Options
1950 proof set.
SanctionII
Posts: 12,545 ✭✭✭✭✭
A new pick up for me from a local shop.
All 5 coins are very nice and the set has positive eye appeal.
The half has minimal hairlines, mirrored fields, light frost on the obverse devices and heavy frost on the reverse devices.
The quarter is satin in appearance. If the toning spots on the quarter can be removed it would be a very high quality coin.
18
Comments
The Cent and Nickel look Satin. I have Satin Proof '50 Cent and it's one of my favorite coins. Can you show closer pics of just the Cent and Nickel? It may be they are brilliant and it's just the lighting, but at least the Cent appears to have satiny luster in the fields. The Half and Dime are for sure brilliant, but I also see the Quarter obverse as possibly a Satin, and maybe Cameo as well. Too bad about the spots on the Quarter.
http://macrocoins.com
That Capitol holder adds to the beauty. Nice pickup. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
If toning does not affect the grade then why remove them....grade doesn't change or does it?
bob
The cent is brilliant, with a pale orange color.
The nickel has a satin appearance with a light golden tone.
The dime is brilliant.
The quarter is a high quality satin proof. Without the spots it would be stunning. I bought the set primarily for the quarter. I hope the spots can be removed or at least minimized.
The half dollar is also very high quality with positive eye appeal.
Here are bigger photos of the quarter.
Those spots look very deep,
best of luck.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Beautiful Satin Proof Quarter! Best I've seen.
I don't see much contrast on the Cent, but I do see what I thought was luster, so it also appeared to be Satin.
http://macrocoins.com
Cool catch!
That's really nice!
My YouTube Channel
I bought one years ago.
Pretty looking set!
U.S. Type Set
Really nice!
The satin proofs are my favorites too.
I love 'em!
A lot nicer than most I have seen.
Very nice set... Though I do not have high hopes for the obverse of the quarter (which is a really nice quarter)...It could be the picture, but that dark spot looks bad... I hope you are successful though... Let us know. Cheers, RickO
Years ago, in the 80's and 90's,I had a customer putting together an 'original' proof set run from '50 to that present day. The pre '55's had to be in the box. He was a student of Ricko's, no toning allowed.....
I got him back to '51.....I kept looking for years, never did find a '50.......
I don't know that Sanction can remove the spot but it should be something NCS or PCGS could remedy easily.
nice pick!
Photo of my best 1950 set. Each coin individually selected to build it.
TTT.
I was successful in removing the toning spots from the obverse of the 1950 proof quater in the set. Under good lighting it has great eye appeal with a satin look on both sides.
The devices are frosted and depending on the angle you view it from the fields have the same appearance as the devices. Tilting the coin to a different angle changes the look of the fields to where a hint of mirrors peek through that contrasts with the devices to give it a Cameo look.
The quarter is also exceptionally clean with no hairlines, scratches, marks or dings. It is very eye appealing and a great acquisition.
Wow! Yes indeed, that's a satin finish '50 Quarter for sure. Super nice. Would match well with my Cent...
http://macrocoins.com
I like that one a lot!
My YouTube Channel
that's a satin finish '50 Quarter for sure
there really is no such thing, coins with that appearance are simply struck from dies which have been used to the point where the fields are degraded and have lost/are losing their mirrored finish. saying "that's a satin finish" from this era is the same as saying "that's a brilliant finish" because they are different descriptions of the same thing. with one, the mirrored fields are degraded, with the other the frost is degraded.
There is a BIG difference between toning and BLACK SPOTS! They needed to be removed. Great job of conservation!
The story goes that the mint was not sure which finish to make, and made them in Satin as they did early in 1936, but then quickly decided to change to Brilliant finish. So similar to 1936, both finishes exist. There are no Satin proofs from 1951 onward. I seem to remember the 1950 Satin Proof Cent was listed in the Red Book, but it is no longer there. I'm not sure which publication editions it was included.
I've seen examples of Satin finish on all of the 1950 Proof coins. It is a very distinctive finish, completely different from the brilliant finish done for later proof mintage.
http://macrocoins.com
First of all - to @SanctionII - very nice proof set. Very difficult to find nice pieces.
With respect to finish. I do not recall reading anything about an intentional satin finish in 1950 in any of my references. I prefer to call them "shallow mirrors" instead. The mint was getting back to proof production after a long hiatus and at a production level that was much higher than 1942. Tomaska's cameo book suggests that the shallow mirrors resulted from keeping dies in production longer than they should have. (presumably fixed in subsequent years). Val Webb's book simply mentions that proof production was poor in quality as much of the art of making proofs was lost. This makes the true cameos even more difficult to find as they must be from fresh dies if used dies were not repolished as they were in later years.
Of course we can debate this all night, but these coins were minted nearly 70 years ago and surely there is nobody alive today that could set us straight on what was intended vs what was actually produced.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
OP indicated that they were toning not black spots. But, I do agree with you on the black spots being conserved if possible. I doubt that it would be cost effective on a 50 proof quarter though.
bob
Agree, a spot is a spot. it does not matter the cause until you try to remove it. Looks like the OP was able to remove it "free of charge."
all of the "Satin Finish" coins I have owned and seen appear to have luster and not flat, mirrored fields. luster is caused by metal flow that results from the die wearing and losing the flat, mirrored finish. that is different from an intentional Satin finish such as what is seen on issues such as the 1994 and 1997 SMS Nickels.
