… being handed out to congress and other ranking members for the 1909 VDB. I can see that happening and then they got spent…
There is nothing to suggest that congress was involved in any way and nothing to indicate any special distribution to members. The only Congressman to pay attention was William Ashbrook (D-Ohio) who used his connections at Treasury in Washington to get several rolls of the new coins. He sent them to constituents and family back home. There was, I think, only one other coin collector in the House or Senate at that time. (Ashbrook mentions the coins in his diary - per Jeff Reichenberger's research.)
The only reason i could see only 420 being made is because Charles Barber's dislike of Brenner.
Barber disliked Brenner – can’t blame him, much, though. Brenner tried to pawn off a copy of the French 1-franc for the cent reverse. After Brenner failed to move the portrait down, as instructed by Frank Leach, the mint wanted nothing more to do with Brenner. Barber knew his job and did it well, but he had no control over mintage quantities or distribution of production. He was able to have Brenner’s initials removed from the coin as an expedient.
I doubt that many people jumped for joy when they heard you could buy a 1909 VDB matte proof for 2 cents. Now from what i have read there were people in line to get the 1909 S VDB as they knew THEN it would be a SMALL NUMBER minted.
People formed fairly manageable lines for the new cents when they were first distributed. The hysteria and profiteering occurred (see the NY subtreasury photo in RAC 1909-1916) when newspapers speculated that the VDB coins would be recalled because of the “advertisement” on the reverse. When this turned out to be untrue, speculation collapsed. There were no lines at San Francisco until after the initial release and removal of initials...but my then, most had been distributed to the states covered by the SF Mint. If you lived in Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho or Nevada, and went to your bank for Lincoln cents, you got ones from San Francisco. Other places got Philadelphia cents.
The mint did not publicize the quantity of proofs made, nor when they would be released. This information was available only after the fact. Proofs could be purchased in person only at the Cashier’s Office, Philadelphia Mint. (Giles Anderson’s complaints generated mostly confusion for Mint and Treasury officials – they did not understand anything about the motivation for a coin collector to write to the President! So, they sent back his 25-cents – and none of the 1909 proofs.)
…melted proofs…
Unsold and reject proof coins were put into circulation. They were good coins and the mint was in the business of making coins for commerce. (I don’t know who started this bit of silliness about melting unsold proofs – one could easily blame Breen, but he wasn’t the only one making up tall tales to puff-up a coin or for bragging rights.)
For those of you heading to the archives to do your own search, go to Philadelphia and College Park, MD. College Park has the director’s correspondence and an aggregate file on the Lincoln cent. Philadelphia has mostly duplicate correspondence and a working file on the memorial reverse. Wear old clothes, pack food for an extended stay, and let your next of kin that you’re going to do research in the archives – oh, make out a Will, too, just in case you keel over while turning some press copy pages.
Re: 1917 proof cents. No documentation, no independently certified coins (except by third-world companies); heard of many, seen none. No reason to make any - why go to all that expense and time, and ruin a good pair of dies?
The only proof 1917 pieces that might once have existed, are the satin proofs made for approval of the mint director. These would have been quarters of the Ty-1 and Ty-2 1917 designs. Available records are completely silent on the Ty-1, and mention Ty-2 specimens being shown to the House Coinage Committee (Ashbrook was chairman). From there, we know only that standard procedure would have been to destroy the samples. (Note: Ray Baker took over as director in March 1917. Chief assistant Mary O'Reilly likely insisted he follow correct procedures. Interestingly, since no one knew much about how these were originally created, few tall tales have been concocted - yet.)
Roger, thanks for your detail reply to Duane's question. I agree also that no 1917 Matte proof Lincoln cents exist and until I see one in a PCGS or NGC slab I will not believe a "story" about them. Why then, on page 113 of the 2009 Red Book under Lincoln, Wheat Ears Reverse does it state "Matte Proof coins were made for collectors from 1909 through 1916, and an exceptional specimen dated 1917 is also reported to exist". Then to further emphasis that, on page 114 of the 2009 Red Book a coveted line is provided showing 1917, Matte Proof with no mintages and no prices. Think of all the variety folks who would love to see their favorite Lincoln variety cent in the Red Book, but here this coin that most knowledgeable collectors think is a fantacy coin gets a billing in the Guide Book of United States Coins. Maybe Dennis Tucker (DENTUCK) might care to answer that. Steve
I doubt the 1909 VDB puzzle will ever be solved to everyones liking. The only thing known is they have not been sent in to be graded/slabbed. I doubt they will ever be. Why? Same as the Kennedy shooting? same as Elvis? There are nuts that still swear Elvis is alive. It is a dam shame he died from being constipated. A little exlax and there would be one less controversy to solve. Mint employess from 1909 would probably get a good chuckle out of all of this if they were around to read it.
Why is all this info really needed? To justify high prices? To calm the nerves of the guys willing to shell out 40k plus on a VDB? MPL collectors are a little off center anyway. It would not bother me in the least if 250 coins from each year showed up tommorow. I could upgrade!!!
BWR- Thanks for clearing up the congress aspect to a degree. You said Ashbrook got several rolls of coins? I assume cents, nickels, quarters etc. ? or VDB proofs? The mint did pass out aluminum cents to congress men or subcommitees once. I read a lot of stories on the net i believe by QDB, an others about the release of cents, i should have reread it before posting. I search daily for MPL's on the net and run across all types of stories. There are more stories than MPL's for sale.
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
He went to the Treasury Dept. in Washington DC and used his position as a member of Congress to get more of the cents than the 25 that were allocated to ordinary folks. Just normal VDB cents. Here are the two relevant quotes from his diary – I don’t think Jeff R. Will mind me posting them:
“Monday, August 2, 1909. “The new Lincoln cents made their first appearance today and I got a bunch to take home.”
“Wednesday, August 4, 1909. “Sent 400 of the new Lincoln pennies to that many friends in the district, today.”
I wonder if any of those political friends in Ashbrook’s district kept the coin and envelope? Have any survived to today?
At one time Ashbrook owned 10 or more of the extremely rare 1907 $10 with normal rim & periods. Only 50 were saved from destruction. He also bought a long run of gold proof sets from a Delaware estate - quickly flipping them for a nice $500 profit. But – no mention of cent proofs.
Do any of the archive materials that you collected indicate particular people at the Mint, during the time period in question, who were responsible for dealing with the public relations of the Mint, work with outside metal vendor orders, maintain keeping sales records? What about information linked to who decided how many cents would be needed to fulfill any particular year's order? Who did these jobs, and who did they report under? Or can we not see that from the specific materials you collected.
Did all/any of these folks answer to the Chief Engraver, or was this more under the jurisdiction of the Mint Director directly?
Clearly, I'm back-tracking into getting the true numbers from another evidentiary angle that may give you more support to convince the decision makers.
Sincerely, Duane Blake >>
Hi Duane,
Wish I could be more helpful, in the 1960s, most of the records after 1960 were destroyed illegally, I beliee at the request of Eva Adams, if I remember right, as they were recent and not important.
I know Roger has uncovered alot more on the subject down at the Maryland archives.
You had the Director of the Mint, Superintendent of each Mint who was in charge of overall production of each mint Chief Engraver was just in charge of making the dies Chief Coiner was in charge of striking coins Chief Clerk was in charge of receiving the coins to be distributed to the public.
The roles and responsibilities changed over the years, for example the Superintendent during the 1870s was actually writing to collectors regarding proof coins and redeemed coins.
I have not dove into the 1909 time period yet to understand completely what each of their roles were at that time.
On Barber, you might have a point about Brenner, but I remember Barber's letter claiming that the VDB on the reverse might get confused with B for Barber, and that is what caused it to be changed. I also remember that the Mint, including Barber made it difficult for Brenner to get work done, that they did not let him work there which would have saved time and money. Like you, I do not altogether blame Barber, he got stabbed in the back several time, especially by the Mint, and I am sure he got very defensive over the years, look what happened to him on the Morgan Dollars. He was no angel though, kinda controlled the competition of the new coinage in 1892, then convinced the Director he was the only one who could create new coinage.
On melted proofs, I have seen archive records in the 1860s whereas proofs were carried over for several years and finally melted. For other different years, come January 1, collectors were not able to purchase proofs from the previous years, for other different years they could. They did not specifically state they were melted, but I got the impression that they were taking a specific interpretation that proofs could only be sold in the year they were struck.
I have no knowledge of any of this for the Lincs, whether or not they were melting proofs or not selling after Dec 31 for the previous year.
Thanks Kevin
The only reason i could see only 420 being made is because Charles Barber's dislike of Brenner.
Barber disliked Brenner – can’t blame him, much, though. Brenner tried to pawn off a copy of the French 1-franc for the cent reverse. After Brenner failed to move the portrait down, as instructed by Frank Leach, the mint wanted nothing more to do with Brenner. Barber knew his job and did it well, but he had no control over mintage quantities or distribution of production. He was able to have Brenner’s initials removed from the coin as an expedient.
…melted proofs…
Unsold and reject proof coins were put into circulation. They were good coins and the mint was in the business of making coins for commerce. (I don’t know who started this bit of silliness about melting unsold proofs – one could easily blame Breen, but he wasn’t the only one making up tall tales to puff-up a coin or for bragging rights.)
