So out of every 30 random PCGS slabbed Matte Proof Lincolns you stumble across:
- 1 of them will be a 1909 VDB
- 2 of them will be a 1916
- 3 of them will be a 1915 - 3 of them will be a 1914
- 4 of them will be a 1912 - 4 of them will be a 1911 - 4 of them will be a 1910 - 4 of them will be a 1909
- 5 of them will be a 1913
PCGS Slab Populations
Back of the Envelope (Rough) Estimate of Mintages (with way too many assumptions taken!)
Let's say the old published number of 420 minted 1909 vdb's was correct. If we assume there is some slight correlation between the mintage's and the current PCGS slab counts (which is a big leap I realize!). One might make an argument for mintage's that look more like what is shown below. These numbers are at least in line with the relative PCGS slab populations -- and might seem more "qualitatively right" in that they match up more with reality (in terms of the marketplace). In each case it's assumed that roughly 30% of the original mintage made it into PCGS slabs. A 30% number that I got by dividing the old semi-established mintage of 1909 vdb's of 420 coins, with approximately 127 of those currently in PCGS slabs. Of course this does not account for crack-outs and resubmits and I did not add in the NGC slab counts. And Genuines are not accounted here either. So this is just a "food for thought" analysis and not to be taken that seriously.
MY BACK OF THE ENVELOPE ESTIMATED MINTAGES (with too many assumptions taken):
When you compare my back of the envelope estimates of mintage's (above) with the old redbook mintage's (below), it's interesting ... The 1909 VDB is spot on by design ... and the 1911, 1914, and 1915 mintage's are pretty darn close. For the rest of the dates, my estimated mintage's (based on field population of PCGS slabs) are substantially lower (by about 30%) than the old redbook mintage's.
I appreciate your analysis and I guess each of us could come up with rationale explanation of existing quantities for each of the nine MPL's.
One key point I would like to add. I believe that the 1909VDB existing examples are an outliner compared with the other eight dates of existing MPL's. For instance I believe copper dealer specialists do have quantities of the eight dates in their inventories NOW available for sale to customers. I believe these same dealers do NOT have ANY 1909VDB MPL's in their inventory.
Also, we all know that 53 of the 1909VDB MPL's are currently in the hoard. My guess is that there are currently only about 150 of the 1909VDB MPL's in existence and they are almost exclusively in PCGS or NGC holders. If any other true 1909VDB MPL's exist today which are not certified I believe the hobby will not accept them as true 1909VDB MPL's without certification.
Finally, I believe there are a few THOUSAND examples of the other eight MPL's currently in collections or dealers inventories.
WingedLiberty1957 - Paul, I really like your analysis. I went through a similar process and came up with almost identical numbers!
1909: 1600
VDB: 400
1910: 1500
1911: 1450
1912: 1450
1913: 1800
1914: 1300
1915: 1000
1916: 700
These are actually posted on another thread that you started on the U.S Coins forum, where you asked about news on the VDB hoard. I just took the surviving numbers and multiplied them by a number from the ratio of existing coins and the reported mintage numbers for 1914 and 1915. It just seemed logical to me that the surviving population would be fairly consistent across the board with the actual number of coins released from the mint. The only variation might be that a slightly higher number of VDB proofs may have been kept because it was the first year of a new issue. That would actually suggest an even LOWER number of VDB proofs released to collectors.
In any case, matte proof Lincolns should be more valuable than they actually are in reality. With the popularity of Lincoln cents among collectors this seems to be a contradiction. What I think is happening is that Lincoln collectors in general are put off by the cost and difficulty of acquiring proofs so they just ignore them. I'm hoping they gain in popularity again and have another revival. I think they are awesome and often very eye catching. Of course the difficulty of the VDB is a problem but if the hoard ever gets released, perhaps that might stimulate the action for MPLs once again.
DFree: I like your numbers as they just seem more plausible. Not that being plausible makes them right necessarily. But that have a sort of "right feel" to them. (Not very scientific I realize)
I especially like the VDB mintage of 400 and the 1916 mintage of 700 ... and the rest falling in line from there based on POPs of slabs in the marketplace. With the highest mintage being the 1913 somewhere in the 1800-1950 range. It's sort of a "reverse engineering" way to find mintage's.
If you believe the old Redbook number that lists the 1913 mintage at a whopping 2,848 ... it implies that over 2,000 1913 MPLs were lost somehow. Seems to me if the 2848 number was correct, we would be seeing nearly 900 PCGS slabbed 1913's today, instead of the 587 we actually see.
But like Steve posted above, it's a complex topic, and I thought his comment on the "delaer inventory" of VDB interesting and true. Of course the 53 coin MPL hoard is REALLY skewing things ... if that person did not snarf up so much of the available population, there would be more VDB's in dealer inventories (IMHO).
