It didn’t take von Engelken long to make a decision – the mint was losing money on each proof coin made, collectors were complaining, and paperwork had become a nuisance. Rather than look for ways to correct problems, the director decided to eliminate all proof coins. His terse order of October 18 ended nearly sixty years of continuous issuance of proofs for purchase by ordinary collectors. Across the spectrum of coin collectors, from railroad magnate Robert Garrett’s almost unlimited budget, to hobbyist Giles R. Anderson’s modest annual expense of 25¢ for two minor proof sets, the collectors’ coins were no more.
Very interesting information and I can just imagine how some with the wherewithal and abilities had clandestine proofs and or presentation pieces manufactured between 1917 and 1935 inclusive.
Just like there are no mention of any 1913 liberty head nickels having been produced.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Just because the following statement was made and is in print........
"I am in receipt of your letter of October 17th. Effective at once, you will please discontinue the manufacture of proof coins.”.....
......Is not proof positive that NO (as in none, nada, zippo) clandestine proofs were made (illegally) between 1917 and 1935 inclusive.
by those having the ability, the wherewithal and the desire at the mint to do it.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Roger (not Rodger, BTW; please get it right) has convincingly proven that the Mint had the INTENT of discontinuing Proof coinage in late 1916. There is no indication that this was a temporary pause while they reconsidered the question.
I was taught that one of the major criterion for a coin being a Proof was the INTENT of the Mint striking it. Thus, 1885 Proof three cent nickels are Proofs because it was the INTENT of the Mint to issue them as Proofs, even though the quality control was so God-awful you can hardly tell the Proofs from the Uncs.
From the criterion of INTENT, there are no 1917 U.S. coin Proofs. Period.
That said, there exist various U.S. coins dated 1917 to 1935 that have some or full Proof characteristics. These were obviously created by or for high-ranking Mint officials with the means, motive and/or opportunity to make them or have them made.
One such example are the Proof 1921 Double Eagles. I have published an account of the time when I was at ANACS when a proverbial little old lady came in with a 1921 Double Eagle. She told me how it had been given to her upon the occasion of her birth in that year by her uncle, who was the Superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint. She told me his name and I looked it up in the Coin World Almanac (we were sitting in the ANA Library) and it was the name of one of the two Superintendents to hold that office in that year, though I cannot recall now which one it was.
That coin had unfortunately been heavily polished by her over the years, but one or two other nice ones are known today. Presumably the Superintendent asked the Coiner to get him a nice coin to give to his niece and he provided him with an old-fashioned Proof, and the Coiner either made a few extras in case the boss man asked for more, or he made a few extras for himself.
So, we have the conundrum that there are no Proofs from 1917 to 1935, and yet there are coins from 1917 to 1935 that any reasonable person would call Proofs. Included among these are the 1928 Proof Hawaiian halves and the various Sinnock Proofs.
Therefore, I hereby coin the term "Schrodinger Proofs" for these coins dated 1917-1935 that both are and are not Proofs. Any TPG that wishes to use it on a slab is welcome to do so.
And for the record, I still have no opinion on the OP 1917 cent, since I have not seen it.
TD
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.
"Roger (not Rodger, BTW; please get it right)”
Yes, and for that reason I objected to Ro(d)ger calling Walter Breen by “Wally” Breen.
(in a previous thread)
It was obviously meant in a mean and derogatory manner!
So from now on I will refer to him as “Rogger”.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Rogger B says ----
"There are some extremely nice, well detailed 1917 coins in the Mitchelson collection (which I have examined) and elsewhere. But no proof coins of any denomination were made in 1917. Claims to the contrary rest on a 40-year old attribution for which there is no documentation, and the discredited attribution of Walter Breen. Neither the OP nor anyone else has offered facts to support their claims nor to refute the October 1916 order. All they rely on is puffery and an excess of hot air.”
Where there is a will there may be a way. No "order of October 1916” can stop the production of “special” or “specimen” strike like coinage by those with the ability and desire to produce them. Simple as that. And thus we have five 1913 liberty head nickels. And 1928 matte proof Hawaiian halves. The desire, intent, and ability was there to produce them.
And thus they were made. Get over it Rogger!
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
You need to go back to the first page of the thread. My intent was just to point out that at least one 1917 coin had been certified as a matte proof, actually anacs has also certified one 1917 half dollar as a specimen striking. Not to create a
hurricane thread like this one has turned into
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@BUFFNIXX Just go ahead and show us a real 1917 MPL, and we will all back down. The one you had the terrible picture of, has been seen in person by a respected numismatist on this thread, and he said it was not so.
@CaptHenway said:
Roger (not Rodger, BTW; please get it right) has convincingly proven that the Mint had the INTENT of discontinuing Proof coinage in late 1916. There is no indication that this was a temporary pause while they reconsidered the question.
