Forums

Congrats, Eric for getting the PL descriptor! Looking forward to seeing it. Obviously, the reflective fields would be obvious to someone seeing the coin in real life, but it is really nice to have it as part of the grade as a photo might not capture it so well. I agree that calling a prooflike coin a "variety" is just wrong. But I think NGC is using the term proof like simply to describe a circulating coin with unusually reflective fields and it is just a description of the appearance. The amount of "reflectivity" needed for the PL destination is of course subjective and depends on the opinion of the grader but then all grading by a TGP is subjective. Descriptors like PL also indicates that coins of the same "grade" can differ significantly in value and desirability despite the impression often given by TGPs to the contrary. From NGC website: "Most circulation issue coins have minimally reflective fields, even in Mint State (MS) grades. When a circulation issue coin’s fields exhibit a higher-than-normal degree of reflectivity, the coin is said to be “Prooflike” (or “PL”) because it is reminiscent of a Proof coin. If the fields are deeply mirrored, the coin is said to be “Deep Prooflike” (or “DPL”). NGC uses the PL or DPL modifiers after an MS coin’s numeric grade, when applicable. These designations indicate only the degree of reflectivity evident in a coin’s fields and make no implication as to other qualities associated with Proof coins, such as frosted devices and superior sharpness."

the higher relief is not a one off, in fact the low, more regular looking strike is rare. the relief is the same on the reverse between he 2 types the die looks fine to me I am not very well versed in proof strikes, but the features look very well defined on the more common 2017 coins, can’t rule out that possibility.

Better relief due to a plundered year specimen set? Is the strike of better quality or is that die a proof die recycled for the next stage down in quality? Does the bottom one look like it is from a worn die on its last legs? Is the relief similar on both sides? etc. All valid questions required to make decision. I won't say taken from a proof set because the rims aren't right, but that doesn't preclude the use use of a worn proof die or collar without the other bit. With less than 30K specimen and 14246 proofs struck across 3 sets, the dies should have plenty of life left in them.

Something I’ve noticed is that the vast majority of 5p coins from 2017 seemingly have a much higher relief than other coins from the same queen portrait, but i have seemingly found a 2017 coin with much less relief than the other coins from 2017, much like the other coins from the same time period. I have a photo of the coins here

I find it difficult to comprehend that it needs to be confirmed as 'prooflike' by a TPG given the lack of official designation or description. How do they cope with coins that are proofs but not all shite and briny (e.g. matte), and those superior currency strikes that look exactly the same, or close to? It only takes the use of a wrong die or collar to produce something akin to the real thing. This is as bad as Bull assigning prooflike to a halfcrown and calling it a variety, which it ain't.