Options
Matte Proof coins 1909-1916 question
noodle
Posts: 18
After attending the ANA show this past week I now have a new appreciation for Matte Proof Lincoln Cents but in reading some stuff recently, I found a mention of Matte Proof Buffalo Nickels.
Did they make Matte Proof Buffalos from 1913-1916? or were they satin finish like the 1936 satin finish?
Were any other coins minted between 1909-1916 that had a matte proof? or were the rest of the coins (denominations) made with a brilliant finish?
any help would be appreciated.
Did they make Matte Proof Buffalos from 1913-1916? or were they satin finish like the 1936 satin finish?
Were any other coins minted between 1909-1916 that had a matte proof? or were the rest of the coins (denominations) made with a brilliant finish?
any help would be appreciated.
When you see a man atop a mountain, remember that he wasn't just dropped there.
0
Comments
are you referring to the sandblast proof gold? and aren't those different from matte proofs?
The gold proofs are usually referred to as "Roman Proofs". I am unclear as to whether or not the coins themselves were sandblasted.
MPLs, I know, were made by sandblasting the die.
The Buffalos were made by the same process as MPLs from '09 through '16. In 1936, the process changed to Satin, then Brilliant.
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
a wealth of information you are for me this week!!!
LOL
<< <i>Hey Noodle!
The gold proofs are usually referred to as "Roman Proofs". I am unclear as to whether or not the coins themselves were sandblasted.
MPLs, I know, were made by sandblasting the die.
The Buffalos were made by the same process as MPLs from '09 through '16. In 1936, the process changed to Satin, then Brilliant. >>
The gold proofs were sandblasted with super-fine sediment.
Even after viewing original superb Gems, the gold matte proofs are IMO the ugliest coins the US Mint produced.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
No, I don't own this although I wish I did. I sold it when I was dealer about ten years ago. I thought it was a very attractive piece although, of course, it had no luster.
As for the Matte Buffalo nickels, they are similar to very well struck business strikes, and if you are not an expert in this area, certification is strongly recommended. Here are the two pieces that I own, the two 1913 varieties.
Type I
Type II
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
<<The gold proofs are usually referred to as "Roman Proofs". I am unclear as to whether or not the coins themselves were sandblasted>>
This statement is not accurate. Roman Finish "Proofs" and Sandblast Finish "Proofs" are very different. With some exceptions, Roman Finish U.S. gold pieces were struck only in 1909 and 1910, though there seem to be a few Sandblast Finish pieces dating from these two years. Generally, Sandblast Finish U.S. gold pieces were struck from 1911 to 1915. Of 20th century series, Sandblast Finish gold pieces were made in 1908 as well.
Please read to learn more:
PCGS certified 1912 Matte Proof Gold Set auctioned during Autumn Long Beach Expo
siliconvalleycoins.com
The proof buffalo's are very nice as well.....
Hoard the keys.
All of the answers to your questions will be found in the Renaissance of American Coinage books. 1905-1908 covers the gold and 1909-1915 covers bronze and copper-nickel.
Most of the PCGS [board] responses are either incomplete or simply incorrect.
PS: "Roman" proof is nothing but more stale "Breen Bologna." Wally didn't know how they were produced so he made up a name.
Check out the Southern Gold Society
In 1907, the curvature and texture of the fields of the new Saint -Gaudens Twenty Dollar Gold coins made it difficult to polish the fields for proof working dies. A method called sandblasting was used on gold proofs in 1908. Sandblasting was commonly used by the French in the 19th century. One method involved streaming sand onto the face of a working die. Another involves streaming sand over a coin right after it was struck.
These create a dull, non-reflective, grainy surface, also known as a matte surface.
The size and amount of sand varied over time.
For the Lincoln cent proofs struck between 1909 to 1916, sandblasting was used on the working dies, not the coins.
When a working die is sandblasted, it will leave small pits in the surface of the die, these will result in raised pits on the coin.
Examining two coins from the same working die, if the raised pits/metal on the surface, are in the same locations, then the sandblasting
can be concluded to have been done on the working die.
Note also, that when a sandblasted working die was used extensively in the coining press, the surfaces would wear down, and become smooth. For example, in 1911, Lincoln cent matte proofs are known that have a satin surface.
For matte proofs, the working dies and planchets were not polished. These coins have non-mirrored surfaces.
Proof production stopped in 1916, sandblasting was not used on silver coins before 1917, but was used on the 1921 and 1922 Peace Dollars and the 1928 Hawaiian Half Dollars.
In James Rankin Young's book, the United States Mint at Philadelphia, 1903, he describes the sandblasting process that at that time was used for medals, a small wooden box was used with glass slide. A pipe on the inside blows down a fine shower of sand. The operator, wearing a big pair of mits to protect his hands, holds the coin [medal] under this stream until the operation is finished, when it has a delicate frosted appearance.
Kevin
We'll use our hands and hearts and if we must we'll use our heads.
