1936 Proof Penny

[Coppers 58]

I ran across this coin on the internet today. It claims to be a 1936 proof penny. It certainly does not appear to be one.

1936 "proof" penny

[Gary D 76]

I would suggest that that is a reputable source, but I would also be interested to know what attributes make it a proof.

[Rob 3,152]

It looks a bit impaired with the bagmarks on the reverse. And the obverse doesn't look like it is either.

The post 1926 bronze proofs were normally brilliant (see attached picture of 1935 proof 1/2d) which although it doesn't exclude matt proofs, does raise questions. Aside from the normal proof fields, the lettering is also much sharper. The rims however are not as wide or with such a sharp rim/edge as those of earlier proofs but are better than normal currency pieces. The piece shown does have reasonable rims.

Edited October 11, 2006 by Rob

[Geordie582 18]

Wouldn't you say the surface wear was more than 'bag wear'? I wouldn't have said FDC

[Rob 3,152]

Wouldn't you say the surface wear was more than 'bag wear'? I wouldn't have said FDC

Personally I think you can forget FDC as I believe it is a currency piece which is struggling to make UNC. If you compare the Adams 1936 proof penny lot 357 with the one for sale, there is much less hair detail. A matt proof for photographic purposes must have the same sharp detail found on a bog standard proof, otherwise why make it as a currency piece would suffice.

[josie 8]

Nice picture and info rob on uncirculated and proof coin,Thanks,

[scottishmoney 29]

Crikes, if that thing is proof, I better pull out all my 1936's outta the bag and pawn them off on ya's, mine will set ya back only £100 per.

Wouldn't you say the surface wear was more than 'bag wear'? I wouldn't have said FDC

Personally I think you can forget FDC as I believe it is a currency piece which is struggling to make UNC. If you compare the Adams 1936 proof penny lot 357 with the one for sale, there is much less hair detail. A matt proof for photographic purposes must have the same sharp detail found on a bog standard proof, otherwise why make it as a currency piece would suffice.

Righto.

[Guest E. Dawson]

Actually Rob is being more than generous as that piece does not remotely resemble a proof, to label it as such regardless of the source is patently ridiculous and more a joke than anything. I have "handled" a proof specimen and there is no resemblence. If you look at areas such as Britannia's knee or breast on the reverse & George's hair, cheek and facial hair on the obverse there is not only a lack of detail but actual wear it appears. It does remind me of the 20th C. "matte" pieces offered earlier this year on ebay that came comple with Spink envelopes!

I have seen a couple of other currency examples of the 1936 that have mildly prooflike surfaces that were likely early strikes. Again, this is an example of what is a misrepresented internet offering.

[Guest Deacon_Frost]

Actually Rob is being more than generous as that piece does not remotely resemble a proof, to label it as such regardless of the source is patently ridiculous and more a joke than anything. I have "handled" a proof specimen and there is no resemblence. If you look at areas such as Britannia's knee or breast on the reverse & George's hair, cheek and facial hair on the obverse there is not only a lack of detail but actual wear it appears. It does remind me of the 20th C. "matte" pieces offered earlier this year on ebay that came comple with Spink envelopes!

I have seen a couple of other currency examples of the 1936 that have mildly prooflike surfaces that were likely early strikes. Again, this is an example of what is a misrepresented internet offering.

Assuming it is Rendel Ingram that is selling the coin then i can tell you first hand that he is NOT a "Reputable" dealer. A customer of mine 2 or 3 years ago came to me with an 1831 proof shilling that he had just bought from Rendel Ingram as FDC. The coin was only VF at best and because this customer had not returned the coin within 7 days, he refused to give him his money back, until I got involved. That 1936 is definitely not a proof.

[Rob 3,152]

It does remind me of the 20th C. "matte" pieces offered earlier this year on ebay that came comple with Spink envelopes!

These were discussed and dismissed many times on this forum.

Interestingly, the 1936 proof penny is no longer available and has been removed from the website.

[Andy Bruce 0]

Interestingly, the 1936 proof penny is no longer available and has been removed from the website.

Hello everyone and thanks for pointing this out – as Rob has noticed I have unlisted the coin on behalf of the Guest Dealer concerned.

Both Andy & I try and take a look at this Forum from time to time, but if anyone spots any others that look a bit suspect, then please let us know and we will deal with them accordingly. Click here to contact us

Many thanks

Neelam

[scottishmoney 29]

Interestingly, the 1936 proof penny is no longer available and has been removed from the website.

Hello everyone and thanks for pointing this out – as Rob has noticed I have unlisted the coin on behalf of the Guest Dealer concerned.

Both Andy & I try and take a look at this Forum from time to time, but if anyone spots any others that look a bit suspect, then please let us know and we will deal with them accordingly. Click here to contact us

Many thanks

Neelam

Good show, it did indeed seem off of character for an otherwise terrific and appreciable venue for numismatic perusal.

[Andy Bruce 0]

Good show, it did indeed seem off of character for an otherwise terrific and appreciable venue for numismatic perusal.

Thanks for your comments - much appreciated.

Cheers

Neelam