To repeat my offer from July 7 regarding matte proof 1917 Buffalo nickels, and modify it to cover 1917 matte proof Lincoln cents.
There is absolutely no evidence that any matte proof cents or nickels were struck with the 1917 date. Every specimen that has been examined by knowledgeable experts has been shown to be either a circulation strike or an alteration.
(Coin collectors seem to enjoy speculation: “What if the mint made 1931 SLQs, or 1964 Franklin halves, or 1963 Kennedy halves?” This is fine, but due to the copy-cat nature of many hobby publications, once printed this speculation becomes accepted as fact, reductio ad absurdum. Unfortunately, Walter Breen’s effusive authentication of proofs, “matte proofs,” “Roman proofs,” “French proofs,” “Italian proofs,” etc. are little more than “Spoof Proofs” which have thoroughly confused collectors, and should be completely disregarded without modern authentication.)
Absent solid evidence to the contrary, the matter of 1917 proofs seems resolved by Mr. Hall’s statements.
However, I am very interested in the possibility of something lurking out there awaiting discovery. So, I offer to pay the grading fee and postage if a collector will send their genuine “1917 matte proof Lincoln cent” to either PCGS or NGC for authentication, certification and grading. If it comes back "matte proof" I'll pay the fees.
<< <i>Unfortunately, Walter Breen’s effusive authentication of proofs, “matte proofs,” “Roman proofs,” “French proofs,” “Italian proofs,” etc. are little more than “Spoof Proofs” which have thoroughly confused collectors, and should be completely disregarded without modern authentication.) >>
If any 1917 "proofs" exist, which I doubt, they are more likely to be "SMS"-type strikes not produced under official auspices of the Mint.
Me at the Springfield coin show: 60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
Comments
There is absolutely no evidence that any matte proof cents or nickels were struck with the 1917 date. Every specimen that has been examined by knowledgeable experts has been shown to be either a circulation strike or an alteration.
(Coin collectors seem to enjoy speculation: “What if the mint made 1931 SLQs, or 1964 Franklin halves, or 1963 Kennedy halves?” This is fine, but due to the copy-cat nature of many hobby publications, once printed this speculation becomes accepted as fact, reductio ad absurdum. Unfortunately, Walter Breen’s effusive authentication of proofs, “matte proofs,” “Roman proofs,” “French proofs,” “Italian proofs,” etc. are little more than “Spoof Proofs” which have thoroughly confused collectors, and should be completely disregarded without modern authentication.)
Absent solid evidence to the contrary, the matter of 1917 proofs seems resolved by Mr. Hall’s statements.
However, I am very interested in the possibility of something lurking out there awaiting discovery. So, I offer to pay the grading fee and postage if a collector will send their genuine “1917 matte proof Lincoln cent” to either PCGS or NGC for authentication, certification and grading. If it comes back "matte proof" I'll pay the fees.
<< <i>Unfortunately, Walter Breen’s effusive authentication of proofs, “matte proofs,” “Roman proofs,” “French proofs,” “Italian proofs,” etc. are little more than “Spoof Proofs” which have thoroughly confused collectors, and should be completely disregarded without modern authentication.) >>
If any 1917 "proofs" exist, which I doubt, they are more likely to be "SMS"-type strikes not produced under official auspices of the Mint.
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
“Spoof Proofs”-I like that term! Covers the situation perfectly!
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
If in 30 years, none turn up, maybe I'll think otherwise. Maybe its just the thought they do exsist, or a newbies hope in finding one...