CoinLieutenant: <<Roman proofs only describe the finish on a couple of the dates if I recall. They are different finishes from the darker matte proofs. ....
I answered this question in an above post in this very thread.
Analyst, again: <Roman Finish "Proofs" and Sandblast Finish "Proofs" are very different. With some exceptions, Roman Finish U.S. gold pieces were struck only in 1909 and 1910, though there seem to be a few Sandblast Finish pieces dating from these two years. Generally, Sandblast Finish U.S. gold pieces were struck from 1911 to 1915. Of 20th century series, Sandblast Finish gold pieces were made in 1908 as well. >
An additional point is that it is claimed that there exist Roman Finish gold pieces that are dated 1907 and/or 1921. It is not practical to discuss these points here. I have never closely inspected the 1921 Saint that was certified ATS as "Proof-64+"!
I have closely inspected the 1907 $10 piece that sold for more than $2 million in Jan. 2011. In my view, it does not have a Roman Finish Proof like the Roman Finish Eagles of 1909 or 1910, though some experts believe that it does:
Why is a 1907 $10 Gold piece worth more than $2 million?
CoinLieutenant: <<There are a select few folks that could tell you the date of the coin solely from the matte finish, as all the dates were different, sometimes dramatically (roman vs. matte), sometimes subtly.>>
Such rumors are legendary. As I pointed out in my recent article, however, sandblast finishes not only varied from year to year, they varied within the same calendar year. A Saint with an orange-mustard finish may have been struck in the same year as a Saint with an olive colored mustard finish. Therefore, I am skeptical that anyone could always determine the date of an original sandblast finish Saint just by viewing the reverse. As I also pointed out in my article, however, the number of original sandblast finish pieces has been dwindling, so this is perhaps a moot point, anyway. Experts in sandblast finish gold pieces are quoted in this article.
PCGS certified 1912 Matte Proof Gold Set auctioned during Autumn Long Beach Expo
RWB: <<All of the answers to your questions will be found in the Renaissance of American Coinage books.>>
This is not true. There is still a great deal that is unknown about Roman Finish and Sandblast Finish gold pieces. An explanation of the tremendous variations in original color, for example, has never been convincingly provided.
RWB:<<Roman" proof is nothing but more stale "Breen Bologna." (Breen) didn't know how they were produced so he made up a name.>>
This remark is arrogant and misleading. It is not known that Breen coined the term 'Roman Finish.' He may have had a logical or historical reason to employ this term. More importantly, to experts who have seen the coins, the kind of finish that Breen terms 'Roman Finish' is clear enough.
Why should it be assumed that Satin Finish is a better term than Roman Finish? The 1909 and 1910 gold pieces in question certainly have a finish that is different from other coins that are often said to have a "satin finish." It follows logically that there should be a separate term. As the term Roman Finish has been used so often, for decades, it may be productive to continue to use it, especially since employing the term 'Satin Finish' to describe these gold pieces would be confusing, as some coins with finishes, which are different from the finishes on such 1909-10 gold pieces, are generally said to have "Satin" finishes.
<< <i>
An additional point is that it is claimed that there exist Roman Finish gold pieces that are dated 1907 and/or 1921. It is not practical to discuss these points here. I have never closely inspected the 1921 Saint that was certified ATS as "Proof-64+"! >>
I have held the 1921 Proof 64+ in hand. I agree with Dave Akers, who noted upon its first appearance that it had a look, based upon finish and fabric, unlike any 1921 that he'd ever seen. The Capitol building is not as well defined. Could be that our hosts graded it SP64. I also saw the PR or SP 62 from the Sotheby's(?) sale that was not as convincing because chewed up. Honestly, I was not open to the possibility that such a coin might exist. John Dannreuther tried to give me a lesson on that one (it was different), but the Heritage coin convinced me.
<< <i>CoinLieutenant: <<There are a select few folks that could tell you the date of the coin solely from the matte finish, as all the dates were different, sometimes dramatically (roman vs. matte), sometimes subtly.>>
Such rumors are legendary. As I pointed out in my recent article, however, sandblast finishes not only varied from year to year, they varied within the same calendar year. A Saint with an orange-mustard finish may have been struck in the same year as a Saint with an olive colored mustard finish. Therefore, I am skeptical that anyone could always determine the date of an original sandblast finish Saint just by viewing the reverse. As I also pointed out in my article, however, the number of original sandblast finish pieces has been dwindling, so this is perhaps a moot point, anyway. Experts in sandblast finish gold pieces are quoted in this article. >>
The olive and orange mustard (Guldens) variations come only in 1908. Every other date can be identified by the color of the reverse. MrE can verify this, as can various other duck hunters and old farts.
A curious 1914 $10, clearly struck as a proof but not yet sandblasted, sold in a Stacks sale a few years ago for maybe $30,000. It was a touch more raw in look than an '09 or '10. I believe it is owned by the current owner of the 1921 PR64+
At '85 Fun I had a year set of $2 1/2's that JA cherry-picked. I got a lot of money for the screwed-up 1909.
