Options
New 1909 MPL Die
soty27
Posts: 1,956
Back in February I purchased a 1909 PCGS PR66RB Matte Proof Lincoln. When I got the coin in hand I noticed that there were no die diagnostics as mentioned in Kevin Flynns book. I contacted Brian Wagner via PM on the forums about the coin not showing any diagnostics. Brian then told me that he had previously saw the coin during lot viewing and determined that there were no die diagnostics. As far as he was concerned, PCGS considered it a matte proof and they would probably back up their guarantee but that I should probably contact Kevin Flynn. I was then talking with Brian Wagner at the Baltimore show regarding the Legend VDB. He mentioned that Charmy had a Raw 1909 that appeared to be a matte proof with no diagnostics. I walked to Charmys table with Brian and was discussing the 1909 with no diagnostics. Kevin then stated that there may be another die and gave possible reasons for another die. I then saw Charmys coin in hand and walked Brian Wagner back down to my table where I showed him high resolution photos of my MPL that I did not have with me at the time. I talked to Brian about maybe sending him some more images of the coin por possibly sending him the coin to have in hand. That was the last timne I theard about the potential new die. I got a message from illini420 today regarding a news story in the PCGS newsletter about the discovery of a new 1909 MPL die. While I or my concerns about the coin are not mentioned in the article, at least my coin received publicity. Although it would have been nice to at least have my concerns about the coin mentioned.
It doesn't seem right at all to just brush my coin aside as basically the discovery coin for the new die even though I was discussing this coin at least a month before Brian, Charmy, and Kevin were discussing the raw coin. I find it a bit tasteless.
My 1909 PCGS PR66RB MPL:
PCGS Article
It doesn't seem right at all to just brush my coin aside as basically the discovery coin for the new die even though I was discussing this coin at least a month before Brian, Charmy, and Kevin were discussing the raw coin. I find it a bit tasteless.
My 1909 PCGS PR66RB MPL:
PCGS Article
0
Comments
For what it's worth, NGC also thought it was an MPL when it was in their PR65RB holder.
-Paul
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
<< <i>I agree that you and your coin should have been shown some consideration. Is Charmy's certified yet and how many others do you figure to be out there? Does this mean that there will be a new population number? >>
As far as I know charmys is not certified yet and to my understanding mine is the only one from the new die that is certified so yes it would have been nice to have been shown some consideration in the article or even an email from brian after the bonified discovery. Its just one less dealer whos inventory I no longer have to go through looking for matte proofs.
Like the time I found the new die variety on the cherios sac dollar.......I can't believe someone else took the credit for my find
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
I also think this could have better been handled privatly on the phone or email. I know Brian as a stand up guy and am not so quick as to think he intentionally stole your thunder, perhaps thinking about it a bit and a phone call could solve hurt feelings. Just my opinion.
<< <i>Congrats on the new discovery piece, and I do understand your frustration for sure.
I also think this could have better been handled privatly on the phone or email. I know Brian as a stand up guy and am not so quick as to think he intentionally stole your thunder, perhaps thinking about it a bit and a phone call could solve hurt feelings. Just my opinion. >>
I dont think he was trying to steal my thunder, I simply contacted him once I recieved the coin and stated there were no diagnosics and then once again I discussed the coin with him and Charmy and Kevin at baltimore. He had seen my coin in auction lot viewing and noted he could not find any diagnostics as well but that pcgs called it a matte proof and that he thought there guarantee would back that up. Then to turn around and write a big article with my coin mentioned and no mention of myself or my concerns about the coin or the fact that I was also there in Baltimore discussing the coin and my concerns was extremely distasteful and downright disrespectful.
While previewing small cents at the Long Beach show in early February, I encountered a 1909 MPL Lincoln cent that got my attention. The coin was being offered for sale in the February 2010 Heritage Long Beach Signature Auction. It was an attractive, magenta-toned 1909 MPL cent graded PR66RB by PCGS.
Or do you mean you would have liked pure dredit for it?
Seems this later addendum might be a way to reference not giving you credit?:
(Editors Note: This new die might have been previously reported, but to this day, it was an unconfirmed die.)
<< <i>The article starts off with(isnt this a mention to the coin above?)
