1967 50 cents canada

It lists a different mintage for the proof. I'm wondering if anyone knows if the coins graded proof like are part of that figure or the circulation coin mintage? Canadian coins have to do their own thing it seems, specimen/proof/prooflike…N#306

Not for this one 😉 only circulating and proof!

Yes so to witch category do the coins graded proof like belong..🤷‍♂️

It's only a grading company's opinion, prooflike = nearly proof, but not quite, so it goes into the circulation line IMO, but since it's your coin, you of course can put it as you like. It'll not bother me, if you chose to call it proof😆

Well for some reason it bothers me. I like to have things clearly defined and in their proper place…maybe this is just a me problem..😳

Sean O

Well for some reason it bothers me. I like to have things clearly defined and in their proper place…maybe this is just a me problem..😳

Do it with a personal comment in the line you decide to put it. To me, it looks like the RCM didn't strike any “proof like” coins in 1967, so the firm having grading the coin as “proof like” is just wrong, should probably have been UNC?

Hello,

Definition from Coinsandcanada.com:

PL (Proof-like): Coins not intended for circulation struck and sold by the Mint in a special package despite the fact that their composition is identical to the coins produced for circulation. If Proof-like coins have been removed from their protective envelope or original package, it is harder to differentiate them from uncirculated coins.

The Royal Canadian Mint itself does not use the term proof-like. Your coin would be part of the circulation mintage.

Thanks coin goblin, that's kind of what I was thinking. Some coins list mintage figures for proof and proof like, south africa for example. It would be amazing if all coins had that information.

Sjoelund

Sean O

Well for some reason it bothers me. I like to have things clearly defined and in their proper place…maybe this is just a me problem..😳

Do it with a personal comment in the line you decide to put it. To me, it looks like the RCM didn't strike any “proof like” coins in 1967, so the firm having grading the coin as “proof like” is just wrong, should probably have been UNC?

Agree, thanks.