Home› U.S. Coin Forum

So is there a 1917 Lincoln proof or not????

DickyBetzDickyBetz Posts: 3,825
in U.S. Coin Forum
I've heard some people say yes and some no. Are there any? Does anyone have a picture of one? There is one in the Redbook, but it doesnt have any mintage or value.image

Comments

  • michaelmichael Posts: 9,524 ✭✭✭
    image

    NO!!
  • mozeppamozeppa Posts: 4,431 ✭✭✭
    no....just really good biz strikes, without an upset rim.
  • DickyBetzDickyBetz Posts: 3,825


    << <i>image

    NO!! >>



    Then why is it in the Redbook?
  • coinguy1coinguy1 Posts: 13,484 ✭✭✭
    No. People can speculate and make all of the claims that they care to, but I have yet to see any (pun intended) proof! image
  • SteveSteve Posts: 3,312 ✭✭✭
    No accepted 1917 Lincoln cent proof coin has ever been certified. Same thing for the so called 1959 Lincoln Wheat cent reverse. Some people have claimed to see them, but unless and until the major dealers, graders, and leaders of this hobby accept the coin, it just doesn't count.
    Steveimage
    My True View Album

    My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
  • DickyBetzDickyBetz Posts: 3,825
  • DickyBetzDickyBetz Posts: 3,825
    Ok, thanks for the verification.
  • DickyBetzDickyBetz Posts: 3,825
    double post
  • messydeskmessydesk Posts: 20,488 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I can't find the picture, but probably about 10 years ago, JT Stanton sent me a picture of a/the 1917 cent that Breen called a proof. Fat chance of me finding the silly thing.
    John
    Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
  • cupronikcupronik Posts: 773 ✭✭✭
    I'm curious, were some circulation strike Buffalo 5c (1914-1917) and 1917-P WL 50c coins actually struck from proof dies?

    I've seen such sharply detailed singles that beg this question.
  • larrynjlarrynj Posts: 535 ✭
    breen verified the 17 wl 50c as existing in proof, i even sent him one for verication, that came back as unc. they were matte proofs. don't recall anything about the cent.
  • TouchdownTouchdown Posts: 233 ✭


    << <i>Text >>

    No accepted 1917 Lincoln cent proof coin has ever been certified. Same thing for the so called 1959 Lincoln Wheat cent reverse. Some people have claimed to see them, but unless and until the major dealers, graders, and leaders of this hobby accept the coin, it just doesn't count.

    << <i>Text >>



    The 1959 Wheat Cent reverse was confirmed to be a fake made outside the mint. The1917 Proof was never confirmed to be made or exist but just beleived to be out there.
  • BuffaloIronTailBuffaloIronTail Posts: 7,578 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It is entirely logical and not anywhere near out of the ordinary for questions to arise as to if there exists a 1917 proof Lincoln Cent.

    Dies for the 1917 proofs would have been prepared well in advance of the Mint's decision not to coin any proofs in 1917.

    After deciding not to produce any proofs in 1917, the Mint would have relegated these dies to normal production.

    It would not be out of the ordinary to assume, but no one knows, that some coins were struck prior to the decision not to make any.

    This would be standard practice to test the proofing process prior to production.

    Don't forget that proof coins are struck twice to bring out all the details, and to be a proof, the specimen must show an unquestionably perfect strike, with complete squared rims inside and out. (edited from "wire")

    It could have happened that trial strikes were produced before the Mint suspended proof production.

    ...........But that's for the "experts" to figure out..........

    Not me.

    Hope this helps.....

    Pete
    "I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
  • michaelmichael Posts: 9,524 ✭✭✭

    DickyBetz
    Expert Collector

    Posts: 2652
    Joined: May 2005
    Monday February 20, 2006 7:53 PM (NEW!)





    <<

    NO!! >>



    Then why is it in the Redbook?



    i do not know why i am not the red book publishers they put it in there not me

    i got an idea for you why dont you call them and ask them for yourself why this is in the red book?? then you get an answer right from the horses mouth so to speak they put it in and they will be the ones to give you a definative answer as such why they put it in there
  • DickyBetzDickyBetz Posts: 3,825


    << <i>DickyBetz
    Expert Collector

    Posts: 2652
    Joined: May 2005
    Monday February 20, 2006 7:53 PM (NEW!)





    <<

    NO!! >>



    Then why is it in the Redbook?



    i do not know why i am not the red book publishers they put it in there not me

    i got an idea for you why dont you call them and ask them for yourself why this is in the red book?? then you get an answer right from the horses mouth so to speak they put it in and they will be the ones to give you a definative answer as such why they put it in there >>




    Actually, that is not a bad idea. I might do it.
  • krankykranky Posts: 8,709 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Don't forget that proof coins are struck twice to bring out all the details, and to be a proof, the specimen must show an unquestionably perfect strike, with complete wire rims inside and out. >>



    You meant square rims, right?

    New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.

  • coinguy1coinguy1 Posts: 13,484 ✭✭✭
    << Don't forget that proof coins are struck twice to bring out all the details, and to be a proof, the specimen must show an unquestionably perfect strike, with complete wire rims inside and out. >>

    <<You meant square rims, right?>>

    Kranky, I'm guessing he meant "wire rims" as stated (although many Proofs do not have them). In any event, with respect to the edges, I believe it would be "squared" edges.
  • BuffaloIronTailBuffaloIronTail Posts: 7,578 ✭✭✭✭✭
    yes...........




    SQUARED RIMS.



    Pete
    "I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
  • krankykranky Posts: 8,709 ✭✭✭
    Thanks for the clarification, guys.

    New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.

  • MrEurekaMrEureka Posts: 24,515 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No accepted 1917 Lincoln cent proof coin has ever been certified.

    I had one maybe 20 years ago with ANACS or (believe it or not) INS papers. I remember the coin as being somewhat but not completely convincing. It clearly was not as convincing as the one 1917 definitely-proof Buffalo I've seen.
    Andy Lustig

    Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.

    Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 33,091 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It is a matter of opinion, and in my opinion there is no such thing.
    Tom D.
    Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
  • MrEurekaMrEureka Posts: 24,515 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It is a matter of opinion, and in my opinion there is no such thing.

    Tom - That's conjecture on your part, not opinion. But I'd guess you're right.
    Andy Lustig

    Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.

    Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Format
SpoilerCodeQuote
Heading 2Heading 1
Emoji
:):D:(;):/:o:s:p:'(:|B):#:*<3o:)>:)
Url
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Home • U.S. Coin ForumComment As ...