@Nicrow32 said:
Thanks what’s the difference between them
Proof coins are highly reflective and generally will be found in proof sets. The strike is much better, the design is much clearer with a proof as well. Even if circulated, a proof coin is usually easily distinguished from a regular coin.
I get this all the time in the shop, but most folks honestly don't know the difference between proof(or even what thay means), and a dime they see in change. I try to educate them and move on.
Whats funny is people see a headline of a rare coin like this from an auction sale, and they look briefly and find a 300k coin , that just miraculously appeared in change all of a sudden. (not taking away from true finds as that does happen) but the point of the matter everyone is not finding whoppers
@Nicrow32 said:
Thanks what’s the difference between them
A proof has full detail since it was struck twice.
The easiest way to distinguish them even after they've been in circulation is that the rim around both sides of the coin will be square in cross section. Usually both rims all the way around are square. Circulation strikes usually have no squareness at all and it is very rarely all the way around either side.
The pictured dime is typical in all ways except being very slightly less worn than average. Of course any circulating dime without a mint mark is getting to be a little unusual so this question will become more common rather than less.
@cladking said:
A proof has full detail since it was struck twice. ...
Actually, not all proofs were struck twice.
Proofs made between 1859 and about 1980 were struck once, but in a special high pressure press.
The "struck twice" story was a theory that was presented as fact in the Red Book for many years.
See this 2009 post from Roger W. Burdette:
Many modern proof coins are struck 2 or three times by special presses.
Prior to about 1980, proof coins were struck once using a high pressure medal press. Before 1858 some "Master coins" or "Specimen" coins were struck more than once - details of operating procedures are inconclusive.
If the modern press is working correctly, you should not be able to see evidence of each strike. On older hydraulic presses (and screw presses) evidence of multiple strikes would be easy to locate.
@cladking said:
A proof has full detail since it was struck twice. ...
Actually, not all proofs were struck twice.
Proofs made between 1859 and about 1980 were struck once, but in a special high pressure press.
The "struck twice" story was a theory that was presented as fact in the Red Book for many years.
See this 2009 post from Roger W. Burdette:
Many modern proof coins are struck 2 or three times by special presses.
Prior to about 1980, proof coins were struck once using a high pressure medal press. Before 1858 some "Master coins" or "Specimen" coins were struck more than once - details of operating procedures are inconclusive.
If the modern press is working correctly, you should not be able to see evidence of each strike. On older hydraulic presses (and screw presses) evidence of multiple strikes would be easy to locate.
@You said:
Would you say it's abnormal/unusual for a pre-1858 Proof to display machine doubling/tripling?
I don't know.
Most of them are extremely rare, and I've only seen photos of them.
If I had several under a stereo microscope, I might be able to answer this question, though.
In the photos, I don't see obvious evidence of doubling.
You might get a wider response to this question by posting on the 2009 thread I linked, since it has the title
"Are all proof coins struck more than once?".
@You said:
Would you say it's abnormal/unusual for a pre-1858 Proof to display machine doubling/tripling?
I don't know.
Most of them are extremely rare, and I've only seen photos of them.
If I had several under a stereo microscope, I might be able to answer this question, though.
In the photos, I don't see obvious evidence of doubling.
You might get a wider response to this question by posting on the 2009 thread I linked, since it has the title
"Are all proof coins struck more than once?".
@cladking said:
A proof has full detail since it was struck twice. ...
Actually, not all proofs were struck twice.
Proofs made between 1859 and about 1980 were struck once, but in a special high pressure press.
The "struck twice" story was a theory that was presented as fact in the Red Book for many years.
See this 2009 post from Roger W. Burdette:
Many modern proof coins are struck 2 or three times by special presses.
Prior to about 1980, proof coins were struck once using a high pressure medal press. Before 1858 some "Master coins" or "Specimen" coins were struck more than once - details of operating procedures are inconclusive.
If the modern press is working correctly, you should not be able to see evidence of each strike. On older hydraulic presses (and screw presses) evidence of multiple strikes would be easy to locate.