The Philadelphia Mint was run by the superintendent. Decisions about how many proofs to strike for collectors was made jointly by the coiner and the superintendent – the coiner made an informal recommendation based on his experience. The engraver was part of the discussion since he had to supply the dies. (Decisions about circulating coinage were made by the Treasurer of the US and the Mint Director – the mints then carried out the orders.)
Orders from collectors were handled by the Superintendent’s office – usually by his secretary or a clerk. At various times, the mint kept lists of buyers and sent them notice when coins would be available. At other times, this was not done.
Proofs were struck in several batches depending on demand and available time/equipment. Director Leach circulated a rule in 1908 that proofs could not be struck until after a denomination had been struck for circulation. In the past, proofs were made of all denominations near the beginning of the year so sets (minor, silver, gold + complete) would be available early in the year. Gold collectors especially liked this because they liked to “show off” their impressive gold sets. (See my article in Coin World about the origin of the 1936 proof sets for more complete info.)
If an unusual situation arose, such as in 1908, the mint director in Washington sometimes became involved. In this case, 500 gold proof sets were struck in anticipation of a large demand due to the new designs. Sales amounted to 101 gold sets. The rest were destroyed because the sandblasted coins looked too different from normal coins to be placed into circulation. Later, this wasted work and extra bookkeeping expense became part of Adam Joyce’s 1916 recommendation that proof coins be eliminated.
In 1909, other than planning for a large initial release of cents, and authorizing SF to strike coins (due to distribution problems), nothing unusual seems to have been done.
Re: Melting unsold proofs.
It’s correct that sales of proofs were frequently limited to the calendar year or through the following January; however, sometimes they were offered for sale later and retaining small quantities from past years was commonplace. (Replacements, special requests from government agencies, exchanges with other national museums, diplomatic use, etc.)
Melting of proofs might have occurred occasionally during the first years sets were issued, but the consistent practice after 1873 was to put them into circulation. The same applied to Assay Commission coins that were not damaged during the trial of the pyx.
Re: Brenner
Apparently Brenner’s interactions with the mint in 1909 were mostly negative. In later years he submitted designs and offered to help with war work, etc. Each time he was rebuffed.
As to the mint not letting him work there, he asked to have the reductions sent to him, which the mint did. He stalled around and finally submitted a new obverse hub. When dir Leach asked him to make alterations, he didn’t do the work – so Leach fell back on Barber who had to fill in where Brenner screwed up.
After completing the research for the RAC 1909-1915 book, I have to admit to having a much less positive opinion about Brenner, his interactions with the mint and the quality of his work. His medals – including Lincoln – are above average in technical quality but mediocre in composition and often derivative. Two of the designs he submitted in 1909 were swiped from French coins and he offered no written excuse for them. He didn’t follow instructions and then blamed others when the final cent was not what he expected.
I’m no apologist for Charles Barber, but during his tenure, the quality of coinage (not the designs, though) was much higher than either before or after he was engraver. He was likely a hyper picky, SOB but he must have been OK to work. Assistant engravers William Key and George Morgan worked their entire careers under him, and many of the die sinkers remained in the department for decades.
I’m no apologist for Charles Barber, but during his tenure, the quality of coinage (not the designs, though) was much higher than either before or after he was engraver. He was likely a hyper picky, SOB but he must have been OK to work. Assistant engravers William Key and George Morgan worked their entire careers under him, and many of the die sinkers remained in the department for decades. >>
Roger,
On Barber, I to, after researching for the Barber series of books and reading all of his letter during that period was very judgemental of him. But after reading about the Pan-Pacific, Barber was asked for his opinion on the designs submitted, he chose to comment, it was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury William Malburn who did not want anything designed outside the mint. In my opinion, Barber wasn't even one of close to best as Chief Engraver is artistic talent. But I believe he was the best as an Engraver. He knew had to make dies which were balanced in design in a manner which struck up well and the dies lasted longer.
I was suprised that Morgan worked under Barber for all of those years. Especially after what happened on the Morgan Dollars, it was not Morgan's fault and I believe as based upon the obvious working under him, there was no problems. From the letters I believe Barber became paranoid over the years, was a type A personality, but that politics in the Mint during that time frame would have probably made anyone like that.
Of course one thing Brenner had in his corner was that the President liked him.
<< <i>Available letters indicate they were out of VDB proofs well before the 1st batch of non-VDB proofs were made. >>
Roger, based on your research and your above quote, what do you think happened to the VDB coins minted? I assume you are in agreement that only about 400 or so of the coins actually reached collectors. Of the 1,503 that were struck do you believe about 300 were no good, and if so what happened to them. Could they have been melted? Of the remaining good coins, what is YOUR conclusions.
Kevin, I would appreciate YOUR conclusions also. You gentlemen have done much research in this area and based on the documents you found at the archives, I'm sure you've come to personal conclusions. I'm sure the audience here has a strong interest in what you believe about this issue. I also expect that there are more than just the 10 of us who are reading this thread, but have not commented.
Brenner was paid $1,000 for his cent design. Like all the other outside artists, once their design work was complete, they were no longer needed as far as the mint was concerned. Fraser was something of an exception – he hung around until MacVeagh finally approved the Buffalo/Indian design, then later approved the reverse change. DeFrancisci was in and out of the mint more than anyone – both in December as the sword was removed and in January/February when the low relief was modeled and accepted.
As far as Brenner’s Lincoln goes, my opinion is that it’s a nice, ordinary portrait (on medal or plaque – on the coin, it’s too small), but there are others by Bela Pratt, Roine, Flanagan and others that are stronger and much more effective. Fraser's 1911 and 1952 versions are extremely good and intended for use on the cent. (There are also many that are truly awful!) Collectors have not been exposed to the many other portraits, so they get fixated on Brenner’s.
<< <i>Available letters indicate they were out of VDB proofs well before the 1st batch of non-VDB proofs were made. >>
Roger, based on your research and your above quote, what do you think happened to the VDB coins minted? I assume you are in agreement that only about 400 or so of the coins actually reached collectors. Of the 1,503 that were struck do you believe about 300 were no good, and if so what happened to them. Could they have been melted? Of the remaining good coins, what is YOUR conclusions.
Kevin, I would appreciate YOUR conclusions also. You gentlemen have done much research in this area and based on the documents you found at the archives, I'm sure you've come to personal conclusions. I'm sure the audience here has a strong interest in what you believe about this issue. I also expect that there are more than just the 10 of us who are reading this thread, but have not commented.
Thank you so much for your valuable input. Steve >>
Steve,
Based on the fact that 1194 1909 VDB proofs were struck and given to the coiner Aug 2, 1909, and based on the fact that there are no melt counts, and based upon the standards used for all series, I am of the absolute opinion that 1194 reflects the mintage of the 1909 VDB proofs.
Based on Roger's research that these 1909 VDBs were gone by the time the normal 1909 proofs were ready, and based upon the consistent desire for collectors to have new coins quickly from a new series, I am of the conclusion that all 1909 VDB proofs were sold and none were ever melted.
To wrap up what has been said before, rejected proof coins (but still suitable for commerce) were tossed into circulation. (We don’t know what criteria were used to determine “good” from “bad.” All good coin was part of the total mintage figure sent to HQ.) Contemporary documentation is clear and, absent other original sources, is the best, most consistent source we have of quantities struck. One can speculate mightily about why we seem to see fewer of one date or variety than another, but absent supporting material, can never supply an answer.
The Red Book folks seem to be making considerable effort to use the best, most historically accurate quantities they can locate. Tradition can be a good thing – it provides stability and an anchor for ideas, but it can also calcify into a meaningless impediment to objective investigation and improvement. In any event, revising the quantities struck to better align them with source documents is a good thing and makes the entire book more consistent. Further, it has no effect on the availability of any specific coin, so it really shouldn’t bother market values. (Heck, a jump from 400 to 1,100 might inspire someone to check that bag of “pennies” great grandpa saved from when he worked at the mint…)
OK…OK…I give UP!!! I can’t take the pressure!!! The true story of 1909 VDB matte proof Lincoln cents must now be told…I don’t care if the CIA, NSA, ANA, ARPA and AAA hunt me down!
This is what really happened in August 1909, as copied from the "Book of Great Unknowns":
“In 1909 a race of purple space aliens came to planet earth in search of new snack foods. While here they accidentally discovered that the US Mint was planning to combine the name of the god of primitive humans (the motto “In God We Trust”) with that of their most sacred and omnipotent deity “BVD.” They witnessed millions of these sacrilegious objects being made, and, convinced that humans had detected their presence and were about to defile their Most Holy One, the aliens planned a preemptive strike.
“Hovering over the Philadelphia Mint in their cloaked spaceship, they teleported inside. There, they found the source of evil, the epitome of sacrilege, the core of blasphemies – a pile of sacred matte proof 1909 Lincoln cents with “BVD” on each! The aliens went to work and methodically ate each coin with “BVD” on it – as it was their custom to eat all such who did not worship their way. Once finished with this evil, they planned to eat all of Philadelphia, then Cleveland.
