MS vs Proof Collecting (Classics Only) - Preference shift?
Catbert
Posts: 7,526 ✭✭✭✭✭
My thread is drawn from anecdotal evidence, but I'm curious if others have noticed a small preference trend forming among experienced collectors. In talks with several fellow collectors, they have shifted from collecting MS/AU classic coinage to Proof classic type or they restrict themselves to proof only. Reasons shared: comparatively lower prices, lower mintage, fabulous strikes/surfaces, powerful eye appeal. Of course, plenty of proof coinage can be dogs, but that is not what these experienced collectors seek.
Have any experienced collectors seen a preference shift?
Seated Half Society member #38
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
4
Comments
I always thought a Barber half proof set might be preferable to the circ set.
I’ve always collected both in my type sets. I will say that if I start selling off, the proofs will be last.
Perhaps a larger question is whether there is a trend towards type as opposed to series. Such a trend might manifest as a proof bias.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
When I was putting together my type set, I always preferred proofs for all of the reasons you mentioned.
If I was putting together a set of high grade, uncirculated coins I would still prefer proofs. However, nearly my entire collection is circulated.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Catbert, it’s a coincidence that you made this post because I was just pondering this exact thing the other day.
It does seem to me that there has been an increased interest in the proof issues, especially the 19th century classics. I’m not entirely sure why that thought crossed my mind—perhaps just a gut feeling.
Personally I do prefer the proof issues, especially any Barber and Seated. I haven’t been bold enough to attempt a full set of any of the series (except the very short four year double dime run), but I’d like to one day.
I’ve been slowing transitioning my type set examples from MS to proofs. I especially love finding them in OGH with CAC stickers. I stick to a grade range btw. 62 and 65 which keeps them more affordable.
And of course, this thread needs a few more coin photos:
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
I agree with this line here: "comparatively lower prices, lower mintage, fabulous strikes/surfaces, powerful eye appeal". The allure of the minting process for Proofs is also a draw for me - you can see a lot more in the coins themselves. I also quite honestly don't like the look of most coins beyond choice AU - they look the same to me and lose a lot of "charm". Every Proof is different in their own way.
I'm collecting two classic year sets and I'll take them either way. The years are hard enough to find as it is.
Makes sense. Lower mintage, frequently less expensive, nicer example. Top grade MS coins are mostly much rarer. Same thing goes on with stamps. The Proofs are way underpriced. You can often get an entire set in proof for the price of one original high denomination stamp in the same set.
I can’t speak to proofs across all types, but I find the 1936-1942 proofs particularly appealing. The brevity of the various series—especially as compared to the much more extensive runs of their business strike counterparts—offers lots of opportunity to complete full sets in high grade with great eye appeal.
Plus there’s the affordability aspect. Comparing key dates for Mercury dimes (which is the series I’m most familiar with): Full retail for the 1936 proof in 66 is around $1500. Full retail for a 1921-D in 66FB is above $10K.
Proof Mercs started as a side quest for me, but over the last couple of years I’ve become more focused on completing the proof set than I am on the business strike set.
I've been lucky enough to see one of the finest sets of MS Walkers, and the owner of said set absolutely gushes over my PR68 1942 half. You are right on these coins though, they were my major starting place in numismatic collecting.
Hi Catbert, I have been primarily a Proof collector since the the 1990's. Over the past few years I have become fond of draped bust dollars and Pioneer/Private issues. Don't want to sell any of the Proofs of course. Like everyone has stated Proofs are wonderful examples of US coinage.
So yes @Catbert, in the beginning, when I started collecting in earnest, I shunned proofs. For whatever reason the premise of collecting “made for collectors” items didn’t appeal to me. But then after completing my MS Lincoln set, I was introduced to Matte Proof Lincolns and caught the bug. I decided to try and complete a proof type set of cents and actually got pretty far… even managing to obtain a proof 1841 cent and an 1848 cent, and mostly nice cameo examples of the Fliers and sub-types of Indians. Even today I am more drawn to these types of coins in these series where proofs are rare, desirable and occasionally beautiful.
Today my collection is much more extensive, but I don’t own even a single proof large cent. I have never owned a proof Matron Head. Ultimately I will own these types in proof as well, and remain committed to waiting for the “right coin”
Empty Nest Collection
I got in deep with classic proofs but when they sold, they brought good money. I did well.
At the same time a good dealer friend told me that nobody wanted then.
Hi Idhair, What do you consider classic Proofs? I was told that Proofs were esoteric by a dealer.
Is it possible that the dealer was referring to Classic Head Proof coins, rather than Proof “classic” coins?
If so, he was correct but if not, he was clearly wrong.
