I wouldn't say it's a proof, though it is in pretty nice shape. Sometimes a coin is considered proof-like (PL) when a circulation issue has reflective surfaces similar to a proof
We use cookies to provide users the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your cookie settings, we'll assume that you agree to receive all cookies on money.org. You may disable cookies at any time using your internet browser configuration. By continuing to use this website, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use. To learn more about how we use cookies and to review our privacy policy, click here.
Comments
Golfer
Level 5
Doesn't look proof. Did you verify if so? Proof would be a lot more reflective.
CentSearcher
Level 5
I wouldn't say it's a proof, though it is in pretty nice shape. Sometimes a coin is considered proof-like (PL) when a circulation issue has reflective surfaces similar to a proof
Longstrider
Level 6
Read your Red Book. It should tell you how.
Mal_ANA_YN
Level 5
Very hard to tell from a photo. The details and high relief just do not come through.
TheNumisMaster
Level 5
Not a proof. If you can hold the coin at an arms distance away and see your reelection in it, then its a proof.
TheNumisMaster
Level 5
On this coin, the low surfaces do not look like mirrors. It looks like a piece of metal (; Thats where they differ from eachother.
Kepi
Level 6
Not proofs... ???
Eriknation
Level 4
Yeh I know it’s a no mint mark. Mint marks were in obverse starting 1968
Mike
Level 7
The 1960 if it has a mint mark will be on the reverse at the end of the building