How to tell difference between old Proof and MS Prooflike Gold
hiijacker
Posts: 1,172 ✭✭✭
For example I was looking at this coin. What would be the area to look at to tell the difference between this and the proof version of the same coin?
https://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-eagles/1893-10-ms62-prooflike-ngc/a/1201-6927.s#
Buyer of all vintage Silver Bars. PM me
Cashback from Mr. Rebates
Cashback from Mr. Rebates
1
Comments
Edge, rim and other areas should be examined in person.
In making proofs, at least 1/3 were rejected due to defects. These were put into circulation,
Some proofs were spent.
Some circulation dies were polished to remove clashing, cracks and other defects.
Based only on the photos, this might be a failed proof; polish seems too good and uniform for a PL, especially in the shield and inscriptions.
What did it sell for?
First off, I'm no expert on proof gold, but strike has to be a major factor. It can be prooflike from new(er) dies but not struck like a proof. That's what I'd look for first. Then there might be diagnostics for the $10 1893 proof that are only on a proof. Searching will give you that information if it's available. Google is your friend.
On your NGC example the two stars on each side of the date do not appear to be fully struck.....=business strike.
PCGS coinfacts has an 1893 $10 in Deep Cameo with pictures to compare...take a look.
http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/98833
bob:)
2 K.
Several of the proof diagnostics are near the edge of the coin, such as the reeding, any wire rim, and the denticles. The reeding should visibly be very squared-off, and the denticles will often be fully struck up.
Unfortunately, the coin in the OP is in an earlier holder where the reeding and rim aren't fully visible. In a newer pronged-insert slab, you can really see how squared off the reeding is. However, the denticles are visible in this holder, and they don't appear to be fully struck up as would be expected from 2 strikes from the dies.
A few years ago, I did find a piece of proof gold hidden in plain sight in an ANACS DMPL holder. Everything about the coin (cameo, reflectivity, full strike including denticles) said "proof." I ran it by a couple of experts at a PCGS show, such as JD, and they agreed it had the "look" of a proof. So, we cracked the coin out of the ANACS holder. The real final tell when we got the coin out was how the edge reeding absolutely gripped at one's fingerprints in-hand.
PCGS put the coin into a proof holder at that show. So, it does happen.
@RogerB said: "In making proofs, at least 1/3 were rejected due to defects. These were put into circulation."
Did you find written confirmation of this somewhere or which of your books is this figure (1/3) in?
Yep. There are many documents and notebooks showing quantities struck, rejects and both left-over proofs and failed proofs being put into circulation. After all, if they were good coins then there was no need to waste them (or add to the bookkeeping of bullion, seigniorage , etc.)
Would you mind posting a photo of the coin? Sounds like a great cherry pick!
All proof gold dollars 1862-1873 are struck from an obverse die which has an elongated vertical reflective area behind the first feather of the headdress. Look at CoinFacts and notice the progressive increase of the reflectivity of this small but naked-eye attribute.
All proofs from these dates were struck with this characteristic. Absolute requirement. A few MS coins have it, as JD and I discovered on an 1865 NGC MS68 about ten years ago.
Rip this apart, but only after you've looked at CoinFacts and RogerB and CaptSubZero have possibly shared relevant information.
1893 $10. From the photo, more dramatic contrast than virtually any business strikes I've seen in lo' these many blah blah amped?.... I think I am missing seeing (from the photo) the "mesa" or "plateau" effect; the squared flatness at the tops of the lettering and numerals.
@RogerB, @CaptHenway, @Outsider007 and a few others may choose to suffer more over the image. Do any of us not already wear glasses?
Sure, pics below. Misattributed ANACS slab, very conservatively graded PCGS slab, and a closeup showing the strong strike and the "plateau" effect mentioned by @ColonelJessup
I bought the coin out of an online auction. The MS DMPL designation didn't make any sense to me. I recalled something JD said about older proof gold at an ANA Summer Seminar a few years ago. His belief was that proof gold dies of this time period only yielded a small number of DCAM strikes, maybe 10. Only another 15-25 strikes might yield a nice CAM designation. Considering that 100 proof gold coins were made of this date, and assuming that the mint didn't re-frost and polish the dies in the middle of 100 coins, then how could even the first MS coin off the dies after the proofs (the 101st coin overall) have any contrast? By my reasoning, it couldn't; the cameo would have been off the dies many coins earlier. A coin with this much frost would more than likely be a proof coin.
@Kove
Beautiful commemorative! This just shows that knowledge is power.
Here's my 1895 MS62 PL for comparison. (These suckers sure are hard to photograph & sorry for the scratched up slab).
