Can anyone help me fill in the blanks? I have a hard time reading his writing :
Edited: To complete transcription
Cincinnati ANA
July 24, 1988
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This certifies that I have examined the accompanying coin and that I unhesitatingly declare it one of the clandestine 1917 matte proof cents, the second one seen.
It matches in striking quality the original Lee-Rettew coin from the set: broad sharp borders, knife rim, polished edge, extra sharp relief details, granular surfaces. It was dipped many years ago but has retoned naturally.
It has, for confirmation, ANACS certificate E-6930A, dated 11-2-77, registered to Donald P. Lynch – San Jose Coin Shop.
@291fifth said:
I have now read on the internet that the coin in question is a proof and also that it is not a proof. I can't handle this ... everything I read on the internet is supposed to be true ... I'm lost ...................................
This is a perfect example of a thread getting out of hand! Anytime you talk about 1917 so-called proof coinage it gets hot in the thread! I just wanted to point out to all interested parties that back in 1977 ANACS did issue one of the paper certificates for a 1917 cent calling it matte proof, and that it went along with a letter from Breen which mentioned this cert and came along with his own opinion of the coin in his letter. It always degenerates into a personal vendetta against the late Mr. Breen. We are all familiar with Walters personal life. And he made mistakes in his numismatic endeavors too.
But he left a lot of good information for us all in the process.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Just bought this on flea bay.
Will use to store some of my nice raw coins. This portfolio was issued by First Coinvestors
in the 1970ies. Breen was one of their employees at the time.
I think I am going to slip a picture of Breen into one of RogerB’s threads?
Would that be permissible??
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Are you a Star Trek fan? Has Spock seen the coin? I would believe anything that Spock says.
Pete
I want to emphasize that this is not my coin. It is currently owned by someone else who has elected to remain anonymous.
The only thing I have is a copy of the cert and the Breen letter included herein.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Are you a Star Trek fan? Has Spock seen the coin? I would believe anything that Spock says.
Pete
I want to emphasize that this is not my coin. It is currently owned by someone else who has elected to remain anonymous.
The only thing I have is a copy of the cert and the Breen letter included herein.
Just joking around. Sometimes I feel like a nut (and I am).
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
Breen's IQ would not have allowed him to use the word "sociopath" incorrectly. Additionally, for the sake of discussion, It is important to be able to separate his numismatic failings from the human ones.
He has made a large contribution to numismatics. If it can be proven that he purposely lied in his opinion letters to make money, then he joins the overflowing list of other "shady" numismatists who are no longer with us.
Now let's see if you have any more rocks to throw.
@BUFFNIXX said:
Just bought this on flea bay.
Will use to store some of my nice raw coins. This portfolio was issued by First Coinvestors
in the 1970ies. Breen was one of their employees at the time.
I think I am going to slip a picture of Breen into one of RogerB’s threads?
Would that be permissible??
The local coin shop here got one of those in a few years ago. I got to see it with the coins in it, and they were nice. They removed the coins and were going to throw it away, but I asked if I could have it and they gave it to me. It's definitely interesting. Your binder is in a lot better shape than mine is!
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
@DMWJR said:
1917 was a damn good year for high grade, well struck business strike coins.
It was an interesting year at the Mint. Charles Barber died, and George T. Morgan became Chief Engraver. John R. Sinnock became Assistant Engraver.
Did either of them cause to be made a few well-made examples of each denomination currently being struck, either to study them for possible improvements or just to have some nifty souvenirs of their career advancement? We will never know.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
A post from Kevin Flynn from another thread on the same subject.
kevinj Posts: 860 ✭✭✭ December 19, 2014 9:26AM
A few years ago, Stewart Blay showed me a 1917 Lincoln cent that had the accompanying papers stating it was a proof.
I scoped it at 60x, found tooling marks on the inside of the rim to make it sharper, showed Stewart, he agreed it was artificially made to look like a proof.
I do not believe any proofs were made in 1917. Morgan took over as Chief Engraver in early 1917, he died in 1923 and was replaced by John Sinnock.
I do not believe Morgan would have done this himself. He was busy with the new designs plus I do not believe he was like this.
Sinnock made a few varieties, such as some matte proofs during the 1920s that were part of his estate sale.
Of course, this does not preclude someone with access striking coins to make something close such as was done in 1912 with the 1913 vnicks.
Remember also the 1964 mint sets that came out of the estate of Eva Adams.
I had heard that there was a 1917 proof set that was broken up in the early 1970s, will have to look further into these.
Of course, it is sometimes easy to confuse matte striking characteristics and matte surfaces with business strikes.
I have seen 1911 matte proofs where the surfaces were worn down and were almost satin proofs.
I have seen 1910 business strikes that had sharper rims than mattes.
1916s have probably the best striking characteristics as compared to other years, business strikes are also usually sharp.
The photos shown here present a sharply struck coin for a 1917, but I have seen sharply struck 1917s in high grade, that are most likely early strikes from a die.
The surface texture needs to be examined in great detail to determine if it is from a sandblasted die to make the matte surfaces.
If the surfaces are not matte, but the coin is sharply struck, how do you determine if it is a proof or business strike?
A proof by definition, is the method and intent of manufacture, was a method of manufacture used to process the working dies and planchets to create and striking characteristics and surface texture.
You can use the condition of the coin, especially comparing it to a proof from the same time frame, but for proofs such as mattes, this is much more difficult.
I would take this 1917 and compare side by side with a nice 1916 matte proof
The intent of manufacture is the purpose they were struck, are they intended to be proofs.
