Hey everyone, I recently bought a nice looking 2 pence from the Isle of Man, but I can't find any references to a proof version existing outside of the silver & gold variants. Is this not a proof coin or did this somehow slip under the radar with the catalog makers?
I'll go ahead and suggest an edit to the coin entry on Numista, but y'all do agree it's a proof coin right?
I'm not making any judgement on it being a proof. I don't think you can add a PROOF year line without evidence proofs were minted. I'd suggest you contact PM and ask.
Actually no, I don't agree that this is a proof coin. A true proof coin is a coin with exceptional detail. Your coin does not exhibit exceptional detail above and beyond any other similar coin in a very well preserved condition. Your coin is extremely well preserved as far as original luster is concerned but we cant confuse luster with exceptional details. I have U.S. 1909 VBD one cent coins that look as if they were minted yesterday with almost all of the original luster and details. All very well preserved. That does not make them a proof coin.
Actually no, I don't agree that this is a proof coin. A true proof coin is a coin with exceptional detail. Your coin does not exhibit exceptional detail above and beyond any other similar coin in a very well preserved condition. Your coin is extremely well preserved as far as original luster is concerned but we cant confuse luster with details. I have U.S. 1909 VBD one cent coins that look as if they were minted yesterday with almost all of the original luster. All very well preserved. That does not make them a proof coin.
My main reason for thinking it could be a proof is the frosted design elements coupled with the mirror-like surface of the fields. Is there another name for coins like these?
The huge difference (aside from the lack of AA marks) is also that there is absolutely no cartwheel lustre on this coin, which would be the case for an ordinary BU/UNC example.
I will agree that it does indeed have what appears to be a beautiful frosted finish on the devices on the obverse. That could also be explained as a coin that was struck with a brand new die along with exceptional preservation combining to give that effect. Still, happenstance and not a new discovery, variety, or type.
I would like to see a photo of the entire obverse in the same lighting as your reverse photo. Betting some of the frosting is not so evident.
I will agree that it does indeed have what appears to be a beautiful frosted finish on the devices on the obverse. That could also be explained as a coin that was struck with a brand new die along with exceptional preservation combining to give that effect. Still, happenstance and not a new discovery, variety, ot type.
I would like to see a photo of the entire obverse in the same lighting as your reverse photo. Betting some of the frosting is not so evident.
As requested:
I used the sun as my original light source and as it's nighttime now, I'm using the room light to show how the light reflects at different angles
Sorry my friend. You are stretching here and I simply cannot agree that you have a new discovery. Yes, beautiful coin and well preserved is as far as I can go with it. Perhaps you should present it to the respective referee and present your arguments to them but with no similar documented varieties known to anybody else, including the mint , I do not see the justification in adding your coin to any catalog.
Sorry my friend. You are stretching here and I simply cannot agree that you have a new discovery. Yes, beautiful coin and well preserved is as far as I can go with it. Perhaps you should present it to the respective referee and present your arguments to them but with no similar documented varieties known to anybody else, including the mint , I do not see the justification in adding your coin to any catalog.
I wouldn't call it a stretch if you compare the known proof examples of the other coins in this series. Almost no one has taken any photos of these, but fortunately the proof version (silver) of the half penny shows no AA mark as well, while the normal strike does. I assume that they only left out the AA marks on the proof strikes, especially considering the lack of examples of bronze coins without the AA marks online.
Fact of the matter remains that this is a bronze strike without AA marks which is not documented in any of the catalogues, which shares all the visual characteristics of the known proof strikes (no AA marks, frosted devices & mirror surfaces), so I think this isn't just me saying all the big organisations made a mistake, it's simply documenting the variant without AA marks and defining it for what it is based off of the other coins from the same series.
The 1p bronze coin from the tweet which also lacked the AA mark and was clearly a proof and reportedly even belonged to a set, leads me to believe that rather than forgetting to document a few suspiciously frosted & mirrored coins that for some unknown reason also don't have AA marks, they simply forgot to mention a non silver & gold proof set, which as shown also seem to be the only types to lack the marks.
Schön does list proof (PP) versions for the 2 Pence coin (and all of the 1984 coins).
The symbol -.- means no recent sales or only issued in sets.
