Proof diagnostics.

keets · July 14, 2012 7:41PM

Well, I'm browsing lots at TeleTrade and came across this lovely Proof Large Cent Pattern and it raised a question in my mind about some of the discussions we have concerning Proof coin diagnosics. Many times when there's uncertainty about a coin's strike, Proof vs. Mint State, one of the first things mentioned is squared rims. While this coin is without question a Proof striking, if you look at the enlarged pictures you should see that the rims aren't fully squared from the strike. The y seem to have completely contacted the collar around the entire perimiter but the strike wasn't full enough to entirely fill the die at the collar for the sharpness that would give the squareness referred to. Hopefully other members will comment and possibly show pictures of similar characteristics.

Thanks and enjoy the beautiful coin.

Al H.

LanceNewmanOCC · July 14, 2012 8:23PM

.
are we lumping "proof" "pattern" "specimen" "trial" "presentation" and other synonyms?
.

Twobitcollector · July 14, 2012 8:28PM

Now that's a beauty

keets · July 14, 2012 8:53PM

are we lumping "proof" "pattern" "specimen" "trial" "presentation" and other synonyms?

no, i don't think so. the coin is clearly and without question an easily identified Pattern and since the term "Proof" desgnates a method of production it understandably meets that criteria. i thought this was a good exmple to show what i perceive as weakness of strike, perhaps an explanation for other supposed Proof strikings where un-squared rims are a strong disqualifier. this is meant for discussion, i'm not trying to prove any point or display that i am more knowledgeable on the subject than perhaps you or anyone else.

FWIW, i could be dead wrong and making a fool of myself, it's happened before.

LanceNewmanOCC · July 14, 2012 9:43PM

.
i asked because all of the terms mentioned to my knowledge required higher quality flans and a more precise striking, possibly 2-3 strikes for each example struck and if we are to discuss diagnostics

for early proofs, then patterns, trials, etc will most likely exhibit the same preparation/protocols for production.

i won't say higher quality dies/die surfaces necessarily since many die pairings have struck business and proof flans.

other diagnostics apart from the squared rims are much more consistently centered obv/rev, virtually full-crisp strike for all parts of the coin (you really see the difference between proofs/business

strikes when comparing most series from memory or side-by-side viewing), don't really see filled parts of the dies etc with proofs even from pre-1900, the surfaces are just amazingly pristine and

even if they don't fall under today's definition of proof striking, the process certainly did merit special designation specifically for the preparation that went into producing the proofs, patters, etc etc. -

a lot of the debate can be squashed if we just assign proof to the pre-1900 special strikings and possibly some other designations as well because of the extra care that was given.

and now you make me think of something. maybe when dies were first used they would make the few proofs needed and then just run those dies out with business strike flans, maybe offering

another reason certain die parings exhibit cracks etc so early into a run of business strikes other than previously used dies from previous year business strikes and/or other die pairing production

runs, but that is getting a bit off-topic.

maybe this is a good place to stop
.

keets · July 14, 2012 10:58PM

and now you make me think of something. maybe when dies were first used they would make the few proofs needed and then just run those dies out with business strike flans

it has long been my understanding that this was common practice.

lasvegasteddy · July 14, 2012 11:21PM

i get so lost on early proofs
very sweet example there al...i absolutely love that piece you linked
but yeah
it's tough if such coins aren't in hand
these new pronged holders are kool in that one aspect...the edge is now displayed

LoveMyLiberty · July 15, 2012 7:50AM

In a way this is like talking apples & oranges. The 1854 pattern J-161 is made of bronze,
along with a J-160 that was copper. They were made from their own original dies as
Experimental Weight Trial Pieces, with very few made. To confuse the issue further there
were some restrikes made at a later date. The method of production was as proof pieces.

The standard 1854 Large Cent was produced using many die marriages and one die
combination was the N-12 that first produced proofs when the dies were new and very
well polished and specially prepared & polished planchets were struck at least twice.
After completing the run of proofs they were used for normal circulation strike production.

Here are images of the J-161 pattern, an 1854 proof piece and an 1854 circulation piece in MS-66.
The proofs of this era, especially in Large Cents, were often not as representative of proofs in
later years, made from silver, gold & other materials & were not as easily identified as proofs.
This is just my opinion from observations I have seen.

Note the fine dentils, crispness of strike features and the smooth & sometimes glassy look
of the proofs compared to the last coin.

These images are from CoinFacts.

MrEureka · July 15, 2012 8:02AM

I would not assume that the J-160 and J-161's are all proofs. Same goes for the various Flying Eagle Large Cent patterns. Yes, we call them all proofs by convention, but that does not mean that they really were all struck to proof standards.

stealer · July 15, 2012 8:07AM

Patterns were just struck as presentation pieces for Congress and not for collectors. You can't hold patterns to the same standards of proofs IMO.

LanceNewmanOCC · July 15, 2012 4:17PM

<< <i>and now you make me think of something. maybe when dies were first used they would make the few proofs needed and then just run those dies out with business strike flans

it has long been my understanding that this was common practice. >>

ya i should have specified it made me think that I should add that to my post even though it was not a specific diagnostic feature as requested but is relevant to help separate business strike issues

with similar features/diagnostics as some proof issues.

a lesson i didn't learn until submitting an early coin with exact diagnostics as it's proof counterpart but i failed to think prior to submission the planchet quality/preparation is a major determining factor.
.

astrorat · July 15, 2012 4:21PM

<< <i>I would not assume that the J-160 and J-161's are all proofs. Same goes for the various Flying Eagle Large Cent patterns. Yes, we call them all proofs by convention, but that does not mean that they really were all struck to proof standards. >>

This.

astrorat · July 15, 2012 4:22PM

<< <i>Patterns were just struck as presentation pieces for Congress and not for collectors. You can't hold patterns to the same standards of proofs IMO. >>

Not necessarily for Congress only. Some patterns were struck for favored collectors or as trading pieces to enhance the US Mint cabinet.

Proof diagnostics.

Comments

Leave a Comment