RED BOOK CHANGES EARLY LINCOLN PROOF MINTAGES AGAIN!

Steve

Those of you who collect the Lincoln cent Matte proofs or the 1909 thru 1916 Liberty and Buffalo nickels in the PCGS set registry may be interested in a change in the reported mintages in the 2005 Red Book just issued.

For over 50 years, until 1998, the Red Book and every other publication used a consistant number for each year's mintage. It was based on data supplied by the Government reflecting sales of these coins. In David Lange's book "The Complete Guide to Lincoln Cents" in 1996 (page 288) he reported that during the period of 1909 thru 1912 all minor proof coins (pennies & nickels) were sold as a pair. This was supported by the mintage numbers everyone used.

In 1996, Kevin Flynn wrote a book with John Wexler (The Authoritative Reference on Lincoln Cents) in which he provided a new analysis of Matte proof mintages on pages 346 thru 356. As a result of this, the Red Book changed their reported mintages for the years 1909 to 1911. The 1909VDB, for instance, went from 420 sold to 1,194. Now, in the new edition, more changes are listed for the Lincoln proofs of 1912 thru 1914 and 1916. In fact, the new "number" for 1916 Lincoln Matte proof cents is 600 sold. So, apparently the 1916 is twice as scarce as the 1909 VDB! Also, in the 2005 Red Book mintages for proof nickels have been raised for 1909 thru 1912 and 1914. I have not been able to find any explaination for these changes in the book.

I am a firm believer that no one today can determine precisely how many of these coins were actually sold and available. The numbers the hobby had used until recent years seemed reasonable and consistant with reported third party grading populations. Why the big effort to change the numbers? I would like to get in touch with Ken Bressett, the editor to find out the story of why after six more years have passed, it was decided to change reported mintages again. If anyone knows his email address, please let me know. I will report what he says. Thanks, Steve

merz2

Steve
If you get the explanation,I too would love to hear it.

Steve

I have written via EMAIL to Ken Bressertt and to Red Book about this subject. I have further checked the reported proof mintages for dimes, quarters and half dollars for the years 1909 thru 1915. Red Book has changed the numbers on all the denominations for some of these years in 2005! Has anyone heard of a reason why? Kevin Flynn's analysis might explain the Lincoln cents, but where is the documentation supporting the other denominations? After almost 100 years, WHY NOW?? I'll let you know if I get any response. Steve

solid

Let's hope they are not revising numbers upward based on increasing
counts in the pop reports!

Ken

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

Ken Bresett can change like the weather.It depends who gives him their prediction.Been There,Done That

Stewart

Steve

OK, I've waited a couple of weeks to get a reply from either Ken Bressett or the Red Book staff about the mintage changes they made this year on proof nickels, dimes, quarters, and half dollars of the 1909-1914 years. NO RESPONSE.

These mintage changes are significant as a percent of the old number. As an example, for 57 editions of the Red Book, the proof mintage of the 1914 Barber quarter is reported as 380. This year it is changed to 610. The 1911 Barber dime goes from 543 to 656. It seems like the mintages reported are all going up except for some strange reason the 1916 Lincoln cent which is going down from 1,050 to 600. Now, the new reported Lincoln cent proof numbers are generally in support of Kevin Flynn's 1996 analysis, but I do not know of any other published or unpublished data that would support the changes the Red Book made on the nickels, dimes, quarters or half dollars. No changes were made on the gold coins, and no changes were made on any other years BUT the 1909-1916 period.

I am guessing that maybe Red Book wanted to change the rules by reporting proof mintages OF THESE YEARS by what may be determined as being minted instead of the traditional basis of what had been sold. I always understood that any proof coins not sold to collectors was assumed to be destroyed. Is Red Book now saying that is not true? And where is the consistancy if these changes only apply to the years 1909-1916? Why this is bothering me so much is that the Red Book has always been looked upon as the bible of coin references and I believe it hurts our hobby when they arbitrarily change reference numbers and do not comment about it.

While I will continue to wait for some reply on this, I am asking anyone who reads this thread, if you know WHY these changes were made, please post an answer here. There are a lot of major collectors of proof US coinage who are in the PCGS Registry and deserve to know the answer to WHY this change was made THIS YEAR.

One last point. We all know that the "true" proof numbers for these years will never be known. That is not the point here. We have had a number reported historically and it was accepted by the hobby. Unless someone can show with much certainty that the historical number was wrong it should not be changed IMHO. Steve