I was taught that one of the major criterion for a coin being a Proof was the INTENT of the Mint striking it. Thus, 1885 Proof three cent nickels are Proofs because it was the INTENT of the Mint to issue them as Proofs, even though the quality control was so God-awful you can hardly tell the Proofs from the Uncs.
From the criterion of INTENT, there are no 1917 U.S. coin Proofs. Period.
That said, there exist various U.S. coins dated 1917 to 1935 that have some or full Proof characteristics. These were obviously created by or for high-ranking Mint officials with the means, motive and/or opportunity to make them or have them made.
One such example are the Proof 1921 Double Eagles. I have published an account of the time when I was at ANACS when a proverbial little old lady came in with a 1921 Double Eagle. She told me how it had been given to her upon the occasion of her birth in that year by her uncle, who was the Superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint. She told me his name and I looked it up in the Coin World Almanac (we were sitting in the ANA Library) and it was the name of one of the two Superintendents to hold that office in that year, though I cannot recall now which one it was.
That coin had unfortunately been heavily polished by her over the years, but one or two other nice ones are known today. Presumably the Superintendent asked the Coiner to get him a nice coin to give to his niece and he provided him with an old-fashioned Proof, and the Coiner either made a few extras in case the boss man asked for more, or he made a few extras for himself.
So, we have the conundrum that there are no Proofs from 1917 to 1935, and yet there are coins from 1917 to 1935 that any reasonable person would call Proofs. Included among these are the 1928 Proof Hawaiian halves and the various Sinnock Proofs.
Therefore, I hereby coin the term "Schrodinger Proofs" for these coins dated 1917-1935 that both are and are not Proofs. Any TPG that wishes to use it on a slab is welcome to do so.
And for the record, I still have no opinion on the OP 1917 cent, since I have not seen it.
TD
My choice of a term would be “Ghost Proofs”.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Ok, now cross it. I was really talking about the Lincoln. That's a good looking Buffalo nickel, but I'm not qualified. I don't collect those.
BTW, funny story from yesterday. So I'm watching the cheap lots (9001 and up) on Stacks being auctioned by apparently a total newbie - and someone set him up big time. He got to the Liberty nickels and he said "By the way if any of you are interested in where the term 'nickel' comes from, back in the day if you were shaving and nicked yourself you took a 5c coin and put it over the nick and it would clot it." Then he looks off screen, nods his head, turns back to the camera and says, "I'm being told that is not accurate." And he calls the next lot ... LOL. Poor fellow.
I think it is neat to see the putative specimen coinage from this era. With that said, there is a reason SEGS is considered third world. Is Larry Briggs's opinion backed by a guarantee or buyback offer? HINT: No. Larry won't honor any guarantee for older SEGS holders despite language on his website to the contrary. There have been multiple people that have come forward on this point. As such, I put Larry's opinion up there with Walter Breen's: not worth the paper it is printed on.
I do respect ANACS as reputable, but wish we had a 21st decision mainstream (as opposed to fringe) grading service opinion for all of the coins proffered in this thread.
Since there will never ever under any circumstances be any 1917 specimen or proof coinage in pcgs or ngc holder some
people go to other services. Not all worship at the altar of ngc and pcgs.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@BlackDiamond said:
Wow! I thought this thread would have died by now.
Since it hasn't, I figured I could come out of hibernation and post a couple of pics.
Before the pics, a few comments:
I own this Buffalo.
I acquired it housed in the NGC holder shown in the pic.
It came with the lot tag and auction listing from Superior Galleries, July 1986.
I am not qualified to determine whether or not this Buffalo is a matte proof.
I enjoy the discussions on the topic of 1917 matte proofs.
I enjoy owning a coin that is a subject of such lively discussion.
Ok. Here are my pics.
This coin should be cracked out of its ngc holder as the ms64 grade adds nothing to the coin.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Anacs has slabbed one 1917 specimen strike walking liberty half dollar, it was sold in a Heritage auction
on July 31, 1997 for $7800 (lot # 6284)
=============================================================================================== Presentation Piece 1917 Walking Liberty Half Dollar -- 1997 ANA Signature Series Sale lot number 6284
1917 Presentation Piece MS 64 ANACS. This extraordinary coin was once part of a five-piece proof or "presentation" set of 1917 coins. The set surfaced at the Jack Tar Show in 1976, being jointly owned at that time by David Hall and Joel Rettew. The set was broken up at that show. The cent was a one-sided proof with the matte finish only on the obverse. Bill Nagle handled the Buffalo nickel. And J.H. Kline ended up with the quarter. Unfortunately, no one seems to remember what happened to the dime.
This coin is accompanied by three letters of opinion regarding its status as a specially struck piece. The letters are from Bill Fivaz, Joel Rettew, and Bruce Fox.
