Hello Everyone, newbie here

[cjb4691 0]

Hello, my name is Barry, from sunny/ cloudy Devon and I am a complete novice when it comes to coin collecting! I only have a few coins so far, but alas nothing rare or valuable. I am particularly interested in George 111/iv, William iv and Edward Vii crowns, half crowns or shillings in grades that are collectable. I have read a few posts on this site and it's clear that auction sites like eBay can be very hit or miss, regards forgeries and over-grading.

The main reason for joining today was to build up some knowledge and any advice, tips would be appreciated. To highlight my lack of knowledge I can't seem to get a handle on a clear definition of proof coins, as I have read slightly different descriptions in various guides. Can some kind person explain to me what proof means when listed against a particular year eg 1831 William iv shilling?? Yes I'm afraid its that basic!!!

Regards

Barry

[Rob 3,152]

Welcome. You are not the first person to ask this question, but thank you for asking it rather than automatically assuming you have a proof which is the usual way things happen. (This forum is regularly visited by people who automatically assume they have a proof if their coin is in good condition).

Proofs are special strikings and are usually from polished dies. There are a few usual features which once you are familiar with them makes a proof fairly easy to identify. The first thing to remember is that they were never intended for circulation, usually being struck as part of a presentation set. Therefore they are usually found in top grade, though may be impaired with scratches if not looked after. Some are relatively common when sets were made for the public, but others are extremely rare with only a handful known.

The fields on a proof are typically mirrors, though there are some matt proofs which were sandblasted by the mint to make photographing them easier. Do not worry or assume that if a coin has a matt surface it is a sandblasted proof. As there were only ever a handful of these made for any issue, it is unlikely you will ever see one, let alone inadvertently acquire one.

The rim quality is very good and so a proof will usually have sharp 90 degree rims/edges.

The lettering on a proof will often be sharper, with near vertical sides to the characters as opposed to having more angled sides to the letters.

The edge milling if present will be sharp or significantly more so than a currency piece of the same issue to the touch. Proofs are also struck sometimes with plain edges whereas the normal currency pieces would historically have a milled edge. Some years only exist as proofs with a different edge to the currency pieces.

The detail on the portrait will be crisper. The design may also be frosted, but not necessarily so. This is done by sandblasting the die and then polishing the fields, which on the die are the highest point. This gives a cameo effect. Royal Mint sets which were produced in quantity had less care taken over them, so may not exhibit all qualities, particularly the frosted design.

That is a quick list of typical features. Attached is a comparison of 3 shillings which although outside of your collecting period, demonstrate the above points quite well. It has been posted elsewhere on the forum in reply to earlier questions.

As you can see from the attached scan, the left piece is a currency coin, the middle one is a 1953 proof set coin and the one on the right is a 1958 VIP proof shilling. The normal matt finish of a currency coin is what you would normally see. The 1953 is struck from overall polished dies whilst the VIP proof has a frosted bust with mirror fields. You may also be able to just make out the sharper milling.

If you want to collect proofs, do not buy them unless they are in top grade. a badly impaired proof with certain exceptions will be worth only a small amount over the value of a currency piece.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Rob

[cjb4691 0]

Welcome. You are not the first person to ask this question, but thank you for asking it rather than automatically assuming you have a proof which is the usual way things happen. (This forum is regularly visited by people who automatically assume they have a proof if their coin is in good condition).

Proofs are special strikings and are usually from polished dies. There are a few usual features which once you are familiar with them makes a proof fairly easy to identify. The first thing to remember is that they were never intended for circulation, usually being struck as part of a presentation set. Therefore they are usually found in top grade, though may be impaired with scratches if not looked after. Some are relatively common when sets were made for the public, but others are extremely rare with only a handful known.

The fields on a proof are typically mirrors, though there are some matt proofs which were sandblasted by the mint to make photographing them easier. Do not worry or assume that if a coin has a matt surface it is a sandblasted proof. As there were only ever a handful of these made for any issue, it is unlikely you will ever see one, let alone inadvertently acquire one.