And I was lucky enough to have full gold proof sets of 1908,1909,1914 and 1915 at the 1985 ANA. Single year sets were around. A full 8 year set in auction every few years. It was hard to find many pieces that were screwed up.
By 2003 I was throwing up. If 25% survive healthy I'd be gratified.
It was disappointing to see the Richmond matte gold. N66,67's. Each coin, every denomination, every date ('08, '11-'15) was the identical wheatstraw color and had the same (relatively) smooth texture.
Among the true mattes, all denominations of 1911 are the flashiest. Finest finish. Like diamonds (in a way
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
CoinDeuce: <<I firmly believe that the Mint never used sand in the process of creating "sandblast" Proofs. ... I believe that the process would have involved the use of ballotini impact glass beads, which are spherical in shape and can be used with much lower air pressure than is required to drive sand grains through a blasting apparatus.
Did CoinDeuce read the earlier post by Kevin in this same thread? It is certainly acceptable to disagree with someone, though it is quite another matter to ignore Kevin along with his research. Though I have not re-read their respective written works this year, I believe that Akers, RWB and others have also indicated that sand itself was used. Am I wrong?
KevinJ: << In 2009, I wrote Lincoln Cent Matte Proofs, which describes the sand blasting process and surfaces created. ... A method called sandblasting was used on gold proofs in 1908. ... One method involved streaming sand onto the face of a working die. Another involves streaming sand over a coin right after it was struck. These create a dull, non-reflective, grainy surface, also known as a matte surface.The size and amount of sand varied over time.>>
I will respond to Col. Jessup, soon. I hope that others will comment on how Matte Proofs were made.
Discussion of PCGS certified 1912 Matte Proof Gold Set and such Proofs in general
KevinJ: << In 1907, the curvature and texture of the fields of the new Saint -Gaudens Twenty Dollar Gold coins made it difficult to polish the fields for proof working dies.
Many of the regular High Reliefs that are certified, rightly or wrongly, ATS as 'Proofs' have mirrored fields. As I explained in the past, polishing the dies of early 20th century gold coins to make Brilliant Proofs would not have been that difficult.
Review of Rare Gold Club meeting, during which strikings of Matte Proof Gold pieces were discussed, including this very point regarding polishing the dies
"After striking, the coins were lightly sandblasted in a manner similar to medals."
Regarding the adoption of Sandblast proofs, he quotes a letter from acting superintendent Albert Norris:
"The designs of the new gold coins are such that the dies cannot be polished, therefore we could not make proofs, similar to those heretofore supplied, with a polished surface, so the Engraver has finished these proofs similar to medals with a dull surface."
Further down the same page, Roger says:
"In 1907, the Saint-Gaudens designs were adopted for the eagle and double eagle. Due to die curvature and texture of the field (or "ground" as mint engravers called it), polishing the dies to make brilliant proofs was not practical. A similar situation occurred in 1908 with the Pratt-designed half and quarter eagle."
Check out the Southern Gold Society
DaveG: <<A quick look at Roger Burdette's RoAC 1905-1908 yields a number of references to Sandblast proofs, but no specific description of the process or details of the sand used, other than:- "After striking, the coins were lightly sandblasted in a manner similar to medals.">>
If Burdette found evidence that the sandblasting did NOT involve sand, he would have said so. Though I have not recently studied this book, it sounds like Burdette is not really sure exactly what was done during the sandblasting process. Akers was not sure either.
]DaveG: <<Regarding the adoption of Sandblast proofs, Roger quotes a letter from acting superintendent Albert Norris: "The designs of the new gold coins are such that the dies cannot be polished, therefore we could not make proofs, similar to those heretofore supplied, with a polished surface, so the Engraver has finished these proofs similar to medals with a dull surface."
Of course, we can assume that Roger's research is solid and commendable. Even so, I question this "acting superintendent's" straightforwardness and/or knowledge of the making of Proofs. Sometimes, government employees make statements for political reasons, and such statements should not always be taken literally.
When U.S. collectors first saw Sandblast Finish coins, they were disgusted. Although gold coin collectors are now fascinated with Sandblast Finish gold coins, as am I, these were never popular during their era. Many Sandblast gold coins were melted because collectors did not want them. As Roger himself has said, the Sandblast Finish program was discontinued because it was a failure. Therefore, Mint personnel were on the defensive from the beginning of the era of 'Matte Proofs.' While not wishing to publicly admit that they were copying Europeans, Norris and/or others may have defensively fabricated reasons to justify their making of Sandblast Finish coins, rather than the very popular Brilliant Proofs.
As I said above, many High Relief Saints have mirrored fields; UHR Saints tend to have them as well. For reasons that I put forth in the article cited below, it could not have been very difficult to make Brilliant Proof Saints and Indian Head Eagles.
Review of Rare Gold Club meeting, during which strikings of Matte Proof Gold pieces were discussed, including this very point regarding polishing the dies