| Author |
 Replies: 11 / Views: 478 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
131 Posts |
Hello I don't know much about coins so forgive me lol but I'm trying to get all my proof coins in the cases I got for them but can't seem to narrow down which ones, aside from the obvious shiny ones, are proofs for my raw unpackaged coins. Can anyone tell me if all 3 of these are proofs (I'm assuming at least 2 are) and if so which ones so I can put them in my shiny case. Im assuming the left and right are proofs? But what about the middle? Id doesn't have much shine but it was in a pack when I bought it that did say proof, hence why I bought it.   I was also told of "gem proof" which I'm thinking might be the one on the right? Its a proof booklet so I don't want to put any non-proofs in it. |
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
56855 Posts |
Please properly crop and rotate photos before posting them.John1 
|
|
Moderator
United States
34393 Posts |
@djr, best practice is to start a new thread for each new coin. That way you can take individual pictures of each coin and we can provide the necessary attention to all of them. The best the pics you take, the more accurate we can be with our estimates of grade. At the moment, all I can say for sure is that the 1972 S is a proof.
"If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb
"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36531 Posts |
Larger photos would help.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
131 Posts |
Ok thanks when I get off ill take some singular photos and do it that way, thanks
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
6454 Posts |
The '64 is almost definitely a proof. The fields are super clean, and it looks like full steps on the reverse. The Mint produced like 1.5B nickels that year, and ran those dies into the ground. The '68, I am not so sure about. I have seen some real gem business strike nickels from those years. The relief looks strong, but the reverse shows Die Deterioration and an uneven surface of the fields. |
|
Valued Member
United States
131 Posts |
|
|
Moderator
United States
56855 Posts |
The 64 looks like an impaired proof and the 68 a business strike. John1 |
|
Valued Member
United States
131 Posts |
Ok cool thanks ill put it in my proof book ill probably scrap the 68 since its not a proof. On a side note though what exactly make it "impaired"? Under a scope there aren't any scratches but it is toning at certain angles which looks like a cracking design throughout (which I like), would that be what's making it an impaired proof? Outside of the tone its in absolutely perfect condition as far as I can tell from the a microscope albeit the crappy camera I used probably didn't help any. I personally took it out of the mint pack my dad purchased so it has not been cleaned or anything btw if that helps.
Edited by Djrev757
12/28/2023 4:19 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
56855 Posts |
Quote:
I personally took it out of the mint pack In that case it is not an impaired proof. An impaired proof coin is a proof coin that has been circulated. John1 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6454 Posts |
That looks like a 1968-D. They only minted business strikes in Denver for that year of nickels. So it's just a nice nickel. Only the San Francisco mint produced both business strike and proof strike nickels for 1968-S.
If you find Monticello steps like that on a normal 1964 nickel, I suggest you buy some good champagne for the celebration. You'll be able to afford it. =)
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
73654 Posts |
2 are Proofs and one is a Business strike.
Errers and Varietys.
|
| |
Replies: 11 / Views: 478 |
|
Posted 12/28/2023 1:01 pm