The rim quality is very good and so a proof will usually have sharp 90 degree rims/edges.

The lettering on a proof will often be sharper, with near vertical sides to the characters as opposed to having more angled sides to the letters.

The edge milling if present will be sharp or significantly more so than a currency piece of the same issue to the touch. Proofs are also struck sometimes with plain edges whereas the normal currency pieces would historically have a milled edge. Some years only exist as proofs with a different edge to the currency pieces.

The detail on the portrait will be crisper. The design may also be frosted, but not necessarily so. This is done by sandblasting the die and then polishing the fields, which on the die are the highest point. This gives a cameo effect. Royal Mint sets which were produced in quantity had less care taken over them, so may not exhibit all qualities, particularly the frosted design.

That is a quick list of typical features. Attached is a comparison of 3 shillings which although outside of your collecting period, demonstrate the above points quite well. It has been posted elsewhere on the forum in reply to earlier questions.

As you can see from the attached scan, the left piece is a currency coin, the middle one is a 1953 proof set coin and the one on the right is a 1958 VIP proof shilling. The normal matt finish of a currency coin is what you would normally see. The 1953 is struck from overall polished dies whilst the VIP proof has a frosted bust with mirror fields. You may also be able to just make out the sharper milling.

If you want to collect proofs, do not buy them unless they are in top grade. a badly impaired proof with certain exceptions will be worth only a small amount over the value of a currency piece.

[cjb4691 0]

Rob, many thanks for this clarification and the photos were particularly helpful.

[Rob 3,152]

I've got a couple more here which should help to muddy the water a bit. Two examples of an 1876H halfpenny. The first is a regular currency piece and the second is contentious.

Freeman (whose coin this was) contends that the second coin is a proof, whilst others maintain it is a specimen striking. i.e. struck to a higher standard, but not to proof standard. This is a bone of contention. The letters are clearly better on the second coin having sharper sides to them whereas the obviously inferior currency piece has letters which have rounded angles due to die fill and general wear and tear. The fields on the second one are much better too, although the first coin does have prooflike fields in the hand which must not be confused with actual proof fields. The latter may well have parallel raised lines from polishing when viewed under a glass. The rims on the second are clearly sharper than the first, but overall, not so well centred. I also forgot to add in the first reply that proof rims are often slightly wider than those on currency coins.

I'll see what else I can dig out to give you a bit more, but can't help with your chosen denominations as I haven't collected them as a series in the past. Others might be able to help here.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Rob

[Peckris 579]

Rob's picture of those bun halfpennies illustrate the main omission from his otherwise excellent description.

That is - although there should be a sharp dividing line between proofs and currency issues, that is not a "given". The complicating factors are :

1. Large issues of proofs (e.g. in 1953) can be much inferior to VIP proofs, i.e. where few examples were struck. This is less of an issue after 1980 when 'frosted proofs' were again adopted by the Mint after a long gap.

2. Early currency strikes. Even though these involve new rather than proof dies, they are much crisper, finer, and more collectable than where the dies have begun to sustain wear. It should be noted that in the USA, collectors attach a premium to these that place them (in value) much closer to proofs than we in Britain have done, traditionally.

3. The use of proof dies and even proof blanks for currency strikes. These produce much more prooflike strikes than regular dies would. And the use of special blanks are noted throughout the 50s up until the early 60s - the so-called "polished blanks" e.g. the 1961 halfcrown.

In summary, it's not so easy to always tell a proof from a currency strike, and the collecting world - even in the UK - are waking up to the fact that a really crisp early currency strike is not only harder to tell apart from a proof, but should attract a premium far higher than a listed UNC.

[Rob 3,152]

Just noticed that you missed out Victoria but intend to collect Edward VII, in which case all the proofs are matt for this reign. There were no matt proofs made prior to this, so other than Ed. VII you can disregard them as it appears you wouldn't be interested in the later 20th century stuff which is when the sandblasted pieces were made.