Usually we learn this from the archives and communications. Also, how were they distributed, were they put into circulation or sold as proofs, or provided as mementos
I am doing a book on the 1838-O half dollar. I have determined that the ten struck on the first striking were especially struck, I would call them specimen coins,
but on the second striking, Tyler polished the reverse to give it a mirror finish, I believe this brought coins struck on the second striking to the level of being called a proof.
Just my opinion
Kevin
Below is what I wrote on the 1917 in my linc cent matte proof book
In Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of United Sates and Colonial Proof Coins 1722 - 1989, Breen lists a 1917 Lincoln cent matte proof. Breen states "One seen from a set (below), rev. not proofed, dramatically cleaned; obv. has matte finish, like 1916." Under the 1917 Buffalo nickel matte proof, Breen states: "1917 Five Cents (enlarged). Matte finish. Ex Ira Reed set, Joel Rettew." Under Set, Breen states: "Set. Ex Ira Reed in 1930's, to a collector in Philadelphia who stopped in 1942, and whose holdings were sold early in 1976 to Joel Rettew. The set has been broken up. No duplicate is reported."
Dave Bowers in his 2008 book, A Guide Book to Lincoln Cents, stated that the author had verified no specimens with the matte proof characteristics or reliable market listings.
David Lange in his 1999 book, The Complete Guide to Lincoln Cents, stated that the author had not personally examined a 1917 cent having the characteristics of a proof cent.
Neither PCGS or NGC, or any of the other grading services have certified a 1917 matte proof cent.
At the National Archives, the book entitled: The Metal and Proof Coin Book, lists proof coins struck between 1909 and 1916. No 1917 matte proofs are listed for any coinage.
No Barber coinage proofs were struck in 1916. The only proof coinage struck in 1916 was the Lincoln cent and Buffalo nickel. It was decided not to strike proof coinage in 1916 for the new Mercury dime, Liberty Standing quarter, or Liberty Walking half dollar.
In a letter Mint Director von Engelken wrote to Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Adam Joyce on October 18, 1916, von Engelken decided to cease production of all proof coins based upon the Mint losing money on all proofs struck and the large number of complaints from collectors. "I am in receipt of your letter of October 17th. Effective at once, you will please discontinue the manufacture of proof coins."
Charles Barber was the Chief Engraver of the Mint from 1879 through 1916. Barber had an extensive pattern set that was part of his estate. When Barber died in 1916, George T. Morgan took over as the Chief Engraver. Morgan was replaced in 1923 by James Sinnock upon Morgan's death. In Sinnock's estate sale in 1962, several matte and satin commemorative proofs were offered that no proof coins were officially struck for that series. Morgan was not known for creating patterns for himself like Barber and Sinnock.
Because there are no official Mint records stating proofs were struck in 1917, we must rely on the proof characteristics that are used to identify proofs from this era. This includes a sharply struck details in the coin, knife-like rim edge, mirror-like edge, and wider rims. No coins have been verified with these characteristics.
Two specimens that were claimed to be 1917 Lincoln cent matte proofs were examined by Stewart Blay. Mr. Blay found that both specimens exhibited tooling on the inside edges.
This does not mean a 1917 Lincoln cent matte proof cannot exist, but the probability of a true specimen existing is 0 to extremely low.
If a specimen is offered, look for tooling, cleaning, or other types of altering. It would be mandatory to have it certified by one of the primary grading services to get their opinion. If one did exist, it should be very close to the proof characteristics of the 1916 Lincoln cent matte proofs.
Kevin J Flynn
Flag Quote · Disagree Agree Like LOL
Here is a post by David Hall from a 2007 thread on the existence of the 1917 MPL.
@DMWJR said:
1917 was a damn good year for high grade, well struck business strike coins.
It was an interesting year at the Mint. Charles Barber died, and George T. Morgan became Chief Engraver. John R. Sinnock became Assistant Engraver.
Did either of them cause to be made a few well-made examples of each denomination currently being struck, either to study them for possible improvements or just to have some nifty souvenirs of their career advancement? We will never know.
I almost forgot about Sinnock. He had a real taste for (and had the means to) produce exotic stuff.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
@cameonut2011 said:
Can anyone help me fill in the blanks? I have a hard time reading his writing :
Cincinnati ANA
July 24, 1988
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This certifies that I have examined the accompanying coin and that I ___ ____it one of the clandestine 1917 matte proof cents, the second one seen.
It matches in striking quality the original Lee-Rettew coin from the set: broad sharp borders, knife rim, polished edge, extra sharp relief details, granular surfaces. It was dipped many years ago but has retoned naturally.
It has, for confirmation, ANACS certificate E-6930A, dated 11-2-77, registered to Donald P. Lynch – San Jose Coin Shop.
Here is the thing. Without the coin in hand we are guessing. I will comment on one thing posted: Proof or not, there is a characteristic called tooling that was seen next to the rim.
I'm so sorry to come across as such an abrasive, know-it-all, stinker but in the past, I've encountered so much unbelievable BS coming from "expert" folks who's reputations and knowledge I'll never come close to that I go into the kind of "uncontrollable spastic fit" you are witnessing here and now! I cannot help myself and I apologize because I know that on a few occasions I have been proven wrong. It's just that I know what coins look like on a rarely seen microscopic level. The fact that these marks are where they are lends evidence that the coin may not be a normal coin. That's why I'll bet the folks who saw what looked like an alteration (tooling) next to the rim were looking at absolutely 100% "artifacts" on a Mint die and NOT SOME ALTERATION done outside the Mint TO MAKE THE RIMS SHARPER.
PS Yesterday I looked in my files and reported having certified one 1917 Proof 5c in the past. I don't know why I did not look yesterday but I also have records of all dates of Lincoln cents including one 1917. I was not at ANACS in 1977 so I'm going to bet that INSAB certified one Proof cent of this date also.
