Nordle11 Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Just need some opinions before I spend more than it's worth getting it slabbed or whatever. 2 sets of pictures to show it in different light. What made me think proof is the obvious 'sheen' across the whole coin, and the fields are immaculate, even under a microscope, which I've not seen on a currency piece before. Thanks Matt Quote
PWA 1967 Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Looking at the pictures i would say unfortunately not Matt Quote
Nordle11 Posted March 10, 2016 Author Posted March 10, 2016 Maybe just one of the first strikes on a brand new die? I've not really got any experience with proofs so damn near impossible for me to tell, but there's something different about this one compared to pretty much every other penny I've seen so had to ask! Quote
PWA 1967 Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 A nice coin that has been nicely struck of a common year IMO Quote
1949threepence Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Beautiful coin, but I don't think it's a proof, unfortunately, Matt. Might be a specimen strike, however. 1 Quote
VickySilver Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 Edges not there and not quite as crisp as necessary in devices (see B's breast for example). Not proof sadly. 1 Quote
Nordle11 Posted March 11, 2016 Author Posted March 11, 2016 Thanks all! Been staring at it for too long, I appreciate the verdicts. Quote
terrysoldpennies Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 11 hours ago, Nordle11 said: Thanks all! Been staring at it for too long, I appreciate the verdicts. Matt, are you asking if its a polished proof , only I find that they tend to be very difficult to photograph , and the detail on this looks quite clear. I have the same problem with two of my coins . one is a 1967 penny which is extremely shiny but not quit as shiny as the 1953 I have. the coin was my mothers collected in the 1960s , and I am sure its not been tampered with. So my guess is that its a specimen strike. The other is a 1953 penny with a strange sheen ,not at all like a normal circulation coin, so I wondered whether its a matt proof , but it has the same number of teeth as the circulation type, and is not a known type, so its been suggested that I get them checked out by the mint, maybe if you feel strongly about your coin you should do the same Terry Quote
Nordle11 Posted March 12, 2016 Author Posted March 12, 2016 Thanks Terry, yes the thing that made me question it is the sheen that it has, it's as if there is a thin layer of laquer across it which none of my other coins have. Maybe next time I'm in the UK I'll send it off to see if there is anything special about it then. Either way it's a very nice looking coin and one of the better examples I've got. Quote
VickySilver Posted March 12, 2016 Posted March 12, 2016 Uggh! Please don' t use the words "shiny" or "polish(ed)" when it comes to proof, or maybe any coins. "Shiny" at best is imprecise, and implies lack of knowledge of coins. "Polish(ed)" evokes thoughts of the surface of coin being worked over with a cloth or other such. Anyway, a pleasing coin to be sure and nicer than that I have in my by date penny collection. Quote
copper123 Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 nordal it might be the "lustre preserver " sold in the 1970's to coin collectors , just give the coin a five second soak in acetone and see if it disapears Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.