Quote: But I have been told repeatedly that "proof" refers to the special die used and does not necessarily mean the coin has mirrored surfaces
This can be true, but only in instances where the Mint has fallen short of its' mission. Perhaps by pushing dies too far in production without repolishing, or a generalized attitude of less care in some eras.
Given I like to collect proof Indian cents, toning is a fact of life. Personally, I'd prefer a toned coin over a low grade one with marks all over the fields. Which I find more distracting than any toning.
I also agree with Prethen, even my darkest brown proof cent has mirrored fields on them, although you may have to tilt the coin a certain way to see them right.
Matte Proofs are an exception to the "brilliant" or mirrored surfaces one expects from Classic Proofs. But, they're also a somewhat different Proofing process.
No/little mirrors usually means the coin has been stripped of the original surfaces.
Quote: No/little mirrors usually means the coin has been stripped of the original surfaces.
Wouldn't that be caught by a grading service? Perhaps I misspoke to talk about toned coins with no mirrors and should have instead said proof coins where the mirrored fields are hard to make out due to toning.
Please check out the video I posted above of the 1910 Barber dime and tell me if you see mirrored fields there. They may still be there, but they are awfully hard to see and that definitely affects the eye appeal in my opinion.
Quote: Please check out the video I posted above of the 1910 Barber dime and tell me if you see mirrored fields there.
I do, when you turn it toward the light. These videos aren't really a fair comparison either. The one is better lit and easier to see throughout the video, where the dime is shot in a dark area (or time of day) which by itself hides a lot of it's nuances.
I've seen dulled mirrors in "good holders", especially 1859 Half Dime Proofs (they usually suck and have terrible mirrors for some reason). I've never seen a Proof with no mirrors in a "good holder". In the video, the Barber dime is never tilted into the light to see any mirrors whereas the half definitely was tilted to show mirrors. That said, is it possible the services put crap in a good holder...totally!
It MUST be remembered how proofs used to be made, and how they are made now. There are very great differences why proofs used to be made and why they are made now.
The slabbed proof dime of 1910 was made and used as a standard to be kept by the mint, and made in very small numbers. The standard blank was made to the highest standard and so were the dies that struck it. The proof strikes were the very first to be struck off these high standard dies. Mostly, after the proofs were struck off, standard blanks were struck off them for the circulation business issuses.
Modern proofs are made for very diferent reasons. Mints around the World became to realise that there were lots of collectors out there, who wanted to buy the old style proofs, because they were of the highest standard and never saw circualtion. It was realised that if the blanks were specially prepared by polishing and the dies were specially prepared by polishing the fields and frosting the details, that they were going to have a highly marketable product, and could be sold to collectors at a very large premium. This sort of approach to marketing and production became very popular among the Mints around the World from about the mid 1960's, and up until the present.
The old style proofs were made in tiny numbers and modern proofs are produced in the millions.
I prefer the NON cameo proofs of the old style, because none of the detail is lost in the cameo process; I don't mind if the fields are polished or not. Pre 1960's old style proofs are MUCH scarcer, therefore prices are much higher.
All right, let's try this one more time. Here is a comparison of the two proof coins, one with heavy toning and one without, shot simultaneously, side-by-side, under the same lighting and in the same location:
XqKFipkEz3o
The dime is a high grade proof and I don't think it would be considered "impaired' in any way. The dark toning simply makes the fields no longer reflective.
So, once again, the question is whether you would prefer a higher grade with less visible mirrors or a lower grade with more visible mirrors (keeping in mind, of course, that the higher grade coin would be more expensive if we were talking the same type of coin).
Barry, the dime's fields appear reflective based around the 9th second of the video. You flashed it way too briefly as the light actually passes over the coin. The half dollar is just a much larger coin and catches the light much more easily. As I noted before, darker toning (unless gone to black and total oxidation) will NOT destroy mirrors. The only thing that will destroy mirrors on these Proofs normally is a bad dip. More than likely (one would at least hope!) the services would not put those in anything but Genuine holders because their surfaces have been compromised.
OK, not "destroy" mirrors, but certainly make them less visible. Surely you can agree with that? I thought the video was as clear evidence as possible since I held the two coins side-by-side, but I'll try another one if you still don't get the point I'm trying to make...
I can pretty much guarantee you, if the dime was the size of the half, with the toning the dime has, the mirrors would be just as obvious as the half currently is. It's just that the flash will be off of darker surfaces.
My apologies, but I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make other than toned mirrors are not as flashy (or obvious?) as white mirrors? Darker surfaces do perhaps need a different tilt into the light to see the mirrors, but as my photos above show, if you tilt it right, you might just see some beautiful (and highly desirable) color come through.
All right, just to make you happy, I switched to comparing the toned proof dime with a non-toned proof Half Dime so you can't claim it's the size difference that makes the mirrors more (or less) visible:
zqzkqCiozvg
Yes, if you hold the dime in the just the right light at just the right angle, you can see some reflectivity. That doesn't change the fact that the reflectivity is not visible in most cases, however. And that was the only point I was trying to make. Not that toning "destroys" mirrors but that it makes the mirrors less visible.
Quote: I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make other than toned mirrors are not as flashy (or obvious?) as white mirrors?
Finally! Yes, that is my point. With a heavily toned coin, the mirrors are not as flashy or obvious, and my question was whether or not that matters to anybody (other than myself, of course). I'm not sure why you had to go on the whole "toning doesn't affect mirrors" tangent, to be honest, since it obviously does.
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited. Contact Us | Advertise Here | Privacy Policy / Terms of Use
First Page
Posted 04/20/2015 5:09 pm
