Prooflike (PL) Buffalo Nickel
2 2

90 posts in this topic

2,452 posts

I dont understand why not. But then we get into the technical mirror definitions. Its clear Coinman's coin doesnt belong in a regular holder with no designation. But what if there isnt an exact 2 inch mirror or whatever the minimum is? I suppose collectors who collect coins will value its eye appeal, and the collectors collecting slabs and stickers will just skip it. Not completely fair. But again the market is the market. You cant make people like something.

Edited by mumu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,871 posts
On April 22, 2018 at 9:49 AM, numisport said:

Somehow I'm missing the train that will carry us to a new way of thinking, and probably on purpose. A prooflike coin as implied is one that looks like a proof. I understand that grading companies are always looking for new revenues and don't blame them but I just don't see proof-like mirrors in Buffalo nickels. Unless of course you compare them to satin proof Buffalos, I just don't see it...... that is [reflective fields]. hm

There are fully Prooflike Buffalo nickels, but you may not have seen them due to their rarity. I don't think the grading services invented the PL concept. There were several coins posted in this thread that are definitely not PL, and may be confusing the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,909 posts

As with many things, a clear definition, consistently applied will resolve the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,909 posts

The meaningful question is not, "Did NGC give this coin a proof-like designation," but rather, "Does this coin meet NGC's standard criteria for a proof-like coin?"

"Proof-like" must have the same quantitative definition for ALL coins, of all types, at all times, in all places.

If clearly defined, nearly anyone can easily determine if any coin is proof-like. The difficult part is defining an empirical definition. I hope they do this, building on prior work done with Morgan dollars, then using the identical standard for all other coins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,452 posts
18 hours ago, RWB said:

As with many things, a clear definition, consistently applied will resolve the situation.

Do you think NGC should stop calling it a census?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,909 posts

The report is a "population of authenticated coins" not a census or enumeration. But, corporations love to bend language to suit their own marketing, sales or planned confusion strategies. Their goal is profit in their line of business.

My own interest is that collectors know the differences and use that knowledge for their advancement.

Edited by RWB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,452 posts
1 hour ago, RWB said:

The report is a "population of authenticated coins" not a census or enumeration. But, corporations love to bend language to suit their own marketing, sales or planned confusion strategies. Their goal is profit in their line of business.

My own interest is that collectors know the differences and use that knowledge for their advancement.

I come from a world of logic. So I will debate both of your points here for posterity.

Again, the enumeration is the seperation by grade, series, date, mintmark et cetera. A population is "There are 15 million graded coins." Thats a basic population. Such as  There are 300 million people in the US. Boom population. Start to seperate those people by different criteria and youre into census territory. The price guides do that.

As for proof like. I agree it has to be 1 thing and that satin proof has to be eliminated. But logic states that proof like should mean the same thing as like a proof. And so the question of should satin proof also count, is logically valid. Is it realistic to implement, no. But that makes proof like a poor choice of terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,792 posts
1 hour ago, mumu said:

I come from a world of logic. So I will debate both of your points here for posterity.

Again, the enumeration is the seperation by grade, series, date, mintmark et cetera. A population is "There are 15 million graded coins." Thats a basic population. Such as  There are 300 million people in the US. Boom population. Start to seperate those people by different criteria and youre into census territory. The price guides do that.

As for proof like. I agree it has to be 1 thing and that satin proof has to be eliminated. But logic states that proof like should mean the same thing as like a proof. And so the question of should satin proof also count, is logically valid. Is it realistic to implement, no. But that makes proof like a poor choice of terms.

As “Proof” is a method of manufacture, “Satin Proof” should not be eliminated from discussions of “Proofs”. Ditto for “Sandblast Proofs”, etc. 