@cameonut2011 said:
Can anyone help me fill in the blanks? I have a hard time reading his writing :
Cincinnati ANA
July 24, 1988
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This certifies that I have examined the accompanying coin and that I ___ ____it one of the clandestine 1917 matte proof cents, the second one seen.
It matches in striking quality the original Lee-Rettew coin from the set: broad sharp borders, knife rim, polished edge, extra sharp relief details, granular surfaces. It was dipped many years ago but has retoned naturally.
It has, for confirmation, ANACS certificate E-6930A, dated 11-2-77, registered to Donald P. Lynch – San Jose Coin Shop.
I don't think this issue will be satisfactorily settled until an expert, (and preferably more than one) on matte proof coinage can closely examine both the cent and nickel and render an expert opinion on both.
@afford said: "...and a fraud. He was also a respected coin expert. You can't have both, you cannot be honest in one field and a fraud/rapist/sociopath in another.
Really? I guess none of the respected coin experts in the world have never cheated on their wives, cheated clients, lied about a grade, molested children, etc. Welcome to the real world.
@Insider2 said: @afford said: "...and a fraud. He was also a respected coin expert. You can't have both, you cannot be honest in one field and a fraud/rapist/sociopath in another.
Really? I guess none of the respected coin experts in the world have never cheated on their wives, cheated clients, lied about a grade, molested children, etc. Welcome to the real world.
Well, some like to think they don't do these things........but once learned otherwise, I can care less about them. Take Teger Woods (pro golf player for those who are unfamiliar), for instance.......had millions, beautiful wife and two children but than.....he trashed them! But yet, people still worship the ground he walks on. How pathetic! Magac Johnson is another...........had 10,000 women....what a great role model for kids? Hardly. But than again, messed up people can change and many have done so for the better including myself which was alcoholism.
People choose the kind of lines they walk and live by. This "line" depends upon the type of people you want around you and your family.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
@koynekwest said:
I don't think this issue will be satisfactorily settled until an expert, (and preferably more than one) on matte proof coinage can closely examine both the cent and nickel and render an expert opinion on both.
I kinda don't know why that hasn't been done already.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
@Insider2 said: @afford said: "...and a fraud. He was also a respected coin expert. You can't have both, you cannot be honest in one field and a fraud/rapist/sociopath in another.
Really? I guess none of the respected coin experts in the world have never cheated on their wives, cheated clients, lied about a grade, molested children, etc. Welcome to the real world.
This is a red herring and straw man argument. Not everyone that commits misdeeds is a sociopath, although I think there is a high probability that some of the people you describe would fit the bill. General malfeasance may or may not be indicative of truthfulness in other matters. Sociopaths, on the other hand, are known to lie easily to manipulate and get their way about anything that behooves them. Lying, being manipulative, and sociopathy go hand in hand. I challenge you to research Breen's life thoroughly and then come back and tell us with a straight face that he is not a sociopath or psychopath.
LOL, perhaps you should also look up the word. Although Breen's character traits overlap many diagnoses, he was not a "Sociopath" in the strict sense.
PS Before any more Doctors of Psychology respond with disagreements, please do the same.
I won't post all of the stuff Breen has done as this is supposedly a family friendly forum. The testimony from those who knew him best says it all. I'm not just referring to his daughter here. Suffice it to say you aren't looking at it closely enough or you have a deeply warped view of reality.
P.S. Other science fiction writers who knew him well have described him a serial thief, liar, and sociopathic manipulator. It isn't just the kids or the court convictions (which speak for themselves some of which contain elements of force, threat, intimidation, and/or duress).
I'm not looking to prove anything or "convict" him - the courts have already done that. BACK TO COINS.
@koynekwest said:
I don't think this issue will be satisfactorily settled until an expert, (and preferably more than one) on matte proof coinage can closely examine both the cent and nickel and render an expert opinion on both.
Having experts vote is not very strong evidence.
On the 1917 cent, so far it's 1-3. (Breen for, Blay, Hall and Snow against).
Having experts explain what they saw on the coin that resulted in their conclusion,
and displaying that in photos/videos is better evidence.
For example, Rick Snow said the cent is smaller diameter, apparently to sharpen the outside edge.
Stuart Blay said there are tooling marks on the inside edge to sharpen it.
But @Insider2 suspects what looks like tooling marks might be from the die.
For those that contend that Breen is an indispensable expert in this hobby, can you point to information in Breen's works that hasn't been superseded by newer, more authoritative experts? Other than these fringe fantasy proofs/specimens of Breen's, when was the last time you saw someone cite Breen in a serious numismatic writing or discussion? There is a reason for that.
Time to start a thread about Breen and let the COIN discussion continue!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
LOL, perhaps you should also look up the word. Although Breen's character traits overlap many diagnoses, he was not a "Sociopath" in the strict sense.
PS Before any more Doctors of Psychology respond with disagreements, please do the same.
I won't post all of the stuff Breen has done as this is supposedly a family friendly forum. The testimony from those who knew him best says it all. I'm not just referring to his daughter here. Suffice it to say you aren't looking at it closely enough or you have a deeply warped view of reality.
P.S. Other science fiction writers who knew him well have described him a serial thief, liar, and sociopathic manipulator. It isn't just the kids or the court convictions (which speak for themselves some of which contain elements of force, threat, intimidation, and/or duress).
I'm not looking to prove anything or "convict" him - the courts have already done that. BACK TO COINS.
I defend Breen's contributions to numismatics AT THE TIME they were made. I did not ever defend Breen's personal crimes/actions.
