Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Sign in to follow this  
1949threepence

Prove it's a proof !!!

Recommended Posts

In many cases it's very obvious, for numerous reasons, that a given coin is a proof. There are certain features or aspects which definitively mark it out as such. But with others there just doesn't seem (for me anyway) to be anything about certain coins, touted as proofs, which in any way distinguishes them from an ordinary business strike, let alone a specimen or early strike. But clearly many coins have become marked as proofs over the decades, and now sell as acknowledged proofs, often for a very high price compared to their currency contemporaries.

I look at various coins touted as proofs, and really just would not trust the descriptions/pictures enough to accept that they are. I reckon in many cases we are reliant on some individual's personal opinion from many years ago.  

What is the view of others on here? Do you trust the descriptions implicitly - even the major auction house ones? 

I'm using the following coin as an example of one I don't necessarily trust as being a proof. Not saying it isn't, but differences aren't hitting me in the eye. It's only an example to emphasise my point - there are many others. The coin in question is an 1859 small date penny which went for £2,400 hammer at the recent LCA. It may well be a proof, and I know Peck identified 1859 as being a date where a copper proof penny was produced. But if you can see something about it which is different to an ordinary currency strike, let me know. It's even got that little extension to the base bar of T in GRATIA,  present on all the currency strikes of 1859, which might indicate it comes from the same set of dies.

link to possible 1859 proof 

 

Edited by 1949threepence
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, that 1859 is a clear proof, even from just photos. The design and legends are unusually crisp and detailed, and there's something about the rim too. And the colour - though not proving anything - is distinctive.

But I agree with you about some other coins, especially VIP proofs of the 20th Century. Some of the just look to me like currency strkes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't like to comment of whether the 1859 coin is a proof. However the parallel lines on the reverse of the coin may be due to some cleaning or wiping in the past.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP coin does appear to be a proof, at least to me. However, I quite agree with your statement. I believe the "case for proofiness" has to be proved before being accepted In the Vicky silver series (LOL) there are many exceptional business strikes that have very prooflike appearance but IMO are not. And Peck's point about 20th C. "VIP" proofs are correct as well - I see examples of such with the 1951 and 1953 crowns and other coins from the sets of these years. Also, many TPG slabbed Wreaths in "proof" are IMO not at all, and these have been sold through at auction fairly frequently (I have posted my opinion on some of these several times on these boards as well).

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I have seen it work the other way too - in that some proofs get wrongly slabbed as MS grades by TPG companies that are either conservative or beholden to only listed varieties.  Where that is the case, and an auction house catalogues it as a proof, an opportunity may arise to buy the coin when the other bids are on the slab.  I guess the challenge is knowing when the slab is the one which is wrong! 

Edited by Menger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

For me, that 1859 is a clear proof, even from just photos. The design and legends are unusually crisp and detailed, and there's something about the rim too. And the colour - though not proving anything - is distinctive.

But I agree with you about some other coins, especially VIP proofs of the 20th Century. Some of the just look to me like currency strkes.

Hmm, yes, possibly. But would you still think there was something special about it if it was just being sold as a BIN for £80 on e bay?  

If you would, then fair enough.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always maintained that it is not possible to definitively identify a proof striking of a "normal metal" copper or bronze coin from a photograph unless it is totally pristine. We have all seen the same coin portrayed differently according to the conditions and technology used. The exception might be where a proof die is recognisably different from the working dies used to strike circulation coins. And I'm not sure that I've ever seen such a "different" proof striking. Coupled with the fact that there are probably no existing specimens of freshly struck Victorian circulation coins that have been immediately taken out of circulation and preserved in a collection, it is hard to know how close to "proof condition" an early, well-preserved circulation coin might be. Some of the bronzed proofs are clearly identifiable as proofs but probably because they definitely have never seen circulation.

I bid on that 1859 penny at LCA but might have bid higher had I been able to examine it in hand. I did buy an 1860 F6A proof penny from DNW this year but not before I'd discussed its condition with DNW staff and also obtained a guarantee that I could return if not convinced. In hand it has very reflective and "polished" surfaces that satisfy me that it's a proof but photographs just do not capture that aspect.

My 1861 F37 proof penny has very sharp edges and teeth but photos of it don't look particularly proof-like, although Colin Adams, who owned the coin previously, clearly considered it to be a proof.

Bottom line is that you need to look at it in hand and decide for yourself.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, in some pre Victoria cases, if you know whether (or not depending on date) the reverse is inverted, then you'll also be able to confirm as a proof/currency strike.