@cladking said:
A proof has full detail since it was struck twice. ...
Actually, not all proofs were struck twice.
Proofs made between 1859 and about 1980 were struck once, but in a special high pressure press.
The "struck twice" story was a theory that was presented as fact in the Red Book for many years.
See this 2009 post from Roger W. Burdette:
Many modern proof coins are struck 2 or three times by special presses.
Prior to about 1980, proof coins were struck once using a high pressure medal press. Before 1858 some "Master coins" or "Specimen" coins were struck more than once - details of operating procedures are inconclusive.
If the modern press is working correctly, you should not be able to see evidence of each strike. On older hydraulic presses (and screw presses) evidence of multiple strikes would be easy to locate.
I find this quite surprising. I rarely see evidence of multiple strikes on any modern proof so am hardly surprised not to see it on pre-1980 coins.
See Roger's post from later in the same thread:
Modern multistrike presses operate at lower pressure than old hydraulic presses, and this helps lengthen die life. The additional detail from the second or third strike is evident only if you know what the coin is supposed to look like. Edge collars are designed to hold the coin in correct alignment so that doubled devices do not occur. (That type of mechanical control did not exist at the 19th century mint.)
I'd get this same question with full steps for dates 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968-S to 1970-S having to tell them they have a SMS or proof coin and not a business strike. There's a video on YouTube, some guy who claims to have a full step 1967 BS. I don't know if I ever did succeed to convince him otherwise.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
I once saw a 1967 SMS half that had a small bit of curly hair struck into it. Twice. Exact same random pattern, only it moved a bit between strikes.
I have heard it said that most or all of the 1967 SMS coins were struck the same way as the 1968-S and on Proofs. I believe that. I have seen a lot of Proofs from 1968-on with random bits double struck, where the part caught by the second strike was mashed all the way down to the field, unlike ejection doubling where the second impression tends to be up high on the first impression. I believe that such coins are the result of the coins being given two full strikes.
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.
@Dewlynn59 said:
I have an 1919 uk penny made of 95% copper. This is the only example known. See pcgs verification #39837766. I'm seeking $2 million us dollars.
@Dewlynn59 said:
Instructor huh? I don’t give a flying F…?, about your opinion. I’m just following what is out trying to make a few bucks like everyone on this forum. And it’s not cool to be disrespectful boy.
.
.
Remember when the OP "cherry picked a 1933" UK penny, and the photo of the reverse was, conveniently, too out of focus to see the date?
What a coincidence that the current dime photos are also conveniently out of focus - except that it is still apparent that the date is 1973. Not that anyone would mistake it for a proof, in any case.
Looks like someone is trying to pull something, but is just really, really bad at it.
@IkesT said:
Business strike dime from Philadelphia - worth 10 cents. Business strike dimes minted in Philadelphia in that era did not have a mintmark.
It is the 1975 no S proof dime that is valuable.
If it had an s, it would be a disme.
am
100th pint of blood donated 7/19/2022 . Transactions with WilliamF, Relaxn, LukeMarshal, jclovescoins, braddick, JWP, Weather11am, Fairlaneman, Dscoins, lordmarcovan, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, JimW. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that who so believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Based on your previous posts, this is nothing more than low grade trolling, and not very good at that. You're not fooling anyone. At least try to come up with something interesting, not the tired "yes it is, yes it is".
@Nicrow32 said:
Thanks what’s the difference between them
Proof coins are highly reflective and generally will be found in proof sets. The strike is much better, the design is much clearer with a proof as well. Even if circulated, a proof coin is usually easily distinguished from a regular coin.
@leothelyon said:
I'd get this same question with full steps for dates 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968-S to 1970-S having to tell them they have a SMS or proof coin and not a business strike. There's a video on YouTube, some guy who claims to have a full step 1967 BS. I don't know if I ever did succeed to convince him otherwise.
I think it's interesting that only about 2% of 1967 SMS nickels are FS.
I've never understood why collectors ignore the few that are.
