Identifying proof 1954 1 Rupee

[1rupee]

... However, silly but true, the set will not sell easily once it has been taken out of its packaging, creating a difficult choice: ...

Not mentioned, the cardboard, if in humid climes, will suck moisture in the air and is equivalent to storing the coins in-between sheets of damp newspaper Modern packaging cardboard is less susceptible, probably because it has more plastic.

For the sake of completeness, the pictures you show in your posts #4 and #13 are of particularly nice (no bag marks) coins struck on faster presses. They do not have white raised elements. They are not proofs.

Peter, they have to be proofs, or fake. Reason is the Govt did not mint those denominations on those years for circulation. Those only came in proof sets. The term "proof" could have been loosely used in those times. Nowadays we have proof, reverse proof, whatever else proof.

[Figleaf]

Indeed, some mints have used the term "proof" quite loosely for commercial reasons: they are considerably cheaper to produce than proofs, mainly because they do not require extra care (proofs are struck piece by piece by a guy with white gloves who inspects each coin immediately after it is struck) and a slow press to produce, but by calling them proofs you can price them like proofs. In more brutal language: calling them a proof is a commercial lie. Contrary to what marketeers think, commercial lies are also lies.

KM used to call such coins "prooflike". I would not use that term, as it is equally misleading. As noted above, proof is not a grade but a production technique. These coins were not struck with that technique.

Peter

[1rupee]

I am reasonably certain that the 1954 Bombay proofs were not given white glove treatment and inspected piece by piece for quality

Every mint produces proofs, but each one defines their product differently. I am of the opinion of accepting the mint's outputs for what they are. If a mint says "hey, this is my proof coin", I will consider that coin as proof for that mint.

Interesting tidbits from GOVMINT: It says inventor of proofs was one Adam Eckfeldt. The Philly mint produced the first proof ~1817. 2017 feels like a long time ago, this is 200 years prior to that. Then, the EIC was still hand hammering their coins in the Presidencies. Cowrie shells were widely used as currency in various regions of the globe. 

[krishna]

How would one identfy a 1950s 1 rupee coin as proof? In the photo below, the middle coin is slightly different.

Differences of the middle coin as opposed to the ones on R & L:

• field is "mirrory" in contrast to a frosty 1. The other two dont have much differentiation
• rim is thicker, visible on both sides
• lion's moustache is clearer
• along the security edge, there are short spaces where there no "dots" in the middle "sandwiched" region. These spaces occur at 5 and 10 o'clock in the middle coin, at 3 and 8-9 on R, 12 and 6 on L

Thanks, and appreciate all clarifications!

the 1954 coin in the centre, with its cameo type finish looks like a proof to me, if you feel the same, better try to get it graded, its current valuation is pretty high, might be worth the investment

it is said that the Indian mints used to ship a large quantity of their proof sets in special packaging to the USA collector community, especially till early 1980s FAO themes, as that generation started liquidating the sets in the market since the early 2000s, the market was flush with such sets and such sets in a bad condition keep on circulating in auctions till date

Since the packaging was flimsy and prone to disintegrate, many coins were sold in loose condition by the local dealers, which are still circulating in the market

[1rupee]

Thanks @krishna . I am thinking of sending the 54 for grading soon, along with a few others.

it is said that the Indian mints used to ship a large quantity of their proof sets in special packaging to the USA collector community, especially till early 1980s FAO themes, as that generation started liquidating the sets in the market since the early 2000s, the market was flush with such sets and such sets in a bad condition keep on circulating in auctions till date

I can verify that this is a true statement. I picked up the entire set of FAO Rs 10 UNC loose from this LCS. I think it came from a single collector, as there were no duplicates. No demand as, as I searched and searched, the entire set revealed themselves. Nobody had purchased them in what many years.

Rs 50, I found only 1. Somebody else had picked the silver ones before I did

[1rupee]

Here is an image from upcoming Stephen Album auction for a 1950 proof rupee, NGC graded PF 65. This 1950 proof has a slightly different font for RUPEE and date as compared to circulation. But it seems that a significant identifier for the 1954 is the thick rim. Any image of these 1950/54 Rupees I see which are claimed as proof have the thick rim

[krishna]

The reliefs are pretty sharp and crisp, with a cameo type finish, definitely qualifying as a specimen (presentation) coin
But was it intended to be a proof or just a brilliant uncirculated piece??
As proof is a proof only if the mint defines it as a proof, i.e. the best possible finish which can be provided to the coin