Let Us Try and Determine HOW Matte Proofs Were Made

ambro51

The question is, were the coins treated after minting, or were the dies treated and the image minted on the coin. Reading Lange, who knew it all, it seems that question is still not answered.

So, heres my thought. The Granularity, and the exact fingerprint of that granularity, will be on every coin made with that die, only wear will change the look. With the images that you guys have, from MPLs that you now or once owned, how about we try to get a similar section of several different coins of the same dates. Nice HIgh res enlargement. This way, we may be able to see a certain pattern of granulation, much like stars in the sky, emerge on the same location on a good number of these coins.

Someone a bit tech savvey could try to superimpose one image on top of another on the computer?

IF we can see that, then we will know for certain that it was the dies that were treated and the coins were minted with granularity.

On the other hand if the coins of the same year on that enlarged portion always show different granularity patterens, and nothing at all similar, then we know the coins were treated, sandblasted, as the excerpt from the 1903 history of the phila mint would lead you to believe.


Get my point? like fingerprints...

WaterSport

Makes sense to me. If someone had the equipment and skill to do this and was willing to be responisble for us to send him a given year of Matte proof, say 1910, then you could be on to something.

WS

ambro51

I think we must have good enough digital photos....my 11 is very granular and that shows better on the photo than the coin.

curly

Brothers, the way I understand it, the die was sandblasted and the granularity that resulted was imprinted on the polished planchet. The third side of mattes (edge) have the highly polished finish that regular proofs have. As the die punched out mattes, the constant pounding would result in the die losing it's granularity and the matte would begin to lose it's chiseled look.

Because the mattes closely resembled mass produced coins, the public quickly lost interest in them, hence the low mintages, and the production of them was discontinued after eight years.

Bad for the mint, good for the collectors.

BWRC

I go with Ambro and curly's theory.

You start with an early die state coin, from first strike to last strike. During this period of time the granularity would diminish as the dies became worn. Also, during production the dies could be wiped (causing hairlines) that might not show on an earlier die state coin. Some other type of tool was also used to clean the dies, take for instance the 1911 cent, mid to late die states have that large gouge to the left of "G" in GOD.(see top image) This gouge is not on the earlier die state coins(see lower image)

I currently own the coin in the (top image) with the diegouge and have previously owned the coin in the bottom image. I can tell you, the coin in the bottom image is much more granular than the top image coin.

This leads me to believe the granularity of Matte Proofs diminishes as the coins were being produced off the same die. The granularity of MPL cents comes "as struck". These two images back up this point.

top image: mid to late die state, diminished granularity with diegouge



bottom image: early die state, enhanced granularity and no diegouge.

robec

Here is the same 1911 at the top of Brian's post.



Here is an Early die state with no gouge at the G.

WaterSport

Notice the smooth rims on these last two 1911's. Brian your coins in the other threads have granular rims. Whats up with that?, me drinking too much tonight?

WS

ambro51

OK Im rocking between one image and another and looking for little grain patterns in the same orientation such as around a letter in liberty etc.

and Im seeing no recurring exact little granular patterns.

Other eyes seeing that too?

BTW way those coins are freaking gorgeous and I think I just wet my pants....

BWRC

WS,

Let me answer your question. The two MPL's in the other thread are truview images which are shot with the coin out of the holder exposing the rims in full view. The two "robec" images are shot in the holder with the rims obscured by the plastic ring in which the coin sits. The truview images are also very large and show more detail than the robec images.

ellewood

I am not an expert on Matte proofs...but all of this hype lately has caused me to read up and learn some about it! This is one of the best threads I've seen so far...

sinin1

if the die was sandblasted - the rim edges would be clean

if the finished coin was sandblasted - all the devices and letters and edge would have matte finish



from what I have seen - it seems to me the dies were sandblasted

but before the legend/date was imprinted onto the die

GFourDriver

1911 with die gouge:

ambro51

My thoughts after all this, the dies were sandblasted. The evidence I see is that the coin appears at this magnification to have raised lumps, rather than depressions.

There is however no exact pattern to the small granuals that I can see. I do see numerous larger areas which repeat on each coin, including my 11 in hand.

I suggest therefore, that the dies were sandblasted, but that this was not a one shot deal. We read of the sandblasting cabinet in the medal room, I think that the dies may have been removed and blasted several times through the coin run. Some years they were more energetic in this than others.

BWRC

Ambro,

I think this is an excellent analysis of what might have happened with the MPL dies. If we could see a more grainy 1911 with the die gouge (LDS) than without the gouge (EDS) this would be the clincher for this theory at least as far as the 1911 date is concerned. So far, of the 1911's I have studied the granularity of the surfaces diminishes as the die state progresses towards the end of production.





edited to add: more commentary