What is the very first "Proof" coin in the world?

I've seen some early 20th century examples, but are there any older examples from anywhere around the world? What's the earliest?

Similarly, I'm wondering if early (or the earliest) proof examples exist as "specimens" for practical purposes, where coins were made as proofs so that their details can be seen clearly as they competed with other proposed designs before a final design was ultimately chosen.

Or, perhaps all early examples of a given coin were made as proofs because the coin press / hammering mechanisms were relatively crude from today's machinery; so, sufficiently detailed designs for practical relief/incuse design durability and recognition of the coins for decades may have required multiple presses / hits. Though perhaps this simply means that most or all of them following this process are "proof-like".

Or, maybe the "first strikes" were proofs as an introductory public service announcement to a given state's newly designed coins; whereby, every other coin that followed were business strikes, mainly because the same dies were used year after year, until the dies went beyond cracking (I'm sure they repaired many of the dies and filled in the cracks). Then perhaps this means that the very first year of the die's use is a proof, given that multiple presses/hammerings from immaculate dies would be used to present the new coins to officials and the public.

Do any of the experts suspect that proofs were made as early as Ancient Greece, with one of the examples being the ultra high relief, deep incuse Aegina Stater coins as shown below (just look at that turtle - the relief is thicker than the base's!)? Or even earlier than that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Good question!

I think someone on one of the other forums said that early (US) proof coins were usually produced as presentation pieces for dignitaries. I'd bet that David Lange from NGC would know.

Chris

 

There are some proof presentation pieces made by the US mint during it's very early years. It wasn't until the mid 19th century when proofs were made by the US for collectors. Proof Indian Cents and Seated Liberty Coinage are relatively available.

 

I'm thinking that there are at least three subsets of what defines a proof:

+ Proofs made intentionally for collectors,
+ Proofs made as presentation pieces or as gifts to important dignitaries, and
+ Proofs by nature of their technical manufacturing process

The first two seems to be what people generally refer to in the relatively modern sense. The third definition, although it may not have been declared as a "proof" or even distinguished from their contemporary examples, I'd think they are technically proofs because of how they were made.

 

The earliest I've heard of is a Proof Shilling commissioned by King James in 1615-16. There are quite a few British Proofs from the early 1700's at Heritage, as well.

 

And what if I phrased my question in this way?:

If the coin below was minted today, would it be considered as a proof?

Or, would it be a deep cameo business strike, or deep cameo proof-like strike?

 

Only if it was made with special dies for collectors or some other official purpose. Otherwise just a strong deep strike.

 

But haven't special proof dies been reused / recycled for business strikes?

Then wouldn't the use of special dies for circulating coins make those business strikes proofs?

 

No, because they lack the care in preparation and striking process which defines a Proof. Proofs are as much about intent as anything else.

 

Or just different varieties of business strike. My 2000 WAM Cent is made with a reverse proof die, though not classified as a business strike proof. It is made with proof dies but not treated the way that a proof coin was made, the blanks are not polished and the coin is not struck more than once. It is not struck for any other purpose than circulation. Proof coins are also intended to be proof. There are also prooflike coins, made from highly polished dies, but not intended to be proof.

 

Then wouldn't ancient first strikes with immaculate dies whereby the utmost care and intent went into producing the finest specimens meant as presentation pieces to kings, queens, royalties, aristocrats, etc. be proofs? It wouldn't be hard to imagine this scenario as being plausible, or even highly likely. Although they may not have been colloquially referred to as "proofs", the first coins minted may have been intended to be as perfect as can be so as to show to their kings or as tribute to other rulers of the ancient world. It would be the same intent as modern day proofs, and they'd undergo a rigorous process of quality for their time.

 

Yes they would, and the moment proof of their existence comes to light I'll believe they were done.

It can be argued that the Tang Dynasty did just this before 1000AD.

 

I can imagine chestfuls of high quality tribute coins being presented to the likes of Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, etc.

If the tributes were deemed low quality, maybe it would be a sign of disrespect and the favor of these rulers would be lost to the pledgers. Or perhaps low quality designed precious metal coins were a sign that a given civilization was not civilized enough to exist, even as a puppet state.

Speculations aside, if it were me and there was absolutely no way to fend off the attackers, I'd send a bunch of specially made, highest quality production silver / gold coins as tribute to a militarily superior force, hoping that they'd go away. If that fails, then I would have tried my best at diplomacy (read: bribery).

All in all, I believe that it's highly plausible that very, very early proofs exist by way of their intent and quality manufacturing for its day.

 

And even in general, income inequality of ancient societies was far greater than modern societies. Not to mention the relative scarcity of gold and silver. If gold and silver coins were a luxury that circulated mostly among the upper rungs of society, then perhaps they were made as or almost to the same vein as jewelry.

I can also see practical stability of governance or even narcissistic reasons for creating high quality "proofs", as a daily reminder to the population of the king's divine-like rule.

 

This article provides evidence that the emperor Augustus was a coin collector, and speculation that collecting may have happened as early as the 4th century BC. So, it's entirely possible that specimens might have been specially produced for the Emperor or as part of an institutional collection of the Imperial Mint.

 

Augustus was a coin fancier of Greek coins but no evidence suggests he did anything special with Roman coins.

However, I go back to the original intent of proof, that is to prove a die. Many ancient mints had to prove the die with the first couple of strikes to the mintmaster. Additionally, special presentation coins have been known for centuries. By definition, these all essentially would have been proofs. Athenian octodrachms would have been one such coin. Made only for presentation, and not circulation.

 

But if, say, a Roman emperor ordered the Mint to present a new coin to honor his legacy and approve it for circulation, wouldn't that presentation coin have (plausibly) met those three criteria? It's not that it's simply plausible, but that I believe we shouldn't discount the possibility or likelihood that proofs were struck further back in time.

 

That falls right in line with the US Mint's definition.
"a specially produced coin made from highly polished planchets and dies and often struck more than once to accent the design."

 

I will say this, all ancient coins were struck more than once. At least two hammer strikes was standard, and for deep relief coins, perhaps as much as three or 4 hammer strikes might have been necessary. However, as good as the Ancients might try to polish dies, the uniqueness of hand engraving dies, and individually hand polishing dies, then the uniqueness of each flan, and the individuality of each hand struck coin (which would mean no two coins were ever alike --even from the same die) kind of renders this whole discussion moot. I think of proofs as more a repeatedly reproducible feat of modern machine driven minting methods.