@leothelyon said:
I'd get this same question with full steps for dates 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968-S to 1970-S having to tell them they have a SMS or proof coin and not a business strike. There's a video on YouTube, some guy who claims to have a full step 1967 BS. I don't know if I ever did succeed to convince him otherwise.
I should mention as well that I find a few business strike nickels in '67 SMS's from time to time. I almost never find any other denomination BS coins in the openable '66 and '67 sets. I keep thinking maybe the mint did it and someday I'll find a FS '67 BS in the SMS.
@CaptHenway said:
I once saw a 1967 SMS half that had a small bit of curly hair struck into it. Twice. Exact same random pattern, only it moved a bit between strikes.
I have heard it said that most or all of the 1967 SMS coins were struck the same way as the 1968-S and on Proofs. I believe that. I have seen a lot of Proofs from 1968-on with random bits double struck, where the part caught by the second strike was mashed all the way down to the field, unlike ejection doubling where the second impression tends to be up high on the first impression. I believe that such coins are the result of the coins being given two full strikes.
Thanks for the post. I'll pay more attention to such things in the future.
I do believe at least a few SMS's were double struck and are technically proofs but that these are the exception rather than the rule. The ones I've seen tend to have no frost and a very smooth texture. They are all fully struck in every detail. Perhaps they were accidently struck twice.
There are several processes that were used to make these all three years and some of them are oddballs that used different methods. For instance a small percentage of all of these were struck by very poorly engraved dies on highly polished planchets. This specific type was handled far more carefully and most are extremely high grade. They are not attractive but they are mark free. This is most common on the '66 quarter.
Nicrow32
Posts: 20 ✭
Comments
Business strike dime from Philadelphia - worth 10 cents. Business strike dimes minted in Philadelphia in that era did not have a mintmark.
It is the 1975 no S proof dime that is valuable.
Thanks what’s the difference between them
Just a worn dime, nothing special that I'm seeing. Coins from the Philadelphia mint do not have a mint mark.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Proof coins are highly reflective and generally will be found in proof sets. The strike is much better, the design is much clearer with a proof as well. Even if circulated, a proof coin is usually easily distinguished from a regular coin.
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
Thanks
You can see the two known examples and auction records of the 1975 no S proof dime here:
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1975-10c-no-s/5254
Thanks
Cool ... you just learned something.
I get this all the time in the shop, but most folks honestly don't know the difference between proof(or even what thay means), and a dime they see in change. I try to educate them and move on.
Whats funny is people see a headline of a rare coin like this from an auction sale, and they look briefly and find a 300k coin , that just miraculously appeared in change all of a sudden. (not taking away from true finds as that does happen) but the point of the matter everyone is not finding whoppers
For sure a No S Dime
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
Valid question from people who are new to collecting. Dealers get such queries all the time...Good luck in your searches...Cheers, RickO
oh, brother.
My fellow collector,
Please take no offense, we all have to start somewhere...
Buy a Redbook, info you need will be found in these pages...
POST NUBILA PHOEBUS / AFTER CLOUDS, SUN
Love for Music / Collector of Dreck
A proof has full detail since it was struck twice.
The easiest way to distinguish them even after they've been in circulation is that the rim around both sides of the coin will be square in cross section. Usually both rims all the way around are square. Circulation strikes usually have no squareness at all and it is very rarely all the way around either side.
The pictured dime is typical in all ways except being very slightly less worn than average. Of course any circulating dime without a mint mark is getting to be a little unusual so this question will become more common rather than less.
I see two S's on the obverse and three on the reverse.
So the valuable one is a 1975 Pr 5-S dime.
Actually, not all proofs were struck twice.
Proofs made between 1859 and about 1980 were struck once, but in a special high pressure press.
The "struck twice" story was a theory that was presented as fact in the Red Book for many years.
See this 2009 post from Roger W. Burdette:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/8657653/#Comment_8657653
Would you say it's abnormal/unusual for a pre-1858 Proof to display machine doubling/tripling?
I don't know.
Most of them are extremely rare, and I've only seen photos of them.
