It sure doesn't look like this Proof which was posted earlier:
I’d love to learn from you, on which details of the coin stand out to you as making these coins different.
To me the main difference seems to be in the luster, or the “look” of the coins. But I think luster can be hard to judge from photos, and could be hidden by toning.
The second difference that I notice is the softness of the strike on the non-proof, particularly in the date on the obverse and the text near the top on the reverse. I’m interpreting that weakness to be due to the lower pressure used for business strikes. Look how much crisper “States” is on the proof!
Am I on the right track with these observations? What else am I missing?
In particular, I was focusing on the strike of the numerals in the date on each coin. I didn't look past that, besides the differences in quality and eye-appeal which (based on the grades) are understandably, quite different.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I will never forget passing on one at the 1975 ANA show in Los Angeles. I kept going back and looking at it.
I was young and an in experienced collector. alot of money back then when I was only making $10,500 per year.
Which was a pretty good salary back then. My brand new 1972 skylark Buick car had cost me $ 4700.
Lesson learned. I think I only had several hundred dollars on me. Could have paid by check.
@P0CKETCHANGE said: @MFeld but your implication seemed to be that it wasn’t a proof; otherwise, why make the comparison?
I don't claim to know whether the coin is a Proof. I made the comparison because when I glanced at the pictures, the first thought that occurred to me was that it wasn't a match in terms of strike or quality to the PR65 that had been posted previously.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The coins present excellent matches in hand, but here are images of the 65 and 62 side by side taken under nearly identical conditions. The 65 is presumably the later die state due to the stronger brilliance of the dies and lack of what appears to be grease near the date area.
@FlyingAl said:
The coins present excellent matches in hand, but here are images of the 65 and 62 side by side taken under nearly identical conditions. The 65 is presumably the later die state due to the stronger brilliance of the dies and lack of what appears to be grease near the date area.
Thanks for that, Alex.
Viewing those pictures leads me to believe that what first appeared to be differences in strike, were/are largely the result of the patina and more subdued luster on the PR62.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said:
Viewing those pictures leads me to believe that what first appeared to be differences in strike, were/are largely the result of the patina and more subdued luster on the PR62.
I’m surprised that’s your takeaway, because Alex’s photos quite clearly show weakness in strike around the peripheries of the 62, which he attributes to potential grease in the dies. It’s not an illusion of the patina or luster.
Perhaps that effect is present when comparing the hair depth, but since you clearly stated previously, “I was focusing on the strike of the numerals in the date on each coin. I didn't look past that”, that’s not where you were looking.
@MFeld said:
Viewing those pictures leads me to believe that what first appeared to be differences in strike, were/are largely the result of the patina and more subdued luster on the PR62.
I’m surprised that’s your takeaway, because Alex’s photos quite clearly show weakness in strike around the peripheries of the 62, which he attributes to potential grease in the dies. It’s not an illusion of the patina or luster.
Perhaps that effect is present when comparing the hair depth, but since you clearly stated previously, “I was focusing on the strike of the numerals in the date on each coin. I didn't look past that”, that’s not where you were looking.
Initially, I was focusing on the dates on the two coins. Since I’d glanced at other areas, I shouldn’t have written “I didn’t look past that”. Sorry for any confusion I caused.
After Alex posted multiple images, I started looking at other areas on each side and posted again.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@SilverEagle1974 said:
I saw this online, somewhere.
Is this a proof coin ?
Chris
Note the collar clash marks on the rim above the IB of LIBERTY. I do not see that on the 65 or on the 64 shown on the PCGS website.
The weak area near the date has corresponding weakness on the upper reverse. I do not think that grease is involved here. This is more likely the result of the dies not being properly set parallel to each other or, a lot less likely, a tapered thin planchet.
It is possible that the collar clashing caused one of the two dies to shift a bit and no longer be parallel to its opposing die. In my research on the cents of 1922 I can show how on one die pair the obverse die hit the collar to the lower right of the date, causing the die itself to move towards the upper left. and then later hitting the collar along the upper left causing the die to shift towards the lower right.