Edited to add: I’m not collecting at this time but if I were, I’d acquire a mix of circulation strike and Proof examples for a type set. I wouldn’t limit myself to one and not the other. I’d prefer diversity and buying the coins that spoke to me, regardless of their method of manufacture. As I like to suggest to collectors - Don’t be a slave to your collecting. You should feel free to collect as you prefer.
Regarding the appeal of circulation strikes vs. Proofs - each can offer wonderful, highly eye appealing options. However, all else being equal, I’d usually opt for a fabulous mint condition circulation strike. Because, I can have more appreciation for a coin that was intended to circulate, but somehow defied very long odds. Proofs, on the other hand, were meant to be saved. So even with much lower mintages, they haven’t defied the odds that circulation strikes have.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The curse of hairlines on the bigger coins would seem to be an significant obstacle to finding the right proof. Duh, you say? This factor has been an inhibitor for me since to mostly avoid these distracting marks, one has to get a PR65 or higher. Then cost becomes a factor.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Awesome coins everyone!
I collect mainly proof like Morgan's for myself. I also am building a set of business strikes Morgans for my grandson.
Unfortunately for me I chose to sell a large portion of my coins to fund a $15,000 boiler. I don't like credit cards so if I have a means other then using a CC I do. I'll build my PL collection back up it will just take time.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7
Yes, proof mintages are lower, but the proofs aren't necessarily scarcer in comparable or equivalent quality. This is my inference when prices are higher on business strikes, aside from collectors who prefer coins actually struck for circulation.
In the past I considered buying Seated quarters and halves in a grade like 63, but my standards have increased and the ones I'd want now are a lot more expensive. I do think prices on some of the earlier ones did represent good value (PR-63 1857 quarter) but don't know what it sells for now.
One of my goals is completing the MS Barber dime set and the Proof set. Quite a lofty goal, Im aware, but I am well on my way for both sets! Im 60% complete on the MS set but only 16% complete on the dimes, but I have acquired the better dates of the set, hopefully the rest will be easier! Here are some of my favorite proof dimes.
I have mostly business strike coins but IMHO proof Morgan’s and DEs are Picasso’s.
I might go against the grain a bit. I started collecting proofs (thus the handle). They are hands down top notch for eye appeal so I gravitated to them as a novice collector. Over time I moved to early business strikes due to the challenge of attaining them and the broad variation amongst them. Proof coins are always “nice” and pretty readily available. Original mint state early gold on the other hand…..
I do plan to get back into proof in the future but the prices have really jumped since the early 2000s when I started.
AMEN! I heard the proofs in the National Collection were all scrubbed up by former Curators.
I love both MS and proof, and find beauty in both, but there is no denying the eye appeal factor of a colorfully toned superb gem proof, particularly in the Seated and Barber eras.
Thats one hell of a Saint Gaudens proof. IMHO Proof Matte gold is the king of kings when it comes to coin collecting.
As most of you know, I primarily collect pioneer and private issues for my own collection. These coins are almost in a different category entirely, independent of proof or business strike designation, due to the substantial variance in production quality. I've been adhering to the "Box of 25" strategy for my core collection, and the only two non-pioneer coins are proofs that I posted in my first comment. I've always loved proof gold, with the exception of matte proof gold (sorry to any matte proof enthusiasts). I still appreciate the when they have rich original orange glow and flawless surfaces, but 9/10 times they don't do very much for me at all.
Only recently did I acquire my 1863 $1 in PR66 CAM (cac), one of just 460 struck, the lowest mintage in proof next to the proof-only issue of 1858. While I acknowledge that nearly all of them have survived, this coin gave me a newfound appreciation for proofs in this type of condition.
While it's indisputable that business strike coins were meant to circulate and proofs to be collected, I would still opine the In their own way, coins like these did indeed defy the odds. All I would point out is that because of the difference in the "quality of life" between MS and PR, the market sets the bar much higher for what qualifies as a "desirable" or "extraordinary" proof coin. With business strikes, you could have a 61 or a 62 thats among the top of the condition census, with gorgeous original color and gently abraded surfaces. On the other hand, I can't see myself pursuing a proof coin below PR-63. Relatively speaking, a Proof-61 is almost like the equivalent of an F-15, both are at the low end of the spectrum of what an example should realistically look like.
I'm not sure about anyone else, but I still find it to be an extraordinary feat when a proof coin issued almost 200 years ago, during a time with no contemporary storage methods or humidity control, survived all this time without being mishandled, washed, scratched, environmentally damaged, entered into circulation, or otherwise affected by handling or being tampered with. Even so much as an oily fingerprint could substantially negate its desirability, but yet they exist in pristine condition, passed down though generation after generation, stored inside of what? Some tissue paper and a wooden box? A felt lined drawer, perhaps? And yet examples remain razor sharp, with vivid unbroken toning and minimally visible hairlines, not metal movement to be found. I absolutely prefer un-brightened examples, but even black and white coins with heavy contrast and watery mirrors have an astounding level of appeal. When a coin possesses all of the above, in addition to the undisturbed story-telling patina of history, I consider it to be nothing short of a miracle.
