How to tell proofs from business strikes on early pieces?

[coinpictures]

A bit of background: About a month back I bought an 1806 1d that NGC had graded as PF64 BN. The dealer I purchased it from was quite insistant that it is not a proof, but rather a business strike with PL surfaces. They've dealt with these coins far more than I have, so I'm not about to doubt their assertion. I have sent the coin into NGC for either confirmation or correction; will probably be a few weeks before I receive the results.

Fast forward to today. I receive another coin that may or may not be a proof. It is a 1770 1/2d that NGC has graded as MS64 BN PL. It has the most prooflike liquid mirror surfaces I've ever seen on a coin of that age.

The $64,000 question: How do you tell a proof from a business strike?

Some pictures below. First 2 are from the dealer; the remainder are mine. Apologies for the crappy photography; I absolutely cannot capture the mirror surfaces.

[Rob]

Regarding the 1806 1d, it should be straightforward to identify if it is a proof or not by matching the detail to a recognised Peck number. As the only currency pieces listed in Peck are 1342 (with incuse curl) and 1343 (without) it should be a simple matter to check for the half a dozen varieties of proof as these have fairly obvious differences. A restrike proof penny will have a plain edge which can't be checked in a slab, but missing or weak features found on the Soho issued pieces will provide enough evidence.

The question of prooflike attributions in slabs is something that muddies the water a bit. I would have thought it not impossible for the various grading companies to incorporate a prooflike strike into their numerical system, after all, if they can knock off a grade for a surface mark, it should be possible to up it a grade for a better than average finish. I suspect therefore that this additional info is a marketing tool to hype up the value. Premium quality (PQ) suffixes are part of the same problem.

How to tell a proof from a quality currency piece? Firstly to be absolutely certain you need it in the hand unless it has features only found on proofs which will differentiate it from a currency piece. The piece you bought is not a proof. The 1770 1/2d proof should have a full round border of teeth. The rim/edge will be a right angle as it was struck in a collar although being in a slab you would not be able to see this. The lettering on proofs is almost always perfectly formed with distinct angles where there is a change of profile and is rarely rounded, but against that must be noted that some proofs are identified by their defective lettering. The fields are typically mirrors, but there are examples where storage conditions have degraded the finish so that it is not necessarily obvious. You have to take all the features into consideration.

Proof or not has frequently been a bone of contention, even amongst the professionals. A coin in my gallery is a prime example of this. The F329A halfpenny is ex- Freeman and is the coin he based the entry in his book on. Spink contend that this is an early strike and not a proof. This coin was slabbed PF66RD in the Terner sale. So what is it? I'm inclined to lean towards Freeman's assessment, but I can see the other side.

A quick glance tells you it is much better than normal. It has full original original colour and if you hold up the coin and use it as a mirror, it is possible to see out into the garden and observe what is going on with virtually full detail but it is still not as perfect as some mirrors I have seen on a proof. For comparison, the currency F329 halfpenny in my gallery has a proof-like reverse which if you hold it up to the light shows the window outline with some shadowy detail for example, but not the garden beyond. It is difficult to compare with words. The rim/edge is a sharper right angle and the lettering is sharper than many acknowledged proofs that I have seen. If you look at the 1 of the date for example it has a flat surface and the sides form angles. There is a close up of this in the anything else posting here where the angular nature of the 1 & 7 characters can be seen. This sharpness of characters is a feature you should be looking for. The obverse is slightly off centre, which counts against it as proofs are supposed to be special strikes and this would be regarded as a minor fault. However, many proofs are not centrally struck. A flat proof rim will often be wider than a currency piece. The general level of crispness of detail is typically better on a proof.

I hope this helps a bit. PM me if you have any questions.

[coinpictures]

Actually it helps greatly!

I really wish I could capture what this coin looks like in hand, because it is completely different from any other 1700s-early 1800s piece I've seen. The blue sheen is so liquid, it almost looks like the coin was made out of reflective plastic (if that makes any sense).

I'm assuming then, that if this is not a proof, it was an early strike. Were there presentation strikes?

As far as the 1806 1d is concerned, here are the pictures I have (NGC PF64 BN):

I had assumed (perhaps erroneously) that the fields on a proof would be perfectly flat and not curve up towards the edges of the coin like this one does.

Dealer pictures:

[Rob]

In answer to your two questions I would say pass but probably and no respectively.

The legend looks currency and if a proof, the fields are sufficiently marked to say it is slightly impaired. The rim however looks much sharper than average although this may be a result of being slabbed in a piece of moulded plastic. The excess metal to the rim is not a regular feature of Soho proofs, but is of currency pieces or Taylor restrikes and may or may not be filed off in the case of the latter pieces.

How many jewels are there in the brooch? Peck states 9 jewels for the currency piece but the picture is not clear enough to say 9 or the 10 that some proofs have. (10 jewels could mean the use of a proof bust punch for a currency die.)

I have attached a picture from a Peck 1326 which clearly shows the improved quality of lettering on a proof over that on your piece and I would say yours isn't a proof simply on the quality of strike, sharp rims aside. However, there are penny collectors on this site with a wider range of knowledge of these pieces than me who would perhaps contradict what I have written. Thoughts anyone?

Edited August 5, 2006 by Rob