A 1972 D proof LMC ( yes, D..Denver )??

Have any of you heard of this? Im loading a short clip on youtube right now so i can upload the link. Pictures a great and all but you all know what a proof looks likes. I wanted to show the coin..Was there some type of special collector set?

Comments

  • @mannie gray said:
    Your coin looks PL-ish.
    What does the reverse look like?
    This is not a common date in PL.
    But sorry, it is definitely not a proof.

    I showed the reverse in the video clip. I have a proof right beside it ...they are identical. I work in a coin shop and have never seen a 1972d like this!

  • BillDugan1959BillDugan1959 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Mannie Gray is a senior coin dealer with many many years (decades) experience.

    I don't believe that your coin is a proof. There is a slight suggestion of fingerprints too, but that wouldn't matter if your coin were actually a struck proof from Denver. They simply don't exist.

  • HemisphericalHemispherical Posts: 8,270 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Very well struck D from fresh new dies.

    Those first few thousands(?) of struck coins will look fabulous.

    When the dies start to hit the hundreds of thousands (millions) of strikes then what comes out maybe a bit “tired” looking.

    Again, that 1c D, IMO, come from very new dies.

  • giorgio11giorgio11 Posts: 3,217 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Sorta prooflike, not a proof. Been doing Lincoln cents 50+ years

    Kind regards,

    George

    VDBCoins.com Our Registry Sets Many successful BSTs; pls ask.
  • lcoopielcoopie Posts: 8,493 ✭✭✭✭

    How about a regular photo to evaluate ?

    LCoopie = Les
  • KliaoKliao Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭✭

    Just a very. Nice 1972-D with PL surfaces. Not a actual proof

    Young Numismatist here. Enjoy collecting coins and selling items to fund my collection

    Please see my eBay store for jewelry and a few coins!
    https://www.ebay.com/usr/kliao-69

    Positive BST transactions with LukeMarshall, hrtfxr, PerryHall, Greedoguy

  • tincuptincup Posts: 3,272 ✭✭✭

    Does look like some nice proof-like surfaces... along with fingerprint that many proofs are seen with. Does not have 'squared' or flat rims..., so certainly was not prepared via the proof process. So not a proof... but does appear to be a proof-like and thus collectible as such.

    ----- kj
  • rickoricko Posts: 69,503 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Dove73....That is ok... This is the place to ask questions...and a marvelous place to get answers....Cheers, RickO

  • BuffaloIronTailBuffaloIronTail Posts: 3,884 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The 1996-D is another Denver coin that shines bright. I remember being impressed when I found them in change back then.

    Pete

    "I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
  • thefinnthefinn Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Oldhoopster said:
    @Dove73 don't forget, Proof is a process, not a condition.

    Specially prepared planchets are inspected and struck with specially prepared dies. The striking pressures are higher to bring up the detail.

    That process was set up at the San Francisco mint, not Denver. In order for you're coin to be a proof, somebody would have to prepare the special planchets, make a proof die with a D mm, adjust the press to strike at a higher pressure, etc. Thats why you don't have a proof.

    And struck at least two times.

    thefinn
  • koynekwestkoynekwest Posts: 5,559 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @thefinn said:

    @Oldhoopster said:
    @Dove73 don't forget, Proof is a process, not a condition.

    Specially prepared planchets are inspected and struck with specially prepared dies. The striking pressures are higher to bring up the detail.

    That process was set up at the San Francisco mint, not Denver. In order for you're coin to be a proof, somebody would have to prepare the special planchets, make a proof die with a D mm, adjust the press to strike at a higher pressure, etc. Thats why you don't have a proof.

    And struck at least two times.

    From what I understand proofs are struck once on a hydraulic press-this per Roger Burdette and Mint documents as seen below (paragraph 3.) I don't think this process changed between 1936 and 1972 and likely continues to this day.

  • koynekwestkoynekwest Posts: 5,559 ✭✭✭✭✭

    BTW-does Roger still post here?

  • JBKJBK Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭✭✭

    No he was banned

    As far as modern proofs are concerned, for the past 45 years or more, the the mint's own marketing materials as I recall have specified that proof coins are stuck at least twice.

  • ifthevamzarockinifthevamzarockin Posts: 1,841 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @koynekwest said:
    BTW-does Roger still post here?

    He is posting a little bit on vamworld ;)

  • HemisphericalHemispherical Posts: 8,270 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Proof Sets

    “In order to create the coin’s sharp relief and a mirror-like background, our specialized “proof” minting process requires manually feeding burnished coin blanks into presses where each coin is struck multiple times so the softly frosted and highly detailed images seem to float above the field. The coins are then packaged in a protective lens to showcase and maintain their exceptional finish.“

    https://catalog.usmint.gov/coins/proof-sets/

  • @Hemispherical said:
    Proof Sets

    “In order to create the coin’s sharp relief and a mirror-like background, our specialized “proof” minting process requires manually feeding burnished coin blanks into presses where each coin is struck multiple times so the softly frosted and highly detailed images seem to float above the field. The coins are then packaged in a protective lens to showcase and

  • koynekwestkoynekwest Posts: 5,559 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Perhaps the multiple striking occurs on a medal, or hydraulic press. Is there any way to find out what is correct?

  • koynekwestkoynekwest Posts: 5,559 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Roger is on my list of contacts.-I'll email him tomorrow to see what he says. If anyone would know it would be him. But I ask-how would a person contact the Mint regarding this?

  • OldIndianNutKaseOldIndianNutKase Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dove73 Your U-tube video does not provide any definition necessary to validate your coin as a proof. I think it improbable to identify a proof Lincoln from a mint strike from photos, let alone a U-tube video. Your coin has great luster and a great strike, but the strike on a proof will be better than can be seen in a picture and the mirrors will be much more reflective in hand.