This half (and the set it came from) were part of a large East Coast collection that was known for years as the The Great Eastern Collection. It is not known (to us) where the set originated prior to its placement in The Great Eastern Collection. Its appearance at the Jack Tar Show caused quite a sensation, and while two other 1917 sets are rumored to exist, the coins from this set are the least controversial proofs from this year. The coins are alluded to several times on page 219 of Walter Breen's proof Encyclopedia (who was also at the show, examined, and verified their proof status).
When this coin is placed side-by-side with a regular business strike half from 1917, several obvious differences are immediately apparent and several others are more subtle, yet no less important, upon close examination. First, the overall striking details are superior in all areas. Close examination of Liberty's head and hand, the eagle's breast and legs, the stars on the flag, and the designer's initials reveal details which simply are not present or as fully brought up on normal 1917 halves. The rim is wide and even around both sides. Before the coin was encapsulated Bruce Fox examined the rim and noticed a distinct difference in "crispness and sharpness making them (the reeds) appear extremely exact and distinct." The striking process itself appears to differ with this coin. Again, to quote Bruce Fox, "proofs made in this era weren't struck as they were in normal business strike operations related to machine pressure and striking force. Most were more slowly struck causing a squeezing scenario which more gradually increases pressure letting the metal flow more uniformly and distinctly into the design. This causes sharp contours and lack of rounded detail." The inference, of course, being that an intentional effort was made to create a proof specimen, not a mass-produced business strike. The surfaces overall give a different impression of the chemistry used to create the coin. It was Walter Breen's belief that the proofs made in 1916 and 1917 were of the sandblast type rather than the acid dip or pickling type that are generally referred to as matte proofs. The sandblast proof generates a process which results in a granular surface with soft luster. The marks on this coin (several small ones on the head of Liberty and a few tiny ones scattered on the lower obverse) are inconsistent with a coin that has spent time in a bag or roll. Such pieces display microscopic marks caused by contact with other coins, a.k.a. "bagmarks." The abrasions on this piece may be dismissed as mishandling by previous owners through the years.
This extraordinary coin also has a moderate overlay of finely speckled golden-rose and lilac patina. While we have seen other so-called proofs and/or presentation pieces over the years, this is truly a coin that "carries its own credentials." We invite inspection by anyone interested in clandestinely made proofs as well as specialists in this ever-popular series. (NGC ID# 24PP, PCGS# 6569)
This information is in the Heritage items sold database. Unfortunately there were no pictures saved to go with it.
It was sold in 1997. I think the price sold says a lot about this coin, which appears to “Carry its own credentials”.
Has anyone here ever seen this piece? (Betcha this coin was also sent to pcgs or ngc (maybe both) where it probably came back ms63 or ms64 with no comments.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Finally found the four images that go with the above description of the 1917 presentation piece half dollar sold by Heritage.
Four were available and all four are included here. Sold at summer ANA convention in 1997
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Therefore, I hereby coin the term "Schrodinger Proofs" for these coins dated 1917-1935 that both are and are not Proofs. Any TPG that wishes to use it on a slab is welcome to do so.
I like that. They can abbreviate it "SP" and then everyone will be happy and nobody will be confused.
LOL. While everyone has one of these things, some make it more obvious than others. Thus, from a virtually unknown "EX-Pert" in his own mind: "I put Larry's opinion up there with Walter Breen's: not worth the paper it is printed on."
I look forward to reading more such "gems" of numismatic opinion.
I have never used the "e word" (expert) to describe myself with regards to numismatics. I merely apply basic logical reasoning. I have no problems admitting that I can be and am wrong at times, and I welcome dissent and spirited debate. I do expect claims proffered as "fact" with regards to new issues to be backed up with evidence that can withstand rigorous scrutiny and the scientific method (not targeted at the OP merely showing off a coin). The opinions of fringe groups and services are worthless. Chicanery and puffery are ubiquitous in this hobby, but if you want to blindly rely on others in this hobby who may or may not be credible, then you can be a sheep and blindly follow false prophets.
As for 1917 and subsequent "matte" proof pieces, I find the topic interesting and keep an open mind that one day some legitimate coin could present itself. Roger's research shows that the Mint's intent was to suspend proof coinage in 1916; however, it is possible that unauthorized pieces were struck - I'm fine with accepting that possibility. Should a coin be legitimated in the future, it should be backed up with research and the coin should speak for itself. I find it telling that no mainstream service in this century has ever certified one as a specimen or proof. Knowledge and technology change. Opinions from the old ANACS and older services are suspect not because of the services themselves (I do find ANACS credible), but because most of the opinions likely relied on prevailing numismatic "knowledge" derived mainly from a now refuted or at least highly suspect "expert."
I absolutely stand by my other comments regarding SEGS. If someone's word has proven to be meaningless (in my opinion) in one context related to this hobby and its grading and authentication service, then I am reluctant to trust anything that person says. When you have disavowed previous versions of your slab but consistently advertise a guarantee for all SEGS coins for grade and authenticity on your website without qualifying it even after you know it has already caused problems, then I think that is dishonest. I still have a letter from him somewhere in storage. But if you want to believe in the numismatic versions of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc., go for it. With regards to attribution, I have no problems with Briggs so as long as it can be corroborated independently but his opinions as the grade or authenticity of something are worthless to me. You can believe whatever you want to believe; I don't care.