While previewing small cents at the Long Beach show in early February, I encountered a 1909 MPL Lincoln cent that got my attention. The coin was being offered for sale in the February 2010 Heritage Long Beach Signature Auction. It was an attractive, magenta-toned 1909 MPL cent graded PR66RB by PCGS. >>
"While I or my concerns about the coin are not mentioned in the article, at least my coin received publicity."
<< <i>
<< <i>The article starts off with(isnt this a mention to the coin above?)
While previewing small cents at the Long Beach show in early February, I encountered a 1909 MPL Lincoln cent that got my attention. The coin was being offered for sale in the February 2010 Heritage Long Beach Signature Auction. It was an attractive, magenta-toned 1909 MPL cent graded PR66RB by PCGS. >>
"While I or my concerns about the coin are not mentioned in the article, at least my coin received publicity." >>
Oh I misread that then because you later said
"It doesn't seem right at all to just brush my coin aside"
They kinda just brushed you aside not the coin. Still not cool.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The article starts off with(isnt this a mention to the coin above?)
While previewing small cents at the Long Beach show in early February, I encountered a 1909 MPL Lincoln cent that got my attention. The coin was being offered for sale in the February 2010 Heritage Long Beach Signature Auction. It was an attractive, magenta-toned 1909 MPL cent graded PR66RB by PCGS. >>
"While I or my concerns about the coin are not mentioned in the article, at least my coin received publicity." >>
Oh I misread that then because you later said
"It doesn't seem right at all to just brush my coin aside"
They kinda just brushed you aside not the coin. Still not cool. >>
I could not agree more.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
I have a 1909 Lincoln that does not have the die markers associated with the matte proof version of that coin. I have always wondered about that coin since it has amazingly strong and crisp detail, plus squared off, razor sharp rims. It looks nothing like the MS early Lincolns I have (many of which I have purchased from Charmy). The absence of the die markers caused me to believe my coin is simply a nicely struck MS coin.
Maybe, just maybe I should take a second look at the coin after reading the article and this thread and have someone knowledgable on MPLs look at the coin. If my 1909 Lincoln is an MPL without the die markers I will be one happy camper.
<< <i>they do sort of brush the coin aside as well... the article start with the 66RB, but then goes on and on about Charmy's coin and makes it seem as that was the discovery coin. the article never does come back to the 66RB to say whether or not that coin is one of the new MPL dies or not. >>
So it wasn't discovered by a little birdie. And the plot thickens...
<< <i>Very interesting information.
I have a 1909 Lincoln that does not have the die markers associated with the matte proof version of that coin. I have always wondered about that coin since it has amazingly strong and crisp detail, plus squared off, razor sharp rims. It looks nothing like the MS early Lincolns I have (many of which I have purchased from Charmy). The absence of the die markers caused me to believe my coin is simply a nicely struck MS coin.
Maybe, just maybe I should take a second look at the coin after reading the article and this thread and have someone knowledgable on MPLs look at the coin. If my 1909 Lincoln is an MPL without the die markers I will be one happy camper. >>
I'm sure yours isn't, just send it to me.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
On the main point of the thread I am not sure how to respond. I was at the table when the Baltimore discussion happened but was taking photos and didnt know what they talked about until weeks later. Was there anything about Soty's coin that made it harder to confirm being in a slab? I ask that because the article says:
(Editors Note: This new die might have been previously reported, but to this day, it was an unconfirmed die.)
blu62vette - I had the coin with me Friday afternoon at the Santa Clara show. I should have tracked you down and introduced myself, interrupting you as you were talking to folks wanting you to take pictures. The next time there is a Bay Area or Sacramento show that you attend, I will have to stop by, say hello and have you take a picture of the coin [your pictures are great].
SanctionII
Its clearly visible on the posted coin.... Seems very ODD that after all these years of TPGs looking at these coins all of a sudden a new die is recognized. Im very skeptical of this.
<< <i>
(Editors Note: This new die might have been previously reported, but to this day, it was an unconfirmed die.) >>
Steve Cohen left a post in a like thread in the Registry forum, which I think refers to the unconfirmed die.
