Royal Mint Proof Coins and Cleaning Signs

[Silvermedal]

Hi All,

New to the forum and stacking for a while now....

Recently been buying a few royal mint silver proofs for variety and received some yesterday which at first glance looked great, but when viewed in sunlight I could see some marks in the fields...

I took some pics and this looks way below what I'd expect from a proof in terms of quality control, so I'm assuming that they've been cleaned in some way? The odd thing is that the raised parts of the design look totally unaffected and I'd always thought cleaning would show as hairlines across the whole coin, whereas these look almost like contact marks that are restricted to the fields only?

Any thoughts on this?

Cheers

[Pete]

In my experience, buying secondhand proofs can be a bit of a gamble.
Even when a seller describes a coin as 'FDC' or 'never out of its capsule,' unless the seller is 100% honest or knows the history then condition can be subjective.

I have received allegedly perfect coins that show finger marks and spots likely caused by breath droplets that have dried on highly polished fields.
I have also attempted to very carefully clean finger marks from proofs but although the coin looks perfect it can sometimes show microscopic fine lines when viewed at an angle in bright light.

Without examining your coin further, initial thoughts are that this coin has been in contact with possibly others and looks as if it may have been stored without protection.
The marks suggest more damage than cleaning but if it had been rescued from a previous owner and got grubby then it is possible that someone has used an aggressive method of scrubbing out the dirt in the recesses.

If purchased from the Mint directly I would return for exchange.

[Silvermedal]

That's really helpful Pete, cheers.

Yes, it seems to be a real gamble; I get the impression that most sellers on ebay don't really know much about condition beyond giving it a cursory glance and saying "oooh shiny!"....

For the coin in question I agree that it looks more like damage/contact marks than cleaning but I can't understand how it's almost 100% restricted the the fields; I'm inclined to think that someone had a go at cleaning the recesses as you suggest.... perhaps the frosted surfaces disguise damage better though, I don't know...

Either way, I can't see it leaving the mint like that; I'm not particularly well availed of the die/planchet polishing process but I'd have thought this wouldn't appear as irregular marks like these...

Looks like its time for a trip to the post office then 🚙 

[TeaTime]

I've had proof coins before that had been cleaned (from Ebay no less) and the fine hairlines were all over the coin. I've never seen marks like those - they almost look like stress fracture marks - restricted to just the plain fields. Odd.

You have to remember that a coin described as 'proof' numismatically is no guarantee of the grade. Technically it's just a term to describe the minting process.

[Silvermedal]

11 minutes ago, TeaTime said:

You have to remember that a coin described as 'proof' numismatically is no guarantee of the grade. Technically it's just a term to describe the minting process

Very good point.

[DaKine]

IMO, this is "as struck" but unfortunately on poorly prepared flans, not all  of the marks are struck out by pressure of the die strike - in other words, this is NOT post strike damage.

[Silvermedal]

7 hours ago, DaKine said:

IMO, this is "as struck" but unfortunately on poorly prepared flans, not all  of the marks are struck out by pressure of the die strike - in other words, this is NOT post strike damage.

Very interesting, thanks for the info.

Would it be fair to say that this issue would normally be seen with weaker strikes? 

Also, is it usual for the flan/planchet to exhibit random contact marks in different directions? If so I'm guessing this would be linked to poor handling prior to being struck?

Cheers.