This question was asked last year about the 1917 MPL, does the PCGS website coinfacts conflict with
GFourDriver
Posts: 2,366 ✭
About a year and a half ago, I asked the question "Do 1917 Matte Proof Lincolns exist?" hrh made the following comments on this forum which I took to mean that none had not been found to date. But, on the PCGS coin facts web site, it says: "No Proofs were reported as having been minted, but definite Proofs are known - they are quite rare." Link
<<<The first supposed "matte proof" 1917 lincoln cent turned up in around 1975. Joel Rettew and I purchased a huge old time collection. It was so big, the coins were so unusually cherry, and hadn't seen the light of day in so long, that we hired Walter Breen to attribute the varieties.
The 1917 Lincoln definitely looked different. Breen said he felt it was a matte proof and wrote an authentication letter. The coin was sold at auction thereafter.
Seeing the coin many years later, I am convinced it was not a matte proof...just a real cherry business strike.
Steve Ivy bought the 1917 quarter from us at the time, feeling it too was an newly discovered "proof" and he marketed it as such. My feelings on that coin are the same as on the Lincoln...not a true matte proof but just a cherry business strike.
hrh>>>>
My question is, Do these two statements conflict with one another, one on the CU website, and the other made by David Hall on these forums? Do any pics exist of the "close" one? Are there any known examples certified by any TPG?
<<<The first supposed "matte proof" 1917 lincoln cent turned up in around 1975. Joel Rettew and I purchased a huge old time collection. It was so big, the coins were so unusually cherry, and hadn't seen the light of day in so long, that we hired Walter Breen to attribute the varieties.
The 1917 Lincoln definitely looked different. Breen said he felt it was a matte proof and wrote an authentication letter. The coin was sold at auction thereafter.
Seeing the coin many years later, I am convinced it was not a matte proof...just a real cherry business strike.
Steve Ivy bought the 1917 quarter from us at the time, feeling it too was an newly discovered "proof" and he marketed it as such. My feelings on that coin are the same as on the Lincoln...not a true matte proof but just a cherry business strike.
hrh>>>>
My question is, Do these two statements conflict with one another, one on the CU website, and the other made by David Hall on these forums? Do any pics exist of the "close" one? Are there any known examples certified by any TPG?
0
Comments
Russ, NCNE
Kinda like ol' sasquatch brother, lot of folks say he's out there, but nobody's walked in with him yet.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Great analogy!
all the stories start by saying "I remeber hearing something about" ........
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>They are in the class of the 1910-SVDB. >>
I never heard this one...never even heard it mentioned in the Lincoln material that I've read. Purely ficitonal or is there some basis to believe in its existence?
At least the 1917 MPL has been mentioned in literature by known numismatists. Some claim to have seen an example...
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage.
ANA Member R-3147111
Never heard of the dime, but all denominations were supposed to be in a 1917 matte proof set that was examined 30 or so years ago.
True? I have no clue, but would love to see the coin and love to see the results of a submission for grading.
1. matte proof – as used on Lincolns 1909-1916 and Buffalos 1913-1916. New dies were sandblasted, then hardened. Coin struck on a medal press.
2. satin proof – as used on some 1921 and 1922 low relief Peace dollars, 1909-1910 gold, 1936 early proofs. New dies were hardened. Coin struck on a medal press. No other surface alterations. Fields very smooth, virtually no luster.
3. sandblast proof – as used on 1908, 1911-1915 gold, 1921, 1922 high and low relief Peace dollars. Not used on any minor coins. New dies were hardened. Coin struck on a medal press. Each coin then sandblasted. Fine grained surface. Every specimen slightly different.
Any purported 1917 “proof” set would likely be satin surface and distinctly different from any previous collector proofs – particularly the silver. In this instance, the only differences between an early strike and a satin proof would be produced by the action of the medal press vs production press. Look for square rims, squared, sharp lettering, fine detail in design, perfect edge square with top of rim, etc.
<< <i>There is a No. Cal. dealer who specializes in Lincolns that has told me that he has a 1917 Matte Proof Lincoln, that he has shown it to TPG's who have said that they would like to grade it, but he has chosen to not have it graded yet.