<< <i>Chris,
Obviously, I don't know the specifics but you should have been mentioned in the article. Regarding the 1909 MPL I continue to accept the Leonard Albrecht reporting of THREE obverse dies for that coin. One of the dies was the one used for all 1909VDB MPL coins. Albrecht shows pictures of what he used to determine that three dies were used. Kevin says this has not been verified. I assume NOBODY has seen a 1909 obverse MPL with the diagnostics shown in the 1982 report. I also assume that many, many Lincoln cent MPL collectors do not have a copy of the pictures from that report in order to compare. That obverse 2 with the large die crack under Lincoln's bust might exist in someones collection if they had a desire to check it out. I'm sure Brian has seen many MPL's and I would appreciate his comment on this new "so called" discovery piece.
Steve >>
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
<< <i>I don't understand what your beef with Brian is. It sounds as if he had seen the coin in the auction (and noticed the lack of diagnostics) BEFORE it became your coin. And he later made you aware of Charmy's coin. >>
Maybe you should reread my original post.
As far the "no diagnostics", you mean it has different and new die diagnostics I assume...I've never seen a die with no diags...
edited to add: I'll bet PCGS has some diags for it.
Free Trial
<< <i>It's too bad the article didn't properly document the discovery process or the people involved. I'd be miffed too!
As far the "no diagnostics", you mean it has different and new die diagnostics I assume...I've never seen a die with no diags...
edited to add: I'll bet PCGS has some diags for it. >>
"no diagnostics" meaning none of the diagnostics listed in Kevin Flynn's book. It has new different diagnostics.
<< <i>Wasnt there a long discussion about 18 months ago about the diagonal line found within the C in CENT? Idont remember this all clearly but it seems to me that no 09 proof had this mark.
Its clearly visible on the posted coin.... Seems very ODD that after all these years of TPGs looking at these coins all of a sudden a new die is recognized. Im very skeptical of this. >>
I concur...
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase/2819
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't understand what your beef with Brian is. It sounds as if he had seen the coin in the auction (and noticed the lack of diagnostics) BEFORE it became your coin. And he later made you aware of Charmy's coin. >>
Maybe you should reread my original post. >>
I read it twice. Did Brian see the coin and notice the lack of diagnostics before you ended up with it, or not? And did he make you aware of Charmy's example or not?
I just think it's cool that there's research being done on a 100+ year old coin and that new things like this are still being discovered. That said, proper credit should be given to all of those involved in such a discovery. Why even mention soty's coin in the article if it wasn't relevant to the discovery of the new die???
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
Having surveyed the posts, it seems to me that the only reason Soty could take issue is if he informed Brian of the lack of diagnostics prior to Brian figuring it out himself. Then, perhaps more credit should have been given. However, if Brain figured it out before Soty told him, then I think Soty has no good reason to be angry for the way this went down.
Brian, Were you aware of the lack of diagnostics in Soty's coin before Soty told you?
Just wondering...Mike
<< <i>Ohh, a coin dealer fight! This could be interesting...
Having surveyed the posts, it seems to me that the only reason Soty could take issue is if he informed Brian of the lack of diagnostics prior to Brian figuring it out himself. Then, perhaps more credit should have been given. However, if Brain figured it out before Soty told him, then I think Soty has no good reason to be angry for the way this went down.
Brian, Were you aware of the lack of diagnostics in Soty's coin before Soty told you?
Just wondering...Mike >>
Mike, under the circumstances, as explained, I don't see the justification for the OP's attitude, either. As per his first post to the thread:
<<......I contacted Brian Wagner via PM on the forums about the coin not showing any diagnostics. Brian then told me that he had previously saw the coin during lot viewing and determined that there were no die diagnostics.....>>
<< <i>
<< <i>Ohh, a coin dealer fight! This could be interesting...
Having surveyed the posts, it seems to me that the only reason Soty could take issue is if he informed Brian of the lack of diagnostics prior to Brian figuring it out himself. Then, perhaps more credit should have been given. However, if Brain figured it out before Soty told him, then I think Soty has no good reason to be angry for the way this went down.
Brian, Were you aware of the lack of diagnostics in Soty's coin before Soty told you?
Just wondering...Mike >>
Mike, under the circumstances, as explained, I don't see the justification for the OP's attitude, either. As per his first post to the thread:
<<......I contacted Brian Wagner via PM on the forums about the coin not showing any diagnostics. Brian then told me that he had previously saw the coin during lot viewing and determined that there were no die diagnostics.....>> >>
So if Brian knew already, what's Soty's beef?
That Kevin/Brian didn't give Soty sufficient credit?