P.S. As for Buffalo Nickels, PCGS and NGC have both attributed specimen 1927 Philadelphia coinage. I do not believe that it came with official documentation either, but PCGS/NGC still gave the coins a fair evaluation and designated the coins as specimens. If any of these coins was special and worthy of a specimen designation, then why would PCGS or NGC be disinclined to give it the same courtesy that they did the 1927 specimen designated coins?
As I said a couple posts ago-these coins must be re-examined TODAY by a panel of experts on matte proof coinage. Only then will they be legitimate if found to be proof or specimen coins. Just my opinion.
As far as SEGS goes, I have respect for Larry but he attributed a 1913 Var 1 5c for me as a proof nearly 20 years ago. It later turned out to be a circulation strike. I also bought a 1913 Var 1 that NGC called a circulation strike that turned out to be a proof.
@cameonut2011 said: "I absolutely stand by my other comments regarding SEGS."
When you have done as much for all of us in the hobby/business (one way or another including things not worth the paper they are printed on) as either Larry or Breen, then I will not regard much of the stuff you post as - shall I say - subject to review.
@Insider2 said: @cameonut2011 said: "I absolutely stand by my other comments regarding SEGS."
When you have done as much for all of us in the hobby/business (one way or another including things not worth the paper they are printed on) as either Larry or Breen, then I will not regard much of the stuff you post as - shall I say - subject to review.
Somehow you have this bizarre notion that some people are beyond reproach - no one is. Blind reliance is dangerous. I don't care who writes it and how qualified that individual may (or may not) be.
@Insider2 said: @cameonut2011 said: "I absolutely stand by my other comments regarding SEGS."
When you have done as much for all of us in the hobby/business (one way or another including things not worth the paper they are printed on) as either Larry or Breen, then I will not regard much of the stuff you post as - shall I say - subject to review.
Somehow you have this bizarre notion that some people are beyond reproach - no one is. Blind reliance is dangerous. I don't care who writes it and how qualified that individual may (or may not) be.
Not at all. We all make mistakes. We all have different levels of knowledge. Everyone on this board is making a contribution. Some here are widely known and have been published. I doubt any of them would claim to have never published a falsehood. No one here is above reproach. Some here may even be very bad people.
Thankfully; this is not some MORAL playground where we are judged for our personal faults or most of us would be banned. Generally, we will not be judged on what we have done in life (unless it makes the news). We are judged here by the mark we've left on numismatics.
Most here are anonymous. Many of the folks who are not are peers of Briggs or Breen. Some here will have left a bigger footprint than Briggs. It will be harder to over-step Breen's contribution to numismatics.
With that in mind, I get really frosted when some members, especially an unknown poster (of any age) writes: "...including things not worth the paper they are printed on" when the ONLY personal contribution they have made is an opinion (some in error) on a computer screen that 99.9% of the world's collectors will never see!
When those members who judge the accomplishments of others take a pen to paper or produce something to benefit all of us, I'll have some respect for them and will tend to overlook a few errors they have made or stories they have possibly just made-up.
In a new thread I will be posting my 1935 buffalo nickel -- satin finish special striking -- (looks for all the world like a like a satin finish proof)
along with its letter from Walter Breen. Then I guess we can have another big numismatic food fight!
This is a coin I have actually owned since 1986, it came from Heritage Galleries.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@BUFFNIXX What fraction of your total posts have been about 1917 (alleged) proofs? While I do not collect them, I think Buffalo nickels are really wonderful coins and I wish you'd post more about other buffalo issues so I could learn more about them
@Mark said: @BUFFNIXX What fraction of your total posts have been about 1917 (alleged) proofs? While I do not collect them, I think Buffalo nickels are really wonderful coins and I wish you'd post more about other buffalo issues so I could learn more about them
OK Mark
I will do what you are suggesting
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Didn't the 1927 SP Buffs come from Sinnocks estate? That alone should tell us all something. Sinnock had a taste for special and unique coins. He also had the ability to MAKE them.
The Mint is supposed to discard or destroy test pieces like the 1927 coins. I guess Mr. Sinnock saved all the good stuff instead.
It's believable. It's true. I believe that all of this might have gone a long way towards the Special Designation.
Although it was 10 years before the 1927 SP coins, Sinnock was an assistant engraver in 1917.
The problem is that in 1917 after the ban on Proof coinage fron an order issued in October, 1916, There is NO SOLID PROOF, or even a hint that Sinnock played around. That doesn't mean he didn't.
All of this is meaningless conjecture, though. I'm as guilty as anyone else for even hinting at "What Ifs".
