4 silvers 3 proofs

[BeerBelly]

I went through my first box today, got my first Benjamin, (1957) and 3 40%'s. I found 3 of what appears to be proofs. Very shiny, and the details are much sharper than regular coins. 1976D, 1989P, 1999D. Any reason to keep the proofs?
On another note, it seems to me that all the 197x series sound different than the silvers and the clads. Sorta like there's a bit of silver, but not much. Is it just my imagination? Any of you notice this? In addition, it seems that 1971 and 1972 are the 2 most common dates, anyone agree?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[BBcardsRI]

Yes those are quite common due to their high mintages.

The three coins you listed are not proofs. Proofs have an "S" mintmark.

As far as keeping proofs for when you DO find them... which you will if you go through enough halves. It depends. Some people keep all of them, others only keep one of each, some only keep the ones in pristine shape, others don't keep any. They aren't worth much more than face unless they are a silver proof.

Grats though on your first box. Some of us have gone dozens of boxes without finding out first Benji!

Nice work!

~Dave

 

[BeerBelly]

Thanks Dave,
So all proofs have an s mint. Got it. Back to the wilds for them then!

 

[BBcardsRI]

The coins made from 2002-2008 may appear extra shiny because they are NIFC (not intended for circulation) and often when found have not been in circulation for much longer than the person who got them dumped them at a bank, etc.

The ones that look extra shiny that you got could just be coins in very nice shape that haven't been knocked around in circulation for long. If you are putting a set together of halves (whitman books, etc.) they would be good ones to put in the book or to upgrade the ones you already have from those years.

And as far as ALL halves having s mints for proofs. I think wen you get back into the older halves... the franklins and such, they might not have an S mint. I'm not fully sure on that.

But all the Ken's have the S mint.

~Dave

 

[mountainman 2]

But all the Ken's have the S mint.

~Dave

I think the only exception to that is the 1964, i think it was struck in proof at the philadelphia mint.

 

[coinmojo]

it seems to me that all the 197x series sound different than the silvers and the clads. Sorta like there's a bit of silver, but not much. Is it just my imagination? Any of you notice this?

Funny thing is I have noticed a couple of years do sound different , different pitch / ring. 1995 is one of those years and 2 other years I have noticed I have learned to ignore them but it is difficult to ignore since i use a edge and drop search technique to search. After viewing the edge and removing the obvious silver from the entire roll I let them drop / waterfall from one hand to the next and listen for the sweet sound of silver. This results in 100% accuracy for finding silver. but I end up seeing a lot of 95's and I wanna say some 92's cause for some reason they have a distinct sound that is different that normal copper clad....? but are not silver.

Anyone else?

Mojo

 

[BBcardsRI]

I think 95 is also one of the thin years? or maybe its 99? I can't remember

Some of the newer years have coins that are sooooo much thinner than compared to like a thick 72 or something.

And you could be darn right about the 64 not having an S. I want to say all the Frankie-proofs are S-less as well. I'm off to hit my books to find out more about that though... its bugging me not being sure. =)

~Dave

 

[mistergee]

And you could be darn right about the 64 not having an S. I want to say all the Frankie-proofs are S-less as well. I'm off to hit my books to find out more about that though... its bugging me not being sure. =)

I have a 1959 proof Ben...you can see it here http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,179446.0.html....since
it seems the concensous is Bens have no "s" mark