“As the space aliens became full of matte proof cents, having eaten more than half of the coppery pile, one of them noticed something odd: each little token of evil had not “BVD” on it but “VDB.” For all their advanced civilization and knowledge, the mission leader was dyslexic and had scrambled the letters. “VDB” meant nothing to them. How to explain when they returned home? If anyone on the home world learned of this error they would be humiliated and their families could disown them! With heavy tummies (both of them) and feeling embarrassed for themselves, they rejoined the spaceship crew and headed for some other planet – one with better snacks, and where they could quietly forget their awful error.”
So it is written in the secret archive of the Illuminati. Transcribed from the great impalpable golden tablets. I regret having suppressed this awful truth, but I have over 200 1909 VDB proofs and wanted to push the price higher through ignorance and greed. They’ll never let me in the deepest archives again!!!! I’ll have to research “modern crap” forever!!!.....
Is there any other cases of high proof mintages and low pop reports. I found a Coin collector Journal march-april, may-june 1953 Titled Proof coins Struck By the United States Mint 1817-1921 by Breen and published by Wayte Raymond. I found nothing of use there.
I am begining to think that these proofs were viewed as trivial at the time and mishandled spent etc, but logic tells me that can not be the case. It did not happen in the other years or with the plain 1909's.
"avalible letters indicate they were out of VDB proofs well before the first batch of non- vdb's proofs were made" Maybe Brenner got 100's of these and sent them back home overseas.? I would suppose it would have been highly unusal for someone to got to the sub treasurary and buy 300 proof VDB cents in 1 shot? A note would have probably been made??
This is never going to be solved!!!!!! The real question is what number do we go with? And in the end does it matter? I do not see 300 of the VDB's showing up at the TPG's. So the price should stay high. Of course if 300 show up...........................................
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
While you guys chase those VDB mattes that were good enough for distribution, I am going to look for those 300 that were not good enough. I got a suspicion that PCGS would grade a defective 1909 VDB matte
WS
Proud recipient of the coveted PCGS Forum "You Suck" Award Thursday July 19, 2007 11:33 PM and December 30th, 2011 at 8:50 PM.
<< <i>Has PCGS or NGC ever certified a circulated Matte Proof Lincoln cent ? >>
Bob, back to Stewart's question above. Does the fact that there are no circulated examples graded by NGC or PCGS tend to prove or disprove the quantity released?
<< <i>Heres an interesting fact. The 1909 proof nickel seen a huge jump in mintage, a one year anomoly with 4763 minted
So..... 1909 Indian head cent Proof 2175 1909 VDB Lincoln matte 420 1909 Lincoln Plain Matte 2198
Total 1909 Cent Proofs 4793 Total 1909 Nickel Proofs 4763
Isnt that ever so ironic?
Actually the cent and nickel proof numbers run lockstep from the late 1890s to 1912 (I never noticed that before) >>
Ambro51, David Lange in his 1996 book on Lincoln cents confirmed that the US Mint SOLD "minor proof sets" consisting of the cent and nickel TOGETHER during those years. The Red Book decided to change ONLY the MPL mintages based on Kevin and Roger's research, but NOT to change the nickel mintages. The one exception was the 2005 Red Book when they did a massive change of all denominations for this era, BUT then changed everything back to the historically reported numbers in 2006 to this date with the one except of MPL.The 2005 Red Book reported 5,265 1909 nickels. I had done some calculations supporting these SOLD quantities of cents and nickels between 1909 and 1912 and tried to link them to reported numbers in the annual US Mint reports of those years. Those mint reports covered the fiscal years ending in June 30th each year and I believe the quantities and nominal values reported in the US annual reports agree to the historically reported numbers for both cents and nickels. I can't get anyone to confirm this, but in any case, it seems that the hobby thinks the correct mintage to report is the quantity delivered to the coiner. I personally always had thought that the PROOF mintage reported was the quantity SOLD to collectors since that was the PURPOSE for making proof coins in the first place. Again JMHO. Steve
Edited to add that David Lange commented on that 30 piece difference in his book "The Complete Guide to the Lincoln Cents" on pages 288 and 289.
Does the fact that there are no circulated examples graded by NGC or PCGS tend to prove or disprove the quantity released?
Again, my gut tells me that if we have circulated 1856 flyers, there are some circulated mattes out there somewhere. Not many, but some.
Since no one has an example, it tells me we are not looking closely enough at the coins. We have all seen not just sharp struck 09-16 specimens, but some with a finish that sure looks matte like. Usually, its only one side with a square rim, and the other not so square. They most always be a bit out of round and not a centered strike. But to my knowledge, no one bothers to look for the die markers to see if its a proof die that may have been used to make that Business strike coin. Heck, many folks do not know the die markers for a given proof, so the coins simply just get passed around as great specimens.
So that is two more questions unanswered. Did anybody spend their matte proof way back then, and did the mint ever use the matte dies to strike buisness coins.
WS
Proud recipient of the coveted PCGS Forum "You Suck" Award Thursday July 19, 2007 11:33 PM and December 30th, 2011 at 8:50 PM.
There probably are circulated mattes. Some of them are probably the coins on ebay "possble Matte Proof" or "Wide Rims" etc etc that are sold raw....and then we, like a pack of navy seals swoop in and denounce it from afar based on cheesy digital pics. Odds say some of these may be real so this is an ongoing coming out for these coins. Collecting is a generational thing, and now the coins that were collected in the 60's and 70's may be finding heirs who intend to sell. These are the coins that may have missed the TPG slabbing, sitting in old collections.
Also.....Ill bet a lot of the Mattes that are now slabbed were sent in as just MS business strikes, but on certification the diagnosics were found and it was slabbed as a Proof. Ill bet a lot of this went on in the early days of TPG.
I agree with you guys that some of the raw coins which are being advertised as Matte proofs MAY be circulated mattes. Unfortunately, most collectors of these matte coins WANT coins that are reasonably marketable when it comes time to sell. The only way I know to do that is to have the coin certified by PCGS or NGC. I suspect that a PR45 1913 Lincoln slabbed by PCGS would have "some" premium value but apparently no knowledgeable Matte collectors are willing to take the chance and buy them off EBAY to try to slab and then flip them. Maybe Brian can comment after the Centeral States auction.
By the way, good luck to Stewart and bidders on the 1914 PR68 on Thursday night. Steve
Thanks you for what amounts to very informative information and alot of hard work. Roger's 'alien' explanation is clearly a theory worth some thought....
They are among us.... minting MPLs and buying stock in Pepto-Bismo
On the more serious note, a final question that I hope does not border on the absurd. Has this group collectively seen 1909-1917 specimens with some minor formally recognized "diagnostic elements" present but other elements missing yet the specimen screams "matte", yet sits in a MS holder or raw? If so, has anyone ever submitted this/these coins to a major service with supporting ducumentary evidence to support the matte status, and if so to what end? How seriously will PCGS, for example, take a specimen that appears to be "out-of-book" submitted with documentation?
I want to bring this thread up one more time to again thank Kevin (22) and Roger (11) for contributing their research expertise. I also want to thank Stewart (1), Doug (3) and Brian (3) as nationally known collectors and dealers for expressing their thoughts about MPL mintages. Finally, to Bob (watersport)(5), Ambro51 (10), Mark (pennyannie) (6) and Duane (grasshopper) (8), your passion for Matte Proof Lincolns as well as mine (12) made for a very interesting and hopefully informative thread. As you can see by the numbers in parenthesis, there were plenty of comments by each of us.
I should note that for the first time, the 2009 Red Book states on page 114 under footnote "B" in reference to the 1909VDB Matte Proof Lincoln cent with a reported mintage of 1,194; "Reported struck; 400-600 estimated issued." This is at least a better reporting and I am sorry I missed it in my first reading.
I know this is a novice question, but has anyone (or any strings from past) addressed the issue of 1917 MPL specimens (mintages, diagnostics). Is this particular year all anecdotal?
Duane, I know that Walter Breen claimed to have examined 1917 Matte proof Lincolns years ago. I know that in recent years some of Walter Breen's claims have been disputed. I know, as I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, that the Red Book continues to show a 1917 MPL "space" and the comment "and an exceptional specimen dated 1917 is also reported to exist". I know that from time to time people attempt to sell a supposed 1917 MPL on EBAY. I know from time to time someone posts on these forums that they either own a 1917 MPL or they know someone who says he owns a 1917 MPL. I know that NO major TPG has certified and slabbed a 1917 MPL.
Duane, based on all the above, I CHOOSE to take the following attitude about a possible 1917 MPL or for that matter a 1959 Lincoln cent with the reverse of wheat ears.
These coins may or may not exist. They may or may not be genuine. But until or unless PCGS or/and NGC attribute a specific example of such a coin, I CHOOSE to believe that any example presented to the hobby is NOT a legitimate example. I realize others may have a different opinion, but that is how I've felt about this for the last several years.
I'm sure we would all like to hear other peoples opinions.
Thank you. So all we have is anecdotes at this point, and I guess I've heard most of them through the literature and this post, which has been extremely informative, as you mentioned. "This way to the egress" might be the caveat.
I'm just wondering if the experienced researchers or long-time collectors (Kevin, Roger, Stewart, Brian?) have more information of an objective nature. As it stands today, you and I think alike, based on what appears to be no 'real' evidence at all. --This is the classic case of a film of a man walking through the woods in a bigfoot suit.
Does anyone actually know where or with whom the the exceptional specimen resides?