I certainly ain't alone.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
Your 1917 Buff in the SEGS slab has an incredible strike, commensurate with a proof. The date will rarely come with a deep, full strike-according to my 13 year strike study. About 3% come fully struck as follows-
Sometimes seen with a true full strike. Exceptionally struck coins, resembling a Matte proof in strike and with granular surfaces are very occasionally seen.
1917-P # RECORDED 1600 WEAK STRIKE- 3% TYPICAL STRIKE-50% GOOD STRIKE- 44% FULL STRIKE- 3%
This coin should be carefully examined by an expert.
Just as an aside, as a suggestion to the TPGs, any of these exceptionally well struck coins should be weighed, just to see if perchance they were struck on planchets that were randomly thicker than normal. A thicker planchet should strike better. I doubt that this is actually going to be a factor, but it would be good to rule out for the record.
TD
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.
@DMWJR said:
This was also just 4 years after the 1913 Nickels were created
Apples and oranges, I think.
But as a stand-alone fact, quite true.
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.
Comments
It didn’t take von Engelken long to make a decision – the mint was losing money on each proof coin made, collectors were complaining, and paperwork had become a nuisance. Rather than look for ways to correct problems, the director decided to eliminate all proof coins. His terse order of October 18 ended nearly sixty years of continuous issuance of proofs for purchase by ordinary collectors. Across the spectrum of coin collectors, from railroad magnate Robert Garrett’s almost unlimited budget, to hobbyist Giles R. Anderson’s modest annual expense of 25¢ for two minor proof sets, the collectors’ coins were no more.
Very interesting information and I can just imagine how some with the wherewithal and abilities had clandestine proofs and or presentation pieces manufactured between 1917 and 1935 inclusive.
Just like there are no mention of any 1913 liberty head nickels having been produced.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Just because the following statement was made and is in print........
"I am in receipt of your letter of October 17th. Effective at once, you will please discontinue the manufacture of proof coins.”.....
......Is not proof positive that NO (as in none, nada, zippo) clandestine proofs were made (illegally) between 1917 and 1935 inclusive.
by those having the ability, the wherewithal and the desire at the mint to do it.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Roger (not Rodger, BTW; please get it right) has convincingly proven that the Mint had the INTENT of discontinuing Proof coinage in late 1916. There is no indication that this was a temporary pause while they reconsidered the question.
I was taught that one of the major criterion for a coin being a Proof was the INTENT of the Mint striking it. Thus, 1885 Proof three cent nickels are Proofs because it was the INTENT of the Mint to issue them as Proofs, even though the quality control was so God-awful you can hardly tell the Proofs from the Uncs.
From the criterion of INTENT, there are no 1917 U.S. coin Proofs. Period.
That said, there exist various U.S. coins dated 1917 to 1935 that have some or full Proof characteristics. These were obviously created by or for high-ranking Mint officials with the means, motive and/or opportunity to make them or have them made.
One such example are the Proof 1921 Double Eagles. I have published an account of the time when I was at ANACS when a proverbial little old lady came in with a 1921 Double Eagle. She told me how it had been given to her upon the occasion of her birth in that year by her uncle, who was the Superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint. She told me his name and I looked it up in the Coin World Almanac (we were sitting in the ANA Library) and it was the name of one of the two Superintendents to hold that office in that year, though I cannot recall now which one it was.
That coin had unfortunately been heavily polished by her over the years, but one or two other nice ones are known today. Presumably the Superintendent asked the Coiner to get him a nice coin to give to his niece and he provided him with an old-fashioned Proof, and the Coiner either made a few extras in case the boss man asked for more, or he made a few extras for himself.
So, we have the conundrum that there are no Proofs from 1917 to 1935, and yet there are coins from 1917 to 1935 that any reasonable person would call Proofs. Included among these are the 1928 Proof Hawaiian halves and the various Sinnock Proofs.
Therefore, I hereby coin the term "Schrodinger Proofs" for these coins dated 1917-1935 that both are and are not Proofs. Any TPG that wishes to use it on a slab is welcome to do so.
And for the record, I still have no opinion on the OP 1917 cent, since I have not seen it.
TD
"Roger (not Rodger, BTW; please get it right)”
Yes, and for that reason I objected to Ro(d)ger calling Walter Breen by “Wally” Breen.
(in a previous thread)
It was obviously meant in a mean and derogatory manner!
So from now on I will refer to him as “Rogger”.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
"All they rely on is puffery and an excess of hot air.”
Thanks for another lovely quotation to go along with “bologna and salmonella”!
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Rogger B says ----
"There are some extremely nice, well detailed 1917 coins in the Mitchelson collection (which I have examined) and elsewhere. But no proof coins of any denomination were made in 1917. Claims to the contrary rest on a 40-year old attribution for which there is no documentation, and the discredited attribution of Walter Breen. Neither the OP nor anyone else has offered facts to support their claims nor to refute the October 1916 order. All they rely on is puffery and an excess of hot air.”