    I have an extensive collection of small cent proofs from 1856 to present and will agree that there are MS coins that are proof like and definitely superior to other MS coins. But they are a step below a genuine proof coin. Your coin is a superior MS coin, not as perfect as a PR coin, but probably worth more due to it's high MS grade. But I know you are trying to make a case for a unique PR branch mint coin.

    OINK

  • HemisphericalHemispherical Posts: 8,270 ✭✭✭✭✭

    How proof coins are made video by the US Mint. About the two minute mark is the explanation of tonnage and number of strikes by San Francisco Mint Deputy Superintendent Paul Lewis:

  • KkathylKkathyl Posts: 3,264 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You can find many proof like pennies from late 60-70’s that have proof like finish does not mean they are


    Could be polished or dipped

  • BuffaloIronTailBuffaloIronTail Posts: 3,884 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ifthevamzarockin said:

    @koynekwest said:
    BTW-does Roger still post here?

    He is posting a little bit on vamworld ;)

    He also hangs out ATS.

    Pete

    "I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
  • KkathylKkathyl Posts: 3,264 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Dove73 said:

    Checked all my proof sets and so no not a proof but there are error coins and yours might by #9 which I believe is doubled rim which is on the bottom half. Take a look and see if that is what you have. Video not focusing enough for me to see clear enough. Good luck in your hunt.

  • KkathylKkathyl Posts: 3,264 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Here are a few proof sets from that era


  • KkathylKkathyl Posts: 3,264 ✭✭✭✭✭




  • koynekwestkoynekwest Posts: 5,559 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Hemispherical said:
    How proof coins are made video by the US Mint. About the two minute mark is the explanation of tonnage and number of strikes by San Francisco Mint Deputy Superintendent Paul Lewis:

    Interesting but they still don't mention what TYPE of press is used. The article I posted above is from the 1936 issue of "The Numismatist" which is a trusted source.

  • koynekwestkoynekwest Posts: 5,559 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I have received a response from Roger about which presses are used for proof coin production. I am waiting for his permission to quote his responses and will post them here once I get that.

  • JBKJBK Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @koynekwest said:
    The article I posted above is from the 1936 issue of "The Numismatist" which is a trusted source.

    Yes, "The Numismatist" is a trusted source, but a 1936 article might be a bit outdated. :D

    Numismatically, a few things might have changed since then. ;)

  • koynekwestkoynekwest Posts: 5,559 ✭✭✭✭✭

    According to what I've garnered proof coinage was struck on hydraulic presses from 1858 until at least the early '70s and almost certainly beyond that. They apparently were never struck on production presses. I will post Roger's responses later.

  • koynekwestkoynekwest Posts: 5,559 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I will try to get Roger to clarify how the modern presses are powered to strike modern proofs.

    Here is his response-

    "Modern proof coins - since about 1970 - have been struck twice on a press designed for that purpose. The internal between blows is less than about 0.1 second and the press is designed to keep blows in precise alignment. However, the Philadelphia Mint encountered registration problems through the early 1970s and coins with misaligned strikes are known.

    From at least 1858 forward, normal proof coins and patterns were struck on a large medal press (screw-type or later hydraulic). The coins received one blow (more of a quick squeeze) at high pressure, usually from new dies. These old presses could not make quick successive strikes and could not hold the coin in tight alignment. The test is very simple: double struck older proofs would show many pieces with multiple outlines to the design. That is not the case. The coins were produced by the Medal Department.

    Early master coins (aka "proofs") were also struck on a large screw-type medal press, but while most show no evidence of being struck more than once, some coins have traces of double striking.

    Production presses, either screw-type or Peale's toggle press were never used for proof coins. They did not generate enough pressure. Physically, some small coins such as those of a quarter-eagle and smaller, could have been made on a hand-operated toggle press, but there would have been no reason to do so. Larger coins - such as so-called "branch mint proofs" could not be made this way. That indicates that ALL true proof coins were products of the Philadelphia Mint, regardless of the presence of a mintmark.

    I hope this will help - but the same old nonsense keeps popping up and one has to wonder if collectors read anything written in the past 30 years."

  • BuffaloIronTailBuffaloIronTail Posts: 3,884 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Thanks Ron, and next time you contact Roger, give him my regards.

    Pete

    "I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
  • koynekwestkoynekwest Posts: 5,559 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Will do, Pete. His posts here were always interesting and informative. I hope we see him back soon!

  • cladkingcladking Posts: 26,397 ✭✭✭✭

    The coin is most probably a mint set coins struck with lightly worn dies (not new dies). These were actually struck with more force than proof coins but only once. This date turned out very nice and is sometimes seen even nicer than yours.

    Tempus fugit.
  • koynekwestkoynekwest Posts: 5,559 ✭✭✭✭✭

    A further statement from Roger on this subject. Proof coins were never and are not now struck on production presses.

    "Proofs were never made on presses designed for circulation production. Until adoption of the Schuler presses in the 1960s, all of these were toggle presses of various designs. This also included Bliss cartridge presses surplus from WW-II.

    Modern proof coin presses are mostly hydraulic but nothing like the old ones the US mint once used. Check the information on Schuler's web site (It's in English and German).

    Modern coin presses - the US Mint uses high capacity horizontal presses - are mechanically similar to the old toggle presses. Readers and see detailed drawings in Journal of Numismatic Research, Issue #1, and learn about Peale's toggle press invention in Journal of Numismatic Research, Issue 3.

    A dual (or triple) strike has to be designed to hold the planchet in perfect alignment with the dies even though the planchet deforms with each blow. A circulation press is designed for only one blow to each planchet and has not such complicated mechanical arrangement."

Sign In or Register to comment.