1964 Proof Kennedy? How to tell?

[Avago]

Hey guys, I found an extremely shiny '64 Kennedy in my box last night which yielded a total of five 90% and twelve 40%. Can you guys tell from these pics whether this one's a proof? The rim is a bit thicker and there's no mint mark... Is there any definitive way to tell? I know it doesn't look like the "accented hair" variety.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[port ewen ace]

S mint mark, mirror field with frosted cameo images. your silver count for 1 box is staggering!!!!!

 

[Diver_Down]

S mint mark, mirror field with frosted cameo images. your silver count for 1 box is staggering!!!!!

Your generalization applies to proofs struck in '68 and later. For '65-'67, there were no proofs struck. Before '65, all proofs were struck in Philly and only rarely do they have a cameo effect. To answer the OP's question, yes your '64 is an impaired proof.

 

[ArkieBassMan]

I concur with DD. Looks awfully proofy to me. Those pre-'65 Philly proofs usually look chrome plated to me.

 

[Avago]

Thanks for the info Diver and Arkie, I thought it looked "proofy" as well. I know that the '64 proofs didn't have any mint marks, and your confirmations are much appreciated!

 

[baddbluff]

Yes looks like a proof. One way to know it's not is if it has a D mintmark on the reverse. It has sharper detail than normal business strikes and the mirrors, so probably is. In the impaired condition it's in, there's no premium above melt tho. Cool find!

 

[MIhunter]

Looks like an impaired proof to me.
I have found 3 pre1965 FDR silver proofs.
I have a 1964 mint set and an 1964 proof set and comparing the coins is VERY helpful.