Proof 20 Marks 1897-A from Prussia is missing in the catalogue

the proof 20 Marks 1897-A from Prussia is missing in the catalogue 20 Mark - Wilhelm II - Kingdom of Prussia – Numista. I own such a coin :) See photo

Many thanks 

Interesting since SCWC does not show a proof was made in 1897, neither does NGC or NumisMaster.

yes, I see. But NGC certified 3 coins as proofs -→ Germany - States - 1871-1925 20M | Coin Census Population Report | NGC (ngccoin.com)

also the both PF61 CAM coins are different coins, as they where both sold separately at Heritage 2020 August 5 - 7 World Coins & Ancient Coins Platinum Night Auction - Dallas #3085 

the both sources also doesn't listen the proof of 1890 (could also be added even I  don't have one yet) which in several times was graded by ngc and pcgs

my most comprehensive source on german proofs is a special edition of MünzenRevue from 2014. It listens 1897, but states that there were no  public offerings known by editors

Am grateful for any new info and discussion! It is an exciting and rather poorly developed topic

Best regards!

hello,

looking at your coin, I don't agree with proof rating.

Leeding us to a question on principle: When did mints start to produce “proof” coins. During 19th century special/best quality were first strike unc coins. But I'm not sure and curious to any input.

Stefan0205

hello,

looking at your coin, I don't agree with proof rating.

Leeding us to a question on principle: When did mints start to produce “proof” coins. During 19th century special/best quality were first strike unc coins. But I'm not sure and curious to any input.

hi, thank you for your reply. I see your point and also have no concrete arguments for or against a proof here. for me, it is rather the difference to a “circulation” strike that is decisive. the coin is clearly different... I have read a lot in forums on this subject, but everything was not really satisfactory...

The Jaeger catalog quotes Hammerich, who wrote that gold and silver coins with polished dies were minted annually. One may not speak of Polierte Platte, because the blanks were not polished, it is therefore called Spiegelglanz. In my eyes both terms ("Polierte Platte" and “Spiegelglanz”) would be “proof” in english. Assuming that recognized (by some references of cause) proofs were minted in the years before  and after, why should there be no recognition for 1897 pieces.

How to distinguish a first strike EA from a mintage with polished dies is not clear to me. In my understanding, each mintage was started with a fresh polished die and the mints then probably put back the first 100 or so coins. So there is actually no difference in the matter... It is rather the exciting thing when a coin is no longer an EA and rather belongs to the circulation strike when the die wear out.

I could also live wonderfully with a separate slot for "EA/PROOF" as a compromise (or even “EA” only) to distinguish a special from a bullion coin, which exists for me without a doubt.

There are also "BU" slots on many modern coins in addition to a normal slot... 

Any contribution to the discussion is welcome and appreciated. Thank you very much!

Modern proofs are no proofs at all in my eyes. I think there were proof coins shortly after the beginning invention of coin minting because you always have to see/proof that your dies work.

Like already stated the distinction of old proof coins from fresh-die struck circulation issues is very hard but the were most often in the dozens or low hundreds and given to dignitaries so the provenances should be clear for most of them.

Modern proofs are struck on polished to death dies and struck about four times instead of only once so there are distinct differences that are most often very easy to distinguish. Harder are the proof-likes (which I would translate “Spiegelglanz”) and BU issues.

There where proof coins in early 19th century.

coins such as this one I think where NGC etc are often making a mistake is with what we call in German Erstabschlag.

that is the slight polished dies and then the first few coins minted.

I basically share your opinion.  I also have coins that have been certified as MS DPL and don't make much difference to the proof designation. For me personally, it's about the special appearance of the coin, but that's my personal preference :)

the question here is whether it would be justified to provide special slots for it in the catalog or not?  I would be for it... I don't care what these slots are called, I'm concerned with the separate labeling itself:)  

Otherwise you have to input two coins with the appropriate comment for the year, is also no real problem…

But then I wonder about the many slots with many modern coins for the different sets and other marketing bs around it.  the coins are the same

Best regards