True? I have no clue, but would love to see the coin and love to see the results of a submission for grading. >>
Stories like these are a dime a dozen. No question in my mind that the No. Cal. dealer told you the "story". Big doubt in my mind that he had anything but a 1917 sharply struck Lincoln cent.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>There is a No. Cal. dealer who specializes in Lincolns that has told me that he has a 1917 Matte Proof Lincoln, that he has shown it to TPG's who have said that they would like to grade it, but he has chosen to not have it graded yet.
True? I have no clue, but would love to see the coin and love to see the results of a submission for grading. >>
Actually, I believe I have several 1917 MPLs sitting around the house as I type. However, I simply cannot get motivated enough to have them authenticated by PCGS or NGC. Sorry.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>Any purported 1917 “proof” set would likely be satin surface and distinctly different from any previous collector proofs – particularly the silver >>
Roger,
If any proofs were struck in 1917 why would the Mint have changed the production method from that of the year before?
CG
I said "likely" because it would have been wasteful to ruin good cent and nickel dies by sandblasting them just to strike one coin. A satin proof looks so much like one of the matte proof minors that I think anyone making a complete set of coins for someone, or for their own amusement, would have used the simplest method available. This would be putting new dies in the medal press, striking a cent, then do it all again for a nickel, etc. Die change out and alignment was not a trivial matter and the whole thing might have taken an hour to strike the five coins this way. Of course this is all speculation and "what if" stuff since no accepted specimens have turned up, and there’s no original documentation.
As far as Breen’s “certification” ... the poor man certified all sorts of things that didn’t exist. He tried to please others, and to make a few bucks, and feel good about himself….sad.
<< <i>
<< <i>They are in the class of the 1910-SVDB. >>
I never heard this one...never even heard it mentioned in the Lincoln material that I've read. Purely ficitonal or is there some basis to believe in its existence?
At least the 1917 MPL has been mentioned in literature by known numismatists. Some claim to have seen an example...
1910S VDB's likely exist. In an article that appeared in COINage a number of years ago, the author stated that he bought one from a dealer. Keep in mind that only traces of VDB will show. There could have been leftover reverse dies from 1909 used, with the initials incompletely ground off. David Lange says that traces of the initials were either left on the working hub or working die, with the working die being most likely.
The first supposed "matte proof" 1917 lincoln cent turned up in around 1975. Joel Rettew and I purchased a huge old time collection. It was so big, the coins were so unusually cherry, and hadn't seen the light of day in so long, that we hired Walter Breen to attribute the varieties.
The 1917 Lincoln definitely looked different. Breen said he felt it was a matte proof and wrote an authentication letter. The coin was sold at auction thereafter.
Seeing the coin many years later, I am convinced it was not a matte proof...just a real cherry business strike.
Steve Ivy bought the 1917 quarter from us at the time, feeling it too was an newly discovered "proof" and he marketed it as such. My feelings on that coin are the same as on the Lincoln...not a true matte proof but just a cherry business strike.
hrh
I actually thought of you and this deal when I read this thread.
For years and years after this I would see dealers at shows with a really cool business strike, calling it a proof.
I really wish there were a few out there, but I don't feel it will ever happen at this point.
Thank you David.
OB
This is a black swan problem - you can't prove something does not exist because you have never seen it yourself.
Your sig image exceeds the maximum allowable size of 400x200, and 20k.
Russ, NCNE
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>No, I do not have images yet, I am still fighting to master my camera. As to which TPG it is I would rather not get into the controversey over which TPG is better than what TPG. Does it really matter? We all know as far as TPG's there is Hertz and Avis and then "Everyone Else"; BUFFNIXX >>
Buffnixx,
You are the perfect example of a collector who says he owns a 1917 Matte Proof (actually two!) but does not feel any desire to share his collection knowledge with others on this forum. You join in 2003 and have made 24 posts total, 2 of them tonight. Why? I have no doubt that you believe you own or had owned these so called Matte Proofs. If verified they would be worth thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. But, of course, that is not important to you. You are a collector. I wish you all the best, but I can assure you that those Matte Proof nickels will NEVER be worth more than a good story to any collectors unless you can PROVE to the hobby that they are really Matte Proofs. JMHO. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>I now own the first coin pictured above. Got it off of ebay. It is the nicest 17-p I have ever seen. Almost makes you think it was a proof. Have never sween a 17p struck like that. Except for the two matte proof 1917 nickels slabbed by SEGS. My vote would be for the first coin!! BUFFNIXX. >>
One may think it safe to believe that the population of two SEGS-slabbed 1917 "matte proof" Buffalo nickels is owned by BUFFNIXX, which would give him a SEGS graded PF63 (Cleaned) and a SEGS graded PF58. Apparently, he found one in 1992 and one in 2004, yet never had an adequate image taken of either in all that time, which to me means that someone is either trying to Blow Smoke to others or is willing to fool himself.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
"Blessings",
BUFFNIXX
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
1. In the earlier post that included photos of two circulation strike 1917 nickels, although both coins are nice, neither is close to resembling a matte proof.