On a more general note, it has long been noted that between 1916 and 1936 the Philadelphia Mint seemed to have forgotten how to make Proofs, and again between 1942 and 1950. Is it possible that this loss of technical skill was already in place between 1916 and the brief rebirth of Proofs in 1921-22? (Don't forget the 1921 $20's.)
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
All of the Proofs show the clash to some degree, it just depends on the thickness of the rim in that area and the angle the images were taken at. The clash can also be seen below the Y in LIBERTY.
All of the Proofs show the clash to some degree, it just depends on the thickness of the rim in that area and the angle the images were taken at. The clash can also be seen below the Y in LIBERTY.
Thank you.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@SilverEagle1974 said:
I saw this online, somewhere.
Is this a proof coin ?
Chris
Note the collar clash marks on the rim above the IB of LIBERTY. I do not see that on the 65 or on the 64 shown on the PCGS website.
The weak area near the date has corresponding weakness on the upper reverse. I do not think that grease is involved here. This is more likely the result of the dies not being properly set parallel to each other or, a lot less likely, a tapered thin planchet.
It is possible that the collar clashing caused one of the two dies to shift a bit and no longer be parallel to its opposing die. In my research on the cents of 1922 I can show how on one die pair the obverse die hit the collar to the lower right of the date, causing the die itself to move towards the upper left. and then later hitting the collar along the upper left causing the die to shift towards the lower right.
On a more general note, it has long been noted that between 1916 and 1936 the Philadelphia Mint seemed to have forgotten how to make Proofs, and again between 1942 and 1950. Is it possible that this loss of technical skill was already in place between 1916 and the brief rebirth of Proofs in 1921-22? (Don't forget the 1921 $20's.)
@SilverEagle1974 said:
I saw this online, somewhere.
Is this a proof coin ?
Chris
Note the collar clash marks on the rim above the IB of LIBERTY. I do not see that on the 65 or on the 64 shown on the PCGS website.
The weak area near the date has corresponding weakness on the upper reverse. I do not think that grease is involved here. This is more likely the result of the dies not being properly set parallel to each other or, a lot less likely, a tapered thin planchet.
It is possible that the collar clashing caused one of the two dies to shift a bit and no longer be parallel to its opposing die. In my research on the cents of 1922 I can show how on one die pair the obverse die hit the collar to the lower right of the date, causing the die itself to move towards the upper left. and then later hitting the collar along the upper left causing the die to shift towards the lower right.
On a more general note, it has long been noted that between 1916 and 1936 the Philadelphia Mint seemed to have forgotten how to make Proofs, and again between 1942 and 1950. Is it possible that this loss of technical skill was already in place between 1916 and the brief rebirth of Proofs in 1921-22? (Don't forget the 1921 $20's.)
TD
Are the scratches between the S and OF a match?
The die polish lines (not scratches) between the S and the O can be seen on both the Proof-62 and the Proof-65 shown above. Good catch.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
I saw this online, somewhere.
Is this a proof coin ?
Chris
It sure doesn't look like this Proof which was posted earlier:
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@SilverEagle1974 @MFeld
Coin Photographer.
I’d love to learn from you, on which details of the coin stand out to you as making these coins different.
To me the main difference seems to be in the luster, or the “look” of the coins. But I think luster can be hard to judge from photos, and could be hidden by toning.
The second difference that I notice is the softness of the strike on the non-proof, particularly in the date on the obverse and the text near the top on the reverse. I’m interpreting that weakness to be due to the lower pressure used for business strikes. Look how much crisper “States” is on the proof!
Am I on the right track with these observations? What else am I missing?
In particular, I was focusing on the strike of the numerals in the date on each coin. I didn't look past that, besides the differences in quality and eye-appeal which (based on the grades) are understandably, quite different.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Here's NGC data on the 1921 Satin Peace.
