If a Proof Coin is Touched by Human Hands, It Is No Longer a Proof

Coinosaurus · February 21, 2012 11:12AM

What is the origin of this myth? Was it published in the Redbook or something, and then taken out? I remember being told this when I was a kid, but I have no idea where the information came from.

WaterSport · February 21, 2012 11:36AM

No, proof is a coin making process, not a untouched by humans condition.

WS

braddick · February 21, 2012 11:40AM

The OP's statement would be 100% accurate and correct if it wasn't so incredibly foolish and wrong.

lordmarcovan · February 21, 2012 11:44AM

<< The OP's statement would be 100% accurate and correct if it wasn't so incredibly foolish and wrong. >>

I don't think the OP was stating it was right. He called it the myth that it is. Just forgot to put quotation marks around it in his title.

PS- I can remember hearing it, too. I'll try to remember to skim my 1976 Redbook. In those days I didn't have much access to the numismatic community, so I learned pretty much everything from the Redbook and Coins magazine.

lkeigwin · February 21, 2012 11:50AM

LOL. Coinosaurus knows what he's saying. He's just asking where such a dumb notion came from.

I have no idea. I've heard it before, but from no one with any numismatic sense.
Lance.

LanLord · February 21, 2012 11:54AM

I remember as a kid, being told that exact same thing with regards to "uncirculated" coins.

mrpotatoheadd · February 21, 2012 11:57AM

<< I remember as a kid, being told that exact same thing with regards to "uncirculated" coins. >>

I've seen the same thing on this very forum, when it was claimed a coin received in change could not be considered uncirculated.

RYK · February 21, 2012 11:58AM

I was told the same as a kid. I do not remember anything about special polishing of the dies, mirrored planchets, special strikes--all I knew is that "they were never touched by human hands".

mrpotatoheadd · February 21, 2012 12:00PM

<< all I knew is that "they were never touched by human hands". >>

That's what all the trained monkeys were for, you know.

GoldenEyeNumismatics · February 21, 2012 12:03PM

<< I was told the same as a kid. I do not remember anything about special polishing of the dies, mirrored planchets, special strikes--all I knew is that "they were never touched by human hands". >>

Apparently, monkey hands were ok.

OldEastside · February 21, 2012 12:09PM

I heard this term the othe day on a coinfurmicial,
but I do remember the phrase as a kid back in 1970
in B&M's with bid boards and a lot of collecters, Back
in the late 80's I put together a early Jeff proof set
raw from dealers 2x2 stock and and I still have the
40, 41, and 42 nickel one's that have dyke marks on
the rim from someone that took this myth serious.

Steve

braddick · February 21, 2012 1:35PM

<< 

<< The OP's statement would be 100% accurate and correct if it wasn't so incredibly foolish and wrong. >>

I don't think the OP was stating it was right. He called it the myth that it is. Just forgot to put quotation marks around it in his title.

PS- I can remember hearing it, too. I'll try to remember to skim my 1976 Redbook. In those days I didn't have much access to the numismatic community, so I learned pretty much everything from the Redbook and Coins magazine. >>

OP = "Original Post"

(Not: "Original Poster")

tightbudget · February 21, 2012 1:41PM

Definitely heard that one before. Don't remember when or where, but it's not a new one to me.

nibanny · February 21, 2012 1:43PM

I have heard the same myth in Italy, where I grew up. About uncirculated coins, though. MM

lasvegasteddy · February 21, 2012 1:57PM

the only thing i recall about proofs
they were special coins from special dies
if they circulated they are to be called "impaired"

namwalker · February 21, 2012 1:57PM

Can we take this conversation just one step further. Suppose that you are saving ATB quarters and besides the usual "P", "D", and "S" uncirculated coins you take an ATB Silver Proof set and open it up and put it in you album. Does the value of the silver "S" coins decrease once you break open the mint set up to the price of silver alone.

What was said previously the silver mint coin is the result of a manufacturing process and as such is priced accordingly. Am I mixing the conversation from what the OP said and what other have said. It would seem to my neophyte brain that the coin is still proof but the value has to be diminished.

TwoSides2aCoin · February 21, 2012 2:00PM

As a kid , I heard, "Go get my belt".
That's why kids pants hang down nowadays. We lost the belt.

Coinosaurus · February 21, 2012 2:11PM

<< Am I mixing the conversation from what the OP said and what other have said. It would seem to my neophyte brain that the coin is still proof but the value has to be diminished. >>

The problem is this - if you tell a five-year old anything, they will believe you. Rationally I hear what you are saying. The problem is that I have this childhood recollection that you are WRONG

TwoSides2aCoin · February 21, 2012 2:21PM

If a mint state coin is touched by human hands , it's still mint state. It would actually have to have wear to be less than that. Right ?

lasvegasteddy · February 21, 2012 2:27PM

lots of slabbed mint state coins circulate one would wonder if they're uncirculated by definition

astrorat · February 21, 2012 3:27PM

In early catalogs and pricelists (ca. 1880s - 1920s) it was common to mistakenly refer to coins of exceptional quality as proofs and lesser quality examples as uncirculated. Ignorant were many as to the true definition of a proof. Perhaps the myth of "never been touched by human hands" stemmed from that mislabeling. I recall that as a kid we thought proofs were "never touched by human hands" and we would joke about all the monkeys that must have been working at the US Mint.

PerryHall · February 21, 2012 9:32PM

I never head that one before. As we know, that's total nonsense. A proof only issue can be worn practically smooth and will still be considered as a proof as long as the coin has enough detail to be identified. From a practical viewpoint, most proofs can not be identified as proofs once they enter circulation and their mirrored surfaces are worn down.

