Morocco Set, BU or Proof?

10 posts

» Quick access to the last post

Hello,

With regards to Morocco coins set KM#PS2; it's listed as a normal set, but some people claim it's proof. Any idea?

Pix from old topic:
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic47578.html
Youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPwp_PoMR2Y
Ebay listing:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1974-1975-Kingdom-of-Morocco-Mint-Set-7-Gem-Proof-Coins-/201128678783

Thanks
Catalog Master Referee & Referee for UAE
https://www.instagram.com/amer.coins
Amer Salmeh
Hello
It's definitely not proof.
For it to be proof it would need for example: a mirror field, and a white bust.

Take this as an example: http://kennedyhalfdollars.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/proof-kennedy-half-dollar.jpg
That Ebay listing is schizophrenic - Title claims Proof, descriptions says BU...
Catalogue administrator
Not all proofs have a frosted device. especially prior to all of the Franklin Mint sets of the late 70s and early 80s that somewhat set the standard expectation that a proof has a mirror field and a frosted device. The coins shown in the link are not BU coins. They seem to be proof to me. The packaging is proof set packaging consistent with the time, and the fashion of proof sets at the time. This is not BU packaging. I would be comfortable leaving this set as a proof set. The definition of a proof does not require frosted devices on a mirror background. The whole thing can be mirrored. The whole thing can be matte. The coins certainly are not BU. To be a proof requires a specially prepared die and/or planchet is all. By appearance and packaging, this set meets the conditions of proof.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
But as Dato mentioned in the linked topic that Proof sets, issued by Royal Mint always have "Proof set" in the title and he shared a pic of similar various proof sets and they say proof coinage not just coinage like in this one

so I'm more convinced it's just BU, but I could be wrong.
Catalog Master Referee & Referee for UAE
https://www.instagram.com/amer.coins
Amer Salmeh
Coins struck for special purpose (i.e. sale to collectors) and which are not specifically designated as "proof" by the issuing mint, yet differ from coins issued for circulation in some respect (such as having mirrored surfaces) , are usually referred to as "specimen" (SP) strikes.
Specimen would be an acceptable designation. Except for the word proof on the set, this is a proof set. BU were in completely different holders. I have world proofs that compare to these Moroccan coins. But for the word proof this could be a proof set. I do not think we can use the same reasoning and call these coins BU when they are packaged in a way that BU coins are not packaged.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
I guess NGC agrees with Oklahoman
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1974-SET-OF-6-MOROCCO-1-5-10-20-50-SANTIMAT-DIRHAM-NGC-PROOF-PF66-68-/252900810246?hash=item3ae2101e06:g:aBIAAOSwdGFYux0x

From NGC for the 1 Dirham:
Year/Denom/Designation/Total
AH1394-1974/DIRHAM/PF/2

Edit: but then again, this doesn't necessarily mean that the set itself is the proof issue. it just means proof issues exist..
Catalog Master Referee & Referee for UAE
https://www.instagram.com/amer.coins
Amer Salmeh
I will add a proof line now for the above set

And for the 2011 issues; NGC has few graded as SP; so I guess I will add that line too after some more research
Catalog Master Referee & Referee for UAE
https://www.instagram.com/amer.coins
Amer Salmeh
1 more confusing thing, Krause reports a Proof issue for only the 5 Dirhams (which is part of this set) with mintage of 500 only ..
Catalog Master Referee & Referee for UAE
https://www.instagram.com/amer.coins
Amer Salmeh

» Forum policy

Used time zone is UTC+1:00.
Current time is 14:12.