I had no clue, but now I do, these are not "Half Million Dollars." My Bad
@MFeld but your implication seemed to be that it wasn’t a proof; otherwise, why make the comparison?
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
I will never forget passing on one at the 1975 ANA show in Los Angeles. I kept going back and looking at it.
I was young and an in experienced collector. alot of money back then when I was only making $10,500 per year.
Which was a pretty good salary back then. My brand new 1972 skylark Buick car had cost me $ 4700.
Lesson learned. I think I only had several hundred dollars on me. Could have paid by check.
I don't claim to know whether the coin is a Proof. I made the comparison because when I glanced at the pictures, the first thought that occurred to me was that it wasn't a match in terms of strike or quality to the PR65 that had been posted previously.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The coins present excellent matches in hand, but here are images of the 65 and 62 side by side taken under nearly identical conditions. The 65 is presumably the later die state due to the stronger brilliance of the dies and lack of what appears to be grease near the date area.
Coin Photographer.
Thanks for that, Alex.
Viewing those pictures leads me to believe that what first appeared to be differences in strike, were/are largely the result of the patina and more subdued luster on the PR62.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I’m surprised that’s your takeaway, because Alex’s photos quite clearly show weakness in strike around the peripheries of the 62, which he attributes to potential grease in the dies. It’s not an illusion of the patina or luster.
Perhaps that effect is present when comparing the hair depth, but since you clearly stated previously, “I was focusing on the strike of the numerals in the date on each coin. I didn't look past that”, that’s not where you were looking.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Videos of both coins to aid in the discussion as well. These show the two coins match nearly perfectly, except for the date weakness in the 62 which I believe to be grease in the dies.
https://www.mycollect.com/posts/156944
https://www.mycollect.com/posts/156943
Coin Photographer.
Initially, I was focusing on the dates on the two coins. Since I’d glanced at other areas, I shouldn’t have written “I didn’t look past that”. Sorry for any confusion I caused.
After Alex posted multiple images, I started looking at other areas on each side and posted again.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Note the collar clash marks on the rim above the IB of LIBERTY. I do not see that on the 65 or on the 64 shown on the PCGS website.
The weak area near the date has corresponding weakness on the upper reverse. I do not think that grease is involved here. This is more likely the result of the dies not being properly set parallel to each other or, a lot less likely, a tapered thin planchet.
It is possible that the collar clashing caused one of the two dies to shift a bit and no longer be parallel to its opposing die. In my research on the cents of 1922 I can show how on one die pair the obverse die hit the collar to the lower right of the date, causing the die itself to move towards the upper left. and then later hitting the collar along the upper left causing the die to shift towards the lower right.
On a more general note, it has long been noted that between 1916 and 1936 the Philadelphia Mint seemed to have forgotten how to make Proofs, and again between 1942 and 1950. Is it possible that this loss of technical skill was already in place between 1916 and the brief rebirth of Proofs in 1921-22? (Don't forget the 1921 $20's.)
TD
@CaptHenway
All of the Proofs show the clash to some degree, it just depends on the thickness of the rim in that area and the angle the images were taken at. The clash can also be seen below the Y in LIBERTY.
Coin Photographer.
Thank you.
An older thread on these that might be of interest.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/128785/proof-peace-dollars
We never did get an update from @Jupiter88 about his coins.
Collector, occasional seller
This thread needs more coins- here’s my 1922 just for fun
Facelifter's '22 Proof takes ones breath away!!!
I need to get some plastic surgery on my face after seeing floridafacelifter’s coin…since it’s frozen in awe……😉
…
Holy crap!
Rare Coin Wholesalers has this PCGS/CAC PR64 (satin) available now. Advertised at $398,750 on Collector's Corner.
rarecoinwholesalers.com/1921-peace-matte-finish-pr64
Fascinating!
Are the scratches between the S and OF a match?
The die polish lines (not scratches) between the S and the O can be seen on both the Proof-62 and the Proof-65 shown above. Good catch.