If I had several under a stereo microscope, I might be able to answer this question, though.
In the photos, I don't see obvious evidence of doubling.
You might get a wider response to this question by posting on the 2009 thread I linked, since it has the title
"Are all proof coins struck more than once?".
Interesting, thanks.
I find this quite surprising. I rarely see evidence of multiple strikes on any modern proof so am hardly surprised not to see it on pre-1980 coins.
See Roger's post from later in the same thread:
I'd get this same question with full steps for dates 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968-S to 1970-S having to tell them they have a SMS or proof coin and not a business strike. There's a video on YouTube, some guy who claims to have a full step 1967 BS. I don't know if I ever did succeed to convince him otherwise.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I once saw a 1967 SMS half that had a small bit of curly hair struck into it. Twice. Exact same random pattern, only it moved a bit between strikes.
I have heard it said that most or all of the 1967 SMS coins were struck the same way as the 1968-S and on Proofs. I believe that. I have seen a lot of Proofs from 1968-on with random bits double struck, where the part caught by the second strike was mashed all the way down to the field, unlike ejection doubling where the second impression tends to be up high on the first impression. I believe that such coins are the result of the coins being given two full strikes.
You need the proof no s dime. You have a business strike. I have the proof.
This 1933 uk. King George v. Pattern coin.
Anyway, welcome aboard @Nicrow32
Wayne
Kennedys are my quest...
we have proof otherwise
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1061594/found-1975-no-mint-mark-dime
maybe you meant this one:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/12982503/#Comment_12982503
Different coins. This is the 1975 no s proof dime BU.
This 1933 uk. King George v. Pattern coin.
Once again, looks like someone is trying to pull something, but is really bad at it.
If it had an s, it would be a disme.
am
Funny
This 1933 uk. King George v. Pattern coin.
Based on your previous posts, this is nothing more than low grade trolling, and not very good at that. You're not fooling anyone. At least try to come up with something interesting, not the tired "yes it is, yes it is".
Another well deserved addition to the ignore list
Do you own one huh?
This 1933 uk. King George v. Pattern coin.
Nope.... and you don't either.
We see huh? But until than put up or shut up.
This 1933 uk. King George v. Pattern coin.
Are you a grader Pcgs, ngc?
This 1933 uk. King George v. Pattern coin.
?
This 1933 uk. King George v. Pattern coin.
?
This 1933 uk. King George v. Pattern coin.
What do you get out of saying ignorant things when someone new is trying to learn.
Bless your heart
🎶 shout shout, let it all out 🎶
Now this is interesting....
@Dewlynn59 's posts have disappeared. Since their profile is "private" we can't seen if they've been banned. Or maybe shadow banned?
Edited to add: I just opened one of the old threads above and they still show up there with an actual icon, so banning apparently did not take place.
@JBK "Dewlynn59 's posts have disappeared."
Oh no! What are we gonna do now?!?!?
This thread is from last year, OP is long gone.
What’s the deal then is it real or not it is shiny and the picture is a bad picture
answer
It’s a real business strike dime worth a dime. One of millions made.
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
Thank you
I think it's interesting that only about 2% of 1967 SMS nickels are FS.
I've never understood why collectors ignore the few that are.
I should mention as well that I find a few business strike nickels in '67 SMS's from time to time. I almost never find any other denomination BS coins in the openable '66 and '67 sets. I keep thinking maybe the mint did it and someday I'll find a FS '67 BS in the SMS.
It could be mere coincidence.
Thanks for the post. I'll pay more attention to such things in the future.
I do believe at least a few SMS's were double struck and are technically proofs but that these are the exception rather than the rule. The ones I've seen tend to have no frost and a very smooth texture. They are all fully struck in every detail. Perhaps they were accidently struck twice.
There are several processes that were used to make these all three years and some of them are oddballs that used different methods. For instance a small percentage of all of these were struck by very poorly engraved dies on highly polished planchets. This specific type was handled far more carefully and most are extremely high grade. They are not attractive but they are mark free. This is most common on the '66 quarter.