@Kove..... Nice cherrypick.... and a very nice coin as well.... Cheers, RickO
On these photos I don't see typical medal press characteristics.
RE: AmazonX's 1895 Eagle. Those photos don't indicate medal press characteristics.
RE: McKinley. I would not call that a "proof." Detail is much too limited, and the denticles are not even complete. It's shiny, that's all --- of course, these are photos and I wear bifocals just to see in the dark, so.....
@ColonelJessup said: "All proof gold dollars 1862-1873 are struck from an obverse die which has an elongated vertical reflective area behind the first feather of the headdress. Look at CoinFacts and notice the progressive increase of the reflectivity of this small but naked-eye attribute. All proofs from these dates were struck with this characteristic. Absolute requirement. A few MS coins have it, as JD and I discovered on an 1865 NGC MS68 about ten years ago."
Thanks, posts as this make the price of admission to CU well worth it! I shall check this out. Thanks again.
@hiijacker said: " What would be the area to look at to tell the difference between this and the proof version of the same coin?"
One thing I've come to realize is the rim and edge of a true proof Liberty gold coin of any denomination is the "night & day" clincher. ** A lot of us here have never touched an authentic proof $10 Liberty. The coin in the OP is not even close. A "problem" with attribution my come on a few rare occasions when the coin is worn or impaired. Once you see one raw is usually all you need to be able to separate Proof strikes from PL's.
Additionally, many folks, including those at the TPGS, have both photo and written diagnostics of the characteristics on the proof golds they handle.
** Added to avoid nit-picks: Gold Dollars can be a little tough...LOL.
I have looked at proof like gold looking for real proofs, I typically look at sure things in winters books or coin facts and check date placement. I have never found one dispite a few I thought were promising
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
@RogerB What do you mean by medal press characteristics?
All US proof coins were made on a medal press - either a large screw press or after 1893 a hydraulic medal press. The action of the press, and its greater force create a much better impression of the dies than ordinary toggle presses of the period.
There are multiple mechanical as well as design detail differences between toggle press and medal press products. Some of these are obvious but most are subtle and require too much explanation to describe here. Others might have specific indicators.
I happen to have two McKinley proofs in the original presentation "cards" with the wax seals, etc.
Conceding that attributions made thru 100-year-old wax paper are inexact, both have the same insufficiencies @RogerB notes. Perhaps this issue in proof had slightly less rigorous production standards.
"Perhaps this issue in proof had slightly less rigorous production standards."
Possible, but sad quality for a real proof. The biggest problem for a dollar (or 3-cent silver) was avoiding perforating the planchet with the dies by using excess pressure.
I've forgotten...what were the documented proof quantities for the McKinley dollar?
I dont get what to look for.
According to the holder this coin however is a proof
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-liberty-eagles/1893-10-pr55-ngc/a/1151-7165.s?hdnJumpToLot=1x=0&y=0#
Cashback from Mr. Rebates
The holder states an opinion, nothing more. Facts can alter opinions. As we learn more and exert greater caution in examining items, an opinion can change - or be affirmed.
Traditionally, 100 for each for McKinleys and Jeffersons. Documentation not certain.
OK. Tradition sometimes is based on fact, but the pictured coin does not have all the characteristics of a typical proof. As the opportunity becomes available, I'll look in the archives (RG104 E-235 vol 417), or maybe someone here has seen documentation. I recall that a new, "improved" hub was used in 1917, but no one I know has been able to discern the differences.
The holder states an opinion that is backed by a guarantee. That is quite a bit more.
It remains an opinion. If it is supported by facts, that's great.
Besides the knife edge grip from the reeding, I'd also expect an orange peel/ripple effect on the mirror fields. Proof Indian cents often show that same orange peel. A business strike won't show either.
Here is mine that i just got images. I thought it looked like a proof coin. What do you think?
Cashback from Mr. Rebates
In the Old days if it looked like a Proof many called it a Proof. AFAIK today, most TPGS use "markers" to ID Proofs. This becomes a little more subjective on nickel issues or when a PR die was also used to strike MS coins.
Gold dollars from the 1880s used to give collectors fits. Was it a Proof coin or not?
Take a look at this trio. Which one (s) is (are) Proofs?
1880
1882
1883
I just saw this one while browsing and it would make my comments flimsy.
We had a hard time telling proofs from well struck PL MS coins...Until we went to the Smithsonian. Most of the time Proofs are so different looking from the best made first strike coin you could imagine. The difference is like night and day! Without being able to magnify the images, I'll pick the '83.
Agree, 83.
Weak stars, not PL inside shield, round rims = not likely a proof. Still a very nice Coin. Check coin facts for pictures of real proofs and line up the date to the denticals for another test
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Unfortunately the grade I got makes it worth very difficult to sell. Its a beauty in hand with the strong mirrors and strong cameo.