The lack of an AA means that this coin requires a new mintage line, and it would be unusual for a 1984 non-proof coin to be issued without die letters.
In the end, I find it exasperating that this type of information is not readily available from modern major mints. 40 years later, we are still scratching our heads over what was actually produced? In a related topic, I have presented a question to an affiliate of the Royal Mint about another coin and have yet to hear a word from anybody.
I wonder what the difference is between a diamond finish and a proof, but I think you’ve definitely found our missing link here.
I couldn't find anything on the PM site that explains what a diamond finish is but they do not claim any of their coins with diamond finish are proof coins, only UNC.
I think you're safe in adding a “no die letters” year line.
Great. Now they can just invent new terms to market the coins and the Numismatic community is expected to accommodate them? Not Proof, not Proof Like, not BU, not Matte, not Burnished, not Frosted, etc, but now “ Base Metal Diamond Finish”. Next. “Base Metal Diamond Like Finish”. Lets make a line for that too. Stop the madness!
Great. Now they can just invent new terms to market the coins and the Numismatic community is expected to accommodate them?
People purchase them so mints keep making them, and Numista needs to add a line to ensure complete coverage. (And there's proposal to have the ability to add “sets” to Numisa, partially to support all the variations of sets produced in various strikes.)
The trend isn't new. Proof coins were originally strikes to test ("prove") dies, but long ago migrated to production in large numbers with special dies – so the mints could sell the special coins.
No one is suggesting adding a Diamond Finish variant year line. Adding a “No die letters” variant year line (as already exists for the 1984 ½ Penny and 1 Penny) is consistent with Numista guidelines.
When government mints collude with private mints or other private entities such as grading companies to have exclusivity to a product, that is a very slippery slope that I do not feel should be enabled, encouraged, or rewarded. These were not offered to the public but through a private entity, sanctioned by government appointed and elected authorities. Perhaps this is also why Government mints are less than forthcoming with all the information needed for the general public to make informed decisions. You are possibly technically correct about adding a new line but not ethically or morally right in my mind. Take the U.S. government mints policy of providing grading companies the first issues of American Silver Eagles long before they are available to the public so the grading companies can slab them and label them “First Strike”, implying additional value and exorbitant prices that is not necessarily justified. I simply have a problem with that technically correct or not.
Perhaps catalogs such as Numista, KM, Spink, and others should amend their policies to change with the times. If it is not acknowledged by the ruling authority and government mint, it is not official and does not exist as a coin. If they won't why should catalogs?
Perhaps catalogs such as Numista, KM, Spink, and others should amend their policies to change with the times. If it is not acknowledged by the ruling authority and government mint, it is not official and does not exist as a coin. If they won't why should catalogs?
Then the item would be exomunia and Numista would end up with two entries instead of one and there would be more confusion and more effort to keep the listings consistent.
Then the item would be exomunia and Numista would end up with two entries instead of one and there would be more confusion and more effort to keep the listings consistent.
Not in this case. The Isle of Man government sanctioned the creation and sale of this coin.
I am unsure how you can judge a section based on your profile with 18 items in it. I know many of the referees are working hard on their areas. To call it a mess when most of the group of coin collectors (based on the forum)can not agree on a single coin. Much less which language to use, dictionary to use. Where countries should be listed and shouldn’t be.
I am unsure how you can judge a section based on your profile with 18 items in it. I know many of the referees are working hard on their areas. To call it a mess when most of the group of coin collectors (based on the forum)can not agree on a single coin. Much less which language to use, dictionary to use. Where countries should be listed and shouldn’t be.
The main reason my own personal exonumia count is so low (odd that you’d bring that up) is because over half of the items I own aren’t even on Numista and I don’t have all the time in the world to spend adding them.
I’ve only had positive experiences myself with exonumia referees, so I’m absolutely not giving them any flack for the good work they do. But when you have a million different categories, you need a million different people to manage them, which is simply not the case. There are tons of items that are almost impossible to find because they’ve been assigned to the wrong category, which means I have to use very different search tactics to find things there compared to here on the coin side of Numista. It’s not the fault of the referees but rather of having such a large quantity of so many varying kinds of items all in one subsection.