My thinking is that the strong financial incentive to make an authentic specimen available for grading, and the lack of a graded coin, strongly suggests that an old rumor just built momentum and here we are.
Any thoughts from more experienced numismatic minds?
I stumbled accross this post. I was not a member at the time. Facinating reading. >>
I must have missed it when you bumped it last. Lots of good info. Still don't see why so many got so crazy about the mintage number though, it's not really that relevant to how many are available today anyways. If records were found by the researchers that say 1000+ were minted, and there is nothing to support the 420 number, then that is the mintage, regardless of what happened to them or whether they ever reached the hands of collectors at the time. Unless those folks think the Redbook should revise the mintage of the 1933 Double Eagle down from 445,500 as well since we know for sure not quite that many escaped the Mint.
Steve, thanks very much for putting that up. I found it fascinating and informative. I still believe the following and I'll try to keep it brief:
1) Survivor numbers are only what really matters. The number minted is really just a historical number that doesn't affect availability.
2) After the explosion of interest in MPLs around the century mark for the Lincoln cent, it would be hard for any collector not to know that matte proofs are valuable and likely should be graded by a TPG.
2a) The internet has put information at everyone's immediate beckon, so this is not something that would not be known by almost every single collector, even the most passive ones. It would be "found" money.
3) The only "hidden cache" is the hoard of 53 VDBs held by someone who basically collected only those! So, I don't think there are but a very few coins that haven't been graded by a TPG.
4) I found something interesting: the percentage of NCG to PCGS coins is very steady throughout all the dates.
VDB 31% NCG (the rest are PCGS)
1909 31% NCG
1910 35% NCG
1911 31% NCG
1912 32.6% NCG
1913 27% NCG
1914 28.6% NCG
1915 28.6% NCG
1916 31% NCG
What does this mean? It means that maybe collectors are predictable in behavior and my idea of extrapolating the total existing to the total RELEASED to the public might be very close.
That number is to take the survivors and multiply that by 2.5. Without any further definitive information, this is what I'm sticking to. Remember too the actual number of survivors is inflated because of upgrade attempts and people not reporting the demise of the old holders. This would mean even fewer survive and fewer ever released to the public.
Bottom line friends, matte proof coins are scarce at best. They are really still undervalued. They generally are more attractive and have a bigger impact on the eye than business strikes. I think we should go back to buying them all up!
Now if I can only have a VDB in my collection...(sigh)
I owned two 1909 VDB MPL. and twenty 1916 MPL to do research for my book. That is why I used the old mintage numbers in the book. The new mintage numbers makes no sense to me.
I believe that the author of the first Red Book spoke with the officials at the Philadelphia mint, for his mintage numbers.
Well, now is a good time to be buying as it seems the number of MPL's floating on Ebay, at shows and dealer web sites has quadrupled since this was first posted in 2008. I produced the “weekly List” of MPL’s available each week back in 2007 and stopped in 2009. My last list had 60 coins available. I have no doubt it would be greater in number today. In fact it may be worth nothing the values listed in 2009 compared to what we are seeing today, so here is the last list for what its worth.
The mintage numbers are important in several aspects, such as calculating how many were struck for each die known, and what should the striking characteristics be. For example, 1916, only 600 struck, 3 different die pairs if memory serves me right, almost all are strong strikes with great matte surfaces. 1911, I remember one die has matte surfaces on the early die state, and those were smoothed out in later die states to a satin surfaces. With the delivery dates also known for each year, this can also assist us in understanding how many coins were struck per die if we know how many dies were used, which we do based upon diagnostics.
The one point I tried to get across when researching this is that the method of calculation should be consistently used for all counts, unless we known x number were struck, but never left the mint for example. The use of number struck and delivered from the Coiner to the Director or Superintendent was a specific method that was used for years in determining this number, and was actually a rule established by the Mint. We know the number of 1909 VDB proofs that were struck and delivered, we also know that they were completely sold out. Would not be surprised though if many of the matte proofs were not used in circulation, especially during the Great Depression, a minor proof set containing the cent and nickel was only 8 cents. If you were starving, would not you use it to feed your family?
The biggest challenge today is proper identification, over the years I had many people write me about a 1909 VDB, that they thought was a matte proof, as it had some matte surfaces, and had some, or some which were close to the diagnostics of a true 1909 VDB. 1909 VDB EDS can sometimes have a real nice strike and have a semi matte surface, which is the small pits created on the working die when sand was run across the surface. One of the best indicators besides the diagnostics is the razor sharp corners between the rim and edge. As a slower speed was used at higher pressure, the corner spaces and deepest part of the design elements were able to completely fill.
In Kevin Flynn's book, Lincoln Cent Matte Proofs, in the back of the book are old letters from a frustrated dealer and a frustrated collector who were complaining because they couldn't get VDB proofs. These letters are from 1909 and the mint replied saying they didn't have ANY.
So if they were in the business of selling what they had, it would follow they weren't hoarding any or holding back. The one letter writer states he's been collecting proofs for years, always sent his money in on time, yet was told his request couldn't be fulfilled and they sent him his money back.
I think they either made the smaller number (about 400) or melted a bunch because someone wanted those pennies with "VDB" on them GONE. It just doesn't follow that they could have had over 1,000 on hand if regular customers, who made requests on time, were denied.
I'm sticking to my guns that the smaller number (about 400) left the mint and the rest were destroyed or never made. Records by mint workers easily could have been fudged too. It wouldn't be the first time gov't workers did something along those lines.
I also believe the 1910 number of over 4.000 is a fantasy. There just isn't a logical explanation that so many were made and the survival rate be so low for just that one year. The Red Book changed their numbers for many dates more than once, even 1914! (I have about 20 different Red books and can give the numbers for those years if anyone wants) This whole Matte Proof Mintage thing is a big mystery but the amount of survivors is far less so. Extrapolating from those numbers gives lower totals of released coins than we have been told.
I mean, this is what we HAVE. That is the only thing of true substance we can go by.
The question about how many matte proof Lincoln cents were minted and how many matte proof Lincoln cents survive today are questions MANY MPL collectors ask. They were a major discussion here back in the "good ole days" of 2007-2010 and continue today. The survival issue concerning the 1909 plain thru 1916 is not as key as the 1909VDB MPL example because those eight issues have primarily been available to purchase from copper specialty dealers thru the years including the 2007-2010 period surrounding the 100th anniversary of the Lincoln cent. The 1909VDB MPL is a different story! As David points out THAT coin was difficult to get when it was originally issued and has not been advertised in dealer inventories for many years. I can attest to the fact that when I started to look for my example in 1994 it took me 8 years to get one I could afford and the only way I could get one was via a major auction.
As to the question of how many 1909VDB MPL's were minted, well that's a good question to ask. First, we have to ask "What does MINTED mean?" It means different things to different collectors in my opinion. Does it mean the number of coins struck? Does it mean, in the case of PROOF coins, the number of coins sold since that is the intent of the US Mint producing PROOF coins? Does it mean the number of coins struck that are "deemed" to be good to be sold as determined by the "coiner"? Who makes that decision for us collectors?
Enough of my rambling on this subject right now. Plenty was commented about here in this thread by me and others years ago as well as in other threads on this subject. Feel free to add your OWN comments. Steve
Originally posted by: deefree49 OK Here is my big question: In Kevin Flynn's book, Lincoln Cent Matte Proofs, in the back of the book are old letters from a frustrated dealer and a frustrated collector who were complaining because they couldn't get VDB proofs. These letters are from 1909 and the mint replied saying they didn't have ANY. So if they were in the business of selling what they had, it would follow they weren't hoarding any or holding back. The one letter writer states he's been collecting proofs for years, always sent his money in on time, yet was told his request couldn't be fulfilled and they sent him his money back. I think they either made the smaller number (about 400) or melted a bunch because someone wanted those pennies with "VDB" on them GONE. It just doesn't follow that they could have had over 1,000 on hand if regular customers, who made requests on time, were denied. I'm sticking to my guns that the smaller number (about 400) left the mint and the rest were destroyed or never made. Records by mint workers easily could have been fudged too. It wouldn't be the first time gov't workers did something along those lines. I also believe the 1910 number of over 4.000 is a fantasy. There just isn't a logical explanation that so many were made and the survival rate be so low for just that one year. The Red Book changed their numbers for many dates more than once, even 1914! (I have about 20 different Red books and can give the numbers for those years if anyone wants) This whole Matte Proof Mintage thing is a big mystery but the amount of survivors is far less so. Extrapolating from those numbers gives lower totals of released coins than we have been told. I mean, this is what we HAVE. That is the only thing of true substance we can go by.
We can prove how many were struck, how many were delivered from the Coiner to the Superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint, how many were rejected and how many were accepted by the Superintendent. We have the clear archive letters to show us this.
By law, once a coin is delivered by the Coiner to the Superintendent, it becomes part of the mintage for that year. Irrelevant if it is subsequently melted, such as was done with early 1860s proof sets that were melted around 1865, or 1876-CC Twenty cent coins melted.
The Red book and other books have changed their counts over the years, I believe mainly because of Breen. They now use the current totals after I (and also Roger Burdette) provided the archive records to show these validated totals.
