SMS/proof coin query

[ikaros]

I was thinking about a '67 quarter my previous roommate picked up for his Washington collection. It had been liberated from a SMS, and as Adam Smith is my witness, it had faint frost on it--I'd never seen the like on any SMS coin before. Was I hallucinating, or was there really some frost on some of the SMS coins?

 

Regretfully, no picture. The coin moved with him to Texas. But I'll swear to it on a stack of Danscos.

 

Which leads to a second question... seems like all proof coins are frosted anymore. What changed in the process?

[jtryka]

You were not hallucinating, it's possible for SMS coins to have cameo or even deep cameo contrast, just like older proof coins. These have premium values since the vast majority of pre-1970 proofs are brilliant proof with no frost on the devices. As for when this changed, I believe it was in the 1970s, but I would defer to cladking on this one, as he expertise on modern coins dwarfs mine (I can only speak to my experience, in which most coins after the bicentennial seem to be cameo or deep cameo).

[ikaros]

Actually, I just picked up several 1963 "proof-like" Canadians today, and doggone if every one of them doesn't have at least traces of frost. How much more proof-like does it have to be before it's considered a proof, I want to know...

 

I don't recall that the dealer had it marked significantly above what you'd pay for a typical SMS quarter. It wasn't heavy frost, like on a modern coin, but it was there.

 

Thanks for the help!

[cladking]

There were a series of improvements in the proofs with big ones in '71, '73, and '83. By '73 heavily frosted coins were getting pretty common and by '83 they were typical. Many (if not most) of the SMS dies were sandblasted to give them the frost but this wore off very rapidly and very few, if any, were resandblasted. The '67 quarter is one of the easier to find with light frost but the '66 isn't a lot tougher. They are a little tough with heavy enough frosting to get the designation from the grading companies and rare with heavy frost. Lincolns are quite a bit tougher and nickels as well are tougher. Many of these coins are fully PL and some are nearly indistinguishable from true proofs. A very few appear to be actual proofs.

[Burks]

Actually, I just picked up several 1963 "proof-like" Canadians today, and doggone if every one of them doesn't have at least traces of frost.  How much more proof-like does it have to be before it's considered a proof, I want to know...

 

With those I think the striking technique determines whether or not it's a proof. I was corrected (check the Canadian coin forum, Here) on my 1967 "proof" set. Technically they are called "specimen" sets.

 

At the MSNS show I saw my first SMS cameo quarter. At first I thought it was a proof until I read the label (PCGS).

[ikaros]

There were a series of improvements in the proofs with big ones in '71, '73, and '83.  By '73 heavily frosted coins were getting pretty common and by '83 they were typical.  Many (if not most) of the SMS dies were sandblasted to give them the frost but this wore off very rapidly and very few, if any, were resandblasted.  The '67 quarter is one of the easier to find with light frost but the '66 isn't a lot tougher.  They are a little tough with heavy enough frosting to get the designation from the grading companies and rare with heavy frost.  Lincolns are quite a bit tougher and nickels as well are tougher.  Many of these coins are fully PL and some are nearly indistinguishable from true proofs.  A very few appear to be actual proofs.

I suppose it was a technical improvement, but the fact that pretty much all proofs now are frosted takes some of the cachet away, I think. I guess now it's the weakly or unfrosted ones that are uncommon.

 

I keep telling him it's the one coin he has that needs professional grading... it really is stunning. Most SMS coins have a sort of "I want to be a proof when I grow up" look to them, this one really very nearly is.

[ikaros]

With those I think the striking technique determines whether or not it's a proof. I was corrected (check the Canadian coin forum, Here) on my 1967 "proof" set. Technically they are called "specimen" sets.

Oh, the Canadians I got are definitely PL. But the line between prooflike and proof is really thin in some cases. These are great lookers.

I was fascinated to see the recent matte proofs that Canada was doing, with a frosted field and shiny design. Strange looking on first glance. Should've picked one up, just for the novelty... but they'll probably still be there next time I go in.

At the MSNS show I saw my first SMS cameo quarter. At first I thought it was a proof until I read the label (PCGS).

I knew intellectually that this quarter couldn't be proof, but my eyes kept trying to tell my brain a different story. Of course, if I know him, he won't want it graded and slabbed because then it'll have to come out of the album and he'll have to buy another to fill the hole.