Identifying proof coins

[Kipster 157]

I have a general query with regards to being able to identify a proof strike.

The reason I ask this is because someone has listed a proof farthing for auction on the eBay, and I wanted to see if it was legit or not. Ebay isn't somewhere I would usually buy from, nor would I buy this particular coin as I don't like it, but with the obvious exception of the quality of strike, are there any other features of proof strikes that identify them such as different number of denticles etc? 

[Paddy 1,543]

I probably won't be able to answer this query, but I think we need to know what era you are looking at, as the identifying features are likely to be different.

I was looking at mid 18th century halfpennies earlier and see that Peck notes slight differences in the positioning of some features of the coin for proofs.

[Kipster 157]

Thanks Paddy. I thought there might be something in Peck relating to it, so may have to fish it out.

Victorian farthings really is the era, but from George IV onwards to be broader.

[Peckris 2 2,044]

1 hour ago, Kipster said:

Thanks Paddy. I thought there might be something in Peck relating to it, so may have to fish it out.

Victorian farthings really is the era, but from George IV onwards to be broader.

Generally you need to see it in hand to be sure. However, there are ways of telling a coin is unlikely to be a proof - if the teeth are not of uniform length, spacing, and evenness; if the rim is not of even width or the coin is even slightly off centre; if there is slight flattening to bits of the strike of what appears otherwise to be an uncirculated specimen .. then (for post-1816 coins or post-1797 for copper) I would cast doubts on its being a proof.

[Martinminerva 265]

On 10/8/2023 at 4:52 PM, Kipster said:

The reason I ask this is because someone has listed a proof farthing for auction on the eBay, and I wanted to see if it was legit or not

If by any chance you mean this one, there is NO WAY that's a proof! Pitted and cleaned and maybe lacquered would be my conclusion...

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/335065527190?hash=item4e03763396:g:3IgAAOSwksdlHtKc

Odd that it's been re-listed too. Also argues against it...

If it's not that one, forgive me! I was intrigued by your post and trawled ebay to see what "proofs" there were in Victorian farthings, but to no avail.

Edited October 10, 2023 by Martinminerva
Additions

[Kipster 157]

That's the kiddy. It's a shocker from my point of view. Apologies, I should have posted the link.

 

[copper123 1,352]

Not only not legit a total minger as well

[Paddy 1,543]

Our friend Lukasz again - I think he has been discussed on this forum before.

 

[Rob 3,002]

It depends on what you have as not all apply in all instances. Generally speaking therefore, a proof will have brilliant fields, square rims, sharper milling, squarer sides to the lettering, a better quality of engraving to the detail and is likely to be in close to as struck condition. Although a few proofs get circulated, the vast majority do not, and in the case of non-set years, almost never. Easiest way is comparing a known currency piece with a claimed proof and then look for reasons why it isn't one rather than saying it is better, so must be one.

[Kipster 157]

38 minutes ago, Rob said:

It depends on what you have as not all apply in all instances. Generally speaking therefore, a proof will have brilliant fields, square rims, sharper milling, squarer sides to the lettering, a better quality of engraving to the detail and is likely to be in close to as struck condition. Although a few proofs get circulated, the vast majority do not, and in the case of non-set years, almost never. Easiest way is comparing a known currency piece with a claimed proof and then look for reasons why it isn't one rather than saying it is better, so must be one.

This is interesting. That's pretty much how I would expect for a proof to look, however, this is currently for sale at Baldwins:

https://www.baldwin.co.uk/product/victoria-bronze-proof-halfpenny-1868/

If it wasn't listed as a proof, I wouldn't have necessarily given this a second glance... 

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by Kipster
erroneous word

[Martinminerva 265]

22 minutes ago, Kipster said:

This is interesting. That's pretty much how I would expect for a proof to look, however, this is currently for sale at Baldwins:

https://www.baldwin.co.uk/product/victoria-bronze-proof-halfpenny-1868/

If it wasn't listed as a proof, I wouldn't have necessarily given this a second glance... 

Likewise. Really doesn't look like a proof to me - the weak strike around shield and first digit of date would seem anomalous for a proof. But proofs are notoriously hard to photograph, so may look much better in hand...

As Rob says: Easiest way is comparing a known currency piece with a claimed proof and then look for reasons why it isn't one rather than saying it is better, so must be one.

Edited October 10, 2023 by Martinminerva

[Rob 3,002]

The detail doesn't look sharp enough for me either, but photography can be a nightmare with proofs. I bought some pattern halfpennies in last week's Noonans sale. One or two look like they've been badly abused in my images, yet in hand they are brilliant with not a blemish to be seen. 

[Kipster 157]

2 minutes ago, Rob said:

The detail doesn't look sharp enough for me either, but photography can be a nightmare with proofs. I bought some pattern halfpennies in last week's Noonans sale. One or two look like they've been badly abused in my images, yet in hand they are brilliant with not a blemish to be seen. 

Taking images that give you a true representation of what a coin looks like completely eludes me. But then the old Sony camera is due for punting out on ebay anyway, so maybe a cheap DSLR is needed. I looked at a few proofs when I went to Noonans a few weeks ago, but the images actually made the coins look far nicer than they were in hand. 

[oldcopper 276]

12 hours ago, Rob said:

The detail doesn't look sharp enough for me either, but photography can be a nightmare with proofs. I bought some pattern halfpennies in last week's Noonans sale. One or two look like they've been badly abused in my images, yet in hand they are brilliant with not a blemish to be seen. 

I thought vice versa for quite a few of them!

[Peckris 2 2,044]

On 10/10/2023 at 8:48 PM, Kipster said:

This is interesting. That's pretty much how I would expect for a proof to look, however, this is currently for sale at Baldwins:

https://www.baldwin.co.uk/product/victoria-bronze-proof-halfpenny-1868/

If it wasn't listed as a proof, I wouldn't have necessarily given this a second glance... 

 

Agreed - I wouldn't either.