Where there is a will there may be a way. No "order of October 1916” can stop the production of “special” or “specimen” strike like coinage by those with the ability and desire to produce them. Simple as that. And thus we have five 1913 liberty head nickels. And 1928 matte proof Hawaiian halves. The desire, intent, and ability was there to produce them.
And thus they were made. Get over it Rogger!
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
You need to go back to the first page of the thread. My intent was just to point out that at least one 1917 coin had been certified as a matte proof, actually anacs has also certified one 1917 half dollar as a specimen striking. Not to create a
hurricane thread like this one has turned into
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Wheel barrels needed for some of you folks seriously.
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
@BUFFNIXX Just go ahead and show us a real 1917 MPL, and we will all back down. The one you had the terrible picture of, has been seen in person by a respected numismatist on this thread, and he said it was not so.
My choice of a term would be “Ghost Proofs”.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
AND FURTHERMORE......
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Ok, now cross it. I was really talking about the Lincoln. That's a good looking Buffalo nickel, but I'm not qualified. I don't collect those.
BTW, funny story from yesterday. So I'm watching the cheap lots (9001 and up) on Stacks being auctioned by apparently a total newbie - and someone set him up big time. He got to the Liberty nickels and he said "By the way if any of you are interested in where the term 'nickel' comes from, back in the day if you were shaving and nicked yourself you took a 5c coin and put it over the nick and it would clot it." Then he looks off screen, nods his head, turns back to the camera and says, "I'm being told that is not accurate." And he calls the next lot ... LOL. Poor fellow.
I think it is neat to see the putative specimen coinage from this era. With that said, there is a reason SEGS is considered third world. Is Larry Briggs's opinion backed by a guarantee or buyback offer? HINT: No. Larry won't honor any guarantee for older SEGS holders despite language on his website to the contrary. There have been multiple people that have come forward on this point. As such, I put Larry's opinion up there with Walter Breen's: not worth the paper it is printed on.
I do respect ANACS as reputable, but wish we had a 21st decision mainstream (as opposed to fringe) grading service opinion for all of the coins proffered in this thread.
Woke up this morning and found out that this coin in my inventory just sold (on flea bay)
![](https://us.v-cdn.net/6027503/uploads/editor/ur/ssy41dys2t9y.jpg “")
A nice 1913 type two doubled die obverse in MS64
see below for actual embedded picture.......
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Since there will never ever under any circumstances be any 1917 specimen or proof coinage in pcgs or ngc holder some
people go to other services. Not all worship at the altar of ngc and pcgs.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
This coin should be cracked out of its ngc holder as the ms64 grade adds nothing to the coin.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Anacs has slabbed one 1917 specimen strike walking liberty half dollar, it was sold in a Heritage auction
on July 31, 1997 for $7800 (lot # 6284)
=============================================================================================== Presentation Piece 1917 Walking Liberty Half Dollar -- 1997 ANA Signature Series Sale lot number 6284
1917 Presentation Piece MS 64 ANACS. This extraordinary coin was once part of a five-piece proof or "presentation" set of 1917 coins. The set surfaced at the Jack Tar Show in 1976, being jointly owned at that time by David Hall and Joel Rettew. The set was broken up at that show. The cent was a one-sided proof with the matte finish only on the obverse. Bill Nagle handled the Buffalo nickel. And J.H. Kline ended up with the quarter. Unfortunately, no one seems to remember what happened to the dime.
This coin is accompanied by three letters of opinion regarding its status as a specially struck piece. The letters are from Bill Fivaz, Joel Rettew, and Bruce Fox.
This half (and the set it came from) were part of a large East Coast collection that was known for years as the The Great Eastern Collection. It is not known (to us) where the set originated prior to its placement in The Great Eastern Collection. Its appearance at the Jack Tar Show caused quite a sensation, and while two other 1917 sets are rumored to exist, the coins from this set are the least controversial proofs from this year. The coins are alluded to several times on page 219 of Walter Breen's proof Encyclopedia (who was also at the show, examined, and verified their proof status).