PS Words ("sociopath") mean something. In order to communicate properly, it's best to know the meaning of big words we use. Breen was not a "Sociopath" by the strict definition of the word.
Are you a Star Trek fan? Has Spock seen the coin? I would believe anything that Spock says.
Pete
I want to emphasize that this is not my coin. It is currently owned by someone else who has elected to remain anonymous.
The only thing I have is a copy of the cert and the Breen letter included herein.
Anonymous sources cannot have credibility IMO just like politics. Next time it shows up at a show I'll bet PCGS and NGC would give 4th and 5th party opinions on the spot !
@cameonut2011 said:
For those that contend that Breen is an indispensable expert in this hobby, can you point to information in Breen's works that hasn't been superseded by newer, more authoritative experts? Other than these fringe fantasy proofs/specimens of Breen's, when was the last time you saw someone cite Breen in a serious numismatic writing or discussion? There is a reason for that.
I am not a Breen fan but I believe he is still the authority when it comes to the classification of early Large Cent die states (despite the errors).
@BUFFNIXX said:
PS I'll remine all of you who were around back then and those who were not that Walter didn't have a moment of peace at a show as a gaggle of professional dealers were surrounding him for his opinion. I was one of them!
I met Walter Breen at the ANA show in Pittsburgh in 1989. What an experience. He was constantly barraged by people wanting to talk to him about this and that. He was dressed like a tie-died hippie!!
To someone stoned, he could have passed as Jerry Garcia!
Are you a Star Trek fan? Has Spock seen the coin? I would believe anything that Spock says.
Pete
I want to emphasize that this is not my coin. It is currently owned by someone else who has elected to remain anonymous.
The only thing I have is a copy of the cert and the Breen letter included herein.
Anonymous sources cannot have credibility IMO just like politics. Next time it shows up at a show I'll bet PCGS and NGC would give 4th and 5th party opinions on the spot !
IT REALLY MATTERS NOT WHETHER OR NOT THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE ANACS CERT AND THE BREEN LETTER WISH TO REMAIN ANONOMYS OR NOT. THE ANACS CERTIFICATE AND THE BREEN LETTER WHICH REFERENCES THAT CERTIFICATE STAND ON THEIR OWN, FOR GOOD OR BAD. WHO EVER OWNS THE COIN AT PRESENT IS IRRELEVANT.
AND I DO NOT OWN THE COIN. SOMEONE ACTUALLY JOINED EBAY AND THE FIRST THING HE DID WAS CONTACT ME THRU ONE OF MY CURRENT OFFERINGS.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I've seen these discussions before and wondered where the other opinions are. I own several coins that have PCGS, NGC and CAC opinions for the same coin in terms of grade. It just seems to me that on a coin this rare there would be multiple opinions. Maybe that has already happened.
On a coin as this, there should be a consensus. Bring it to the FUN show and have ALL the authorities including the TPGS decide. They spit out opinions on "Specimens" all day long as easy as whistling "Dixie" is in the South!
@EagleEye said:
I have seen the coin, letter and cert. it is not a proof. It had edges similar to a proof but was slightly bent, likely removed from an encasement. 1917 proof cent does not exist.
You also contend that you can MS70 the beautiful natural blue color out on most copper cents. I'll trust the old timers at Anacs and breen before this opinion.
@Insider2 said:
On a coin as this, there should be a consensus. Bring it to the FUN show and have ALL the authorities including the TPGS decide. They spit out opinions on "Specimens" all day long as easy as whistling "Dixie" is in the South!
My thoughts exactly. Since Hall has already called it "cherry unc" (whatever that means), if it was my coin, I would be lobbying PCGS heavily for a specimen designation. It would be worth a shot as unlikely as it may be.
@EagleEye said:
I have seen the coin, letter and cert. it is not a proof. It had edges similar to a proof but was slightly bent, likely removed from an encasement. 1917 proof cent does not exist.
You also contend that you can MS70 the beautiful natural blue color out on most copper cents. I'll trust the old timers at Anacs and breen before this opinion.
Experts disagree with each other and can be wrong. While I think Rick is wrong on his MS70 argument, I find him to be credible. I do not think Rick has ulterior motives, and I believe he genuinely believes what he says. Breen is a different story. For the right amount of money, prestige, drugs, etc., I think Breen would say anything. I would be interested in knowing who the ANACS graders were and their reasoning. Specifically, I am curious if Breen played a role in their decision making especially given his reputation as an authority at the time. I also wish we had better photos.
San Jose Coin Shop was my local coin store growing up in Almaden valley, CA, and Don Lynch was the first coin dealer I dealt with. He was pretty patient with a curious 10 year old kid who would linger in his place for an hour or two on Saturdays. He had a lot of neat coins, but i never saw the 1917 cent in question. Did buy a lot of type coins from him, most of which are still in my collection 40 years later.
@Insider2 said:
On a coin as this, there should be a consensus. Bring it to the FUN show and have ALL the authorities including the TPGS decide. They spit out opinions on "Specimens" all day long as easy as whistling "Dixie" is in the South!
My thoughts exactly. Since Hall has already called it "cherry unc" (whatever that means), if it was my coin, I would be lobbying PCGS heavily for a specimen designation. It would be worth a shot as unlikely as it may be.
Mr. Hall is only ONE important opinion that should be considered. While he may have (I don't know and would like to know) the final say at what the PGCS opinion on a coin is, I think that some of the other numismatists in this country who have examined coins very closely (long before some of us even knew what a Proof coin was) should also give an opinion.
FUN Question: Who should decide?