I think I have said everything I want to say about this subject. In the end, my original assessment stands. It is not a proof coin. It is something entirely different identifying as a very special diamond finish something which the official government mint will not officially associate with or disclose. Poor referees, I don't envy them.
It is something entirely different identifying as a very special diamond finish something which the official government mint will not officially associate with or disclose.
I agree completely with you in general. However, for this coin, the official government mint (PM at the time) and the Isle of Man government (William Dawson Treasurer of the Isle of Man) did in fact endorse and certify this set.
No concern about this comment? A private mint mind you. It all seems underhanded and shady from the start. Again, 40 years later this very long debate.
I think we've drifted away from the original question. Were PROOF coins minted in 1984? Answer - No. Should a new year line be added to the coin page for the OP's coin? Answer - Yes, with comment “no die letters.” We have evidence that the mint used by IOM in 1984 produced 2 Pence coins without die letters with the full blessing of the IOM government. This coin was circulating legal tender. I see no difference between this coin and coins from a US Uncirculated Coin Set.
I think we've drifted away from the original question. Were PROOF coins minted in 1984? Answer - No. Should a new year line be added to the coin page for the OP's coin? Answer - Yes, with comment “no die letters.” We have evidence that the mint used by IOM in 1984 produced 2 Pence coins without die letters with the full blessing of the IOM government. This coin was circulating legal tender. I see no difference between this coin and coins from a US Uncirculated Coin Set.
Then are we certain these special IOM no die letters 2 Pence coins were intended for circulation by the authority it granted itself? Not from the packaged sets I see. It implies the IOM did not intend their special coin to be circulated. How do you include it in a line under a coin that was clearly intended for circulation? Sorry, this does not sit well with me as there are simply too many gray areas. Present it to the respective referee and be it as it may.
Edit. I repeat, 40 years later and Spink, KM, and others don't know what to make of this special coin. Not convinced we do either.
Then are we certain these special IOM no die letters 2 Pence coins were intended for circulation by the authority it granted itself? Not from the packaged sets I see. It implies the IOM did not intend their special coin to be circulated. How do you include it in a line under a coin that was clearly intended for circulation? Sorry, this does not sit well with me as there are simply too many gray areas. Present it to the respective referee and be it as it may.
Edit. I repeat, 40 years later and Spink, KM, and others don't know what to make of this special coin. Not convinced we do either.
… Coins may not necessarily be intended to circulate (for example, some commemoratives, trial strikes, presentation pieces, proofs, etc.)
From a practical point of view, it seems less work to put all the strikes on the same page when the metal, size, and design (other than decorations) are unchanged.
I think we've drifted away from the original question. Were PROOF coins minted in 1984? Answer - No. Should a new year line be added to the coin page for the OP's coin? Answer - Yes, with comment “no die letters.” We have evidence that the mint used by IOM in 1984 produced 2 Pence coins without die letters with the full blessing of the IOM government. This coin was circulating legal tender. I see no difference between this coin and coins from a US Uncirculated Coin Set.
IMHO (for what it's worth) a new year line should be created with the comment ‘Prooflike; no die letters’.
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.
IMHO (for what it's worth) a new year line should be created with the comment ‘Prooflike; no die letters’.
Now we can take the liberty of describing it as something the mint would not allow or agree to in the first place? No. “Base metal diamond finish” no die letters as they chose to describe it if you feel compelled to add it to the page.
I have to disagree with “prooflike” designation. Neither the mint nor the IOM uses that term to describe them. The variety from the existing year line is the absence of die letters. That alone should be noted on the year line comment as is already done for other coins in that set. We don't and shouldn't use the US mint description of how they mint coins in uncirculated sets, “struck with a pristine finish.”
But we absolutely need to have the year lines without the die letters, so there's no need to argue any longer. In the year line, just write from sets without die letters?
I don't see this as an argument. I see this as a required and healthy debate before mindlessly editing the catalog. You know as well as I do that It happens far too often as evidenced by another very current topic on these boards . If nothing else, many things have been considered on this thread before any action is taken and the referee has more information about the subject before making a decision.
I sent the referee a request to edit the coin in question on the 31st (based on the information in this thread), no reply yet though. I'll mark this thread as solved when I see the coin has been updated.
