn't take up too much of the forum space.

You need to write that book!!!! Meanwhile, I'll refer back to my Haxby & Willey reference.

PBRat · March 1, 2006 5:51AM

you are "the man" when I need info on the Canadian coins

Nope.

What about those "double-struck" sets?

By "double struck", I presume you mean the "Double Dollar Sets" from 1971-1980. PCGS does designate some of the dollars as Specimen (SP), and the rest of the coins as Prooflike (PL). Personally, I can't differentiate these coins from those in Prooflike Sets, unless they are still in the packaging. There are also "Double Penny Sets" from the same era, that *I think* also contain coins of Prooflike (PL) quality.

If we're talking about post 1981, there are Proof Sets -considered Proof (PR) by PCGS, Specimen Sets - typically considered Prooflike (PL) by PCGS, and Prooflike Sets - considered Prooflike (PL) by PCGS. But, there are some years (notably 1996 and 1997, maybe others) where the quality / finish of coins in the Specimen Sets is different from those in Prooflike Stes. I'm not sure what PCGS does in this case.

To confuse matters, there are many examples of coins in Prooflike Sets that are no better quality than Business Strikes. And, there are times where a high quality Business Strike can be confused for a Prooflike coin.

shirohniichan · March 1, 2006 6:23AM

US prooflike and Canadian proof-like are different, as ajaan suggested.

The specimen coins are indeed double-struck, so the coins in the 1971-80 Double Dollar sets are specimens. The coins in the Double Cent sets and pliofilm uncirculated sets are proof-likes.

While every 1949 dollar I've seen has had prooflike surfaces, it shouldn't be considered PL in the Canadian sense of the word.

PBRat · March 1, 2006 7:13AM

So, ICCS doesn't use the PL for 1949 Silver Dollars?

I'm not sure what ICCS does for the mid-quality coins. I do know that there are SP's and MS's.

Yes, ICCS has graded at least one 1949 Silver Dollar as PL64.

Numismatics · March 1, 2006 8:12AM

I have seen few ICCS PL 1949 dollar.

shirohniichan · March 1, 2006 9:11AM

<< So, ICCS doesn't use the PL for 1949 Silver Dollars?

I'm not sure what ICCS does for the mid-quality coins. I do know that there are SP's and MS's.

Yes, ICCS has graded at least one 1949 Silver Dollar as PL64. >>

If Charlton is correct and PL refers to the minting process and not surface reflectivity, how can there be any PL dollars from 1949? I know that Haxby says some pre-1953 dollars appeared to be better than others and are called proof-likes, but I wonder how one is supposed to distinguish a business strike with a prooflike finish from a supposed proof-like?

A dealer I know said he soured on these older "proof-like" dollars because another dealer charged a premium for them, then claimed they were ordinary business strikes when he tried to sell them back later.

golddustin · March 1, 2006 9:59AM

Getting back to that double-struck set - I just rechecked what I thought I had read, and the mint insert says - "You are now the possessor of a double struck set of Canadian coinage." It is a 1980 double dollar set in a leather bound book-type holder. The coins are nice, but I would have to say they appear to be PL or specimen, certainly not proof, since there is not the slightest hint of cameo effect or frosting of any sort. The surfaces do have pretty nice mirrors, however....I would assume that the insert would say so if the coins were struck as proofs.

shirohniichan · March 1, 2006 2:29PM

<< Getting back to that double-struck set - I just rechecked what I thought I had read, and the mint insert says - "You are now the possessor of a double struck set of Canadian coinage." It is a 1980 double dollar set in a leather bound book-type holder. The coins are nice, but I would have to say they appear to be PL or specimen, certainly not proof, since there is not the slightest hint of cameo effect or frosting of any sort. The surfaces do have pretty nice mirrors, however....I would assume that the insert would say so if the coins were struck as proofs. >>

They are specimens. The first proof set was offered in 1981.

PBRat · March 1, 2006 11:53PM

They are specimens. The first proof set was offered in 1981.

I agree. But, in PCGS's eyes, some of the dollars will be Specimen (SP), and the rest of the coins will be Prooflike (PL).

shirohniichan · March 2, 2006 12:12AM

<< They are specimens. The first proof set was offered in 1981.

I agree. But, in PCGS's eyes, some of the dollars will be Specimen (SP), and the rest of the coins will be Prooflike (PL). >>

Yea, verily. It would be nice if the graders could distinguish between double-struck specimens and single-struck proof-likes. I'll admint that it's not as easy as some suggested. I've compared coins still in their specimen set packaging with proof-likes, and some look identical.

North of the border help - are proof-like sets

Comments