To keep things simple, please nominate ONLY one to five living numismatists who should be invited to be in a room at the FUN show to determine the FINAL status of this coin. This is not going to be easy as I'm already over five. For example, I'd want Julian Leidman and so many others in the room but I'm leaving him off so it does not get out of hand. Hopefully, a spoiler will do as I've done and NOT POST post more than five. When the responses die down, we can make a list of the 15 to 20 numismatists in the room. There will be numismatists nominated that some of us have never heard of who are considered to be experts. Therefore it would be nice to state the credentials of folks with limited name recognition outside of their peers.
VERY IMPORTANT: Rather than retype what I originally posted above, I'm making a change. There are some numismatists who may be on everyone's list so these folks are all going to be in the room to start anyway: So please confine your new nominations to numismatists NOT INCLUDED BELOW:
Due to their influence on the final decision and reputations, I'll make some popular nominations in no particular order to start:
David Hall
Mark Salsberg
James Halprin
John Albanese
Laura
JD
Ken Bressett
@Insider2 said:
On a coin as this, there should be a consensus. Bring it to the FUN show and have ALL the authorities including the TPGS decide. They spit out opinions on "Specimens" all day long as easy as whistling "Dixie" is in the South!
My thoughts exactly. Since Hall has already called it "cherry unc" (whatever that means), if it was my coin, I would be lobbying PCGS heavily for a specimen designation. It would be worth a shot as unlikely as it may be.
Mr. Hall is only ONE important opinion that should be considered. While he may have (I don't know and would like to know) the final say at what the PGCS opinion on a coin is, I think that some of the other numismatists in this country who have examined coins very closely (long before some of us even knew what a Proof coin was) should also give an opinion.
FUN Question: Who should decide?
To keep things simple, please nominate ONLY one to five living numismatists who should be invited to be in a room at the FUN show to determine the FINAL status of this coin. This is not going to be easy as I'm already over five. For example, I'd want Julian Leidman and so many others in the room but I'm leaving him off so it does not get out of hand. Hopefully, a spoiler will do as I've done and NOT POST post more than five. When the responses die down, we can make a list of the 15 to 20 numismatists in the room. There will be numismatists nominated that some of us have never heard of who are considered to be experts. Therefore it would be nice to state the credentials of folks with limited name recognition outside of their peers.
VERY IMPORTANT: Rather than retype what I originally posted above, I'm making a change. There are some numismatists who may be on everyone's list so these folks are all going to be in the room to start anyway: So please confine your new nominations to numismatists NOT INCLUDED BELOW:
Due to their influence on the final decision and reputations, I'll make some popular nominations in no particular order to start:
David Hall
Mark Salsberg
James Halprin
John Albanese
Laura
JD
Ken Bressett
Which ones offer a guarantee/buyback? Those are the only ones I would care about if it was my coin.
This is not a fantasy. Perhaps it will come about. Therefore, this discussion is NOT about buybacks OR ANY PERSON NOMINATED by others. Please keep your opinions about other nominees by members to yourself.
@Insider2 said:
This is not a discussion about buybacks OR ANY PERSON NOMINATED by others. Please keep your opinions about other nominees by members to yourself.
You asked about who should be able to decide. In order for the coin to attract currency, it would need to be certified (read as backed by a guarantee) and so Salzberg's opinion and/or Hall's opinion are extremely important. JA's opinion also matters since so much weight is given to CAC. The others would be icing on the cupcake, but unless this ends up in PCGS or NGC plastic (preferably with a CAC sticker), many in the industry would never accept the coin regardless of what the others think no matter how prestigious and authoritative they may be considered. Money talks.
Comments
Can anyone help me fill in the blanks? I have a hard time reading his writing
:
Edited: To complete transcription
Cincinnati ANA
July 24, 1988
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This certifies that I have examined the accompanying coin and that I unhesitatingly declare it one of the clandestine 1917 matte proof cents, the second one seen.
It matches in striking quality the original Lee-Rettew coin from the set: broad sharp borders, knife rim, polished edge, extra sharp relief details, granular surfaces. It was dipped many years ago but has retoned naturally.
It has, for confirmation, ANACS certificate E-6930A, dated 11-2-77, registered to Donald P. Lynch – San Jose Coin Shop.
Respectfully submitted,
Walter Breen
It depends on what your definition of is is.
This is a perfect example of a thread getting out of hand! Anytime you talk about 1917 so-called proof coinage it gets hot in the thread! I just wanted to point out to all interested parties that back in 1977 ANACS did issue one of the paper certificates for a 1917 cent calling it matte proof, and that it went along with a letter from Breen which mentioned this cert and came along with his own opinion of the coin in his letter. It always degenerates into a personal vendetta against the late Mr. Breen. We are all familiar with Walters personal life. And he made mistakes in his numismatic endeavors too.
But he left a lot of good information for us all in the process.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Just bought this on flea bay.
Will use to store some of my nice raw coins. This portfolio was issued by First Coinvestors
in the 1970ies. Breen was one of their employees at the time.
I think I am going to slip a picture of Breen into one of RogerB’s threads?
Would that be permissible??
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
HMMM....CAC wasn't around back then. The coin would have received a "Breenie Stickem Cap" along with the letter.
Pete
Are you a Star Trek fan? Has Spock seen the coin? I would believe anything that Spock says.
Pete
I want to emphasize that this is not my coin. It is currently owned by someone else who has elected to remain anonymous.
The only thing I have is a copy of the cert and the Breen letter included herein.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Just joking around. Sometimes I feel like a nut (and I am).
Pete
Breen's IQ would not have allowed him to use the word "sociopath" incorrectly. Additionally, for the sake of discussion, It is important to be able to separate his numismatic failings from the human ones.
