1st of all, I don't want to set off a war.

Being new to this world I can´t still clearly understand the real reason to collect proof coins.
I believe one exiting side of this hobby is to search for the circulated coins in the best condition I can afford and even better if that coin has a history behind.

I see proofs and UNC sets as a way to squeeze some money from the collector. I buy a proof set or a UNC set and i know that thousands or even millions will have exactly the same set I bought.
Something like:
Hey, I bought this proof set yesterday.
Cool, I have one too.

While buying a coin that circulated in past times can be the start of a nice talk, and to a certain extent, cause of pride for its ower.

I'd like to know what ppl have to say.

Regarding brand-spankin' new sets:

As superficial as it is, I buy the brand new proof set each year to stay up to date with my collection at the best forseeable price. The current market trend on proof sets is that they will increase in value immediately and will sustain that inflated price for almost a decade as the recent sets have shown. I will start buying them in multiples as my only cheap means of investment.

Regarding older proofs:

If a series I collect has contemporary proofs, the mint at that time decided I need to include those in my collections to have a complete series. Now for me that means I get to shell out a ton of money over a made-for-circulation issue to meet my goal.



I can't find a recent thread concerning this topic. So let's start the debate!

I have some proofs just because of their design or appearance, but I really prefer to collect circulation strikes where possible, and affordable.

well lets take cents for example if u dont have the "s" mint coins (which are proof) then u dont have a complete collection.but ya they are used to grab money of collecters but if they are in perfect shape our grandchildren or great grand children can gain by selling them espcialy if they r low mintage.

It all depends where your interest lies. You either try your damnedest to get perfect coins, or you look for the history behind them. Holding a worn Edward II penny in my hand gives me more of a kick than buying an encapsulated proof that has never been handled. I just try to imaging who else has held it. My bag, but not everyones.

Lookin' pretty .

I usually prefer my coins have served their intended purpose at least a little bit, but if I want a coin just because of its looks or if it has a particularly intricate design, I will occasionally choose proofs instead.

If I am giving a coin as a gift to a non-collector (usually because its theme fits in with some other type of collection of theirs) I will also tend more towards proof, since non-numismatists tend not to react as well to a circulated and slightly worn coin vs a shiny new coin regardless of their actual values.

I love circulated coins for many of the same reasons mentioned here. The history, the thoughts about who had the coin and where it's been and such. I have a GEM BU IHC and even a Proof IHC in my collection. For me they serve the purpose of showing the design at it's best.

I have a full set of Jeffersons in circulated condition and have now started a GEM BU/Proof set. I am doing that because I really like the shiney new coins and the consistency of the set.

So, whatever "floats your boat".

i always sit and wonder were my coins have been, how they ended up in bahrain from wat ever country they came from,etc ,etc. read my signature i am the wise guy

Proof sets have been part of the history of mints for a long time. To show off what they can do and the full effect of the coin.

Proof coins. What are they good for?.

Absolutely nothing,
Say it again y'all
Proof coins, ugh
What are they good for?
Absolutely nothing.

Cheezy reference aside, I used to be an active collector of proof sets. State quarters and all, but this year I stopped buying them from the mint. I may keep buying the mint sets, but the proofs just dont do it to me any more.

I may grab a set at FUN to get a complete set for my kids, but I prefer circulated coins. But I can appreciate the proof sets for their full strikes and luster.

I like proofs just to show off all the details in the coin that even a well struck business strike can't show. My collection of proofs is pretty pathetic though.

Proofs to me are like fine art. You collect for reasons other than adding some color to your home. You collect them to admire the artistry of the design and the technical expertise of their production. If your interest is in the hands a coin has passed through, then you would collect proofs to share an experience of the famous collectors of the past. They have their own history, its just a different history from that of circulated coins. I find my enjoyment from a variety of collecting topics from French Feudal deniers that are all well circulated and full of history to selected modern proofs and medals that are enjoyed almost entirely for the art the represent. As I have said in the past, it is the variety of our interests that make this such a great hobby.

Probably I will go with what Bill said. Proof coins traditionally were minted for enhancing the sales of the mints which goes back more than 100 years ago. First it started off with the British and then to France, Germany and to the rest of the world...

proof coins are kinda like the fine china that your mom had in a cabinet for special occasions (only, of course, there were never any occasions special enough to break 'em out).

sometimes being pretty is enough--they don't have to be particularly historical. sometimes the proof finish brings out something in the design that you don't get to see in the business strike.

I like that line a lot, well said.

I put proofs in my type sets where they're very affordable (ie. 1964 PF 50c instead of UNC). Otherwise, I'm not really into them.

I love the older proof coins... proof type coins... mmmmmmmm

If you look at the Royal Mints' latest website, you'll realise that a lot of the "proof" market is just making money (No pun) for the mint and not the provision of currency.

ha! the royal canadian mint has them beat by a mile ...

Historically mints have had two functions: To provide coinage for commerce and to make a profit for the state. So they are doing a good job

Here's a few of the proofs in my collection. Its pretty obvious, at least to me, what they're good for....

what? bragging?

I love the gold, 1873, and walker.

My proof walker has got a problem down under:

Beautiful!

I see this depends on the collector's point of view or interest.
I regard coins as a bit of history. As far as I know, proofs don't circulate, don't have any "story" to tell.
To me, an old 1 pfennig from the city of Danzig is much more interesting than a shinning silver proof dollar, euro or pound.

However, I do respect and understand those who collect proof for its artistic side, as an investiment or any other reason.

One other thing I like about these early US proofs is their rarity. Of the six coins I posted, 4 have mintages of less than 800 pieces. The gold has a mintage of 136 pieces with less than 50 known surviving examples.

Since there are not too many collectors of these early proofs (yet), the prices are still within my reach. They don't cost nearly what they should and that's fine with me.

Agree with that for sure. Early proofs and patterns are way underpriced for their scarcity.

I should save up for one.

My collection consists of 90% proofs. I enjoy the proof coins much more than the circulated coins. I admire the artistry of there design and the technical expertise it took to produce them. To me the look of a proof coin can not compared to a circulated coin. I just love that PROOF look. I have been know to go way out of my way to get a Proof coin that I wanted.