When this coin is placed side-by-side with a regular business strike half from 1917, several obvious differences are immediately apparent and several others are more subtle, yet no less important, upon close examination. First, the overall striking details are superior in all areas. Close examination of Liberty's head and hand, the eagle's breast and legs, the stars on the flag, and the designer's initials reveal details which simply are not present or as fully brought up on normal 1917 halves. The rim is wide and even around both sides. Before the coin was encapsulated Bruce Fox examined the rim and noticed a distinct difference in "crispness and sharpness making them (the reeds) appear extremely exact and distinct." The striking process itself appears to differ with this coin. Again, to quote Bruce Fox, "proofs made in this era weren't struck as they were in normal business strike operations related to machine pressure and striking force. Most were more slowly struck causing a squeezing scenario which more gradually increases pressure letting the metal flow more uniformly and distinctly into the design. This causes sharp contours and lack of rounded detail." The inference, of course, being that an intentional effort was made to create a proof specimen, not a mass-produced business strike. The surfaces overall give a different impression of the chemistry used to create the coin. It was Walter Breen's belief that the proofs made in 1916 and 1917 were of the sandblast type rather than the acid dip or pickling type that are generally referred to as matte proofs. The sandblast proof generates a process which results in a granular surface with soft luster. The marks on this coin (several small ones on the head of Liberty and a few tiny ones scattered on the lower obverse) are inconsistent with a coin that has spent time in a bag or roll. Such pieces display microscopic marks caused by contact with other coins, a.k.a. "bagmarks." The abrasions on this piece may be dismissed as mishandling by previous owners through the years.
This extraordinary coin also has a moderate overlay of finely speckled golden-rose and lilac patina. While we have seen other so-called proofs and/or presentation pieces over the years, this is truly a coin that "carries its own credentials." We invite inspection by anyone interested in clandestinely made proofs as well as specialists in this ever-popular series. (NGC ID# 24PP, PCGS# 6569)
This information is in the Heritage items sold database. Unfortunately there were no pictures saved to go with it.
It was sold in 1997. I think the price sold says a lot about this coin, which appears to “Carry its own credentials”.
Has anyone here ever seen this piece? (Betcha this coin was also sent to pcgs or ngc (maybe both) where it probably came back ms63 or ms64 with no comments.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Notice above that there is mention of a 1917 dime. I was under the impression that the dime was missing from the set.
Maybe not?
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Finally found the four images that go with the above description of the 1917 presentation piece half dollar sold by Heritage.
Four were available and all four are included here. Sold at summer ANA convention in 1997
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I like that. They can abbreviate it "SP" and then everyone will be happy and nobody will be confused.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Courtesy of @messydesk
Seemed appropriate...
R.I.P Son 1986>2020
I don't think the "kissing Lincoln" cent is actually my Photoshop handiwork. I had simply reposted it earlier, but kudos to whomever made it.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
LOL. While everyone has one of these things, some make it more obvious than others. Thus, from a virtually unknown "EX-Pert" in his own mind: "I put Larry's opinion up there with Walter Breen's: not worth the paper it is printed on."
I look forward to reading more such "gems" of numismatic opinion.
An order is an order is an order. Roger is correct on that. We can stew all we want to about this (and we have stewed plenty).
Those 1917 coins are most definitely marvelously struck. Call them what you want to. I call them unauthorized.
Pete
This would be a perfect design for a new two cent piece!!
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@Insider2
I have never used the "e word" (expert) to describe myself with regards to numismatics. I merely apply basic logical reasoning. I have no problems admitting that I can be and am wrong at times, and I welcome dissent and spirited debate. I do expect claims proffered as "fact" with regards to new issues to be backed up with evidence that can withstand rigorous scrutiny and the scientific method (not targeted at the OP merely showing off a coin). The opinions of fringe groups and services are worthless. Chicanery and puffery are ubiquitous in this hobby, but if you want to blindly rely on others in this hobby who may or may not be credible, then you can be a sheep and blindly follow false prophets.
As for 1917 and subsequent "matte" proof pieces, I find the topic interesting and keep an open mind that one day some legitimate coin could present itself. Roger's research shows that the Mint's intent was to suspend proof coinage in 1916; however, it is possible that unauthorized pieces were struck - I'm fine with accepting that possibility. Should a coin be legitimated in the future, it should be backed up with research and the coin should speak for itself. I find it telling that no mainstream service in this century has ever certified one as a specimen or proof. Knowledge and technology change. Opinions from the old ANACS and older services are suspect not because of the services themselves (I do find ANACS credible), but because most of the opinions likely relied on prevailing numismatic "knowledge" derived mainly from a now refuted or at least highly suspect "expert."
I absolutely stand by my other comments regarding SEGS. If someone's word has proven to be meaningless (in my opinion) in one context related to this hobby and its grading and authentication service, then I am reluctant to trust anything that person says. When you have disavowed previous versions of your slab but consistently advertise a guarantee for all SEGS coins for grade and authenticity on your website without qualifying it even after you know it has already caused problems, then I think that is dishonest. I still have a letter from him somewhere in storage. But if you want to believe in the numismatic versions of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc., go for it. With regards to attribution, I have no problems with Briggs so as long as it can be corroborated independently but his opinions as the grade or authenticity of something are worthless to me. You can believe whatever you want to believe; I don't care.