If you are questioning whether the first sets were sold, and why collectors were told there were none left, why would not the Mint not sell a product? Also you simply have to look at the demand for the new Lincoln cents in 1909, and how thousands of people waited in line around the Mint to purchase specimens. You do not think collectors had their orders in early to make sure they were able to get a first year proof of this new series?
These letters you refer to from my book were after September 1909, which the VDB cent proof sets were long since gone.
Kevin - Thanks for answering my stumbling queries. I can't really explain why but the subject fascinates me and leaves me so very curious. Mostly I suppose my position is related to Steve's thoughts about this although he has far more experience with this than I do. My main motivation is to find just how rare these coins actually are. I don't think the rarity has been accurately determined yet.
So, I'm more concerned with the actual surviving population. I think we all are in agreement that the numbers from the major TPG companies are inflated, not from any fault of theirs but because people crack out coins and don't retire the old number.
I agree, it would be nice to explain and understand the survival rate.
Speculation - The minor proof sets, consisting of the cent and nickel only cost 8 cents. I believe during hard financial times such as the great depression, these minor sets would have been broken up for essentials, such as feeding your family.
I agree, it would be nice to explain and understand the survival rate.
Speculation - The minor proof sets, consisting of the cent and nickel only cost 8 cents.
I believe during hard financial times such as the great depression, these minor sets would have been broken up for essentials, such as feeding your family.
Kevin, your speculation is easy to see as a good possibility. The fact that matte proofs weren't thought that highly of until much later adds even more to this happening.
I realize that this doesn't correct for Crackouts and Resubmits ... but maybe that effect is spread through all the dates somewhat?
Could you make a case that the mintage for the VDB was about 1/2 or 50% the mintage of the 1916. Of course that is probably too simplistic. To be more complete, someone should do this same analysis for the NGC pops ... but then you have the double counting with crossovers.
The relative scarcity of slabs in descending order: Most common: 1913 Then, in order: 1909, 1910, 1912, 1911, 1914, 1915, 1916 Most scarce: 1909 vdb
That being said, every darn date in scarce in the scheme of things ... when you are talking the key date having fewer than 127 slabs ... and the most common date fewer than 587 slabs ... the entire series is scarce!
Comments
There is nothing to suggest that congress was involved in any way and nothing to indicate any special distribution to members. The only Congressman to pay attention was William Ashbrook (D-Ohio) who used his connections at Treasury in Washington to get several rolls of the new coins. He sent them to constituents and family back home. There was, I think, only one other coin collector in the House or Senate at that time. (Ashbrook mentions the coins in his diary - per Jeff Reichenberger's research.)
The only reason i could see only 420 being made is because Charles Barber's dislike of Brenner.
Barber disliked Brenner – can’t blame him, much, though. Brenner tried to pawn off a copy of the French 1-franc for the cent reverse. After Brenner failed to move the portrait down, as instructed by Frank Leach, the mint wanted nothing more to do with Brenner. Barber knew his job and did it well, but he had no control over mintage quantities or distribution of production. He was able to have Brenner’s initials removed from the coin as an expedient.
I doubt that many people jumped for joy when they heard you could buy a 1909 VDB matte proof for 2 cents. Now from what i have read there were people in line to get the 1909 S VDB as they knew THEN it would be a SMALL NUMBER minted.
People formed fairly manageable lines for the new cents when they were first distributed. The hysteria and profiteering occurred (see the NY subtreasury photo in RAC 1909-1916) when newspapers speculated that the VDB coins would be recalled because of the “advertisement” on the reverse. When this turned out to be untrue, speculation collapsed. There were no lines at San Francisco until after the initial release and removal of initials...but my then, most had been distributed to the states covered by the SF Mint. If you lived in Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho or Nevada, and went to your bank for Lincoln cents, you got ones from San Francisco. Other places got Philadelphia cents.
The mint did not publicize the quantity of proofs made, nor when they would be released. This information was available only after the fact. Proofs could be purchased in person only at the Cashier’s Office, Philadelphia Mint. (Giles Anderson’s complaints generated mostly confusion for Mint and Treasury officials – they did not understand anything about the motivation for a coin collector to write to the President! So, they sent back his 25-cents – and none of the 1909 proofs.)
…melted proofs…
Unsold and reject proof coins were put into circulation. They were good coins and the mint was in the business of making coins for commerce. (I don’t know who started this bit of silliness about melting unsold proofs – one could easily blame Breen, but he wasn’t the only one making up tall tales to puff-up a coin or for bragging rights.)
For those of you heading to the archives to do your own search, go to Philadelphia and College Park, MD. College Park has the director’s correspondence and an aggregate file on the Lincoln cent. Philadelphia has mostly duplicate correspondence and a working file on the memorial reverse. Wear old clothes, pack food for an extended stay, and let your next of kin that you’re going to do research in the archives – oh, make out a Will, too, just in case you keel over while turning some press copy pages.
One question, as you are obviously well-informed. Is there any truth (real evidence to support) the mysterious 1917 MPL?
Or was that just 'good ole braggin' rights, as well?
No documentation, no independently certified coins (except by third-world companies); heard of many, seen none. No reason to make any - why go to all that expense and time, and ruin a good pair of dies?
The only proof 1917 pieces that might once have existed, are the satin proofs made for approval of the mint director. These would have been quarters of the Ty-1 and Ty-2 1917 designs. Available records are completely silent on the Ty-1, and mention Ty-2 specimens being shown to the House Coinage Committee (Ashbrook was chairman). From there, we know only that standard procedure would have been to destroy the samples. (Note: Ray Baker took over as director in March 1917. Chief assistant Mary O'Reilly likely insisted he follow correct procedures. Interestingly, since no one knew much about how these were originally created, few tall tales have been concocted - yet.)
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Why is all this info really needed? To justify high prices? To calm the nerves of the guys willing to shell out 40k plus on a VDB? MPL collectors are a little off center anyway. It would not bother me in the least if 250 coins from each year showed up tommorow. I could upgrade!!!
BWR- Thanks for clearing up the congress aspect to a degree. You said Ashbrook got several rolls of coins? I assume cents, nickels, quarters etc. ? or VDB proofs? The mint did pass out aluminum cents to congress men or subcommitees once. I read a lot of stories on the net i believe by QDB, an others about the release of cents, i should have reread it before posting. I search daily for MPL's on the net and run across all types of stories. There are more stories than MPL's for sale.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
He went to the Treasury Dept. in Washington DC and used his position as a member of Congress to get more of the cents than the 25 that were allocated to ordinary folks. Just normal VDB cents. Here are the two relevant quotes from his diary – I don’t think Jeff R. Will mind me posting them:
“Monday, August 2, 1909.
“The new Lincoln cents made their first appearance today and I got a bunch to take home.”
“Wednesday, August 4, 1909.
“Sent 400 of the new Lincoln pennies to that many friends in the district, today.”
I wonder if any of those political friends in Ashbrook’s district kept the coin and envelope? Have any survived to today?
At one time Ashbrook owned 10 or more of the extremely rare 1907 $10 with normal rim & periods. Only 50 were saved from destruction. He also bought a long run of gold proof sets from a Delaware estate - quickly flipping them for a nice $500 profit. But – no mention of cent proofs.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>Thank you, Kevin-
Do any of the archive materials that you collected indicate particular people at the Mint, during the time period in question, who were responsible for dealing with the public relations of the Mint, work with outside metal vendor orders, maintain keeping sales records? What about information linked to who decided how many cents would be needed to fulfill any particular year's order? Who did these jobs, and who did they report under? Or can we not see that from the specific materials you collected.
Did all/any of these folks answer to the Chief Engraver, or was this more under the jurisdiction of the Mint Director directly?
Clearly, I'm back-tracking into getting the true numbers from another evidentiary angle that may give you more support to convince the decision makers.
Sincerely,
Duane Blake >>
Hi Duane,
Wish I could be more helpful, in the 1960s, most of the records after 1960 were destroyed illegally, I beliee at the
request of Eva Adams, if I remember right, as they were recent and not important.
I know Roger has uncovered alot more on the subject down at the Maryland archives.
You had the Director of the Mint,
Superintendent of each Mint who was in charge of overall production of each mint
Chief Engraver was just in charge of making the dies
Chief Coiner was in charge of striking coins
Chief Clerk was in charge of receiving the coins to be distributed to the public.
The roles and responsibilities changed over the years, for example the Superintendent during the 1870s was
actually writing to collectors regarding proof coins and redeemed coins.
I have not dove into the 1909 time period yet to understand completely what each of their
roles were at that time.
Thanks
Kevin
On Barber, you might have a point about Brenner, but I remember Barber's letter claiming that the VDB on the reverse might get
confused with B for Barber, and that is what caused it to be changed. I also remember that the Mint, including Barber made it
difficult for Brenner to get work done, that they did not let him work there which would have saved time and money.
Like you, I do not altogether blame Barber, he got stabbed in the back several time, especially by the Mint, and I am sure he got
very defensive over the years, look what happened to him on the Morgan Dollars. He was no angel though, kinda controlled the
competition of the new coinage in 1892, then convinced the Director he was the only one who could create new coinage.
On melted proofs, I have seen archive records in the 1860s whereas proofs were carried over for several years and
finally melted. For other different years, come January 1, collectors were not able to purchase proofs from the previous
years, for other different years they could. They did not specifically state they were melted, but I got the impression that
they were taking a specific interpretation that proofs could only be sold in the year they were struck.