I see my update has generated some additional discussion.
First of all, thanks for the props.
I was fortunate to be able to remove the "spots" [they were such that they were darker in the center, almost black, and as you progressed to the perimeter they changed to lighter colors]. When I first saw the quarter my initial thought was "toning spots" (is that a recognized term?) caused by something making contact with the surface of the coin and resulting in a reaction that caused spots with multiple colors to develop.
When I first saw the quarter I was impressed with how attractive and eye appealing it is, even with the "toning spots". I looked at the surfaces and thought that it would be very difficult to remove the toning spots. I thought I could, at best, possibly minimize them.
I chose to gamble and bought the proof set the quarter was located in, hoping I would be able to remove the toning spots.
It was not a gamble with a significant downside because my purchase price was modest. With little downside and possible upside [successfully removing the toning spots; plus the other four coins in the set are also very nice] I bought the set.
I posted this thread, enjoyed the responses and set the proof set aside for a while.
I had to obtain a new supply of dip before I could try removing the toning spots. I got distracted with other things and did not devote much time to hobby pursuits until I attended a local show earlier this month and picked up 1965 and 1967 SMS sets containing possible DCAM half dollars that were extremely hazed over [I posted a separate thread on those two coins, obtained a new supply of dip, successfully removed the haze on the two SMS half dollars and posted after pictures of those two coins showing how frosty they look after taking a bath].
So with a new supply of dip on hand I retrieved the 1950 proof quarter and succeeded in removing the toning spots.
I am very, very pleased with the results. This 1950 proof quarter is stunning in hand under good lighting. It looks very similar to some of the highest grade 1950 proof quarters (non Cameo) pictured in Coin Facts. It is one of the best 1950 proof quarters that I have seen.
It does have a satin look to it, both the fields and the devices. However tilting the coin results in the fields shifting in appearance, at times presenting a hint of mirrors.
I have two other 1950 proof quarters that I found in OGP sets which are also very nice. Both of them have the appearance of the "shallow mirrored" Cameo proof described and pictured in Mr. Tomaska's 1991 book.
I go back and forth over which of these three high quality 1950 proof quarters I like better.
As far as "satin proofs" from 1950 - 1964 go, I have heard and read that the mint's production efforts in the beginning of 1950 produced coins of all denominations with shallow fields that resulted in proof coinage that looks very similar to business strike coinage. Many of these proofs are really unattractive, as they lack the mirrored fields of later proofs. Later the mint improved its quality control and started to produce proof coins that are of the brilliant kind.
However, as I have looked for and collected in this niche area I have, on occasion, found coins of all five denominations (dated from 1950 to 1964) that are clearly not possessed of "brilliant" fields and/or devices; and that are of very high quality [not like the really unattractive proof coins made in the beginning of 1950].
The appearances of these high quality anomalous coins vary. Some have a "satin" (or "matte"?) appearance across the fields and the devices. Some have frosted devices and fields that look similar, but different. Some have this type of appearance on one side, usually the obverse (with the other side being closer to a brilliant proof).
There is endless variety in the quality and in the appearance of 1950 - 1964 proof coinage. This variety makes for fun hunting and collecting.
There is even more variety in the quality and appearance of the 1965 - 1967 SMS coinage, which is also a fun niche area to collect in.
The 1950 proof quarter that is the subject of this thread is one such anomalous coin. It, again, has frosted devices on both sides, plus it has fields that on first look have the same appearance as the devices. However, the fields on both sides are like a chimera, or a chameleon, or an octopus, or a shape shifter. The look of the fields vary with the lighting and with the tilt/rotation of the coin.
It would be a treat to find examples of the other four 1950 proof coins that have the same appearance and qualities as this 1950 proof quarter. Finding these other four coins and adding them to the quarter would produce quite an unusual and high quality proof set.
@SanctionII
I love it...............the holder only adds to its appeal
Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb, Ricko
Bad transactions with : nobody to date
Yes, they have subtle luster and not the shiny mirrors as would be expected on Brilliant proofs, but the luster is not of the type created by die wear. Brand-new business strike dies also show subtle luster, not from die wear, but from the actual movement of the planchet metal which ultimately causes die wear. As more coins are struck, the moving metal of the planchet eventually wears a pattern into the die surface, and thus all coins struck after will have similar die-induced luster. This luster usually has clearly-visible topography or surface roughness. The Satin proofs don't have this surface roughness, instead showing a smooth, "almost mirror" finish. Some folks describe the finish as having "underlying mirrors".
My hypothesis as to how these were produced is that the dies were indeed polished as we'd expect brilliant proofs to be, but the planchets were not. Perhaps it was expected that the die would impart the expected brilliant finish, but polishing the planchet has several effects beneficial to proof production: breaking-up the surface crystal boundaries and thus making the surface amorphous; a more brilliant finish generally, with the polished/amorphous metal "sliding" along the die surface and thereby not producing metal flow lines; reduced die wear due to the above; and any areas not fully-struck will possess the polished finish of the planchet and thus overall brilliant quality is preserved.
The Satin finish '50 Proof Cent I own, and others that I've examined or seen photos published, shows "chatter" marks on the shoulder typical of a business strike coin which was not fully struck. This supports my hypothesis, but of course the hypothesis is impossible to prove without some first-hand knowledge of proof production in 1950. All we can do is look at the physical evidence and attempt to explain.
http://macrocoins.com