| Author |
 Replies: 11 / Views: 1,625 |
|
|
New Member
United States
49 Posts |
I'm curious if anyone has any tips for telling proofs from business strikes, especially when it comes to 1964 Kennedy half dollars. On newer coins, the difference is pretty obvious with proofs showing a highly polished mirror like field, very often a strong cameo contrast, and a tell-tale mint mark. With some of the older Kennedys, I have trouble telling higher grade uncirculated coins from proofs, especially if they're weak strikes, or have been mishandled. Here's an example using two 1964 Kennedy halfs from my collection. Both pictures were taking under similar lighting with the same camera. While they're not perfect pictures, they should have similar imperfections that hopefully allow for a reasonable comparison.  This one is very clearly a proof. The photo doesn't do justice to the mirror-like fields. It's got pretty clear details, a well defined rim and overall luster. Even under magnification I can only make out very fine flaws. This is one of the finest brilliant proofs in my (small) collection. I'd say it rivals many of the recent years (though without the cameo that's much more common in later years.) This second coin is an example of the sort I struggle with.  It was sold to me as a proof, but it doesn't seem to exhibit many of the characteristics of the previous example. It's finish is completely different - there's a bit of luster, but overall it seems more matte gray than mirrored silver. The strike doesn't seem nearly as strong and the relief seems lower. Along the cheek and above the ear there's some detail lacking which seems like it could be a bit of wear. There's obvious marks, but I have trouble defining what type they are. About the only quality it exhibits that seems proof-like as compared to similar coins is a fairly well defined rim. I've read through http://www.coingrading.com/isitproof1.html, and I think I'm looking at the right characteristics, but I'm not very confident in this coin in particular. Most others are far more obvious one way or the other, and the 's' mintmark is a clear giveaway :) Any tips or opinions on it that might help guide my untrained eye? |
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
54283 Posts |
The second one has bag marks.
Show your financial support of the Coin Community Family (click here)See my topic on Mexican Numismatic Medals (click here) |
|
New Member
 United States
49 Posts |
Are the little dot looking blemishes the bag marks? I take it that's from the edges/reeds of other coins banging against it? I had thought that might be what they are, but wasn't sure.
Bag marks would be a pretty good indication that it's not a proof, right? It's not exactly a brilliant specimen, but as a business strike it's an least in reasonable shape. Maybe AU?
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
18456 Posts |
The first photo is either a proof or an uncirculated example from a mint set . Usually a proof will be impeccable and easy to tell from an unc. mint strike. The other pic is of a circulated business strike . There are multiple hits on this and would be considered junk silver or a coin of no numismatic value . IMHO.  |
|
Moderator
United States
56855 Posts |
The first coin does not look like a proof to me. Proofs have a lot sharper of a design/strike. The rims are more squared off as well. John1  |
|
New Member
United States
49 Posts |
I can understand the second being worth only melt given the condition. It's far from a stunning coin...
The first though, I'm pretty confident is a proof. In nearly every way it looks like the 1969-s and 1970-s proofs I have on the same page which are more definitively established as proof by the mint mark. Maybe the picture masks some detail; the rim may be obscured by the folder it's in.
Even my 2016-S Silver's field isn't much more mirror like. The '16 does show more detail, though I'm inclined to attribute that to general process improvements through the years.
|
|
Moderator
United States
54283 Posts |
I'm certain the reason some may not think the first photo is of a proof coin is the quality of the photo.
Show your financial support of the Coin Community Family (click here)See my topic on Mexican Numismatic Medals (click here) |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1963 Posts |
I don't think the second one is worth more than spot, it isn't a proof. Can we see a pic of the edge of the first coin?
|
|
Moderator
United States
56855 Posts |
Quote:
I'm certain the reason some may not think the first photo is of a proof coin is the quality of the photo Agreed. Post better pics obverse reverse. Also check google images for comparison with coin in hand. John1 |
|
New Member
United States
49 Posts |
Here's an attempt at better pics on the first coin, removed from my folder. I also included one of the date/rim. Didn't grab a pic of the reverse, but I'll do so in a bit.   |
|
Moderator
United States
56855 Posts |
With the new pic,thanks for that, it does look like a proof. John1 |
|
New Member
United States
49 Posts |
That's a relief. I had my doubts about the second being a proof and realized it wasn't in great condition, though I thought it was a bit better than the consensus here. This one though, I was confident in it being a proof, and happy with it's condition (I really can't find a flaw on it!). I was starting to think I was totally losing it, but it seems I had a decent view of these coins.
Thanks everyone! It's great to be able to get some more experienced opinions to calibrate my own as I learn.
|
| |
Replies: 11 / Views: 1,625 |
|
Posted 01/19/2017 7:01 pm
