I have a 1979 South Africa Rand coin that looks as though it is a proof coin (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2910.html). However, there was only 5 minted, so it is highly unlikely that I would own one (they cost $2000).
If my coin is frosted, does that mean that my coin is a proof coin?
Your opinion is highly appreciated.
Regards,
Andre
Το θέμα μεταφέρθηκε σε "Numismatic questions".(ZacUK, 24 Μάι 2019, 22:04)
Modern proofs are easy to spot because the dies are cut in such a way that it gives the familiar frosted look. The change took place around the 70's but it wasn't adopted by all mints at the same time. Prior to this proofs were struck using high pressure strikes on specially polished planchets. "As struck" they were still quite distinct from their business strike counterparts but as the years take their toll and the original polished surfaces are diminished by toning or handling, the difference becomes less clear, notoriously with copper or bronze coins. Anyone trying to put together sets from George VI and early QEII will be familiar with this headache.
I'm not sure when Pretoria made the change to frosted proofs but 1979 does seem late in the game. That would definitely settle the issue.
Is it possible then that you have a late example of an old style proof coin? Almost certainly not, for all the reasons above, plus the fact that low population coins like that are usually all accounted for and in museums or private collections. I believe what you have is an coin made from new die pairs. I wish it were otherwise and I'd be genuinely happy for you if I'm wrong.
For anyone else struggling to make the call on proof / business strike coins I can only offer a few guidelines and notes taken from over 50 years -
1. They tone differently. Hard to explain but I guess the best word to describe it would be "richer". There's something about those carefully prepared planchets that brings out a nicer patina. Does this make sense... no? Look at a few Royal Mint bronze proofs from the 1950's and compare the color with a regular strike.
2. Fuller rims. High pressure strikes lead to much bolder, well defined rims.
3. Lettering has a square profile rather than the more rounded one made by used dies.
There are other giveaways often specific to a particular issue but that's beyond the the scope of a humble forum post. While not one of the above is proof of a proof (see what I did there?), their absence would be a reliable indicator that it's not. I've found them to be a reliable guide over the years but I'd be the first to confess I've got it wrong more than once. A similar low pop. South American coin (mintage 10) had me excited for the longest time. It was a good early strike which had been carefully polished post minting, but long ago so that it had re-toned in a manner which shouted "PROOF". In other words it checked off all the boxes above but still fell short. I gave it to Daryl, so it's his problem now!
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
Thank you pnightingale. Your advice is highly appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to evaluate my coin. I also felt that I had no chance of owning such a coin when there were only 5 minted.
I must say that I am still confused by the frosting on the relief of the coin. Was there ever coins minted, that was NOT proofs, with frosting on the relief but not on the field (e.g. by any mints in the world)?
It's not normal but has been done by several countries. Many Caribbean nations issue the vast majority of their coins with a proof or proof-like finish.
By a sheer coincidence I brought 3 South African mint sets back from the fleamarket this morning. They are definitely circulation issues, 1967 & 2 x 1968 and still in the original Suid Afrikaans Munt plastic sheets. The five and 20 cent coins have a very similar look to your coin with the portraits slightly frosted. The whole 1967 set and the 1968 50 cents don't have the same frosting. Curious eh?
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
Thank everyone for your contributions to this topic. I really appreciate it.
What remains in my mind is that, maybe the mint has been shipping proofs as part of the UNC sets? I have some UNC sets where there are some of the coins with frosted relief and some without (in the same set).
The implication is that there must have been more than 5 proofs minted of the 1979 Rand coin (because I have one)!
Wow, that must have some serious implications for the owners of those 5 proof sets? Its rarity is now under serious doubt, and so should its value.
Απόσπασμα: "GreatCoins"Good day,
Thank everyone for your contributions to this topic. I really appreciate it.
What remains in my mind is that, maybe the mint has been shipping proofs as part of the UNC sets? I have some UNC sets where there are some of the coins with frosted relief and some without (in the same set).
The implication is that there must have been more than 5 proofs minted of the 1979 Rand coin (because I have one)!
Wow, that must have some serious implications for the owners of those 5 proof sets? Its rarity is now under serious doubt, and so should its value.
Regards,
Andre
I think some of these are just proof-like, similar to modern Swiss coins. At first glance they look like proofs but are not quite as frosted.
Thank you. Yes, I agree with you. When I compared it with another proof coin from 1990 (which I am certain is a proof), there was a definite difference between the proof an the 1979 coin (the relief was more cameo and the proof had a smoother field, although not that much). So yes, proof-like sounds correct.
It is quite strange that the mint did not declare the number of coins minted as proof-like. I wonder what the proof-like coins are worth (they do not appear in a catalog)?
If anyone knows if there is a catalog with a proof-like mintage for the 1979, I will appreciate it.