With that said, I believe the 1831 proof has both an inverted and non inverted reverse. The non inverted being by far the scarcer. 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2021 at 12:02 AM, ozjohn said:

I wouldn't like to comment of whether the 1859 coin is a proof. However the parallel lines on the reverse of the coin may be due to some cleaning or wiping in the past.

 

I have seen a similar "marbled" effect on 1850's proof Victoria pennies before - Mark Rasmussen's 1859 proof in list 14:

C112.jpg

and the 1856 proof penny last sold LCA 2009:

London Coins : Auction 124 : Lot 663 : L663r.jpg

The only thing that I would be concerned about with LCA's 1859 proof is the apparent wear ie lighter tone to the highpoints of the hair. But it might look different in the hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting. Maybe the marbled effect is a key indicator for a Victorian copper proof. From the 1850's at any rate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2021 at 5:40 AM, 1949threepence said:

In many cases it's very obvious, for numerous reasons, that a given coin is a proof. There are certain features or aspects which definitively mark it out as such. But with others there just doesn't seem (for me anyway) to be anything about certain coins, touted as proofs, which in any way distinguishes them from an ordinary business strike, let alone a specimen or early strike. But clearly many coins have become marked as proofs over the decades, and now sell as acknowledged proofs, often for a very high price compared to their currency contemporaries.

I agree - to me it's only really a proof if it's mirror finish with frosted devices, though I know in many cases that's wrong. My understanding was that a lot of 19th century proofs (and possibly early 20th century) "proofs" (i.e. without contrasted finish) were just nice early strikes anyway, but were labelled as proofs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr T said:

I agree - to me it's only really a proof if it's mirror finish with frosted devices, though I know in many cases that's wrong. My understanding was that a lot of 19th century proofs (and possibly early 20th century) "proofs" (i.e. without contrasted finish) were just nice early strikes anyway, but were labelled as proofs.

Very much so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest, who thinks this is a proof?

 

ploof 1889 rev cropped.jpg

proof 1889 rev cropped.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going for not. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double, me either on 1949 post...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Out of interest, who thinks this is a proof?

 

ploof 1889 rev cropped.jpg

proof 1889 rev cropped.jpg

A Spink SNC from the 70's or 80's specifically commented on these 1889 proof pennies, saying that they thought from their appearance they were not genuine proofs. I don't know which issue the comment was in, and they may have been mistaken but that was one of their cataloguer's views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mrbadexample said:

I'm going for not. :unsure:

 

9 hours ago, VickySilver said:

Double, me either on 1949 post...

 

2 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

A Spink SNC from the 70's or 80's specifically commented on these 1889 proof pennies, saying that they thought from their appearance they were not genuine proofs. I don't know which issue the comment was in, and they may have been mistaken but that was one of their cataloguer's views.

Exactly my thoughts too, after post buy reflection. The coin was advertised as a proof "F129" in the December 2013 LCA, and I somewhat naively went for it , winning for £420. That should have been a hint, because I'm pretty sure it would have fetched considerably more than that, if my enthusiasm had been matched by many others. 

It's not even a correct description: if it really was a proof it would have been advertised as a 127A owing to the fact that it's obverse 12, not 13.

I don't feel I've been entirely done, as it's still a very nice coin, with smooth proof like fields. Sits nicely in my collection as a non proof F127.

link 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree nice coin but just a bit dear for what you ended up with. If it was a big enough issue then I suppose LCA could be approached. I tend to be more passive and let the lesser bargains such as this pass and remember the good ones - maybe karma or ??

I have some fights occ. with the TPGs about "proofiness" of Vicky silver bits (eg an 1859 shilling bought as proof from Spink many years prior)....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, VickySilver said:

I agree nice coin but just a bit dear for what you ended up with. If it was a big enough issue then I suppose LCA could be approached. I tend to be more passive and let the lesser bargains such as this pass and remember the good ones - maybe karma or ??

I have some fights occ. with the TPGs about "proofiness" of Vicky silver bits (eg an 1859 shilling bought as proof from Spink many years prior)....

8 years ago now, so a bit late to take it up with them. Besides, I'm not one for whinging, and accept that it's my fault for not doing my homework properly. 

It's swings and roundabouts with coins. Some you do really well on, and others not so well. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2021 at 4:28 PM, 1949threepence said:

Hmm, yes, possibly. But would you still think there was something special about it if it was just being sold as a BIN for £80 on e bay?  

If you would, then fair enough.  

I'd certainly take a chance on it for £80 - it's a very nice coin!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×