Does this 1916 Lincoln cent appear to be a proof to you?

braddick

I kept an eye on this one all week. It sat at $26.
It appears to be a proof to me and I now suppose perhaps did to others too as the ending bidding seems to prove.
Your thoughts?
Did PCGS miss this one?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/356337990273

coinbuf

I do not see a proof from those photos.

jmlanzaf

@coinbuf said:
I do not see a proof from those photos.

Agree. The rims do not appear square enough.

ChrisH821

TrueView:

braddick

Genuine proof example:

braddick

Proof 66:

Additional information:

Coinscratch

It looks proof-like.

FriendlyEagle7

weren't all the proofs struck from the same dies? Isn't there some definitive diagnostic?

MFeld

My guess is that the coin's not a Proof. And my impression of the seller is that he's knowledgeable enough to have resubmitted the coin if he thought it to be such.

FlyingAl

Die scratches on the obverse and reverse match with that of certified Proofs, and the rims and strike are more consistent with that of a Proof. The horrible photography isn’t in the seller’s favor on this one.

Certainly worth the gamble, and I do believe that is a Proof.

braddick

@MFeld said:
My guess is that the coin's not a Proof. And my impression of the seller is that he's knowledgeable enough to have resubmitted the coin if he thought it to be such.

100%.
I have purchased from that seller before and agree he is extremely knowledgable. With that said, I've seen coins on occasion slip through the cracks, so to speak- and are hidden gems. Especially when there are other employees involved and there is a large turn-over of inventory and listings.
There was a famous eBay seller who won a PCGS grading contest and many threads were started as collectors cherry-picked his inventory and came up with the ocassional choice coin.

IkesT

Based on the TrueView photos on CoinFacts, there appears to be more than one die marriage for the 1916 1c proofs.

And yes, the OP coin is a proof; it has matching obverse and reverse die markers for one of the proof die marriages. Good catch, @braddick !

LeeBone

Looks like a Proof to me, but not my series.
Hope it is!

braddick

As this also is not my series I didn't go after this one as aggresively as I probably should have.
(I was not the winner of this auction.)

Coinscratch

Since it's a proof shouldn't it straight grade now instead of being questionable color?

FlyingAl

@Coinscratch said:
Since it's a proof shouldn't it straight grade now instead of being questionable color?

Not necessarily, but a lot more leeway is given to Proofs.

jacrispies

My first impressions are proof. I believe it is worth the chance, and would purchase the coin myself.

johnny9434

@Coinscratch said:
It looks proof-like.

Here as well

gonzer

Tru-View shows nice squared rims.

jesbroken

I agree, Tru-View show squared rims. I opine it is a proof coin.
Jim

MFeld

@braddick said:

@MFeld said:
My guess is that the coin's not a Proof. And my impression of the seller is that he's knowledgeable enough to have resubmitted the coin if he thought it to be such.

100%.
I have purchased from that seller before and agree he is extremely knowledgable. With that said, I've seen coins on occasion slip through the cracks, so to speak- and are hidden gems. Especially when there are other employees involved and there is a large turn-over of inventory and listings.
There was a famous eBay seller who won a PCGS grading contest and many threads were started as collectors cherry-picked his inventory and came up with the ocassional choice coin.

I guess it would have been a good idea to have looked at the additional pictures, before replying.
Yes, coins can slip through the cracks on occasion - perhaps this was one of them. And I believe I know of the "famous eBay seller" you spoke of.

WaterSport

1916 is a good year for some terrific looking cents. If someone has Kevin’s book on MPL s I believe he made several references that two die pairs were used and possibly for some business strikes. But any who - it’s the finish that is concerning me. It looks too smooth. But I hope I am wrong so please up date us when you get a confirmation either way.

WS

MarkInDavis

Not a Lincoln guy, but I think it may be proof.

VanHalen

Speaking strictly on the surfaces, which may well have been messed with, it doesn't look like a Matte finish proof.

coinkat

The image helps the cause in terms of questionable color and begs the questions as to altered surfaces. Perhaps the coin looks different in hand

robec

Look for the die scratches I and around the date. Having these will go a long ways in favor of it being a proof.

renomedphys

Has the die chip in the 9. 🤷🏻‍♂️

telephoto1

This date normally comes nicely struck. The example in question doesn't look to have the sandblast finish or truly squared rims indicative of a matte proof. The surfaces on the OP piece are too smooth imo.
Edit to add: I understand that MP dies were occasionally "recycled" to do business strikes. Perhaps this is an example in a later die stage?

Namvet69

And this is why we study coin die varieties. Peace Roy

Maywood

Looks like it has some diagnostics and not others as Proof, looks like it has some characteristics and not others as a Proof.

FlyingAl

@Maywood said:
Looks like it has some diagnostics and not others as Proof, looks like it has some characteristics and not others as a Proof.

