1955 proof and specimen coins

wwwww · July 20, 2017, 01:17:13 PM

Proof:

Specimen:

Should these be considered different coin types?

Mint reports show that 311 proofs were produced and 733 specimen strikes were produced but at the moment they all get classified as proofs. Considering they were different enough for the mint to differentiate them, would you support them being collected as separate coin types?

I know a few pre-decimal proof collectors who've expressed an interest in having well matched sets (i.e. they want proofs and not specimens in their sets).

It should be noted that both proof and specimen strikes were produced for all 1955 and 1956 Melbourne proofs though I'm still doing research on those.

Nevol · July 20, 2017, 02:04:14 PM

Well if I was given my druthers, I'druther have the specimen. :winkextra:

wwwww · July 20, 2017, 02:21:43 PM

I personally like the proofs better, they're a deeper strike with a more intense finish. I'm still researching this but the sixpence have noticeably less strike depth on the specimens than the proofs.

The 1955 specimens are more common but the 1956 specimens are rarer.

trout · July 20, 2017, 03:15:45 PM

The two coins DO look to be a completely different strike and they should be recognised as 2 different coin types, But If you are going to try to get PCGS to differentiate between the Proofs and Specimens and attribute them accordingly I wish you the Best of Luck Mate :angel:

wwwww · July 20, 2017, 03:39:14 PM

I think this will be a pretty easy case, got a copy of a Melbourne mint report which shows the mint actually called them proof and specimen strikes respectively and had different mintages of each.

Unicorn · July 20, 2017, 03:47:03 PM

I think two separate types, especially with the Mint info available.

trout · July 20, 2017, 04:17:12 PM

Quote from: 'wwwww' pid='110177' dateline='1500530954'I think this will be a pretty easy case, got a copy of a Melbourne mint report which shows the mint actually called them proof and specimen strikes respectively and had different mintages of each.

So what about the 97 coins already graded as PR by PCGS that is nearly a third of the proof mintage, Surely there would be a decent smattering of specimen coins amongst that lot?
IF PCGS start to attribute the specimen coins as they grade them from now on then many collectors would be reluctant to send in their wrongly attributed Proofs for regrading to SP as the proofs being a lower mintage the specimens already attributed as Proofs would attract a higher premium graded as PR instead of SP :angel:

wwwww · July 20, 2017, 05:31:29 PM

Yep that is a problem but it's one PCGS has dealt with on many occasions. Mechanical errors are simply dealt with by reslabbing them at no cost. Most of the PR 1955 coins would be specimens, the proofs are significantly rarer. In fact the MS68 1955 3d is a specimen.

trout · July 20, 2017, 05:47:17 PM

HeHe
"Mechanical errors" are a polite way of PCGS describing a "Stuff Up"

I agree that PCGS would most likely be willing to re-slab the errant coins without charge But would collectors be willing to have their coins "Downgraded" in value and take advantage of the PCGS offer?
I imagine that some will get re-slabbed but with the majority of these that are already in a genuine PR slab this is highly doubtful.
Not only would the coin loose some of it's value in a SP slab there is also the "Pain in the Arse" factor of sending the coins to PCGS and the inevitable wait with NO guarantee that the exact same numerical grade will be applied, There is also the risk of loss and damage to consider.

wwwww · July 20, 2017, 06:18:30 PM

If it doesn't make the numerical grade it is covered by their guarantee, you'll be reimbursed. I see what you mean by some people being unwilling to resubmit but we can see from US market that they do eventually get resubmitted.

ausproofs · July 20, 2017, 07:07:38 PM

Nice work Walter. My 3D 1955 is a proof and 1956 is a specimen. 6D' s I can not check as they dont have PCGS photos. I would assume if this is the case, proofs(true) should be more valuable.

wwwww · July 20, 2017, 07:32:01 PM

The 1956 specimens are rarer, I'll post up the mintages when I'm at my PC. They're up on the Blue Sheet for 3d and 6d already.

trout · July 20, 2017, 07:33:13 PM

Quote6D' s I can not check as they dont have PCGS photos

You could always just Look at the coins, you shouldn't need a trueview image to tell your eyes what they are looking at :angel:

duggee27 · July 20, 2017, 07:40:23 PM

interesting..
at a quick glance at mine
3d 1955 is a proof 66, 1956 a sp67
6d 1955 - no photo, 1956 proof 67

at this stage i am not doing anything about this .. its just wait and see

nealeffendi · July 20, 2017, 07:56:22 PM

Quote from: 'trout' pid='110183' dateline='1500538637'HeHe

I agree that PCGS would most likely be willing to re-slab the errant coins without charge

But do they:huh: Look at all the pre decimals in slabs that were previously a single type and now have been recognised as different types. I have several long denticle '53 florins and a '52P penny variety that are in older slabs and they now appear in the set registry as the common variety:@ So will PCGS reslab them with the correct attribution gratis?:laughingneqw: Same with your/mine:yahoo: prooflike '27 Canberra; did they accept (and fail) to correctly add the PL designation without charge?