Walking Liberty, Mercury, Washington Proof questions

veryfine · February 26, 2010 6:54AM

When brilliant finish proof Walking Liberty halves, Washington quarters and Mercury dimes (1936-1942) are advertised as having fully mirrored, cloud-free surfaces, should I assume that they have been dipped?

Let's face it, nobody really likes hazy proofs from this period, despite the "original" surfaces. I am aware of the natural result of 60-70 year old silver coins that are housed in tissue paper or flimsy plastic sleeves, typical of the times. Whether they are original or not, do we all agree that they look breathtakingly beautiful when they are fully brilliant with deep reflective mirrors?

When shopping around for these, should I question the originality of a "blast white liquid mirrored" proof from this period?

What's your take on this?

commoncents05 · February 26, 2010 7:01AM

Not necessarily. It's impossible to tell for sure, but I greatly prefer brilliant proofs of 1936-42 and have dealt heavily in them over the past couple of years. People want blast white coins with liquid mirrors.

-Paul

PonyExpress8 · February 26, 2010 7:05AM

Many have been dipped but some probably not. There are nicely toned examples too as well as the cloudy not nice eye appeal ones. Not a definitive answer but I think accurate to what is out there.

PTVETTER · February 26, 2010 7:10AM

I agree most love (not just like) those with dripping luster.

Sometimes a bath is a good thing

veryfine · February 26, 2010 9:52AM

<< <i>Not necessarily. It's impossible to tell for sure, but I greatly prefer brilliant proofs of 1936-42 and have dealt heavily in them over the past couple of years. People want blast white coins with liquid mirrors.

-Paul >>

I agree

veryfine · February 26, 2010 1:44PM

I must admit; I find it amazing that Proofs of that era can still remain completely brilliant and fully mirrored, given the methods of storage at that time.

Walking Liberty, Mercury, Washington Proof questions

Comments

Leave a Comment