Two die pairs appear to have been used for Proofs, which likely explains why it only matches some Proof diagnostics (it will only ever match the ones that correspond to the correct die pair).

braddick

I wrote the seller a couple of days ago:

"There is a thread running over on the PCGS boards speculating this cent may well be a Proof. It is an interesting read. I am not sure if you are a member over there or not, if so perhaps you could add additional insights on this interesting Lincoln cent.
(I unfortunately forgot to bid this morning and thus lost out.)
Sincerely,
Pat"

Here was his response this morning:

"Yes, indeed I think it was and we didn't catch it.
Regards,"

JimTyler

Still pretty even with issues.

erwindoc

Let us know how you do when you resubmit!

FlyingAl

@telephoto1 said:
This date normally comes nicely struck. The example in question doesn't look to have the sandblast finish or truly squared rims indicative of a matte proof. The surfaces on the OP piece are too smooth imo.
Edit to add: I understand that MP dies were occasionally "recycled" to do business strikes. Perhaps this is an example in a later die stage?

Putting lights too low (as is seen in every image of this coin) makes surfaces seem flat and flashy.

As such, judging this coin off of surfaces would be a major mistake. You have to judge off of markers.

messydesk

There were two pairs of dies used for 1916 proof cents. I see markers from one of the obverses on the subject coin -- gouge inside the 9 and polishing in the field behind Lincoln's neck (below hair, above collar). I can't make out any markers on the reverse from the TVs.

FlyingAl

@messydesk said:
There were two pairs of dies used for 1916 proof cents. I see markers from one of the obverses on the subject coin -- gouge inside the 9 and polishing in the field behind Lincoln's neck (below hair, above collar). I can't make out any markers on the reverse from the TVs.

There are a set of curving light die scratches running between the low side of the E and N in CENTS. You can easily see them on the OP TrueView, and can then search for them from there on designated coins.

messydesk

@FlyingAl said:

@messydesk said:
There were two pairs of dies used for 1916 proof cents. I see markers from one of the obverses on the subject coin -- gouge inside the 9 and polishing in the field behind Lincoln's neck (below hair, above collar). I can't make out any markers on the reverse from the TVs.

There are a set of curving light die scratches running between the low side of the E and N in CENTS. You can easily see them on the OP TrueView, and can then search for them from there on designated coins.

Those aren't shown in my reference, so I can't make a positive ID. Since they might not be die polishing lines, rather disturbances on the coin, I can't rule it out, either.

davewesen

Since over 2 bidders brought it to over $400, they both thought so. I am not sure what difference questionable color would be between MPL and MS.

FlyingAl

@messydesk said:

@FlyingAl said:

@messydesk said:
There were two pairs of dies used for 1916 proof cents. I see markers from one of the obverses on the subject coin -- gouge inside the 9 and polishing in the field behind Lincoln's neck (below hair, above collar). I can't make out any markers on the reverse from the TVs.

There are a set of curving light die scratches running between the low side of the E and N in CENTS. You can easily see them on the OP TrueView, and can then search for them from there on designated coins.

Those aren't shown in my reference, so I can't make a positive ID. Since they might not be die polishing lines, rather disturbances on the coin, I can't rule it out, either.

I've seen them match on 4+ other Matte Proofs, so I'm quite positive they're die markers, but I doubt they'd be in any reference.

RonnyW

I have a 1916 that I paid 5 bucks for. Once I got it I’m pretty certain it’s a proof. The strike is amazing, but many business strikes in 1916 were great as well. The rims look square to me, but the strike and matte fields makes me believe it’s worth sending in to get it certified.

Plus PCGS has a guarantee on their grades. I believe the OP is correct that that was a proof. If so PCGS has to give the coin the proof designation or pay fair market value for it.

Ronsanderson

@RonnyW said:
I have a 1916 that I paid 5 bucks for. Once I got it I’m pretty certain it’s a proof. The strike is amazing, but many business strikes in 1916 were great as well. The rims look square to me, but the strike and matte fields makes me believe it’s worth sending in to get it certified.

I don’t know about that. Yes, the dies are re-engraved and the strike is great. But yours, like mine, seems to have rounding of the rims rather than the sharp 90 degree corners. Also, your looks like there is some flattening on the blue part of the beard. I wish mine were an MPL, but sadly, it’s not.

RonnyW

Yeah, you have a gorgeous coin for sure. I can see the rounding of the edges in the moving reflections. 👍

jmlanzaf

@erwindoc said:
Let us know how you do when you resubmit!

Going to be hard since he doesn't own the coin

renomedphys

@RonnyW said:
I have a 1916 that I paid 5 bucks for. Once I got it I’m pretty certain it’s a proof. The strike is amazing, but many business strikes in 1916 were great as well. The rims look square to me, but the strike and matte fields makes me believe it’s worth sending in to get it certified.

Plus PCGS has a guarantee on their grades. I believe the OP is correct that that was a proof. If so PCGS has to give the coin the proof designation or pay fair market value for it.

That is not a proof