Proof vs. MS

[NewCoin]

I have several proof Franklin halves. When I started valuing them via the Redbook I noted that MS 65 is rated way higher than proof coins! Why is that? Isn't a Proof 65 as lustrous, scratch free, etc. than an MS 65?

 

Thanks for your input.

[Scottishmoney]

Many more proofs were saved in pristine condition than the MS specimens, this is true even with modern proofs, they usually sell more than the MS specimens. And frankly with some coins, ie the San Francisco commem dollar from last year, the MS looked a lot better IMHO. This plays for the longterm.

[just carl]

Basicly what has been said. Proof coins are not intended for circulation but normal coins are. Therefore most proofs are still just that, proofs. However, many Uncirc coins end up in circulation and that includes the ones made for Uncir from the Mint sets. Due to robberies, estate inheritances, idiots that get them as gifts and spend them, etc. Even the best of the brand new ones have been run through a machine for rolling and/or counting somewhere. All this makes a truely high grade Uncirc rare.

Of course you are refering to the Red Book which should never be used for pricing. They are nowadays being produced so far ahead of time their prices are a joke. What good are prices in a book that was probably being written almost a year ago and now being issued the beginning of 2007 with a 2008 date on it?

[Whizzer]

I agree it's strange. A proof is just as uncirculated as any MS coin, and then some. If there are five proof coins and one uncirculated coin, then there are 6 MS coins.