He has made a large contribution to numismatics. If it can be proven that he purposely lied in his opinion letters to make money, then he joins the overflowing list of other "shady" numismatists who are no longer with us.
Now let's see if you have any more rocks to throw.
The local coin shop here got one of those in a few years ago. I got to see it with the coins in it, and they were nice. They removed the coins and were going to throw it away, but I asked if I could have it and they gave it to me. It's definitely interesting. Your binder is in a lot better shape than mine is!
It was an interesting year at the Mint. Charles Barber died, and George T. Morgan became Chief Engraver. John R. Sinnock became Assistant Engraver.
Did either of them cause to be made a few well-made examples of each denomination currently being struck, either to study them for possible improvements or just to have some nifty souvenirs of their career advancement? We will never know.
Thanks, this was my morning entertainment
bob
I want my 10 minutes back.
I knew it would happen.
From an earlier thread on the subject.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/859734/the-1917-matte-proof-lincoln-fact-or-fiction
A post from Kevin Flynn from another thread on the same subject.
kevinj Posts: 860 ✭✭✭ December 19, 2014 9:26AM
A few years ago, Stewart Blay showed me a 1917 Lincoln cent that had the accompanying papers stating it was a proof.
I scoped it at 60x, found tooling marks on the inside of the rim to make it sharper, showed Stewart, he agreed it was artificially made to look like a proof.
I do not believe any proofs were made in 1917. Morgan took over as Chief Engraver in early 1917, he died in 1923 and was replaced by John Sinnock.
I do not believe Morgan would have done this himself. He was busy with the new designs plus I do not believe he was like this.
Sinnock made a few varieties, such as some matte proofs during the 1920s that were part of his estate sale.
Of course, this does not preclude someone with access striking coins to make something close such as was done in 1912 with the 1913 vnicks.
Remember also the 1964 mint sets that came out of the estate of Eva Adams.
I had heard that there was a 1917 proof set that was broken up in the early 1970s, will have to look further into these.
Of course, it is sometimes easy to confuse matte striking characteristics and matte surfaces with business strikes.
I have seen 1911 matte proofs where the surfaces were worn down and were almost satin proofs.
I have seen 1910 business strikes that had sharper rims than mattes.
1916s have probably the best striking characteristics as compared to other years, business strikes are also usually sharp.
The photos shown here present a sharply struck coin for a 1917, but I have seen sharply struck 1917s in high grade, that are most likely early strikes from a die.
The surface texture needs to be examined in great detail to determine if it is from a sandblasted die to make the matte surfaces.
If the surfaces are not matte, but the coin is sharply struck, how do you determine if it is a proof or business strike?
A proof by definition, is the method and intent of manufacture, was a method of manufacture used to process the working dies and planchets to create and striking characteristics and surface texture.
You can use the condition of the coin, especially comparing it to a proof from the same time frame, but for proofs such as mattes, this is much more difficult.
I would take this 1917 and compare side by side with a nice 1916 matte proof
The intent of manufacture is the purpose they were struck, are they intended to be proofs.
Usually we learn this from the archives and communications. Also, how were they distributed, were they put into circulation or sold as proofs, or provided as mementos
I am doing a book on the 1838-O half dollar. I have determined that the ten struck on the first striking were especially struck, I would call them specimen coins,
but on the second striking, Tyler polished the reverse to give it a mirror finish, I believe this brought coins struck on the second striking to the level of being called a proof.
Just my opinion
Kevin
Below is what I wrote on the 1917 in my linc cent matte proof book
In Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of United Sates and Colonial Proof Coins 1722 - 1989, Breen lists a 1917 Lincoln cent matte proof. Breen states "One seen from a set (below), rev. not proofed, dramatically cleaned; obv. has matte finish, like 1916." Under the 1917 Buffalo nickel matte proof, Breen states: "1917 Five Cents (enlarged). Matte finish. Ex Ira Reed set, Joel Rettew." Under Set, Breen states: "Set. Ex Ira Reed in 1930's, to a collector in Philadelphia who stopped in 1942, and whose holdings were sold early in 1976 to Joel Rettew. The set has been broken up. No duplicate is reported."
Dave Bowers in his 2008 book, A Guide Book to Lincoln Cents, stated that the author had verified no specimens with the matte proof characteristics or reliable market listings.
David Lange in his 1999 book, The Complete Guide to Lincoln Cents, stated that the author had not personally examined a 1917 cent having the characteristics of a proof cent.
Neither PCGS or NGC, or any of the other grading services have certified a 1917 matte proof cent.
At the National Archives, the book entitled: The Metal and Proof Coin Book, lists proof coins struck between 1909 and 1916. No 1917 matte proofs are listed for any coinage.
No Barber coinage proofs were struck in 1916. The only proof coinage struck in 1916 was the Lincoln cent and Buffalo nickel. It was decided not to strike proof coinage in 1916 for the new Mercury dime, Liberty Standing quarter, or Liberty Walking half dollar.
In a letter Mint Director von Engelken wrote to Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Adam Joyce on October 18, 1916, von Engelken decided to cease production of all proof coins based upon the Mint losing money on all proofs struck and the large number of complaints from collectors. "I am in receipt of your letter of October 17th. Effective at once, you will please discontinue the manufacture of proof coins."
Charles Barber was the Chief Engraver of the Mint from 1879 through 1916. Barber had an extensive pattern set that was part of his estate. When Barber died in 1916, George T. Morgan took over as the Chief Engraver. Morgan was replaced in 1923 by James Sinnock upon Morgan's death. In Sinnock's estate sale in 1962, several matte and satin commemorative proofs were offered that no proof coins were officially struck for that series. Morgan was not known for creating patterns for himself like Barber and Sinnock.
