I know that proof is not coin's condition, but...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=007

I do not believe that there is an excuse in a world for this...

Nice!!! I can now claim that most of my coins are proof!

Occasionally, proof coins do circulate ... but there is absolutely no evidence from the photo that this coin is anything but just an ordinary, circulated coin.

It is not a proof. It is a "dead" coin.

Personally, I do not like this statement in the description of the lot:

"Feel secure bidding with a professional Worldwide Numismatist. Member of: American Numismatic Association, California State Numismatic Association, Professional Coin Grading Service as well as NGC".

In my humble opinion, the guy, with this statement, should know much better about coins.

it looks like it might have been buffed.

Agreed. It also appears that the left side of the obverse (and corresponding right side
of the reverse) was not well struck. A proof should be perfectly struck up for all details.

RWJ

I heard this many times from different people. However, "should be" does not mean that it always "is", not for Russian Proofs of 19-th and early 20-th century. I used to see Proofs (certified by NGC or PCGS too) with poorly struck details, planschet laminations and die breaks, all sorts of problems similar to Business Strikes. Just on Proof coins those kinds are found less often. Another problem on Proofs is that dies got polished often and sometimes low relief details (on coin) are polished off on a die. For example on 1859 Commemorative Rubles sometimes horse's upper legs seems to be away from the horse and eagle flies above the helmet. I used to see more dramatic examples on other coins. Some "numismatists" on Russian forums were saying those are fakes because "... a proof should be perfectly struck"...

Coin that started discassion is not a Proof of course, and seller knows nothing about coins. He is a member of nothing just uses those "little tricks" to make people believe that he is a professional seller and may be trusted. I would avoid all listings of such a "professional". Also word "Proof" in title definetely gets a lot of attention to his listing so his little trick really works.

WCO

Member of: Professional Coin Grading Service as well as NGC".
На рынке 2 дурака

It's always nice to hear on different forums from different people some nice opinions. Different people - different views. It is always a pleasure to hear when somebody is telling that the coin is fake and after that it is getting a positive authentication.

Please post illustrations of late 19th or early 20th century Russian proofs with planchet laminations or die breaks.
I have never seen a planchet lamination on a true proof of this period but I am sure that you have photographs to
back up your claims.

RWJ

I know Falcone personally, very experienced coin dealer specializing in world coins. However I am afraid his son helps him in Internet business and he could describe every coin as "proof".

These features are considered to be those of fakes and no matter 1859 conmem. coin is slabbed as PF by whatever bla-bla grading company - you will have a hard time selling it in Russia now and in future. People may continue to argue for years if a 1859 proof coin can have so "polishied off" details, but I doubt anybody would keep such a coin for long - that would be questionable investment.

Planchet laminations and die breaks on a 20 cent proof - that what I would like to see as well.

Here is the link to 2 long discussions on the Russian forum about fake 1839.
http://www.staraya-moneta.ru/forum/viewtop...57&start=15
http://staraya-moneta.ru/forum/viewtopic.p...asc&start=0

So, if I understand correctly, the coin without these feautures can be considered as not fake? This is the first question.
The second question. Is there any possibility that the fakemakers used the real coin with these, like u said, features to produce the fakes? The third question. If you start to produce the fakes you will produce a lot of them. Why they are not on the market? Why the population of blah-blah grading company is extremely low? Where are these fakes? Please answer.

By the way, I can publish here what Mr. Basok thinks about this matter and about so-called "experts" on Staraya Moneta. I do not think you would be happy to hear such nice things.

<edited - offtopic - akdrv>

<edited - offtopic - akdrv>

<edited - offtopic - akdrv>

If we you are talking PF coin, which you sent me images of, a year or so ago then I do recall saying that I liked the coin and I did not see any suspision at all. It looked fine to me (and I would repeat that again now). However this thing of a 'broken' leg and 'flying' helmet eagle was a new discovery which was brought to light by fellow collectors in the discussion on Staraya Moneta forum.

It reminded me the controversial Finnish gold "proof" coin subject - when we noted polished off devices on the breast-plate of the Finnish eagle. At that hard discussion there were many opinions that no real 19-20 century Proof coin can have the die surface so hardly polished that it conseals engravers work and that it would probably mean at least not a contemporary (1913) strike. Some would argue that. I enclose the picture below for everybody to judge for themselves:


Now, if we are talking here the same feature (the die so heavily polished that it tears the horse legs and emperor's helmet apart) then I personally agree to what was said by other collectors in Moscow: the originality of the coin must be questioned at least.

I would not necessarily think that if the leg is there and the helmet is in good shape - the coin is ok, without studying other parts of the coin.

Counterfeit work is hardly ever made in many copies to affect grading companies population reports. On many occasions we see a uniqe piece, but it's 'fake features' can be traced in other denominations.

You can publish Alexander's opinion about the matter and about the level of expertise of other collectors, or even better that he makes it himself, but I think it is wiser to do so in the forums where 'evaluess' can read that. Anyway, I do not care, do what you've got to do. I will be happy any way.

Finally, it is up to the owner to decide whether the broken horse leg 1859 coin is good or fake. Should I have it in the collection I would get rid of that asap while there are people who do not see it as questionable.

Thank you, AKDRV.

Well said. Although, it was not my intention to restart another slab v. no slab argument.

On the topic -- I do not know who falcon is, but he should check his listings. Son or no son, reputation is something that is earned decades and lost in seconds...

P.S. I believe that we agreed with WCO not to write in each other topics?

Regarding Finnish proofs, I just looked in Bitkin, and he has X (does not exist? or unknown?) in PP column for Nicholas II gold and silver (20M, 10M, 2M, 1M, 50P, and 25P).

However, for copper coins (10P, 5P, and 1P), he does list prices for proofs.
This seems inconsistent for the mint to produce copper proofs, but not silver or gold...

Does anybody have any info on that?

For Alexander III, though, he lists prices for PP gold. Is it possible that for 1913 20M, they just repolished old proof obverse die since it does not have any year?
That might explain the polished-off areas on the breast-plate.

Thank you.

Proof were the coins specially made for collectors and presentation purposes. The quality was superb because they used freshly made dies, after the dies wore out - they were used for business strike (this explains prooflikes origins in the first place). Now if you have the die refreshed after business strike, then you can imagine coin could be made years after original year - being a novodel?

Well, I sincerely hope they did a better job with proof coins back then than US Mint is doing nowadays:

http://www.collectors-society.com/news/Vie...x?IDArticle=917

In *general* the quality was much, much better due to fresh, highly polished dies spcifically made as proof dies. However, sometimes the dies clashed or got nicked in use, etc. They were then polished, sometimes a bit too agressively. In sum, the best way to authenticate a proof is by knowing the characterisitics and die markers of genuine coins. Occasionally a new die pair will show up, but the general characteristics will still be there such as being able to trace device punches to known dies.

While proof dies are a source of proof-like business strikes, more typically these simply arise from the business strike dies receiving a bit better polish. Sometimes this was deliberate, sometimes not.

What do you think the reason to treat business strike dies with a better polish would be?

Simply a desire on the part of officials to produce a flashier coin. Some US series such as the Morgan Dollars deliberately received better polishing resulting in early strikes typically being proof-like. I am told that the same is true for British, French, etc.

Occasionally clashed or nicked dies are polished fine enuf to produce a proof-like finish. Although this appears to be accidental.