That Charmy stole Soty's thunder?
Soty's coin was identified in the article, and had he acted on Brian's original advice and gone directly to Kevin with his coin, perhaps the "discovery coin" would have been his, and he would have figured more prominently in the article.
But what do I know?
<< <i>
<< <i>Ohh, a coin dealer fight! This could be interesting...
Having surveyed the posts, it seems to me that the only reason Soty could take issue is if he informed Brian of the lack of diagnostics prior to Brian figuring it out himself. Then, perhaps more credit should have been given. However, if Brain figured it out before Soty told him, then I think Soty has no good reason to be angry for the way this went down.
Brian, Were you aware of the lack of diagnostics in Soty's coin before Soty told you?
Just wondering...Mike >>
Mike, under the circumstances, as explained, I don't see the justification for the OP's attitude, either. As per his first post to the thread:
<<......I contacted Brian Wagner via PM on the forums about the coin not showing any diagnostics. Brian then told me that he had previously saw the coin during lot viewing and determined that there were no die diagnostics.....>> >>
Mark,
Here is my issue so I hope this clears things up for you a bit.
I purchased the coin via auction, when the coin arrived I obviously got a better look at the coin and noticed there were none of the SO CALLED KNOWN diagnostics. I then contacted brian wagner about the coin and the lack of diagnostics, brian stated that he briefly looked at the coin during lot viewing and noticed none of the known diagnostics as well. Obviously this brings up an issue immediately, Charmys is obviously not the discovery coin as this coin was seen in hand long before hers. On another note I contacted kevin flynn via email and got no response. I then was talking once again with brian while at baltimore, and showed him close up images of my coin and the lack of diagnostics once again, brian and I then both walked up to charmys table to look at a raw coin that she stated appeared to be a matte proof with none of the diagnostics, at that time there was NEVER any mention of her coin coming out of a matte proof holder or any holder for that matter. So while trying to compare my coin to charmys coin kevin flynn walked up and the rest of the discussion began. Brian at that time was all of a sudden very enthusiastic about my coin and how my coin was in a holder and the fact that it may be a new discovery. Upon leaving baltimore I once again sent emails to kevin flynn with images of my coin, no response once again.
So here is my issue, my coin was clearly discovered first with none of the known diagnostics as mentioned by brian after i contacted him with the same information. Brian did absolutely nothing to attempt to discover anything on the coin and I was left to try and do it alone. I contacted kevin flynn as previously stated but with no response. Then as brian seems to continue to fail to mention I was with brian at MY table in baltimore trying to figure out MY 1909 with him, once again well before charmys coin was even in the picture, when brian was at my table he HAD NOT- I repeat HAD NOT seen charmys coin yet, so brian and I BOTH went up to charmys table to try and compare marking on the coins, this is when kevin flynn came by and we began to discuss some reasons for a different die. So as you should be able to see pretty clearly now that my coin was the discovery coin, my coin was the first to pop up in a holder with no diagnostics, my coin was being looked at and was the coin that charmys was being compared with so why in the world would hers be the discovery coin?? If my coin was not relevant at all then why did brian mention it at all in the article? Why would brian mention my coin but not mention ME contacting him about the lack of diagnostics, why would he not mention me and my concerns about the coin? Why is some raw dipped 1909 being deemed the discovery coin when my coin was already being discussed as a possible discovery coin well over a month before her coin???
I can see, I think, how you feel miffed, but I don't see where your coin has been slighted in the article.
<< <i>Brian states that the charmy example is the discovery coin and is going to be labled as such in the new kevin flynn book. >>
Really? Where did he say that?
Sorry, but I didn't see him say anything of the sort in that article (just scanned it again).
I do see Kevin saying this:
"I analyzed Charmy's coin and found it to be a new 1909 MPL cent die which is not listed in my Lincoln Cent Matte Proof book, or in Albrecht. It will be listed in the second edition of my book in a few years."
I presumed Kevin was referring to the die not the coin, but in any case, it was not Brain speaking.
Did I miss something?
"Kevin reports back a couple of weeks later and says he is declaring Charmy's coin as a "new 1909 die MPL discovery". In the article I sent to PCGS I thought she should get credit for the discovery but through editing it got removed? Kevin will note her though in his second edition of his book. Once I had Kevins written diagnostics of Charmy's coin I then went back to the Heritage Auction archives and could match two bold reverse diagnostics that were common between Charmy's and Soty's coin that made me feel fairly confident that the Heritage auction coin was most likely anoter example of this new die."