P.S. As for Buffalo Nickels, PCGS and NGC have both attributed specimen 1927 Philadelphia coinage. I do not believe that it came with official documentation either, but PCGS/NGC still gave the coins a fair evaluation and designated the coins as specimens. If any of these coins was special and worthy of a specimen designation, then why would PCGS or NGC be disinclined to give it the same courtesy that they did the 1927 specimen designated coins?
https://coins.ha.com/itm/buffalo-nickels/1927-5c-sp65-ngc-cac/a/1166-3097.s?hdnJumpToLot=1&x=0&y=0
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-buffalo-nickels/1927-special-strike-5c-sp65-pcgs/a/1124-2168.s?hdnJumpToLot=1&x=0&y=0
As I said a couple posts ago-these coins must be re-examined TODAY by a panel of experts on matte proof coinage. Only then will they be legitimate if found to be proof or specimen coins. Just my opinion.
As far as SEGS goes, I have respect for Larry but he attributed a 1913 Var 1 5c for me as a proof nearly 20 years ago. It later turned out to be a circulation strike. I also bought a 1913 Var 1 that NGC called a circulation strike that turned out to be a proof.
A couple HUNDRED post ago, that is.
@cameonut2011 said: "I absolutely stand by my other comments regarding SEGS."
When you have done as much for all of us in the hobby/business (one way or another including things not worth the paper they are printed on) as either Larry or Breen, then I will not regard much of the stuff you post as - shall I say - subject to review.
It’s cool to see the history of coin grading methods
Somehow you have this bizarre notion that some people are beyond reproach - no one is. Blind reliance is dangerous. I don't care who writes it and how qualified that individual may (or may not) be.
With apologizes to Rick in "Casablanca": "Here's looking at you Abe".
Not at all. We all make mistakes. We all have different levels of knowledge. Everyone on this board is making a contribution. Some here are widely known and have been published. I doubt any of them would claim to have never published a falsehood. No one here is above reproach. Some here may even be very bad people.
Thankfully; this is not some MORAL playground where we are judged for our personal faults or most of us would be banned. Generally, we will not be judged on what we have done in life (unless it makes the news). We are judged here by the mark we've left on numismatics.
Most here are anonymous. Many of the folks who are not are peers of Briggs or Breen. Some here will have left a bigger footprint than Briggs. It will be harder to over-step Breen's contribution to numismatics.
With that in mind, I get really frosted when some members, especially an unknown poster (of any age) writes: "...including things not worth the paper they are printed on" when the ONLY personal contribution they have made is an opinion (some in error) on a computer screen that 99.9% of the world's collectors will never see!
When those members who judge the accomplishments of others take a pen to paper or produce something to benefit all of us, I'll have some respect for them and will tend to overlook a few errors they have made or stories they have possibly just made-up.
In a new thread I will be posting my 1935 buffalo nickel -- satin finish special striking -- (looks for all the world like a like a satin finish proof)
along with its letter from Walter Breen. Then I guess we can have another big numismatic food fight!
This is a coin I have actually owned since 1986, it came from Heritage Galleries.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@BUFFNIXX What fraction of your total posts have been about 1917 (alleged) proofs? While I do not collect them, I think Buffalo nickels are really wonderful coins and I wish you'd post more about other buffalo issues so I could learn more about them
OK Mark
I will do what you are suggesting
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
an interesting discussion
the mint never made any 1913 proof Liberty nickels either did they?
@BUFFNIXX Thanks.
Didn't the 1927 SP Buffs come from Sinnocks estate? That alone should tell us all something. Sinnock had a taste for special and unique coins. He also had the ability to MAKE them.
The Mint is supposed to discard or destroy test pieces like the 1927 coins. I guess Mr. Sinnock saved all the good stuff instead.
It's believable. It's true. I believe that all of this might have gone a long way towards the Special Designation.
Although it was 10 years before the 1927 SP coins, Sinnock was an assistant engraver in 1917.
The problem is that in 1917 after the ban on Proof coinage fron an order issued in October, 1916, There is NO SOLID PROOF, or even a hint that Sinnock played around. That doesn't mean he didn't.
All of this is meaningless conjecture, though. I'm as guilty as anyone else for even hinting at "What Ifs".
I certainly ain't alone.
Pete
Tom-
Your 1917 Buff in the SEGS slab has an incredible strike, commensurate with a proof. The date will rarely come with a deep, full strike-according to my 13 year strike study. About 3% come fully struck as follows-
Sometimes seen with a true full strike. Exceptionally struck coins, resembling a Matte proof in strike and with granular surfaces are very occasionally seen.
1917-P # RECORDED 1600 WEAK STRIKE- 3% TYPICAL STRIKE-50% GOOD STRIKE- 44% FULL STRIKE- 3%
This coin should be carefully examined by an expert.
Just as an aside, as a suggestion to the TPGs, any of these exceptionally well struck coins should be weighed, just to see if perchance they were struck on planchets that were randomly thicker than normal. A thicker planchet should strike better. I doubt that this is actually going to be a factor, but it would be good to rule out for the record.
TD
This was also just 4 years after the 1913 Nickels were created
Apples and oranges, I think.
But as a stand-alone fact, quite true.