I have no knowledge of any of this for the Lincs, whether or not they were melting proofs or not selling after Dec 31 for
the previous year.
Thanks
Kevin
The only reason i could see only 420 being made is because Charles Barber's dislike of Brenner.
Barber disliked Brenner – can’t blame him, much, though. Brenner tried to pawn off a copy of the French 1-franc for the cent reverse. After Brenner failed to move the portrait down, as instructed by Frank Leach, the mint wanted nothing more to do with Brenner. Barber knew his job and did it well, but he had no control over mintage quantities or distribution of production. He was able to have Brenner’s initials removed from the coin as an expedient.
…melted proofs…
Unsold and reject proof coins were put into circulation. They were good coins and the mint was in the business of making coins for commerce. (I don’t know who started this bit of silliness about melting unsold proofs – one could easily blame Breen, but he wasn’t the only one making up tall tales to puff-up a coin or for bragging rights.)
The Philadelphia Mint was run by the superintendent. Decisions about how many proofs to strike for collectors was made jointly by the coiner and the superintendent – the coiner made an informal recommendation based on his experience. The engraver was part of the discussion since he had to supply the dies. (Decisions about circulating coinage were made by the Treasurer of the US and the Mint Director – the mints then carried out the orders.)
Orders from collectors were handled by the Superintendent’s office – usually by his secretary or a clerk. At various times, the mint kept lists of buyers and sent them notice when coins would be available. At other times, this was not done.
Proofs were struck in several batches depending on demand and available time/equipment. Director Leach circulated a rule in 1908 that proofs could not be struck until after a denomination had been struck for circulation. In the past, proofs were made of all denominations near the beginning of the year so sets (minor, silver, gold + complete) would be available early in the year. Gold collectors especially liked this because they liked to “show off” their impressive gold sets. (See my article in Coin World about the origin of the 1936 proof sets for more complete info.)
If an unusual situation arose, such as in 1908, the mint director in Washington sometimes became involved. In this case, 500 gold proof sets were struck in anticipation of a large demand due to the new designs. Sales amounted to 101 gold sets. The rest were destroyed because the sandblasted coins looked too different from normal coins to be placed into circulation. Later, this wasted work and extra bookkeeping expense became part of Adam Joyce’s 1916 recommendation that proof coins be eliminated.
In 1909, other than planning for a large initial release of cents, and authorizing SF to strike coins (due to distribution problems), nothing unusual seems to have been done.
Re: Melting unsold proofs.
It’s correct that sales of proofs were frequently limited to the calendar year or through the following January; however, sometimes they were offered for sale later and retaining small quantities from past years was commonplace. (Replacements, special requests from government agencies, exchanges with other national museums, diplomatic use, etc.)
Melting of proofs might have occurred occasionally during the first years sets were issued, but the consistent practice after 1873 was to put them into circulation. The same applied to Assay Commission coins that were not damaged during the trial of the pyx.
Re: Brenner
Apparently Brenner’s interactions with the mint in 1909 were mostly negative. In later years he submitted designs and offered to help with war work, etc. Each time he was rebuffed.
As to the mint not letting him work there, he asked to have the reductions sent to him, which the mint did. He stalled around and finally submitted a new obverse hub. When dir Leach asked him to make alterations, he didn’t do the work – so Leach fell back on Barber who had to fill in where Brenner screwed up.
After completing the research for the RAC 1909-1915 book, I have to admit to having a much less positive opinion about Brenner, his interactions with the mint and the quality of his work. His medals – including Lincoln – are above average in technical quality but mediocre in composition and often derivative. Two of the designs he submitted in 1909 were swiped from French coins and he offered no written excuse for them. He didn’t follow instructions and then blamed others when the final cent was not what he expected.
I’m no apologist for Charles Barber, but during his tenure, the quality of coinage (not the designs, though) was much higher than either before or after he was engraver. He was likely a hyper picky, SOB but he must have been OK to work. Assistant engravers William Key and George Morgan worked their entire careers under him, and many of the die sinkers remained in the department for decades.
Roger,
On Barber, I to, after researching for the Barber series of books and reading all of his letter during that period was very judgemental
of him. But after reading about the Pan-Pacific, Barber was asked for his opinion on the designs submitted, he chose to comment,
it was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury William Malburn who did not want anything designed outside the mint.
In my opinion, Barber wasn't even one of close to best as Chief Engraver is artistic talent. But I believe he was the best as
an Engraver. He knew had to make dies which were balanced in design in a manner which struck up well and the dies lasted longer.
I was suprised that Morgan worked under Barber for all of those years. Especially after what happened on the Morgan Dollars, it
was not Morgan's fault and I believe as based upon the obvious working under him, there was no problems. From the letters I
believe Barber became paranoid over the years, was a type A personality, but that politics in the Mint during that time frame would
have probably made anyone like that.
Of course one thing Brenner had in his corner was that the President liked him.
Kevin
Wasnt he paid 1000$ in all and then it was thanks^goodbye?
<< <i>Available letters indicate they were out of VDB proofs well before the 1st batch of non-VDB proofs were made. >>
Roger, based on your research and your above quote, what do you think happened to the VDB coins minted? I assume you are in agreement that only about 400 or so of the coins actually reached collectors. Of the 1,503 that were struck do you believe about 300 were no good, and if so what happened to them. Could they have been melted? Of the remaining good coins, what is YOUR conclusions.
Kevin, I would appreciate YOUR conclusions also. You gentlemen have done much research in this area and based on the documents you found at the archives, I'm sure you've come to personal conclusions. I'm sure the audience here has a strong interest in what you believe about this issue. I also expect that there are more than just the 10 of us who are reading this thread, but have not commented.
Thank you so much for your valuable input.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
As far as Brenner’s Lincoln goes, my opinion is that it’s a nice, ordinary portrait (on medal or plaque – on the coin, it’s too small), but there are others by Bela Pratt, Roine, Flanagan and others that are stronger and much more effective. Fraser's 1911 and 1952 versions are extremely good and intended for use on the cent. (There are also many that are truly awful!) Collectors have not been exposed to the many other portraits, so they get fixated on Brenner’s.
<< <i>
<< <i>Available letters indicate they were out of VDB proofs well before the 1st batch of non-VDB proofs were made. >>
Roger, based on your research and your above quote, what do you think happened to the VDB coins minted? I assume you are in agreement that only about 400 or so of the coins actually reached collectors. Of the 1,503 that were struck do you believe about 300 were no good, and if so what happened to them. Could they have been melted? Of the remaining good coins, what is YOUR conclusions.
Kevin, I would appreciate YOUR conclusions also. You gentlemen have done much research in this area and based on the documents you found at the archives, I'm sure you've come to personal conclusions. I'm sure the audience here has a strong interest in what you believe about this issue. I also expect that there are more than just the 10 of us who are reading this thread, but have not commented.
Thank you so much for your valuable input.
Steve
Steve,
Based on the fact that 1194 1909 VDB proofs were struck and given to the coiner Aug 2, 1909, and based on the fact that
there are no melt counts, and based upon the standards used for all series, I am of the absolute opinion that 1194 reflects
the mintage of the 1909 VDB proofs.
Based on Roger's research that these 1909 VDBs were gone by the time the normal 1909 proofs were ready, and based upon
the consistent desire for collectors to have new coins quickly from a new series, I am of the conclusion that all 1909 VDB proofs
were sold and none were ever melted.
Thanks
Kevin
The Red Book folks seem to be making considerable effort to use the best, most historically accurate quantities they can locate. Tradition can be a good thing – it provides stability and an anchor for ideas, but it can also calcify into a meaningless impediment to objective investigation and improvement. In any event, revising the quantities struck to better align them with source documents is a good thing and makes the entire book more consistent. Further, it has no effect on the availability of any specific coin, so it really shouldn’t bother market values. (Heck, a jump from 400 to 1,100 might inspire someone to check that bag of “pennies” great grandpa saved from when he worked at the mint…)
Im going to pose a very well documented case which no one is talking about. But, lets take a look on page 70-71 of QDB's Guide to Lincoln Cents.
He threw out all the VDB's!
I can’t take the pressure!!! The true story of 1909 VDB matte proof Lincoln cents must now be told…I don’t care if the CIA, NSA, ANA, ARPA and AAA hunt me down!
This is what really happened in August 1909, as copied from the "Book of Great Unknowns":
“In 1909 a race of purple space aliens came to planet earth in search of new snack foods. While here they accidentally discovered that the US Mint was planning to combine the name of the god of primitive humans (the motto “In God We Trust”) with that of their most sacred and omnipotent deity “BVD.” They witnessed millions of these sacrilegious objects being made, and, convinced that humans had detected their presence and were about to defile their Most Holy One, the aliens planned a preemptive strike.
“Hovering over the Philadelphia Mint in their cloaked spaceship, they teleported inside. There, they found the source of evil, the epitome of sacrilege, the core of blasphemies – a pile of sacred matte proof 1909 Lincoln cents with “BVD” on each! The aliens went to work and methodically ate each coin with “BVD” on it – as it was their custom to eat all such who did not worship their way. Once finished with this evil, they planned to eat all of Philadelphia, then Cleveland.
