1964 Proof Coin Finishes
cmerlo1
Posts: 8,043 ✭✭✭✭✭
I posted these to the 1964 SMS thread, but thought I'd start a new one as well (the images turned out really nice, except for the brilliant proof- still learning how to shoot those). I noticed over the years that 1964 proofs of all denominations can have a 'satin' appearance. I use that term in the way it's used to describe the 1936 proof type 1 cent and nickel, and some 1950 proofs as well. 1964 is the only year I've seen this on. I've mentioned it in several threads recently. I'm not saying it was intentional, and they are common.
1964 cent- MS- typical business strike from the era:
1964 cent PR 'Satin'- this coin is obviously a proof but does not have mirrors. I have seen this on all denominations, and I think these might be getting mistaken from time to time as SMS coins, though they really don't look like those either. As a variety cherrypicker, I've looked at thousands of proof sets from 1960-1964, and I only see this on 1964 coins:
1964 cent PR 'Brilliant'- typical proof appearance for the era:
Comments
I actually prefer the satin (or better yet the matte) finish on proof coins and I like the reverse proofs on modern day proofs.
Nice photos. Heh! Heh!
I can't offer any insight . . .but I REALLY like where this thread could possibly go . . . . .
Drunner
Those are excellent pictures, and your perception of the finish difference is clearly apparent. I like it. Cheers, RickO
I have seen 1964 proof cents with fields like those shown in photo #2 and with DCAM frosted devices.
Quite unusual and very attractive.
That 1964 cent PR 'Brilliant' example has a similar swirling luster pattern as the early 1940’s Walkers
Nice pics of ole Abe. Love the Satin.
Here's my '64 PF. Sorry, for blurry pics.
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.My PR64BN................
BN ????????
OINK
Here's my shot at it...
I have long noticed this as well.
My guess (and that's all it is) is that due to the extremely high mintage of proofs that year, the dies may have been rushed a bit to meet demand.
I think the satiny proofs of this year are more appealing than the deep mirrored ones, but I am also partial to the satiny 1950/51 coins.
Your shot at what? The OP was talking about different finishes on 1964 cents.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You took some real nice pics there wtg
Very nice photography. I would like to know what camera you used.
Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up!
Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
Thanks!
Canon EOS 80D, with a Canon 180mm macro lens.
I'll look for one of those- that sounds like an awesome look. To me, if the 'satin' finish exists with cameo devices, the die started life in the press with that finish.
Nice pics!
That satin 64 cent makes me want to go hunting for one. Haven’t seen one that pleasing. I guess it’ll be a while before I can go to a show and search.
The 3rd photo in the OP is not an example of what I would call a Brilliant Proof, due to what (from the photo) appears to be slightly frosted obverse devices that contrast with the mirrored fields.
To me a Brilliant Proof 1964 cent has a brilliant mirrored surface across both the fields and devices.
I don’t see why frosted devices should disqualify a Proof coin from being described as “Brilliant”. It’s just that some brilliant Proofs have frosted devices, while others don’t.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Mark.
Good point.
Modern proofs are designated Brilliant, Cameo or DCAM/UCAM by today's hobby.
For those coins which do not warrant a Cameo or better designation, by default they are designated as Brilliant regardless of their appearance. Odd ball coins are relegated to this category, even if they lack a true Brilliant proof finish across the entire surface of the coin.
The current way of designating these coins is fine with me. It allows a collector to look for, find and acquire eye appealing coins with a different appearance, resulting in a collection of these coins that is very interesting.
MFeld Posts: 2,404 ✭✭✭✭✭
May 3, 2020 6:22AM
Your shot at what? The OP was talking about different finishes on 1964 cents
cmerlo1 Posts: 7,050 ✭✭✭✭✭
May 2, 2020 4:50PM in U.S. Coin Forum
I posted these to the 1964 SMS thread, but thought I'd start a new one as well (the images turned out really nice, except for the brilliant proof- still learning how to shoot those). I noticed over the years that 1964 proofs of all denominations can have a 'satin' appearance. I use that term in the way it's used to describe the 1936 proof type 1 cent and nickel, and some 1950 proofs as well.
1964 is the only year I've seen this on. I've mentioned it in several threads recently. I'm not saying it was intentional, and they are common
Attached are photos of a 1964 proof cent I have that has possible DCAM frost on the obverse devices, moderately frosted reverse devices and fields that are not Brilliant. The fields look close to those in photo #2 in the OP.
The photos of this cent are not very good and do not show the coin how it looks in hand. It is an interesting coin.
You're right- looks great with the satin fields and cameo devices. I'll keep my eyes open for one.
I also have a 1964 proof nickel with non Brilliant fields plus DCAM obverse and reverse devices.
That's awesome. Like I said, I've seen the 'satin' fields on on all denominations. The half dollar looks really good also.
I’m amazed that coins from the same year and mint that have been stored together for Atleast the last 50 plus years can tone so differently. I guess not being in holders prob has something to do with it.
Zombie thread.
IT LIVES!!!!!!!
On 5-3-2020 I stated:
"I also have a 1964 proof nickel with non Brilliant fields plus DCAM obverse and reverse devices."
That nickel has recently been graded. It graded PF68 and here is the Trueview photo of that coin.
Also, on 5-2-2020 OldIndianNutKase posted a photo of a PF64BN 1964 cent (a very attractive toned coin, with a pinkish color that reminds me of a grapefruit).
I recently had graded the following 1964 cent. It graded PF66BN and it has a dark purple color.
@SanctionII Love that nickel!! My guess is that because there are no mirrors, it didn't get the DCAM designation.
Also nice to see this thread getting some additional attention.
Like I said earlier, the fact that these can be found with deep cameo devices indicates (at least to me) that the dies had the satin finish on them when new.
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.I have found a both the nickel and the dime from this set, but both of them have full mirrors.
God bless all who believe in him. Do unto others what you expect to be done to you. Dubbed a "Committee Secret Agent" by @mr1931S on 7/23/24. Founding member of CU Anti-Troll League since 9/24/24.