How To Tell The Difference Between Canadian Specimen Strikes And Proof-Like Strikes?

I just pulled this nickel out of my pocket .. imaged, edited, and uploaded with my smart phone in about 60 seconds.

Pauliswilling , I feel your pain ( sort of ). After 25 years I still
haven't nailed the terminology from our friends at the RCM .
The newer stuff yes , older no ( simply because I can't afford most of it)
so I haven't bothered .
Besides any of the forum members that have answered to this thread can answer
pretty much anything I can throw at em.
Personally I think ( and others ) your not quite getting the "terminology"
Not the answering terminology or yours , "The terminology "
And I also have found mistakes in Charltons.

Early strikes are hard to tell apart and the quality of the issues were inconsistent.

I once bought a 1952 set, in cardboard, sealed. I thought most looked PL, but only the Dollar came back from ICCS ad PL (66 though, which was a nice bonus). The rest were MS (but superior strikes).

What throws a wrench in all this was the idiotic designation of proof-like (PL) by the mint that were, essentially, just UNC coins for collectors. The coins weren't and never were actually "proof-like"

purelywasted: Read any of the older Charltons, where NCLT was included with regular circulating coinage. Go to the section in the back about "collector coins" and read the sections on "proof-like sets" and "proof-like singles" for both 1950-1953 and 1954-1967. It's VERY interesting reading .. and points to dealers inventing the term.

"early singles prior to 1953 exist, but not in sufficient quantities to merit listing. The sets were surprise packages because there was no condition consistency in their contents. More often than not, the six coins was mixed from brilliant uncirculated to specimen."

(for 54-67) As in the previous listing, all single "proof-like" coins are from sets. However, beginning in 1954, the sets were sold to the public, and the quality became consistent throughout the set, meaning that the coins were actually "proof-like" in appearance. The Mint never recognized this term, selling the coins as brilliant uncirculated "business strikes". In order to avoid complaints about quality, the premium over face value was minimal (59 cents), leaving no room to engage in discussion about quality."

So maybe I was incorrect on my terminology.I collect both US and Canadian Coins. So I meant to say specimen coins. I think most of you know what I meant. Glad you all turned this into a Senfeild episode because I said specimen proof instead of specimen. I would have thought most of you knew what I meant. Had any of you looked at my photos you would have seen I already had a 1937(Which you all swear weren't specimens that year yet) GRADED specimen 62

Forgot to add..If I see my 55th birthday the way they left me I'll consider myself lucky. Just so you know many Coins you own are generally undergraded. Did any of you notice when you submit your coins you always get the Grade before the Big jump up on the grade sheet?( That is unless you are John Feiginbaum ( Owns David Lawrence Coins AND decides what Coins are worth on the grey sheet) OR if you are Heritage Coins or some other big dealer.By the way Heritage has something to do with the grey sheets also ( No conflict of interest there) Just like David Hall Who owns PCGS and also David Hall's Rare Coins ( no conflict of interest there either).