Royal Mint Proof Coins and Cleaning Signs

[Silvermachine]

Hi All,

New to the forum and have recently been buying a few royal mint silver proofs. I received a 2006 piedfort set yesterday which at first glance looked great, but when viewed in direct sunlight I could see some marks in the fields...

I took some pics and I'm assuming that they've been cleaned in some way? The odd thing is that the raised parts of the design look totally unaffected and I'd always thought cleaning would show as hairlines across the whole coin, whereas these look almost like contact marks that are restricted to the fields only?

Any thoughts on this?

Cheers.

[azda]

Those aren't cleaning marks, those are from poor handling

[Silvermachine]

17 minutes ago, azda said:

Those aren't cleaning marks, those are from poor handling

Thanks Azda,

What I can't understand is that all such marks seem restricted to the fields; I can't see any noticeable marks to the raised/frosted detail; here is another pic...

[Silvermachine]

Also, can I ask what sort of handling would cause such marks; fingers/fingernails or contact with other coins/capsules perhaps?

I'm assuming that proof coins would never have such marks present from the mint; I'm not entirely sure on the details concerning the processes for polishing of dies/planchets etc. but I'm assuming these are far too random for that... 

[azda]

Looking at the field of the Queens side, it doesn't look like a proof field to me, do you have a picture of the entire coin, as i said before, it doesn't look cleaned, more poorly handled, i notice you asked the same question on thesilverforum too ☺️

[Silvermachine]

I did indeed, though I should say that this was before you replied to my post; I'm well aware that you know your onions!

I thought that perhaps decimal coinage was something of less interest around here as I noticed the decimal coinage section is fairly quiet....

It's a piedfort proof coin as part of a set with COAs etc which makes me wonder if it's been dipped and ended up etched in some way as well as having handling marks...

Admittedly I did ensure the lighting in the last photos was as harsh as possible at bringing out all the flaws...will take a pic of the whole coin in better light tomorrow...

Thanks for your advice

Edited April 14, 2019 by Silvermachine

[azda]

40 minutes ago, Silvermachine said:

I did indeed, though I should say that this was before you replied to my post; I'm well aware that you know your onions!

I thought that perhaps decimal coinage was something of less interest around here as I noticed the decimal coinage section is fairly quiet....

It's a piedfort proof coin as part of a set with COAs etc which makes me wonder if it's been dipped and ended up etched in some way as well as having handling marks...

Admittedly I did ensure the lighting in the last photos was as harsh as possible at bringing out all the flaws...will take a pic of the whole coin in better light tomorrow...

Thanks for your advice

This would be how i'd perceive a proof to look like

[Silvermachine]

Yes, 99% of the proof coins I've received have those mirror like fields; these ones are just a bit odd in that the marks seem slightly disguised by light tarnishing.

Never mind anyway; I've contacted the seller and will be returning them.

Thanks again for your help and advice.

[Rob]

Maybe it is out of a BU set, or even an early circulation strike. I don't see anything suggesting a proof in those fields, even if the portraits are frosted.

[azda]

6 minutes ago, Rob said:

Maybe it is out of a BU set, or even an early circulation strike. I don't see anything suggesting a proof in those fields, even if the portraits are frosted.

Thats what i thought as the fields didn't look proof at all

[azda]

8 hours ago, Silvermachine said:

Yes, 99% of the proof coins I've received have those mirror like fields; these ones are just a bit odd in that the marks seem slightly disguised by light tarnishing.

Never mind anyway; I've contacted the seller and will be returning them.

Thanks again for your help and advice.

Before you send it back i'd still be interested in seeing a picture of the whole coin.....

[Silvermachine]

Sorry Azda, just picked this up after getting back from post office; I must admit the fields didn't look like a proof in the pics, but there was a lot of hazing and tarnish cutting down on the reflectivity (sp?). Either way, the seller accepted the return so I'll write it off to a learning experience 😏

[azda]

1 hour ago, Silvermachine said:

Sorry Azda, just picked this up after getting back from post office; I must admit the fields didn't look like a proof in the pics, but there was a lot of hazing and tarnish cutting down on the reflectivity (sp?). Either way, the seller accepted the return so I'll write it off to a learning experience 😏

If you aren’t happy with a coin then it’s always better to let it go and move on. Hopefully you found the experience helpful for future purchases.We learn though mistakes and knowledge 

[VickySilver]

And I think that proof strikes are not always optimal, as well as recognising that the blanks prior to striking are not always polished and there can be areas of the coin (admittedly usually the devices) that may not be fully struck. When there are areas of poor strike/weak strike, details of the original blank including scratches, etc. may not be obliterated...

So we may be talking proof coins that are not prepped or struck in the "completed" fashion, and this may be what occurred in the examples shown.

[Rob]

2 minutes ago, VickySilver said:

And I think that proof strikes are not always optimal, as well as recognising that the blanks prior to striking are not always polished and there can be areas of the coin (admittedly usually the devices) that may not be fully struck. When there are areas of poor strike/weak strike, details of the original blank including scratches, etc. may not be obliterated...

So we may be talking proof coins that are not prepped or struck in the "completed" fashion, and this may be what occurred in the examples shown.

It's difficult to say without seeing in hand, but even if what you have said is true and it is technically a proof, you would still avoid buying it in the knowledge that the majority would not be contentious and so it would be better to wait for a decent one to appear.

[VickySilver]

Rob, I totally agree. I think it is "caveat emptor" when it comes to proofs (or for that matter most coins).

[1949threepence]

On 4/14/2019 at 12:22 PM, Silvermachine said:

Thanks Azda,

What I can't understand is that all such marks seem restricted to the fields; I can't see any noticeable marks to the raised/frosted detail; here is another pic...

Except there's an unexplained brown mark just under the left eye, in the South East corner of the picture.

I'm assuming you didn't buy this direct from the Royal Mint. 

[VickySilver]

I'll stand by my opinion that the "marks" in the field are that, except that they originate from the blank or planchet marring and not fully struck out.

The oxidation spot at the cheek in lower right has nada to do with the other issue of course.

I will still vote proof, not optimally struck.