“As the space aliens became full of matte proof cents, having eaten more than half of the coppery pile, one of them noticed something odd: each little token of evil had not “BVD” on it but “VDB.” For all their advanced civilization and knowledge, the mission leader was dyslexic and had scrambled the letters. “VDB” meant nothing to them. How to explain when they returned home? If anyone on the home world learned of this error they would be humiliated and their families could disown them! With heavy tummies (both of them) and feeling embarrassed for themselves, they rejoined the spaceship crew and headed for some other planet – one with better snacks, and where they could quietly forget their awful error.”
So it is written in the secret archive of the Illuminati. Transcribed from the great impalpable golden tablets. I regret having suppressed this awful truth, but I have over 200 1909 VDB proofs and wanted to push the price higher through ignorance and greed. They’ll never let me in the deepest archives again!!!! I’ll have to research “modern crap” forever!!!.....
I am begining to think that these proofs were viewed as trivial at the time and mishandled spent etc, but logic tells me that can not be the case. It did not happen in the other years or with the plain 1909's.
"avalible letters indicate they were out of VDB proofs well before the first batch of non- vdb's proofs were made" Maybe Brenner got 100's of these and sent them back home overseas.? I would suppose it would have been highly unusal for someone to got to the sub treasurary and buy 300 proof VDB cents in 1 shot? A note would have probably been made??
This is never going to be solved!!!!!! The real question is what number do we go with? And in the end does it matter? I do not see 300 of the VDB's showing up at the TPG's. So the price should stay high. Of course if 300 show up...........................................
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
WS
<< <i>Has PCGS or NGC ever certified a circulated Matte Proof Lincoln cent ? >>
Bob, back to Stewart's question above. Does the fact that there are no circulated examples graded by NGC or PCGS tend to prove or disprove the quantity released?
So..... 1909 Indian head cent Proof 2175
1909 VDB Lincoln matte 420
1909 Lincoln Plain Matte 2198
Total 1909 Cent Proofs 4793
Total 1909 Nickel Proofs 4763
Isnt that ever so ironic?
Actually the cent and nickel proof numbers run lockstep from the late 1890s to 1912 (I never noticed that before)
<< <i>Heres an interesting fact. The 1909 proof nickel seen a huge jump in mintage, a one year anomoly with 4763 minted
So..... 1909 Indian head cent Proof 2175
1909 VDB Lincoln matte 420
1909 Lincoln Plain Matte 2198
Total 1909 Cent Proofs 4793
Total 1909 Nickel Proofs 4763
Isnt that ever so ironic?
Actually the cent and nickel proof numbers run lockstep from the late 1890s to 1912 (I never noticed that before) >>
Ambro51, David Lange in his 1996 book on Lincoln cents confirmed that the US Mint SOLD "minor proof sets" consisting of the cent and nickel TOGETHER during those years. The Red Book decided to change ONLY the MPL mintages based on Kevin and Roger's research, but NOT to change the nickel mintages. The one exception was the 2005 Red Book when they did a massive change of all denominations for this era, BUT then changed everything back to the historically reported numbers in 2006 to this date with the one except of MPL.The 2005 Red Book reported 5,265 1909 nickels. I had done some calculations supporting these SOLD quantities of cents and nickels between 1909 and 1912 and tried to link them to reported numbers in the annual US Mint reports of those years. Those mint reports covered the fiscal years ending in June 30th each year and I believe the quantities and nominal values reported in the US annual reports agree to the historically reported numbers for both cents and nickels. I can't get anyone to confirm this, but in any case, it seems that the hobby thinks the correct mintage to report is the quantity delivered to the coiner. I personally always had thought that the PROOF mintage reported was the quantity SOLD to collectors since that was the PURPOSE for making proof coins in the first place. Again JMHO. Steve
Edited to add that David Lange commented on that 30 piece difference in his book "The Complete Guide to the Lincoln Cents" on pages 288 and 289.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Again, my gut tells me that if we have circulated 1856 flyers, there are some circulated mattes out there somewhere. Not many, but some.
Since no one has an example, it tells me we are not looking closely enough at the coins. We have all seen not just sharp struck 09-16 specimens, but some with a finish that sure looks matte like. Usually, its only one side with a square rim, and the other not so square. They most always be a bit out of round and not a centered strike. But to my knowledge, no one bothers to look for the die markers to see if its a proof die that may have been used to make that Business strike coin. Heck, many folks do not know the die markers for a given proof, so the coins simply just get passed around as great specimens.
So that is two more questions unanswered. Did anybody spend their matte proof way back then, and did the mint ever use the matte dies to strike buisness coins.
WS
Also.....Ill bet a lot of the Mattes that are now slabbed were sent in as just MS business strikes, but on certification the diagnosics were found and it was slabbed as a Proof. Ill bet a lot of this went on in the early days of TPG.
By the way, good luck to Stewart and bidders on the 1914 PR68 on Thursday night.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Thanks you for what amounts to very informative information and alot of hard work. Roger's 'alien' explanation is clearly a theory worth some thought....
They are among us.... minting MPLs and buying stock in Pepto-Bismo
On the more serious note, a final question that I hope does not border on the absurd. Has this group collectively seen 1909-1917 specimens with some minor formally recognized "diagnostic elements" present but other elements missing yet the specimen screams "matte", yet sits in a MS holder or raw? If so, has anyone ever submitted this/these coins to a major service with supporting ducumentary evidence to support the matte status, and if so to what end? How seriously will PCGS, for example, take a specimen that appears to be "out-of-book" submitted with documentation?
Thank you,
Duane
Finally, to Bob (watersport)(5), Ambro51 (10), Mark (pennyannie) (6) and Duane (grasshopper) (8), your passion for Matte Proof Lincolns as well as mine (12) made for a very interesting and hopefully informative thread. As you can see by the numbers in parenthesis, there were plenty of comments by each of us.
I should note that for the first time, the 2009 Red Book states on page 114 under footnote "B" in reference to the 1909VDB Matte Proof Lincoln cent with a reported mintage of 1,194; "Reported struck; 400-600 estimated issued." This is at least a better reporting and I am sorry I missed it in my first reading.
Thanks again everyone.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
I know this is a novice question, but has anyone (or any strings from past) addressed the issue of 1917 MPL specimens (mintages, diagnostics). Is this particular year all anecdotal?
Thank you,
Duane
I know that Walter Breen claimed to have examined 1917 Matte proof Lincolns years ago. I know that in recent years some of Walter Breen's claims have been disputed. I know, as I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, that the Red Book continues to show a 1917 MPL "space" and the comment "and an exceptional specimen dated 1917 is also reported to exist". I know that from time to time people attempt to sell a supposed 1917 MPL on EBAY. I know from time to time someone posts on these forums that they either own a 1917 MPL or they know someone who says he owns a 1917 MPL. I know that NO major TPG has certified and slabbed a 1917 MPL.
Duane, based on all the above, I CHOOSE to take the following attitude about a possible 1917 MPL or for that matter a 1959 Lincoln cent with the reverse of wheat ears.
These coins may or may not exist. They may or may not be genuine. But until or unless PCGS or/and NGC attribute a specific example of such a coin, I CHOOSE to believe that any example presented to the hobby is NOT a legitimate example. I realize others may have a different opinion, but that is how I've felt about this for the last several years.
I'm sure we would all like to hear other peoples opinions.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Thank you. So all we have is anecdotes at this point, and I guess I've heard most of them through the literature and this post, which has been extremely informative, as you mentioned. "This way to the egress" might be the caveat.
I'm just wondering if the experienced researchers or long-time collectors (Kevin, Roger, Stewart, Brian?) have more information of an objective nature. As it stands today, you and I think alike, based on what appears to be no 'real' evidence at all. --This is the classic case of a film of a man walking through the woods in a bigfoot suit.
Does anyone actually know where or with whom the the exceptional specimen resides?
My thinking is that the strong financial incentive to make an authentic specimen available for grading, and the lack of a graded coin, strongly suggests that an old rumor just built momentum and here we are.
Any thoughts from more experienced numismatic minds?
Duane
I stumbled accross this post. I was not a member at the time. Facinating reading.
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase/2819
<< <i>TTT
I stumbled accross this post. I was not a member at the time. Facinating reading. >>
I must have missed it when you bumped it last. Lots of good info. Still don't see why so many got so crazy about the mintage number though, it's not really that relevant to how many are available today anyways. If records were found by the researchers that say 1000+ were minted, and there is nothing to support the 420 number, then that is the mintage, regardless of what happened to them or whether they ever reached the hands of collectors at the time. Unless those folks think the Redbook should revise the mintage of the 1933 Double Eagle down from 445,500 as well since we know for sure not quite that many escaped the Mint.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
1) Survivor numbers are only what really matters. The number minted is really just a historical number that doesn't affect availability.
2) After the explosion of interest in MPLs around the century mark for the Lincoln cent, it would be hard for any collector not to know that matte proofs are valuable and likely should be graded by a TPG.
2a) The internet has put information at everyone's immediate beckon, so this is not something that would not be known by almost every single collector, even the most passive ones. It would be "found" money.
3) The only "hidden cache" is the hoard of 53 VDBs held by someone who basically collected only those! So, I don't think there are but a very few coins that haven't been graded by a TPG.
4) I found something interesting: the percentage of NCG to PCGS coins is very steady throughout all the dates.