Because there are no official Mint records stating proofs were struck in 1917, we must rely on the proof characteristics that are used to identify proofs from this era. This includes a sharply struck details in the coin, knife-like rim edge, mirror-like edge, and wider rims. No coins have been verified with these characteristics.
Two specimens that were claimed to be 1917 Lincoln cent matte proofs were examined by Stewart Blay. Mr. Blay found that both specimens exhibited tooling on the inside edges.
This does not mean a 1917 Lincoln cent matte proof cannot exist, but the probability of a true specimen existing is 0 to extremely low.
If a specimen is offered, look for tooling, cleaning, or other types of altering. It would be mandatory to have it certified by one of the primary grading services to get their opinion. If one did exist, it should be very close to the proof characteristics of the 1916 Lincoln cent matte proofs.
Kevin J Flynn
Flag Quote · Disagree Agree Like LOL
Here is a post by David Hall from a 2007 thread on the existence of the 1917 MPL.
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
I almost forgot about Sinnock. He had a real taste for (and had the means to) produce exotic stuff.
Pete
..."unhesitatingly declare..."
Whew! Almost forgot how to use the "ignore" option.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Here is the thing. Without the coin in hand we are guessing. I will comment on one thing posted: Proof or not, there is a characteristic called tooling that was seen next to the rim.
I'm so sorry to come across as such an abrasive, know-it-all, stinker
but in the past, I've encountered so much unbelievable BS coming from "expert" folks who's reputations and knowledge I'll never come close to that I go into the kind of "uncontrollable spastic fit" you are witnessing here and now! I cannot help myself and I apologize because I know that on a few occasions I have been proven wrong. It's just that I know what coins look like on a rarely seen microscopic level. The fact that these marks are where they are lends evidence that the coin may not be a normal coin. That's why I'll bet the folks who saw what looked like an alteration (tooling) next to the rim were looking at absolutely 100% "artifacts" on a Mint die and NOT SOME ALTERATION done outside the Mint TO MAKE THE RIMS SHARPER.
PS Yesterday I looked in my files and reported having certified one 1917 Proof 5c in the past. I don't know why I did not look yesterday but I also have records of all dates of Lincoln cents including one 1917. I was not at ANACS in 1977 so I'm going to bet that INSAB certified one Proof cent of this date also.
Thanks!
I don't think this issue will be satisfactorily settled until an expert, (and preferably more than one) on matte proof coinage can closely examine both the cent and nickel and render an expert opinion on both.
@afford
said: "...and a fraud. He was also a respected coin expert. You can't have both, you cannot be honest in one field and a fraud/rapist/sociopath in another.
Really? I guess none of the respected coin experts in the world have never cheated on their wives, cheated clients, lied about a grade, molested children, etc. Welcome to the real world.
Well, some like to think they don't do these things........but once learned otherwise, I can care less about them. Take Teger Woods (pro golf player for those who are unfamiliar), for instance.......had millions, beautiful wife and two children but than.....he trashed them! But yet, people still worship the ground he walks on. How pathetic! Magac Johnson is another...........had 10,000 women....what a great role model for kids? Hardly. But than again, messed up people can change and many have done so for the better including myself which was alcoholism.
People choose the kind of lines they walk and live by. This "line" depends upon the type of people you want around you and your family.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I kinda don't know why that hasn't been done already.
Pete
This is a red herring and straw man argument. Not everyone that commits misdeeds is a sociopath, although I think there is a high probability that some of the people you describe would fit the bill. General malfeasance may or may not be indicative of truthfulness in other matters. Sociopaths, on the other hand, are known to lie easily to manipulate and get their way about anything that behooves them. Lying, being manipulative, and sociopathy go hand in hand. I challenge you to research Breen's life thoroughly and then come back and tell us with a straight face that he is not a sociopath or psychopath.
@cameonut2011
LOL, perhaps you should also look up the word. Although Breen's character traits overlap many diagnoses, he was not a "Sociopath" in the strict sense.
PS Before any more Doctors of Psychology respond with disagreements, please do the same.
.> @Insider2 said:
I won't post all of the stuff Breen has done as this is supposedly a family friendly forum. The testimony from those who knew him best says it all. I'm not just referring to his daughter here. Suffice it to say you aren't looking at it closely enough or you have a deeply warped view of reality.
P.S. Other science fiction writers who knew him well have described him a serial thief, liar, and sociopathic manipulator. It isn't just the kids or the court convictions (which speak for themselves some of which contain elements of force, threat, intimidation, and/or duress).
I'm not looking to prove anything or "convict" him - the courts have already done that. BACK TO COINS.
Having experts vote is not very strong evidence.
On the 1917 cent, so far it's 1-3. (Breen for, Blay, Hall and Snow against).
Having experts explain what they saw on the coin that resulted in their conclusion,
and displaying that in photos/videos is better evidence.
For example, Rick Snow said the cent is smaller diameter, apparently to sharpen the outside edge.
Stuart Blay said there are tooling marks on the inside edge to sharpen it.
But @Insider2 suspects what looks like tooling marks might be from the die.
So I think the owners of the 1917 cent and 1917 nickel should talk to Ray Parkhurst @rmpsrpms
and see if he would be willing to make some detailed surface animations and post them on this forum.
Like:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1002651/animated-3d-rendering/p1
For those that contend that Breen is an indispensable expert in this hobby, can you point to information in Breen's works that hasn't been superseded by newer, more authoritative experts? Other than these fringe fantasy proofs/specimens of Breen's, when was the last time you saw someone cite Breen in a serious numismatic writing or discussion? There is a reason for that.
