inflation

[pies 33]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1868-PROOF-PENNY-slabbed-and-graded-by-NGC-as-PF-63-BN-/330876879170?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item4d09cc8142

And i still cant see any difference to a unc

[Peckris 579]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1868-PROOF-PENNY-slabbed-and-graded-by-NGC-as-PF-63-BN-/330876879170?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item4d09cc8142

And i still cant see any difference to a unc

It's subtle - but look at the rim, perfect and even, and the teeth and linear circle, ditto. It also has that 'chocolate brown' appearance that bronzed proofs so often have (and will have been there from the start, i.e. never lustred). The detail is crisp, though some currency UNCs will also be.

[Accumulator 52]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1868-PROOF-PENNY-slabbed-and-graded-by-NGC-as-PF-63-BN-/330876879170?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item4d09cc8142

And i still cant see any difference to a unc

It's subtle - but look at the rim, perfect and even, and the teeth and linear circle, ditto. It also has that 'chocolate brown' appearance that bronzed proofs so often have (and will have been there from the start, i.e. never lustred). The detail is crisp, though some currency UNCs will also be.

I agree entirely with Peck's assessment.

It's very similar to my own 1868 proof, which is in copper. I'd like the bronze one too, but the asking price is a bit steep... more like the price for something slabbed at PF65! Here's mine:

Edited February 21, 2013 by Accumulator

[RLC35 288]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1868-PROOF-PENNY-slabbed-and-graded-by-NGC-as-PF-63-BN-/330876879170?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item4d09cc8142

And i still cant see any difference to a unc

It's subtle - but look at the rim, perfect and even, and the teeth and linear circle, ditto. It also has that 'chocolate brown' appearance that bronzed proofs so often have (and will have been there from the start, i.e. never lustred). The detail is crisp, though some currency UNCs will also be.

I agree entirely with Peck's assessment.

It's very similar to my own 1868 proof, which is in copper. I'd like the bronze one too, but the asking price is a bit steep... more like the price for something slabbed at PF65! Here's mine:

Beautiful Proof Penny Accumulator, and a Rarity of ER!Cool!

[VickySilver 830]

Beautiful proof! I agree, their price is way too high and would not be supported IMO at auction in USA or major London auctions at this juncture. Now, an 1869 or 1871 proof penny would be much worse. LOL!

[Peckris 579]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1868-PROOF-PENNY-slabbed-and-graded-by-NGC-as-PF-63-BN-/330876879170?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item4d09cc8142

And i still cant see any difference to a unc

It's subtle - but look at the rim, perfect and even, and the teeth and linear circle, ditto. It also has that 'chocolate brown' appearance that bronzed proofs so often have (and will have been there from the start, i.e. never lustred). The detail is crisp, though some currency UNCs will also be.

I agree entirely with Peck's assessment.

It's very similar to my own 1868 proof, which is in copper. I'd like the bronze one too, but the asking price is a bit steep... more like the price for something slabbed at PF65! Here's mine:

Beautiful.

[Colin G. 147]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1868-PROOF-PENNY-slabbed-and-graded-by-NGC-as-PF-63-BN-/330876879170?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item4d09cc8142

And i still cant see any difference to a unc

The thing to do is look at one in the flesh rather than an image, it is surprising how different they look, and how obvious the difference is. I know there will be those debatable early strike examples, but a true proof is unmistakeable...but I used to think exactly the same thing!!

[Accumulator 52]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1868-PROOF-PENNY-slabbed-and-graded-by-NGC-as-PF-63-BN-/330876879170?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item4d09cc8142

And i still cant see any difference to a unc

The thing to do is look at one in the flesh rather than an image, it is surprising how different they look, and how obvious the difference is. I know there will be those debatable early strike examples, but a true proof is unmistakeable...but I used to think exactly the same thing!!

Thank you all for your kind comments.

I agree, it can be difficult to tell from a photo but proofs definitely have a different look and feel in the hand The 1868 above is, at least to me, very obviously different from a currency strike. In this particular case, the clincher is the copper content as currency strikes are all bronze.

In some cases, though, proofs and currency strikes look identical in photos. The coin on the left is a 1964 currency strike, while the one on the right looks and feels like a proof (it also has provenance as such), though appears no different in the photo. I understand that the known 1964 proofs are all well-handled, as is this one. I need to work at capturing the essence of the proof in a photo somehow, but it's not easy!

[1949threepence 3,367]

Just as a matter of interest, is the rim of a proof bunpenny, thicker than a business strike ?

Gorgeous looking coins, incidentally.