I am thinking of sending it to NGC which at least grades PL and DPL on MS coins.
Cashback from Mr. Rebates
Both TPGs will say "unc details, altered surfaces" with no proof attribution
edited to add: Beyond numerous other tells, looking at images of this date (and date range), which can come DCAM, the frosting screams Betty Crocker after 90 seconds on that one page of images.
RE: "We had a hard time telling proofs from well struck PL MS coins...Until we went to the Smithsonian. Most of the time Proofs are so different looking from the best made first strike coin you could imagine. The difference is like night and day!"
Good to know that some are aware of the mechanical differences imparted by a medal press compared to a toggle press.
Curmudgeonly advice to @hijacker, the owner of the 1893 $10. Fifteen minutes looking at proof 10's from 1891-1895 and you would see the differences. You will be best served by HA Archives. Search by category; getting a page of images at one time will flood you with the look of the fabric before you get to sort out the individual features. Some but not all have been noted by @Crypto and others. Tell me what you saw as differences. You'll see some that are dramatic and I'll tell you what you missed. Someone will likely add to that. You'll be confused and look at more pictures. Someone will say something cruel and at least 3% true. @BillJones will likely say something that is untrue 3% of the time
You'll get a lot out of it. This is a very tricky subject for the uninitiated.
Every cent I've earned on TPG misattribution was somebody else's loss,
Like the 1867 25c PR58 I paid $1100 for because of satiny frost I thought unnatural for a proof from waist-height in a showcase major _et cetera_s followed. I sent it quickly back to our host for the same grade again, put in a un-named auction and had it run up by a friend. I paid a commission when I bought back at $1800 and my pal told me there were two other bidders at $1400. Then it was sent and came back as NGC61. Then, discussing it as I sold it, a dealer friend who knew the date he told me he "sort of remembered" the coin and graded it 59 shot 61 thinking in the mid-teens. He said I was greedy and lucky and right and flipped it to his customer on the phone over my $3100.
Every piece of knowledge in this hobby is incremental. Most of the people here will not own proof gold, but quite a few can tell you how to protect yourself if you want to and reduce your risks. The same analysis, coupled with technical reasons for fabric differences, will work for many more attainable coins in other metals too
@Insider2 and @grip, you are correct. Only the 1883 is a Proof.
These have a provenance that is impeccable. Both were hanging in coin dealer offices (Stacks,Abbotts's) for half a century. "Poorly made" on this many suggests poorly made is indeed a characteristic a typical McKinley proof
Provenance is only a track of ownership. It says nothing about the accuracy of any description or other assertion.
As for "proof quality" the medal department and engravers knew how to make proof coins in that era; and "poor quality" only suggests that the pieces were NOT made as real brilliant proof coins. (Compare to the quality of contemporary proof dimes, cents and quarter eagles.)
Are they double struck? If the intention is clear and mint employees do not follow protocol and thus produce off-quality coins, are they classifiable as proofs? These were the first gold dollars produced in 24 years, Whatever you might postulate, shoddy work seems possible. How many of these have you examined in-hand?
To my practical criteria, that fits my definition. Would it fit yours?
Provenance is not merely the tracking of ownership. You statement trivializes the fact that, from minute one, the chain of custody is pure. We can also play word games about whether the Earth is round or flat when science classifies it as an oblate spheroid. Precision is useful. Over-precision is sometimes, and perhaps in this instance, counter-productive to some aspects of analysis. And I can find technical terms from metallurgy that can cause confusion as generally applied.
BTW, I will not argue on proofs vs specimens. Esoteric by nature, the term specimen has been used too often as a term of art. The vast majority of numismatists will know what I mean and be correct 99% of the time.
Only - logically absurd to exclude other possibilities
when in doubt to me its not a proof.
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
And I make a fortune because I know this issue better based on 40 years of very hard-won experience we'll call "tuition".
My kid already has two master's degrees, so I'm offering consumer protection against my own license to steal.
1883 looks proof to me, the others look Business strike.
My YouTube Channel
I cant get close enough to see if the Omega sign is in that R on the Liberty. Have you looked to see if these are Omega coins
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
I enjoy your sense of humor.
Actually. "We" suspected that Mr. Omega also "signed" a counterfeit gold dollar as it was "State-of-the-Art, fooling everyone (except us), at the same time the $3 and $20 were both discovered. I think I may have shown an image in the Omega discussion that unfortunately was removed.
@Insider2 I found a great write up on the subject in the June 2018 issue of Coin World. it discusses this Omega along with several other valuable counterfeits that are now collected.
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member