19Lyds · February 22, 2012 12:54AM

As a kid in the late 50's, I do remember "proof" being referred to as a coins "condition" much like fine, extra fine.

In short, proof meant perfect.

CoinRaritiesOnline · February 22, 2012 1:07AM

<< I remember as a kid, being told that exact same thing with regards to "uncirculated" coins. >>

Bingo. I think this was the very first thing I "learned" as a coin collector.

I remember a kid telling me (and several other kids standing around) at the Junior High coin club I wandered into. I can still hear his voice in my mind. It's funny how some memories just stick with you.

I also remember thinking much, much later: "HUMAN hands? So a monkey or a dog could touch it and it would still be uncirculated? Sounds like something some kid made up to sound like he knew what he was talking about."

dogwood · February 22, 2012 1:14AM

I remember hearing, and precociously repeating this phrase.
It's obvious that the sealed mint packages, then big slabs they were packaged in, had everything to do with it.
I know, there were UNC sets as well, but uncs were not exclusively found in cellophane or plastic.

Lakesammman · February 22, 2012 1:19AM

You guys must be young - I don't remember what I was told as a kid.

CoinRaritiesOnline · February 22, 2012 1:35AM

<< You guys must be young - I don't remember what I was told as a kid.

>>

I'm pretty sure that when you were young Lakesammman, coins were oval and made out of electrum. Nobody worried much about "uncirculated" back then.

(Actually, I think we are about the same age, but I couldn't resist!).

ColonialCoinUnion · February 22, 2012 3:12AM

I never heard any of this as a kid. It must have been a regional thing.

kiyote · February 22, 2012 3:18AM

I grew up in the 80s-- I remember them being called "untouched" sets for a while for whatever reason.

lordmarcovan · February 22, 2012 4:03AM

<< OP = "Original Post"

(Not: "Original Poster") >>

Braddick- it can stand for either.

We're BOTH right.

So nyah nyah.

JamesMurray · February 22, 2012 4:08AM

<< 

<< I remember as a kid, being told that exact same thing with regards to "uncirculated" coins. >>

I've seen the same thing on this very forum, when it was claimed a coin received in change could not be considered uncirculated. >>

An argument for the ages , ive had coins in change that are nicer condition than some that came from US Mint rolls and bags.

coastaljerseyguy · February 22, 2012 8:56AM

>> I remember as a kid, being told that exact same thing with regards to "uncirculated" coins. >>
>>I've seen the same thing on this very forum, when it was claimed a coin received in change could not be considered uncirculated. >>

Good topic. Actually, how many times do you think a coin could circulate before the TPG's could definitively grade AU, assuming no thumb rubbing or hard contact sliding on a counter. I would think the large the coin, the easier to tell, and maybe 2 or 3 times.

I received a proof dime a while back from my local 7-11 which meant it circulated at least twice, from whomever broke it out of the packet to the cashier then to me. Under a loupe, I could not see any circulation marks and don't doubt it would go Proof 66 or higher. To me, it is circulated, no matter how perfect it looks.

EagleEye · February 22, 2012 11:31AM

Another myth about Proofs is that they are double-struck.

nickel · February 22, 2012 12:39PM

If you need proof , I have a proof coin that is worn down to a grade
of fine , and I know it's a proof because in that year and denomination
the mint only minted proof coins .

stealer · February 22, 2012 1:52PM

<< 

<< I remember as a kid, being told that exact same thing with regards to "uncirculated" coins. >>

I've seen the same thing on this very forum, when it was claimed a coin received in change could not be considered uncirculated. >>

In a technical sense, that is actually true, no? If it has been used in "circulation", then it can in no way be "uncirculated". Perhaps "mint state" is a better word to describe coins that grade 60+ on the Sheldon scale.

mrpotatoheadd · February 22, 2012 1:55PM

<< In a technical sense, that is actually true, no? If it has been used in "circulation", then it can in no way be "uncirculated". >>

If you're grading coins, all that matters is if there is wear and if so, how much. Where the coin has been is not necessarily relevant to the grade.

stealer · February 22, 2012 1:57PM

<< 

<< In a technical sense, that is actually true, no? If it has been used in "circulation", then it can in no way be "uncirculated". >>

If you're grading coins, all that matters is if there is wear and if so, how much. Where the coin has been is not necessarily relevant to the grade. >>

Well that would bring me to the latter portion of my first post that a more proper way to describe a coin that would grade 60+ on the Sheldon scale would be "mint state" because it in no way lends to the idea that the coin has not seen circulation. Of course, it is all a matter of semantics.

mrpotatoheadd · February 22, 2012 2:01PM

<< Well that would bring me to the latter portion of my first post that a more proper way to describe a coin that would grade 60+ on the Sheldon scale would be "mint state" because it in no way lends to the idea that the coin has not seen circulation. >>

What if you're selling raw coins on eBay? How would you describe a mint state coin there?

stealer · February 22, 2012 2:02PM

<< 

<< Well that would bring me to the latter portion of my first post that a more proper way to describe a coin that would grade 60+ on the Sheldon scale would be "mint state" because it in no way lends to the idea that the coin has not seen circulation. >>

What if you're selling raw coins on eBay? How would you describe a mint state coin there?

>>

Well, I don't sell coins on eBay so I don't know how to answer that question...

WoodenJefferson · February 22, 2012 2:44PM

<< Another myth about Proofs is that they are double-struck. >>

They're not?

5:19

If a Proof Coin is Touched by Human Hands, It Is No Longer a Proof

Comments

Leave a Comment