[Coinery 1,156]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1868-PROOF-PENNY-slabbed-and-graded-by-NGC-as-PF-63-BN-/330876879170?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item4d09cc8142

And i still cant see any difference to a unc

The thing to do is look at one in the flesh rather than an image, it is surprising how different they look, and how obvious the difference is. I know there will be those debatable early strike examples, but a true proof is unmistakeable...but I used to think exactly the same thing!!

Thank you all for your kind comments.

I agree, it can be difficult to tell from a photo but proofs definitely have a different look and feel in the hand The 1868 above is, at least to me, very obviously different from a currency strike. In this particular case, the clincher is the copper content as currency strikes are all bronze.

In some cases, though, proofs and currency strikes look identical in photos. The coin on the left is a 1964 currency strike, while the one on the right looks and feels like a proof (it also has provenance as such), though appears no different in the photo. I understand that the known 1964 proofs are all well-handled, as is this one. I need to work at capturing the essence of the proof in a photo somehow, but it's not easy!

That should confuse things! They appear end on end on my phone, which gave me the chance to look at the images first, before going back to your text to check which way round they were! I had your currency and proof the wrong way round!

I think it's absolutely right that experiencing the actual coins in-hand is the only way forward with proofs. You can hear the words 'specially prepared planchets,' 'even rims,' and 'this tone and that tone' for ever and a day but, the only way anyone is ever going to 'get' it, is by handling as many proofs as they can! It's comparable to dipping, and that is, you only ever really get to know a dipped coin by dipping a few yourself. The great mystery really quickly disappears once you've sat down with a box of old junk and a jar of Goddard's!

[Coinery 1,156]

Just as a matter of interest, is the rim of a proof bunpenny, thicker than a business strike ?

Gorgeous looking coins, incidentally.

Yes, that '68 is absolutely to die for, I wish it were mine! Or I wish I could afford for it to be mine!

[1949threepence 3,367]

Just as a matter of interest, is the rim of a proof bunpenny, thicker than a business strike ?

Gorgeous looking coins, incidentally.

Yes, that '68 is absolutely to die for, I wish it were mine! Or I wish I could afford for it to be mine!

Same here, Stuart. It's sheer class

[Accumulator 52]

Just as a matter of interest, is the rim of a proof bunpenny, thicker than a business strike ?

Gorgeous looking coins, incidentally.

My 1968 certainly has a thick rim, but looking through I'm not sure it's any thicker than some currency strikes for other 'bun' years. If only thickness was a definite marker!

[azda 979]

Coinbuyer555 aka Mike Dennington and has quite a collection. A convert from Platt

[Accumulator 52]

Coinbuyer555 aka Mike Dennington and has quite a collection. A convert from Platt

Despite everything that has been said, Martin Platt owns, or has handled and photographed, one of the best penny collections I've ever seen. So many photos on the 'Coins of the UK' website are courtesy of him. It would be interesting to know if he still has them?

[azda 979]

Coinbuyer555 aka Mike Dennington and has quite a collection. A convert from Platt

Despite everything that has been said, Martin Platt owns, or has handled and photographed, one of the best penny collections I've ever seen. So many photos on the 'Coins of the UK' website are courtesy of him. It would be interesting to know if he still has them?

I doubt it Steve simply because i don't Even think he's a collector. He simply found out how to dupe 100s of collectors out of thousands of pounds. Having rare high grade Coins was a good starting point, bearing in mind he initially started on eBay selling CDs and other junk

[1949threepence 3,367]

Just as a matter of interest, is the rim of a proof bunpenny, thicker than a business strike ?

Gorgeous looking coins, incidentally.

My 1968 certainly has a thick rim, but looking through I'm not sure it's any thicker than some currency strikes for other 'bun' years. If only thickness was a definite marker!

Thanks Steve. I did wonder because my UNC 1881H has lustre quite unlike any I've seen, and it has an unusually thick rim. I've had vague suspicions that it may be an impaired proof, but I've always dismissed them as too fanciful to be realistic.

Edited February 23, 2013 by 1949threepence

[Accumulator 52]

Just as a matter of interest, is the rim of a proof bunpenny, thicker than a business strike ?

Gorgeous looking coins, incidentally.

My 1968 certainly has a thick rim, but looking through I'm not sure it's any thicker than some currency strikes for other 'bun' years. If only thickness was a definite marker!

Thanks Steve. I did wonder because my UNC 1881H has lustre quite unlike any I've seen, and it has an unusually thick rim. I've had vague suspicions that it may be an impaired proof, but I've always dismissed them as too fanciful to be realistic.

My 1881H is poor and due an upgrade, though it does have about 40% lustre. It also has a thin rim, so it would be interesting to see yours. You never know!

[Peckris 579]

Just as a matter of interest, is the rim of a proof bunpenny, thicker than a business strike ?

