| Author |
 Replies: 19 / Views: 5,352 |
|
New Member
United States
19 Posts |
I found a 1987 S nickel in my change, it is not proof. Anyone know anything about this? Is it an error?
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4212 Posts |
I'd like to see a pic of that 5c. Never hreard of such a beast.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4778 Posts |
Can't say for sure what it is without pics.....
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5854 Posts |
I feel confident that they were only made as proofs. It is possible that it had been in circulation for some time and the mirror surface wore off but we would need pics.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12437 Posts |
I guarantee your coin is a proof, San Francisco has not minted business strike nickels since 1970. Finding it in change is meaningless as a number of forum members have found proof coins from rolls searching. The only way they can get into circulation is by someone breaking a set and spending the coins- happens more often than you think it would. But even an impaired proof will still show obvious signs of being a proof unless it is extremely worn.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
15388 Posts |
 to the CCF.  the coin is a proof strike ... has to be ... but certainly possible to be an impaired proof that has seen circulation. I've personally found 4 proof Jefferson in bank rolls ... it happens. David |
|
Moderator
United States
187637 Posts |
A proof coin will wear down like any other coin. If it circulates long enough, it will look circulated. However, as pointed out above, there are ways to tell if it was struck as a proof unless it is extremely worn. |
|
New Member
 United States
19 Posts |
Thanks all I have an image but the file is too large (863kb) to upload, is there a way to crop an image taken with a phone and emailed? I'll post a pic later but if a proof surface can be worn off I'm sure that's what I have. The coin is circulated for sure but it does still have clear features. What is the definitive way to confirm its proof origin?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3276 Posts |
if you have a photobucket, just upload it to your account. then post the image tag here.
|
|
Moderator
United States
15388 Posts |
Quote:
What is the definitive way to confirm its proof origin? The last circulation-strike San Francisco mint Jefferson was coined in 1970. For me ... the 'S' MM on your coin is the definitive test.  David |
|
New Member
United States
19 Posts |
Thanks murrellington, here's the link  I put the 1987 S next to a couple proof coins, I can see them clearly on my computer, they are less clear on the link pic Edited by michaelsaur
08/13/2011 1:46 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1903 Posts |
I am no expert on nickels but to me the coin on the left in the image just looks buffed and not a proof at all. The 1961 coin lacks a great degree of small details that should be there in a proof quality coin. Again I am no expert but to me the 1987 is the proof and the 1961 isn't
Edited by unholyroller
08/13/2011 2:29 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3276 Posts |
the coin he is referring to is the 1987, not the 1961. Anyways, the 1987 s does look strange. It doesn't look proof at all. But it could just be that the mirror-like surfaces that a proof has have been worn off from circulation. Waiting for other responses as well, for I am no expert.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1903 Posts |
I understand he is asking about the 87s, but he stated the 61 is a proof which I think is wrong and that might be why his comparison is flawed. The 87s is just the victim of circulation wear which makes it look "common" whereas the 61 is "common" but just buffed up to look shiny...... again I am no expert, far from it in fact, just giving my Two Cents...or in this case...two nickels |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3755 Posts |
The 61 looks like it could be a circulated proof as well. Regardless, the simple fact is the 87 IS a proof, period. It has the S mint mark, its a proof. Its simply been in circulation a long time.
|
|
New Member
United States
19 Posts |
Thanks for all the comments. The 1961 is a proof and if you were holding it you'd be 100% sure - sorry for the poor quality of the picture. The 1987 looks like an ordinary nickel - no residual signs that it once looked like the 1961. I'll be glad to email the picture if anyone wants it up close - on my computer the pic enlarges and shows great detail, but that's all lost from the posting. I thank all, I'm pretty confident that what I have is exactly what responders have suggested, a once proof 1987 that now shows no signs of its past.
Edited by michaelsaur
08/14/2011 1:38 pm
|
| |
Replies: 19 / Views: 5,352 |
Posted 08/12/2011 4:16 pm