Time to start a thread about Breen and let the COIN discussion continue!
No need to start a new one; here's one from 2015:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/938025/walter-breens-accuracy
I'd rather see and discuss the coins, and their relevant features, too.
Not collect votes from experts or debate who is a "better" expert.
Plus 1000
Plus 1000
R.I.P Son 1986>2020
We've been there and done that many times before..............................
Nothing was ever accomplished other than rehashing things, and arguments.
But hey, if only just to get coin discussions going, then I say have at it.
Pete
I defend Breen's contributions to numismatics AT THE TIME they were made. I did not ever defend Breen's personal crimes/actions.
PS Words ("sociopath") mean something. In order to communicate properly, it's best to know the meaning of big words we use. Breen was not a "Sociopath" by the strict definition of the word.
If Breen's opinion means nothing, next time it shows up a> @BUFFNIXX said:
Anonymous sources cannot have credibility IMO just like politics. Next time it shows up at a show I'll bet PCGS and NGC would give 4th and 5th party opinions on the spot !
I am not a Breen fan but I believe he is still the authority when it comes to the classification of early Large Cent die states (despite the errors).
Smitten with DBLCs.
Of course, I mean his books rather than the man.
Smitten with DBLCs.
To someone stoned, he could have passed as Jerry Garcia!
IT REALLY MATTERS NOT WHETHER OR NOT THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE ANACS CERT AND THE BREEN LETTER WISH TO REMAIN ANONOMYS OR NOT. THE ANACS CERTIFICATE AND THE BREEN LETTER WHICH REFERENCES THAT CERTIFICATE STAND ON THEIR OWN, FOR GOOD OR BAD. WHO EVER OWNS THE COIN AT PRESENT IS IRRELEVANT.
AND I DO NOT OWN THE COIN. SOMEONE ACTUALLY JOINED EBAY AND THE FIRST THING HE DID WAS CONTACT ME THRU ONE OF MY CURRENT OFFERINGS.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I've seen these discussions before and wondered where the other opinions are. I own several coins that have PCGS, NGC and CAC opinions for the same coin in terms of grade. It just seems to me that on a coin this rare there would be multiple opinions. Maybe that has already happened.
On a coin as this, there should be a consensus. Bring it to the FUN show and have ALL the authorities including the TPGS decide. They spit out opinions on "Specimens" all day long as easy as whistling "Dixie" is in the South!
You also contend that you can MS70 the beautiful natural blue color out on most copper cents. I'll trust the old timers at Anacs and breen before this opinion.
My thoughts exactly. Since Hall has already called it "cherry unc" (whatever that means), if it was my coin, I would be lobbying PCGS heavily for a specimen designation. It would be worth a shot as unlikely as it may be.
Experts disagree with each other and can be wrong. While I think Rick is wrong on his MS70 argument, I find him to be credible. I do not think Rick has ulterior motives, and I believe he genuinely believes what he says. Breen is a different story. For the right amount of money, prestige, drugs, etc., I think Breen would say anything. I would be interested in knowing who the ANACS graders were and their reasoning. Specifically, I am curious if Breen played a role in their decision making especially given his reputation as an authority at the time. I also wish we had better photos.
San Jose Coin Shop was my local coin store growing up in Almaden valley, CA, and Don Lynch was the first coin dealer I dealt with. He was pretty patient with a curious 10 year old kid who would linger in his place for an hour or two on Saturdays. He had a lot of neat coins, but i never saw the 1917 cent in question. Did buy a lot of type coins from him, most of which are still in my collection 40 years later.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Mr. Hall is only ONE important opinion that should be considered. While he may have (I don't know and would like to know) the final say at what the PGCS opinion on a coin is, I think that some of the other numismatists in this country who have examined coins very closely (long before some of us even knew what a Proof coin was) should also give an opinion.
FUN Question: Who should decide?
To keep things simple, please nominate ONLY one to five living numismatists who should be invited to be in a room at the FUN show to determine the FINAL status of this coin. This is not going to be easy as I'm already over five. For example, I'd want Julian Leidman and so many others in the room but I'm leaving him off so it does not get out of hand. Hopefully, a spoiler will do as I've done and NOT POST post more than five. When the responses die down, we can make a list of the 15 to 20 numismatists in the room. There will be numismatists nominated that some of us have never heard of who are considered to be experts. Therefore it would be nice to state the credentials of folks with limited name recognition outside of their peers.
VERY IMPORTANT: Rather than retype what I originally posted above, I'm making a change. There are some numismatists who may be on everyone's list so these folks are all going to be in the room to start anyway: So please confine your new nominations to numismatists NOT INCLUDED BELOW:
Due to their influence on the final decision and reputations, I'll make some popular nominations in no particular order to start:
David Hall
Mark Salsberg
James Halprin
John Albanese
Laura
JD
Ken Bressett
Which ones offer a guarantee/buyback? Those are the only ones I would care about if it was my coin.
This is not a fantasy. Perhaps it will come about. Therefore, this discussion is NOT about buybacks OR ANY PERSON NOMINATED by others. Please keep your opinions about other nominees by members to yourself.
You asked about who should be able to decide. In order for the coin to attract currency, it would need to be certified (read as backed by a guarantee) and so Salzberg's opinion and/or Hall's opinion are extremely important. JA's opinion also matters since so much weight is given to CAC. The others would be icing on the cupcake, but unless this ends up in PCGS or NGC plastic (preferably with a CAC sticker), many in the industry would never accept the coin regardless of what the others think no matter how prestigious and authoritative they may be considered. Money talks.