VDB 31% NCG (the rest are PCGS)
1909 31% NCG
1910 35% NCG
1911 31% NCG
1912 32.6% NCG
1913 27% NCG
1914 28.6% NCG
1915 28.6% NCG
1916 31% NCG
What does this mean? It means that maybe collectors are predictable in behavior and my idea of extrapolating the total existing to the total RELEASED to the public might be very close.
That number is to take the survivors and multiply that by 2.5. Without any further definitive information, this is what I'm sticking to. Remember too the actual number of survivors is inflated because of upgrade attempts and people not reporting the demise of the old holders. This would mean even fewer survive and fewer ever released to the public.
Bottom line friends, matte proof coins are scarce at best. They are really still undervalued. They generally are more attractive and have a bigger impact on the eye than business strikes. I think we should go back to buying them all up!
Now if I can only have a VDB in my collection...(sigh)
I owned two 1909 VDB MPL. and twenty 1916 MPL to do research for my book. That is why I used the old mintage numbers in the book. The new mintage numbers makes no sense to me.
I believe that the author of the first Red Book spoke with the officials at the Philadelphia mint, for his mintage numbers.
WS
https://forums.collectors.com/messageview.aspx?catid=30&threadid=718346&highlight_key=y&keyword1=MPL
calculating how many were struck for each die known, and what should the striking characteristics be.
For example, 1916, only 600 struck, 3 different die pairs if memory serves me right, almost all are strong strikes with great matte surfaces.
1911, I remember one die has matte surfaces on the early die state, and those were smoothed out in later die states to a satin surfaces.
With the delivery dates also known for each year, this can also assist us in understanding how many coins were struck per die if we know how many dies were used,
which we do based upon diagnostics.
The one point I tried to get across when researching this is that the method of calculation should be consistently used for all counts, unless we known x number were struck, but never left the mint for example.
The use of number struck and delivered from the Coiner to the Director or Superintendent was a specific method that was used for years in determining this number, and was actually a rule established by the Mint.
We know the number of 1909 VDB proofs that were struck and delivered, we also know that they were completely sold out.
Would not be surprised though if many of the matte proofs were not used in circulation, especially during the Great Depression, a minor proof set containing the cent and nickel was only 8 cents. If you were starving,
would not you use it to feed your family?
The biggest challenge today is proper identification, over the years I had many people write me about a 1909 VDB, that they thought was a matte proof, as it had some matte surfaces, and had some, or some which were close
to the diagnostics of a true 1909 VDB. 1909 VDB EDS can sometimes have a real nice strike and have a semi matte surface, which is the small pits created on the working die when sand was run across the surface.
One of the best indicators besides the diagnostics is the razor sharp corners between the rim and edge. As a slower speed was used at higher pressure, the corner spaces and deepest part of the design elements were able to completely fill.
Kevin
In Kevin Flynn's book, Lincoln Cent Matte Proofs, in the back of the book are old letters from a frustrated dealer and a frustrated collector who were complaining because they couldn't get VDB proofs. These letters are from 1909 and the mint replied saying they didn't have ANY.
So if they were in the business of selling what they had, it would follow they weren't hoarding any or holding back. The one letter writer states he's been collecting proofs for years, always sent his money in on time, yet was told his request couldn't be fulfilled and they sent him his money back.
I think they either made the smaller number (about 400) or melted a bunch because someone wanted those pennies with "VDB" on them GONE. It just doesn't follow that they could have had over 1,000 on hand if regular customers, who made requests on time, were denied.
I'm sticking to my guns that the smaller number (about 400) left the mint and the rest were destroyed or never made. Records by mint workers easily could have been fudged too. It wouldn't be the first time gov't workers did something along those lines.
I also believe the 1910 number of over 4.000 is a fantasy. There just isn't a logical explanation that so many were made and the survival rate be so low for just that one year. The Red Book changed their numbers for many dates more than once, even 1914! (I have about 20 different Red books and can give the numbers for those years if anyone wants) This whole Matte Proof Mintage thing is a big mystery but the amount of survivors is far less so. Extrapolating from those numbers gives lower totals of released coins than we have been told.
I mean, this is what we HAVE. That is the only thing of true substance we can go by.
The question about how many matte proof Lincoln cents were minted and how many matte proof Lincoln cents survive today are questions MANY MPL collectors ask. They were a major discussion here back in the "good ole days" of 2007-2010 and continue today. The survival issue concerning the 1909 plain thru 1916 is not as key as the 1909VDB MPL example because those eight issues have primarily been available to purchase from copper specialty dealers thru the years including the 2007-2010 period surrounding the 100th anniversary of the Lincoln cent. The 1909VDB MPL is a different story! As David points out THAT coin was difficult to get when it was originally issued and has not been advertised in dealer inventories for many years. I can attest to the fact that when I started to look for my example in 1994 it took me 8 years to get one I could afford and the only way I could get one was via a major auction.
As to the question of how many 1909VDB MPL's were minted, well that's a good question to ask. First, we have to ask "What does MINTED mean?" It means different things to different collectors in my opinion. Does it mean the number of coins struck? Does it mean, in the case of PROOF coins, the number of coins sold since that is the intent of the US Mint producing PROOF coins? Does it mean the number of coins struck that are "deemed" to be good to be sold as determined by the "coiner"? Who makes that decision for us collectors?
Enough of my rambling on this subject right now. Plenty was commented about here in this thread by me and others years ago as well as in other threads on this subject. Feel free to add your OWN comments. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
OK Here is my big question:
In Kevin Flynn's book, Lincoln Cent Matte Proofs, in the back of the book are old letters from a frustrated dealer and a frustrated collector who were complaining because they couldn't get VDB proofs. These letters are from 1909 and the mint replied saying they didn't have ANY.
So if they were in the business of selling what they had, it would follow they weren't hoarding any or holding back. The one letter writer states he's been collecting proofs for years, always sent his money in on time, yet was told his request couldn't be fulfilled and they sent him his money back.
I think they either made the smaller number (about 400) or melted a bunch because someone wanted those pennies with "VDB" on them GONE. It just doesn't follow that they could have had over 1,000 on hand if regular customers, who made requests on time, were denied.
I'm sticking to my guns that the smaller number (about 400) left the mint and the rest were destroyed or never made. Records by mint workers easily could have been fudged too. It wouldn't be the first time gov't workers did something along those lines.
I also believe the 1910 number of over 4.000 is a fantasy. There just isn't a logical explanation that so many were made and the survival rate be so low for just that one year. The Red Book changed their numbers for many dates more than once, even 1914! (I have about 20 different Red books and can give the numbers for those years if anyone wants) This whole Matte Proof Mintage thing is a big mystery but the amount of survivors is far less so. Extrapolating from those numbers gives lower totals of released coins than we have been told.
I mean, this is what we HAVE. That is the only thing of true substance we can go by.
We can prove how many were struck, how many were delivered from the Coiner to the Superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint, how many were rejected and how many were accepted by the Superintendent. We have the clear archive letters to show us this.
By law, once a coin is delivered by the Coiner to the Superintendent, it becomes part of the mintage for that year. Irrelevant if it is subsequently melted, such as was done with early 1860s proof sets that were melted around 1865, or 1876-CC Twenty cent coins melted.
The Red book and other books have changed their counts over the years, I believe mainly because of Breen. They now use the current totals after I (and also Roger Burdette) provided the archive records to show these validated totals.
If you are questioning whether the first sets were sold, and why collectors were told there were none left, why would not the Mint not sell a product? Also you simply have to look at the demand for the new Lincoln cents in 1909, and how thousands of people waited in line around the Mint to purchase specimens. You do not think collectors had their orders in early to make sure they were able to get a first year proof of this new series?
These letters you refer to from my book were after September 1909, which the VDB cent proof sets were long since gone.
Kevin
So, I'm more concerned with the actual surviving population. I think we all are in agreement that the numbers from the major TPG companies are inflated, not from any fault of theirs but because people crack out coins and don't retire the old number.
Speculation - The minor proof sets, consisting of the cent and nickel only cost 8 cents.
I believe during hard financial times such as the great depression, these minor sets would have been broken up for essentials, such as feeding your family.
I agree, it would be nice to explain and understand the survival rate.
Speculation - The minor proof sets, consisting of the cent and nickel only cost 8 cents.
I believe during hard financial times such as the great depression, these minor sets would have been broken up for essentials, such as feeding your family.
Kevin, your speculation is easy to see as a good possibility. The fact that matte proofs weren't thought that highly of until much later adds even more to this happening.
I realize that this doesn't correct for Crackouts and Resubmits ... but maybe that effect is spread through all the dates somewhat?
Could you make a case that the mintage for the VDB was about 1/2 or 50% the mintage of the 1916. Of course that is probably too simplistic. To be more complete, someone should do this same analysis for the NGC pops ... but then you have the double counting with crossovers.
The relative scarcity of slabs in descending order:
Most common: 1913
Then, in order: 1909, 1910, 1912, 1911, 1914, 1915, 1916
Most scarce: 1909 vdb
That being said, every darn date in scarce in the scheme of things ... when you are talking the key date having fewer than 127 slabs ... and the most common date fewer than 587 slabs ... the entire series is scarce!
PCGS Slab Populations (as of 23 April 2016)
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set