However, typically, the term “Prooflike” is used to describe business strikes which display reflective surfaces, similar to  that seen on brilliant Proof coins. As such, “Prooflike” should not be used as a modifier for “Satin” or “Sandblast” Proof coins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,452 posts

If all snooks are snorks and all snorks are swanks then all snooks are swanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,452 posts

Proof like should have been named Mirror and dmpl should have been called Deep Mirror....M and DM...then add any cameo descriptor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,452 posts
6 minutes ago, Mk123 said:

just saw this thread, I want a PL buff now!

We all do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,871 posts
19 hours ago, mumu said:

Proof like should have been named Mirror and dmpl should have been called Deep Mirror....M and DM...then add any cameo descriptor.

And Good and Very Good should not be at the low end of the grading scale, etc, etc. There are a lot of misnomers in numismatics.

Edited by coinman1794

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,452 posts
4 hours ago, coinman1794 said:

And Good and Very Good should not be at the low end of the grading scale, etc, etc. There are a lot of misnomers in numismatics.

Always thought the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,909 posts

TPG published lists are biased "populations," and not a "census" of anything. Those are the professional definitions and they convey specific meanings. If some wish to toss around terms and meanings, then collectors can scrap ALL numerical and adjectival descriptions. Words will mean only what the speaker thinks they mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
853 posts

My Satin Proof Buffalo is nearly perfect at Proof 67 and looks prooflike when turned away from the light. Oh wait it is a proof so it cannot be just prooflike. Rather than spread more disinformation I couldn't agree more with Roger that there needs to be more consistent standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,792 posts
2 hours ago, numisport said:

My Satin Proof Buffalo is nearly perfect at Proof 67 and looks prooflike when turned away from the light. Oh wait it is a proof so it cannot be just prooflike. Rather than spread more disinformation I couldn't agree more with Roger that there needs to be more consistent standards.

Your (satin proof) coin can still correctly/accurately be called “prooflike” if it has reflective surfaces. That is because “prooflike” is meant to describe a coin with mirrored/reflective surfaces. Likewise, a sandblast proof coin would not accurately be described as “prooflike” because it wouldn’t have reflective surfaces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,452 posts
9 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

Your (satin proof) coin can still correctly/accurately be called “prooflike” if it has reflective surfaces. That is because “prooflike” is meant to describe a coin with mirrored/reflective surfaces. Likewise, a sandblast proof coin would not accurately be described as “prooflike” because it wouldn’t have reflective surfaces.

Which highlights the reason the term is a misnomer. It's like saying blood orange juice cant taste like orange juice because its not orange colored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,909 posts

A term should have only one definition. "Proof-like" as applied to Morgan dollars and other coins, and measured with small optical devices, is well established. Calling a real satin proof coin "proof-like" is absurd. The term "satin proof" is clear and descriptive - calling it something else is simply an attempt to gouge money out of ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,792 posts
1 hour ago, RWB said:

A term should have only one definition. "Proof-like" as applied to Morgan dollars and other coins, and measured with small optical devices, is well established. Calling a real satin proof coin "proof-like" is absurd. The term "satin proof" is clear and descriptive - calling it something else is simply an attempt to gouge money out of ignorance.

I disagree with what you wrote after the second sentence, above. Most satin Proof Buffalo nickels do not exhibit mirror-like surfaces, though many are what I would call semi-prooflike. If one happens to be reflective/mirror-like, I see nothing wrong with describing it as such. And doing so need not have anything to do with “an attempt to gouge money out of ignorance”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,635 posts

A proof is what it is ----- a proof. It can not be proof like as it is already a proof.  Logic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,452 posts
1 hour ago, Six Mile Rick said:

A proof is what it is ----- a proof. It can not be proof like as it is already a proof.  Logic

Logic is out the window with this chosen term. A coin can be "like a proof" but not "proof like". I'd rather teach my grandma how to email than discuss this one anymore.