Gorgeous looking coins, incidentally.

My 1968 certainly has a thick rim, but looking through I'm not sure it's any thicker than some currency strikes for other 'bun' years. If only thickness was a definite marker!

Thanks Steve. I did wonder because my UNC 1881H has lustre quite unlike any I've seen, and it has an unusually thick rim. I've had vague suspicions that it may be an impaired proof, but I've always dismissed them as too fanciful to be realistic.

My 1881H is poor and due an upgrade, though it does have about 40% lustre. It also has a thin rim, so it would be interesting to see yours. You never know!

My 1881s are LITERALLy poor! Well overdue an upgrade, but at today's prices? Hmmm. [Thinks not..]

[1949threepence 3,367]

Just as a matter of interest, is the rim of a proof bunpenny, thicker than a business strike ?

Gorgeous looking coins, incidentally.

My 1968 certainly has a thick rim, but looking through I'm not sure it's any thicker than some currency strikes for other 'bun' years. If only thickness was a definite marker!

Thanks Steve. I did wonder because my UNC 1881H has lustre quite unlike any I've seen, and it has an unusually thick rim. I've had vague suspicions that it may be an impaired proof, but I've always dismissed them as too fanciful to be realistic.

My 1881H is poor and due an upgrade, though it does have about 40% lustre. It also has a thin rim, so it would be interesting to see yours. You never know!

My 1881s are LITERALLy poor! Well overdue an upgrade, but at today's prices? Hmmm. [Thinks not..]

It's not a very good pic to be honest, and it looks totally different in hand. The lustre is very different to normal ~ almost akin to having been polished, although not literally polished. I don't think it is a proof but I have wondered from time to time. The pic is from the Colin Cooke site dating from when I bought it, about July 2011 iirc, for £150

[Peckris 579]

Just as a matter of interest, is the rim of a proof bunpenny, thicker than a business strike ?

Gorgeous looking coins, incidentally.

My 1968 certainly has a thick rim, but looking through I'm not sure it's any thicker than some currency strikes for other 'bun' years. If only thickness was a definite marker!

Thanks Steve. I did wonder because my UNC 1881H has lustre quite unlike any I've seen, and it has an unusually thick rim. I've had vague suspicions that it may be an impaired proof, but I've always dismissed them as too fanciful to be realistic.

My 1881H is poor and due an upgrade, though it does have about 40% lustre. It also has a thin rim, so it would be interesting to see yours. You never know!

My 1881s are LITERALLy poor! Well overdue an upgrade, but at today's prices? Hmmm. [Thinks not..]

It's not a very good pic to be honest, and it looks totally different in hand. The lustre is very different to normal ~ almost akin to having been polished, although not literally polished. I don't think it is a proof but I have wondered from time to time. The pic is from the Colin Cooke site dating from when I bought it, about July 2011 iirc, for £150

Holds up hands to shield eyes from all that Windows ugliness

Nice penny though.

[ski 1]

soooooo......coming back to the 1964 1d.....based on hair detail and sharpness, is the top 1 the proof?

[Peckris 579]

soooooo......coming back to the 1964 1d.....based on hair detail and sharpness, is the top 1 the proof?

Which is the "top" one - the one on the left, or the one on the right?

[Accumulator 52]

Just as a matter of interest, is the rim of a proof bunpenny, thicker than a business strike ?

Gorgeous looking coins, incidentally.

My 1968 certainly has a thick rim, but looking through I'm not sure it's any thicker than some currency strikes for other 'bun' years. If only thickness was a definite marker!

Thanks Steve. I did wonder because my UNC 1881H has lustre quite unlike any I've seen, and it has an unusually thick rim. I've had vague suspicions that it may be an impaired proof, but I've always dismissed them as too fanciful to be realistic.

My 1881H is poor and due an upgrade, though it does have about 40% lustre. It also has a thin rim, so it would be interesting to see yours. You never know!

My 1881s are LITERALLy poor! Well overdue an upgrade, but at today's prices? Hmmm. [Thinks not..]

It's not a very good pic to be honest, and it looks totally different in hand. The lustre is very different to normal ~ almost akin to having been polished, although not literally polished. I don't think it is a proof but I have wondered from time to time. The pic is from the Colin Cooke site dating from when I bought it, about July 2011 iirc, for £150

Nice penny indeed. I don't see any evidence from the photo that it might be proof-like, though it may appear so in the hand.

[Accumulator 52]

soooooo......coming back to the 1964 1d.....based on hair detail and sharpness, is the top 1 the proof?

The 'top' one will be the one on the left if your browser window is too narrow to display them side by side. Actually it's the one on the right that is allegedly the proof and has the mirrored fields. It's so hard to capture that effect in a photograph though.