As you can see clearly brian was comparing charmys coin to MY coin and noticed they had some matching markers, my coin was blown off and no mention of me and my findings or anything. Although clearly my coin was first
<< <i>Sanction- Bust that boy out and take a look!!
On the main point of the thread I am not sure how to respond. I was at the table when the Baltimore discussion happened but was taking photos and didnt know what they talked about until weeks later. Was there anything about Soty's coin that made it harder to confirm being in a slab? I ask that because the article says:
(Editors Note: This new die might have been previously reported, but to this day, it was an unconfirmed die.) >>
That's one of the problems, Soty's coin was "not" at the BALTIMORE show and a coin can't be authenicated from a computer image. If his coin was at the Baltimore show I would have suggested that Kevin take both coins with him home to study.
Another thing was Soty, possibly through not fault of his own wasn't able to contact Kevin in the month prior to Charmy's coin being discovered. I urged him to get the coin to Kevin for authenication.
Then when we see Charmy's coin at Baltimore and Kevin is there and also Soty's was there but his coin wasn't.. So there was the 2nd chance for Kevin to see that was missed .
I wrote alot more than was published by PCGS when I sent 'the article to them. Alot was "edited" out, Soty was mentioned but not by name regarding our both discovering the coin in the Heritage auction. I wrote that a board member PM'd me after the auction and asked a couple of questions and I gave this person my advise to send the coin to Kevin Flynn. That was edited out also and that I credit "Charmy" with the discovery because she was the first person to get the coin in Kevin hand for authenication. That also was edited out.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't understand what your beef with Brian is. It sounds as if he had seen the coin in the auction (and noticed the lack of diagnostics) BEFORE it became your coin. And he later made you aware of Charmy's coin. >>
Maybe you should reread my original post. >>
I read it twice. Did Brian see the coin and notice the lack of diagnostics before you ended up with it, or not? And did he make you aware of Charmy's example or not? >>
The answer is a resounding yes to both questions. He PM me after he bought the coin and asked me if I previewed the coin in auction and did I notice the coin didn't have the usual diagnostics of a 1909 MPL cent. I told him yes to both question. I discovered this coin not from him but because of Heritage! He was made aware of Charmy's coin at Baltimore but didn't have his coin with him at the show but had some computer images we looked at.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Ohh, a coin dealer fight! This could be interesting...
Having surveyed the posts, it seems to me that the only reason Soty could take issue is if he informed Brian of the lack of diagnostics prior to Brian figuring it out himself. Then, perhaps more credit should have been given. However, if Brain figured it out before Soty told him, then I think Soty has no good reason to be angry for the way this went down.
Brian, Were you aware of the lack of diagnostics in Soty's coin before Soty told you?
Just wondering...Mike >>
Mike, under the circumstances, as explained, I don't see the justification for the OP's attitude, either. As per his first post to the thread:
<<......I contacted Brian Wagner via PM on the forums about the coin not showing any diagnostics. Brian then told me that he had previously saw the coin during lot viewing and determined that there were no die diagnostics.....>> >>
So if Brian knew already, what's Soty's beef?
That Kevin/Brian didn't give Soty sufficient credit?
I know about that coin before I had a PM for Soty about it, that's the facts
That Charmy stole Soty's thunder?
Soty's coin was identified in the article, and had he acted on Brian's original advice and gone directly to Kevin with his coin, perhaps the "discovery coin" would have been his, and he would have figured more prominently in the article.
But what do I know? >>
You already saw my coin in hand, all the markings you are stating as the discovery peice are clearly seen on my coin as well as in my image as posted on the registry forum and the images I showed you in baltimore were much much better. My coin was the first coin with none of the known diagnostics but is being completly disregarded as a discovery as well as myself and my concerns regarding the coin long before charmys. I tried to contact kevin on numerous occasions and have all the emails in my sent folder dated to prove such. At this point there is no more point in arguing you and I both know what happend, you know you had not seen charmys coin until long after my coin and you know my coin was discussed on numerous occasions long before charmys coin, you know my coin was first and should have gotten credit for the discovery piece regardless of if you want to admit it or not you know its true.