Feb. 7-21 Coin World articles - give me your opinions

Prethen

The upcoming Coin World publications (Beth Deisher, the editor, noted that the first of the series should start on February 7th) as a series of three (3) articles on introducing collectors to early/classic proof coins. I (Bruce C. Goldstein) share the byline with my dealer associate, Mike Nourse, of Alaska Coin Exchange, who helped provide a good deal of information for the articles.

I was deliberately careful to not play fast and loose with any known facts, but it's possible there might be some parts of these articles that might caused a raised eyebrow or two. Go ahead and hit me with what your thoughts are. I wrote these articles several months ago and this is my first ever to be professionally published. I'm toying with the idea of doing more contributions.

Thank you and enjoy reading them.

kieferscoins

<< <i>Go ahead and hit me with what your thoughts are. I wrote these articles several months ago and this is my first ever to be professionally published. >>



We can't give our thoughts until the magazine arrives and read the article. Mine usually doesn't come until a day or two before the publication date

Cameron Kiefer

Tootawl

A day or two? I don't get mine for 2 weeks (sometimes more) after the publication date.

Prethen

I'm not sure when the first issues start getting into subscriber's hands. I think they'll start showing up in the next couple of days or so. I'll "ttt" this thread when I get my issue...sorry for jumping the gun.

Prethen

Just got my copy (on 1/31, mailed on 1/25).

cladking

Sounds interesting. I'll be sure to read them.

Steve

Bruce,
I just read your first article in the February 7th issue of Coin World. My interest in Early proof coins centers on the Lincoln cents and particularly the 1909 thru 1916 Matte proofs. I note that you will be discussing mintages and surviving examples in part 2 of your series.

I wanted to mention that there is a controversy concerning the reporting of mintages of proof copper nickel and silver denominations (one cent, nickel, dime,quarter, and half dollar) for the years 1909 thru 1916. The Red Book in 2005 CHANGED the historically reported numbers for these denominations for the years 1909 thru 1916. They used mint records showing manufactured quantities instead of the historically reported sold quantities. There is much dispute on the accuracy of these numbers because it causes an overall 19% increase in mintages. For example, the 1909VDB Lincoln cent has traditionally been reported as 420 quantity sold and probably less than 200 still in existance. Red Book now uses 1,194 quantity as a manufactured number. They are overall INCONSISTANT with their mintage numbers because almost all their mintages for everything else except 1909 thru 1916 is based on quantity sold to collectors from mint records.

I don't know if you touch upon this issue in part 2 of your article, but I've been trying to get Ken Bressert to change back to the original numbers and been unsuccessful. Fortunately, all the other annual books that report on proof mintages continue to report the historic numbers. Good luck with your articles. Steve

Prethen

<< <i>I don't know if you touch upon this issue in part 2 of your article, but I've been trying to get Ken Bressert to change back to the original numbers and been unsuccessful. Fortunately, all the other annual books that report on proof mintages continue to report the historic numbers. Good luck with your articles. Steve >>



Thanks for your comments. [I just received my copy yesterday]

I agree with you that the mintages are virtually meaningless as stated in the Red Book for two reasons: One, the total minted were not always the total sold and a number were melted in that year or later years. Two, probably somewhere south of half of any state mintage survive in any collectable, non-impaired state. I believe I talk about this to some extent in part 2 of the series (next week). I don't think I emphasized the fact that the mintages in Red Book are not representative of what was truly sold. Thanks for pointing that out, but let me know what you think of how I approached the topic when you read next week's article.

EagleEye

I thought the article was a nice overview of proofs. In reading it I wanted to learn something about the packaging the Mint employed over the years prior to 1917. I don't even know if the information is available. I have never encountered a set in its original packaging from the early years (save for cases like the King of Siam sets or the 1843 set pictured).

Some proof Indian cents aquired outstanding blue toning from the Mint wrappers.

Prethen

There's essentially two types of packaging that I know of. I noted the "cheap sulfite" paper that the coins traditionally came wrapped in. If the coins were left in this paper, they would definitely tone some interesting colors over the years. I'd be a little concerned with the paper breaking down over the years and depending on how the coin was stored, subjecting it to potential damage. The other way that proofs were sold by the Mint were in presentation packages. These packages cost the collecter about $3 (I think) and that was a huge premium over the cost of a typical minor silver proof set. Needless to say, not too many of these packages were sold and distributed.

Personally, I have never seen "original" Mint packaging for a classic proof coin. The presentation cases are exceptionally rare for any given year and are probably in museums or well-healed collector's homes that rarely come out for show. The sulphite paper might be around, but it's not a good idea to keep the coins stored that way any more.

Keep in mind, the typical collector wasn't all that careful about how they handled their proofs fresh from the Mint in the 1800's. Sometimes the proof came from a Mint till (register) and directly into the collector's pocket for a nice, bumpy horse/buggy ride back home. I have several proofs that exhibit an old partial fingerprint. These probably could be from the original handler of the coin. It can be truly amazing that any of these classic proofs exist in some of the fantastic conditions you see today.

Check out this link by Mike Nourse.

CUEBALL

I read it and I just want to say "That's my kind of Article"

Prethen

I didn't realize Coin World could be so tough to find on a news stand, if you're not already a subscriber. My father lives in the Los Angeles area and couldn't find the paper in any major bookstore or newstand. He finally called a coin store and found a copy there.

Prethen

Part Deux is out. There is is a minor flaw with the table and final figures that was pointed out by a reader of the paper (and this forum). For some reason, the Matte/Satin Proof Lincoln Cents were not included. This adds 15,314 pieces to the final figures. Once I confer with Mike Nourse on this issue, I'll try to get a letter to Coin World published including the corrected figures.

Steve

Bruce, thanks for the acknowledgement about the Matte Proof Lincolns. Could you tell us the source (s) you used to get the mintage quantities in the article? Thanks, Steve

Prethen

No, problem. Actually, I'm a little embarrassed for that slipping out of our radar. Most of the information was obtained through Breen's book on Encyclopedia of Colonial and U.S. Proofs 1722-1977 (or 1989 version, it doesn't matter).

[Just got confirmation that the correction letter should be printed in the Feb. 28th edition of Coin World.]



<< <i>Bruce, thanks for the acknowledgement about the Matte Proof Lincolns. Could you tell us the source (s) you used to get the mintage quantities in the article? Thanks, Steve >>

michael

a good overview for me and well written




and great information for any reader and quite interesting



the blue tissue mint wrapper toning is quite rare on proof two cent pieces and much later date proof half cents and large cents these coins are still terribly undervlaued underapprecaited sleeper value opportunity beautiful desirable coins like this

i have read part one and two as i get my copy usually two days after it is mailed from sidney ohio

michael

many proof set cases pre 1858 where ordered from spinks in england

and i am sure some where ordered from the long line of fancy jewelry shops that lined the expensive shopping area of downtown philadelphia

Coinosaurus

I liked the chart which should the total number of proofs by series. I never thought of them that way before.