My 1887 Young Head Halfcrown Went Prooflike at NGC!

[VickySilver]

Yes, this coin is superior to all that I have seen, regardless. It went  MS 63PL and is the only prooflike YH verified at either major TPG. Some other specimens are verging on it, but just not quite there. I will tr to post some pictures, but am having trouble at the moment. (still!).

[Rob]

I find it difficult to comprehend that it needs to be confirmed as 'prooflike' by a TPG given the lack of official designation or description. How do they cope with coins that are proofs but not all shite and briny (e.g. matte), and those superior currency strikes that look exactly the same, or close to? It only takes the use of a wrong die or collar to produce something akin to the real thing. This is as bad as Bull assigning prooflike to a halfcrown and calling it a variety, which it ain't.

[Sword]

Congrats, Eric for getting the PL descriptor! Looking forward to seeing it. Obviously, the reflective fields would be obvious to someone seeing the coin in real life, but it is really nice to have it as part of the grade as a photo might not capture it so well.

2 hours ago, Rob said:

I find it difficult to comprehend that it needs to be confirmed as 'prooflike' by a TPG given the lack of official designation or description. How do they cope with coins that are proofs but not all shite and briny (e.g. matte), and those superior currency strikes that look exactly the same, or close to? It only takes the use of a wrong die or collar to produce something akin to the real thing. This is as bad as Bull assigning prooflike to a halfcrown and calling it a variety, which it ain't.

I agree that calling a prooflike coin a "variety" is just wrong. But I think NGC is using the term proof like simply to describe a circulating coin with unusually reflective fields and it is just a description of the appearance. The amount of "reflectivity" needed for the PL destination is of course subjective and depends on the opinion of the grader but then all grading by a TGP is subjective. Descriptors like PL also indicates that coins of the same "grade" can differ significantly in value and desirability despite the impression often given by TGPs to the contrary.

From NGC website:

"Most circulation issue coins have minimally reflective fields, even in Mint State (MS) grades. When a circulation issue coin’s fields exhibit a higher-than-normal degree of reflectivity, the coin is said to be “Prooflike” (or “PL”) because it is reminiscent of a Proof coin. If the fields are deeply mirrored, the coin is said to be “Deep Prooflike” (or “DPL”).

NGC uses the PL or DPL modifiers after an MS coin’s numeric grade, when applicable. These designations indicate only the degree of reflectivity evident in a coin’s fields and make no implication as to other qualities associated with Proof coins, such as frosted devices and superior sharpness."

[Peckris 2]

On 4/22/2026 at 7:59 PM, Sword said:

I agree that calling a prooflike coin a "variety" is just wrong. But I think NGC is using the term proof like simply to describe a circulating coin with unusually reflective fields and it is just a description of the appearance. The amount of "reflectivity" needed for the PL destination is of course subjective and depends on the opinion of the grader but then all grading by a TGP is subjective. Descriptors like PL also indicates that coins of the same "grade" can differ significantly in value and desirability despite the impression often given by TGPs to the contrary.

From NGC website:

"Most circulation issue coins have minimally reflective fields, even in Mint State (MS) grades. When a circulation issue coin’s fields exhibit a higher-than-normal degree of reflectivity, the coin is said to be “Prooflike” (or “PL”) because it is reminiscent of a Proof coin. If the fields are deeply mirrored, the coin is said to be “Deep Prooflike” (or “DPL”).

NGC uses the PL or DPL modifiers after an MS coin’s numeric grade, when applicable. These designations indicate only the degree of reflectivity evident in a coin’s fields and make no implication as to other qualities associated with Proof coins, such as frosted devices and superior sharpness."

Agreed, though there are exceptions like the New York 1960 crown which - though not a proof - has "shiny" fields and commands a premium over the normal ones.

And don't get me started on 'mirror' fields! I remember bidding for and winning a complete 1887 Unc silver currency set at Warwick which more than one dealer there dismissed as cleaned. As the mirroring was in the fields but not on the raised elements of the design and legend, it obviously hadn't been cleaned. Oh well, my gain...

[VickySilver]

Obviously subjective, but as it is my coin that I got because of its superior "finish", and yes Proofllke presentation I requested specific evaluation as such in recognition of that

I have seen a great many Victorian silver pieces and note that many from even the 1840s and 50s to be of more than average attractiveness with very reflective fields.

And this includes the 1887 halfcrown denomination. BUT, as I have said this coin stood out and was remarkable enough that even a very well-known export (whose name I shall leave out) that was visiting on this side of the Atlantic agreed. 

As I think even Rob might agree that the coin is of special status in that regard. A particular varietal? Not in my opinion. I would not dismiss it as simply a subjective and go on.

A really pleasant coin in its own right but not beginning to match a currency 2/6 1839 in true mint state or an 1848/6 in like condition for that matter.