Proof or Not

[The Oracle]

The question here is whether this set is authentic or not. Please take a look at a similar set which came up at auction in India and it just said "REPUBLIC OF INDIA" in large font at the bottom. The coins looked UNC and not P/L. Even this set the coins look UNC and not P/L so how can you say this is a mint issued set and not a made up one? In another thread I had raised my doubts about the 1950 and 1954 sets too and given my reasoning. All of my arguments are just based on circumstantial evidence and there needs to be more research by someone looking at the mint records.

all the evidence is present in the coins.  for a coin to be proof it neither requires frosting nor does it require a shiny finish.  proofs have existed long before these 2 technologies became prevalent

[Figleaf]

Suppose a certain type is struck in proof and in circulation strike. If a proof coin gets into circulation by accident, the effects of the proof strike will disappear in time. At some time, there will be no way to tell if the coin was produced as proof or as circulation strike. At that point, it must be assumed that it was a circulation strike, otherwise, all worn coins will qualify as mishandled proofs.

Peter

[The Oracle]

Suppose a certain type is struck in proof and in circulation strike. If a proof coin gets into circulation by accident, the effects of the proof strike will disappear in time. At some time, there will be no way to tell if the coin was produced as proof or as circulation strike. At that point, it must be assumed that it was a circulation strike, otherwise, all worn coins will qualify as mishandled proofs.

Peter

a proof will always remain a proof.  unless you are planning to counter it with basal state coins, even that might be far fetched.  a trained eye will always know whether a coin is proof or not.  coins are proof because they exhibit certain characteristics.  those characteristics do not disappear simple because a coin has wear. 

[Figleaf]

There are not two technologies, but one. A proof strike occurs when a coin is struck

• On a polished planchet
• Slowly
• With more force
• Two to three strikes

The effect is a shiny field and frosted raised parts. If the coin is mis-handled, the frosting disappears quickly. If the coin circulates, the shiny effect disappears from scratches and fingerprints. No matter how much training an eye gets, it is impossible to distinguish a mishandled proof from a circulation issue when it has lost both frosting and shiny fields, unless the die for the proofs was different from the dies used for the circulation strike (e.g. different mint marks.)

See also this post.

Peter

[The Oracle]

There are not two technologies, but one. A proof strike occurs when a coin is struck

• On a polished planchet
• Slowly
• With more force
• Two to three strikes

The effect is a shiny field and frosted raised parts. If the coin is mis-handled, the frosting disappears quickly. If the coin circulates, the shiny effect disappears from scratches and fingerprints. No matter how much training an eye gets, it is impossible to distinguish a mishandled proof from a circulation issue when it has lost both frosting and shiny fields, unless the die for the proofs was different from the dies used for the circulation strike (e.g. different mint marks.)

See also this post.

Peter

Peter,

I have said all i could in my earlier post.  If you still want to hang on to frost and reflective fields despite historical evidence of proof coins that had neither and use mint marks to determine proof coins all i can say is all the best. 

http://www.wikihow.com/Buy-Proof-Coins

[Figleaf]

That page confuses proofs and patterns. The English word proof is indeed confusing, but in numismatics, the term for a trial piece is pattern, not proof.

Peter

[akona20]

This is one of the confusing aspects of numismatics (and there are afew) that become more confused by sellers (and occasionaly the mints).

It comes down to simply what the mint at the time of issue calls it. If the mint didn't call it anything just collectors piece or something similar than the rules Figleaf has stated should apply. However the argument will never be solved because people will add to it and confuse the issue even more.

Bottom line is that sellers will call it what gets them the most money.

[villa66]

a proof will always remain a proof.   

To me this is only a simple statement of truth. A "proof" is so-called because of its method of production, and not its state of preservation, so once a proof, always a proof, whether it can be recognized as such or not. That is, the shipwreck of HMS Proof remains the shipwreck of HMS Proof, even if there is no one who remembers it ever sailed.

As a side note, whenever I hear that frosted devices and mirror fields are required for a coin to qualify as a proof, I automatically think of the matte proofs the U.S. used to produce. Man those were some pretty coins. But there's also no doubt they're not as popularly accessible.

  v.

[Prosit]

I agree proof is method of manufacture....remember my proof 5-Groschen?
http://www.worldofcoins.eu/forum/index.php/topic,15480.0.html

Dale

To me this is only a simple statement of truth. A "proof" is so-called because of its method of production, and not its state of preservation, so once a proof, always a proof, whether it can be recognized as such or not. That is, the shipwreck of HMS Proof remains the shipwreck of HMS Proof, even if there is no one who remembers it ever sailed.

As a side note, whenever I hear that frosted devices and mirror fields are required for a coin to qualify as a proof, I automatically think of the matte proofs the U.S. used to produce. Man those were some pretty coins. But there's also no doubt they're not as popularly accessible.

  v.