Proof-like Crown 1897

[Sergy]

I just have seen the cronw 1897 proof-like. Do it mean that there are proof crown 1897 are exist or it is the first strike of new dies?

[Hussulo]

I just have seen the cronw 1897 proof-like. Do it mean that there are proof crown 1897 are exist or it is the first strike of new dies?

According to my books there is no known proof Crown for 1897. It only comes in business strike with LX or LXI on the edge. Maybe someone with more expertise on proofs like Rob can help?

[Rob]

I just have seen the cronw 1897 proof-like. Do it mean that there are proof crown 1897 are exist or it is the first strike of new dies?

According to my books there is no known proof Crown for 1897. It only comes in business strike with LX or LXI on the edge. Maybe someone with more expertise on proofs like Rob can help?

I'm not aware of any proof old head crowns other than those listed in Davies for 1892 & 1893, but I don't collect crowns so wouldn't pay much attention to whether they were proof-like or not. It also depends on who is calling it proof-like. To some people on ebay a coin is automatically a proof if it is half decent. Many early strikes from new dies show a proof-like finish because the die fields have been polished as the finishing touch.

The key to differentiating between proof and proof-like is in the quality of the legend, rims and edge milling (if any). The polished fields should be in addition to these and should not be the single reason for calling it a proof. Having said all that, there will still be instances where people can't agree.

[Sergy]

Still don't understand.

What I mean by proof-like: mirrored surface + mirrored edge.

It's surely not proof, because the proof is double or more strike, so very sharp details and rims.

So I think there are only two ways to get proof-like crown in 1897:

1) Using old dies from proof crowns (with only one strike).

2) Using absolutely new dies (but I'm not sure why the dies have been polished before using?).

I have looked all my literature and there are no evidences of proof "old head" crowns, apart from 1893.

[E Dawson]

Hi, early strikes will be prooflike as the dies are prep-polished. The flans should have a knife edge and be regular and sharp as well as squared off in profile and occ. may see multiple stikings when seen under magnification. If you have a doubt, definately should take it to an expert. Do post a picture if you can.

[Sergy]

My english is awful!

I don't know how to explain

It is definetly not proof.

Let's forget the "proof-like" word, I hardly suspect it's lead them astray.

It's mirrored field.

So as I know now it's come from new polished dies.

But, does 1897 (or other old head, apart from 1893) crown proof is exist?

[E Dawson]

Sergy, nobody has any record of an 1897 proof crown. I have seen many coins in the English silver series from the mid- to late 1880s through the 1890s to have mirror-like appearance and can occasionally be quite handsome. Unfortunately, many have bagmarks to boot and this detracts from their appearance.

[Sergy]

Sergy, nobody has any record of an 1897 proof crown. I have seen many coins in the English silver series from the mid- to late 1880s through the 1890s to have mirror-like appearance and can occasionally be quite handsome. Unfortunately, many have bagmarks to boot and this detracts from their appearance.

Thank you. It's very attractive, but as you have noticed 99% of them have bagmarks.