Edited by mumu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,792 posts
8 hours ago, Six Mile Rick said:

A proof is what it is ----- a proof. It can not be proof like as it is already a proof.  Logic

Some Proof coins are mirror-like and others are not. Since the term “prooflike” is customarily used to describe coins that are mirror-like, those coins which are mirror-like can logically be termed “prooflike”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,635 posts

Yes Mark I understand a business strike with mirror fields could be called PL as it is not a proof but looks like one. A proof though with mirror fields where the standard is not mirrored should then be a deep mirrored proof not a PL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,792 posts
18 minutes ago, Six Mile Rick said:

Yes Mark I understand a business strike with mirror fields could be called PL as it is not a proof but looks like one. A proof though with mirror fields where the standard is not mirrored should then be a deep mirrored proof not a PL.

Rick, I can live with that, though in many such cases, “mirrored proof” would be more accurate than “deep mirrored proof”. Thanks for a (hopefully) good resolution. (thumbsu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,452 posts

OK, someone send off the new game plan to NGC and get this going. Good start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,909 posts

RE: " I disagree with what you wrote after the second sentence, above. Most satin Proof Buffalo nickels do not exhibit mirror-like surfaces, though many are what I would call semi-prooflike. If one happens to be reflective/mirror-like, I see nothing wrong with describing it as such. And doing so need not have anything to do with “an attempt to gouge money out of ignorance”.

That's OK. Deceit and greed are underpinnings of the lies told to rip off collectors with bogus claims. I'll simply repeat that ALL "proof like" coins must meet identical standards, and those standards must be clearly defined and consistently applied.

"Semi-prooflike" might be a pleasant discussion term but it is meaningless because it has no definition. That makes its use in selling coins nothing more than a scam to fleece the ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,792 posts
27 minutes ago, RWB said:

RE: " I disagree with what you wrote after the second sentence, above. Most satin Proof Buffalo nickels do not exhibit mirror-like surfaces, though many are what I would call semi-prooflike. If one happens to be reflective/mirror-like, I see nothing wrong with describing it as such. And doing so need not have anything to do with “an attempt to gouge money out of ignorance”.

That's OK. Deceit and greed are underpinnings of the lies told to rip off collectors with bogus claims. I'll simply repeat that ALL "proof like" coins must meet identical standards, and those standards must be clearly defined and consistently applied.

"Semi-prooflike" might be a pleasant discussion term but it is meaningless because it has no definition. That makes its use in selling coins nothing more than a scam to fleece the ignorant.

"Semi-prooflike" need not have a precise definition that meets your personal requirement in order to have meaning to a large majority of people who read it. The term can be used to describe a coin, without charging extra for it and without "scamming or fleecing the ignorant". Ditto for other adjectives, such as "beautiful", "colorful", "appealing". "lustrous", "sharp". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,826 posts
On 4/22/2018 at 4:30 PM, JIM F. said:

Does pcgs give pl designations for buffalo nickels?

No, PCGS will only label PL on Morgan dollars, and a few other series (like modern UHR gold). There are a few rare pieces which PCGS has labelled as PL, but generally they don't. 

NGC, on the other hand, designates any US or World coin as PL if it warrants it. 

On 4/24/2018 at 12:56 PM, RWB said:

The meaningful question is not, "Did NGC give this coin a proof-like designation," but rather, "Does this coin meet NGC's standard criteria for a proof-like coin?"

"Proof-like" must have the same quantitative definition for ALL coins, of all types, at all times, in all places.

If clearly defined, nearly anyone can easily determine if any coin is proof-like. The difficult part is defining an empirical definition. I hope they do this, building on prior work done with Morgan dollars, then using the identical standard for all other coins.

Roger, you are assuming there is a standard for PL coins. There isn't. It isn't published anywhere, because there is no standard. The graders decide if they feel a coin has mirrors strong enough to warrant a PL, and that can vary from series to series. The mirrors on a PL Buffalo, or a PL Capped Bust Half, or a PL Liberty $20, are not comparable. We as collectors like to believe there is a standard (measured in "inches of reflectivity"), but that is not the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2