2. A comment in this post, "There was very strong eveidence [sic] of the double striking about the date and on the word LIBERTY, to say nothing of the coins surfaces," is confusing. Proofs of that era were struck with one blow (more like a squeeze) from a hydraulic medal press at high pressure, not multiple blows.
3. Absent solid evidence to the contrary, the matter of 1917 proofs seems resolved by Mr. Hall’s statements.
4. However, I am very interested in the possibility of something lurking out there awaiting discovery. So, I offer to pay the grading fee if BUFFNIXX will send the best of his two “1917 matte proof Buffalo nickels” to either PCGS or NGC for authentication, certification and grading.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I'd just be happy to see some images.
Sounds like you've been offered free authentication and grading for your matte proof 1917 nickel. There's no cost and if PCGS or NGC says "matte proof" you've got a gold mine!
<< <i>For the time period you’re discussing, there are three versions of “proof” coin:
...
2. satin proof – as used on some 1921 and 1922 low relief Peace dollars, 1909-1910 gold, 1936 early proofs. New dies were hardened. Coin struck on a medal press. No other surface alterations. Fields very smooth, virtually no luster.
...
>>
I know they are a later period, but since you included the 1936 Satin Proofs, don't forget the 1950 Satin Proof Lincolns. I have one of these and it is a spectacular coin. I don't believe other denomination proofs were struck in satin in 1950.
http://macrocoins.com
This is such an intresting topic. if noone minds it seeing the life of day? i dont know to much regarding this but have heard they may or may not be out there. i thought what a good way to find out.
<<No Proofs were reported as having been minted, but definite Proofs are known - they are quite rare>>
via David Halls website. So do they exsist?
I am still confused...
If I had something like this that was unknown, I would be so excited I couldnt wait to share it with the Numismatic community. (Of course being cautious if it were an item that was subject to confiscation)
jim
WS
<< <i>I find it intriguing that if the 1917 Cent does NOT exist..why is there a annotation in the 2008 RED BOOK for such a beast???????
WS >>
Bob and others,
As most of us know, the hobby has many "stories". Some have proven true. Some have proven false and others haven't been proven true or false. Some stories will NEVER be PROVEN true or false UNLESS they can be proven true. The case of the so called 1917 Matte proofs, and particularly the 1917 Matte proof Lincoln cent is such a case. If one comes out of the woodwork and is certified by PCGS, NGC or even ANACS then the story will be true. If that doesn't happen, then we can not say it is false. We can only suspect that it is false. And so, those people who chose to believe that a REAL 1917 matte proof exists can continue to believe.
Now WHY the Red Book continues to list such a coin in their small cents listing and NOT in their nickel five cent pieces listing is probably a matter of the fact that many years ago the "story" was prominent in the hobby and the Red Book decided to put it in the listing with "no price". They never removed it. Lots of similar abnomalies in the Red Book. Dentuck might comment if he reads this. I personally would like to see such stuff out of the Red Book unless and until it is proven true.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
AS DAVID HALL WOULD SAY NFW no fu-king way
I saw the 1917 matte proof Lincoln that Walter Breen authentiated and the rim was expertly ground down to a wire like rim.
It was an expertly done job but the coin was not a matte proof Lincoln.
Stewart
<< <i>AS DAVID HALL WOULD SAY NFW no fu-king way
I saw the 1917 matte proof Lincoln that Walter Breen authentiated and the rim was expertly ground down to a wire like rim.
It was an expertly done job but the coin was not a matte proof Lincoln.
Stewart >>
Pretty much closes the book on this one.
I read somewhere once that nicely struck business strike coins were sometimes treated with CYANIDE (!) to impart the look of a Matte Proof to the coin-a risky business to say the least.
I've heard that the quarter and half dollar are supposed to exist, but no dime has ever been seen. Anyone know anything about these coins?