So while I can acknowledge the sentiment of purpose, I couldn't scoff or write off proofs because of the intent of production. As @Mfeld says, I prefer to let the coin do the talking, and as a result, there are coins that I dream about owning in choice VF, and others that I wouldn't settle for less than PR65-Cam.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
With all of that said, my true love will always be Pioneer gold, and that will never change. I have some amazing coins in my box ‘25, coins that I’m very fortunate to be able to own. BUT, given the opportunity to own this coin, at a price that would even be remotely feasible for me, I would sell my collection and all other worldly possessions. Even go into debt if necessary, provided that I’d be able to recover. Lucky for me, this one will probably never trade under 8 figures again, if it trades at all.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
So I'm not going to be buying your Norris in a hasty fire sale anytime soon?😢
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
This is one of my top 5 US coins for desirability. I'd far prefer to own it over any federal gold coin, proof or not. (Yes, it's totally out of my league.)
This one is more affordable:
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1852-1-20-humbert/10194
If we all collected the same way and liked the same coins life would be very boring. I have always had a bias towards matte proofs ever since I put together a set of Lincoln’s minus the 1909-VDB and expanded to matte proof Buffalo’s.
I prefer MS issues.
I have collected type coins as Proofs, when I can get or afford them. My perception is that more collectors still prefer the business strike coins. Maybe that’s changing.
I look at my collection and it’s about 95% proof coins- those coins that are not proof are not available in proof (CD, Chain Cent, Fugio, etc). To my eye they are just more beautiful.
I collect type, both a proof and a MS example when resources allow, and of course if available in proof. Each have their merits and appearances can be very distinct.
Looks OK but 8 figures is crazy expensive for the lowest-graded coin in a series.
/s
Although I like the look of Proof Morgans better and would prefer owning them, if only I could afford them since I wanted to collect the set. Only my BS 93-S is more then any date PR63 Morgan, and as noted, PR63 Morgans usually have a lot of hairlines. Also collect Peace dollars so no preference there.
Eye appealing, high quality proof coins v. eye appealing, high quality circulation strike coins.
Which are more desirable?
That is a question that can not be answered (with any credibility) outside of a person by person response (and even then, a single person may change their answer on one or more occasions).
For me, I enjoy and appreciate eye appealing, high quality circulation strike coins, for example:
However, high quality circulation strike coins usually have more flaws than similar quality proof coins (due to the nature of their manufacture compared to the manufacture of proof coins).
This leads me to marvel at and be more attracted to high quality proof coins. For example (coins I can view from afar via photos):
and four coins of mine that I can view, in hand under good lighting:
I am drawn to coins as they are tangible artifacts of history. Holding a coin is like a time warp for my imagination. This effect is dulled by high end MS and Proofs due to the obvious nature of them sitting out the passing of time on the sidelines only to be handled on occasion by various studious figures with varying degrees of mustard stains on their shirts. A VF 1870cc DE holds way more appeal to these eyes than any Proof DE. Im not oblivious to their beauty or rarity but they are just missing that intellectual spark. That said Ill take the 1922 HR Statin Proof Peace please
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Ha! Sentence of the day!
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Cat, I started collecting decades ago with building a Type Set, with mostly Business Strike coins, other than moderns. About 12 years ago or so I was enlightened by a collector who pointed out to me the advantages of obtaining Proof coins for that set over MS. So as I continued to upgrade, most of the coins I then obtained were proofs.
Since then, I’ve put together a nice 1936 - 1942 U.S. Proof Set and more recently, a nice Matte Proof Buffalo Set. Just two weeks ago I started putting together a Proof Barber Dime Set, that I expect will end up mostly CAM, other than 1902 - 1904, and 1915.
Don’t worry about competition, @erwindoc or @Eldorado9. Unlike your gorgeous toners, my personal taste leans towards black and whites.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
I can’t speak for others, but I prefer business strikes. Proofs have low mintages but they were meant to be collected and saved making them more available than their meager numbers may suggest.. I do agree that they tone up very nicely and are struck very well, which makes them quite eye appealing.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Proofs often provide sharper images of the design details. There are exceptions, like the Proofs made from overly polished dies especially from 1940 to ‘42. This is what I prefer Proofs as type coins.
If matte proofs continued to be made of all the classic designs after 1916, we would have had a lot more examples of sharper images of our best designs.