And of course, one does have to start with mint records if one is going to do any sort of scientific analysis. And the mint records do imply higher starting numbers. Even though the reverse engineered number seem more correct.
I do think that the very low sales price of 8 cents for a Proof Nickel and Proof Cent back in the year of issue ... along with the Matte (not highly Mirrored) surfaces of the coins ... probably led many not to particularly treasure or value these Mattes esp through the 1930's ... so a 30% survival rate seems both plausible and realistic. I would not be surprised if a substantial number of these were spent into circulation during the early part of the 20th Century.
I have long believed that the "traditional" "mintage" numbers for MPL's were close to what were actually SOLD. This could be, and probably was less than the number actually MINTED. To me, minting means STRUCK. In production, a counter in the machinery keeps track of that number I believe. For PROOF coins produced during the 1900-1916 period, I understand the one cent and five cent pieces were sold together and the dime, quarter, and half dollar were also packaged together for sale. Obviously, certain sales or distributions were also of single coins. The point is that the proof coins were MADE to be SOLD to collectors and I believe most US Mint records showed that. Unfortunately, the US Government fiscal year at that time ended on June 30th. Today, of course, it ends on September 30th. We collectors are interested in total year numbers at December 31st. Unfortunately, that kind of breakout is difficult to find in historical data , much of which is now destroyed.
I agree with both of your estimates based on current certified counts because they come close to the "traditional" reported numbers which I believe were developed from mint information going back to the actual times. There should be little doubt that the number of coins STRUCK of MPL's in the 1909 thru 1916 years as shown in Kevin Flynn's analysis is probably accurate. The so called "good" or "delivered to coiner" number may be partially judgemental but in any case, not ALL of those coins were actually SOLD or DISTRIBUTED.
Remember Dave Bowers THREW OUT a large number of Matties many many years ago by accident. Who knows what dates were in there. Was THAT where a number of VDBs went??
Remember Dave Bowers THREW OUT a large number of Matties many many years ago by accident. Who knows what dates were in there. Was THAT where a number of VDBs went??
That info appears in the Red Book series on Lincoln Cents by David Bowers. In 1966 the superior value of the 1909VDB MPL was well known. I'm sure David and Fred Vollmer would have known if any of the missing coins were VDB's. My guess is probably none were VDB's. Steve
Remember Dave Bowers THREW OUT a large number of Matties many many years ago by accident. Who knows what dates were in there. Was THAT where a number of VDBs went??
Holy Moly! Did Bowers really say that. OMG that is a costly boo-boo. I'd still be crying over that one.
Remember Dave Bowers THREW OUT a large number of Matties many many years ago by accident. Who knows what dates were in there. Was THAT where a number of VDBs went??
Holy Moly! Did Bowers really say that. OMG that is a costly boo-boo. I'd still be crying over that one.
From pages 70 & 71 of Dave's book:
I recall an interesting incident in 1966, I believe it was when I needed to reinforce our stock of Matte Proof cents and contacted Fred Vollmer, an Indiana dealer who was active in the field and employed a Teletype machine. Fred had delivered reliable quality before, and was one of just a few dealers who were savy enough to distinguish an authentic Matte Proof. After a telephone discussion , he agreed to review his stock of Matte Proofs and send me ones that were up to my "fussy" standards. He did not know how many of each he had, so we agreed on a price I would pay for each coin 1909VDB thru 1916 to be multiplied by the number of coins he could find of each date. They arrived in due course, I inspected them, found they were all just dandy, and mailed off a check, totaling into four figures, to him.
He soon called, asking where the rest of his money was, and stating I had paid only about half of what I had agreed to. This came as a surprise to me! I reviewed the paperwork at my end, and shared it with him. I had paid completely in full, the amount agreed upon. "There were more coins than those", he said! After going back and forth and checking with one of his employees, he concluded that after making up my main package and wrapping in brown paper, a clerk had placed additional coins he or she had found to the outside of the brown wrapper, then put another wrapper around everything. At my end, these extra coins had been tossed in the trash! We chatted and, agreeable to both of us, split the difference for the missing coins.
Interesting story, but if there were any 1909VDB's in that transaction, I have to believe those would have been priced out separately for obvious reasons. Steve
Thanks for typing that out! I can see why it is a story that once read, isn't very easily forgotten. Any coin collector would be devastated, at least temporarily after going through such an experience.
In the "old days" when the transaction took place, Matte Proofs weren't valued nearly as highly as now. Still, that was after a significant "boom" in the coin market where prices had recently shot up by anywhere from 4 times to as much as 10 times or more. Most of the MPLs were around $50 in PR63 but I would think these would have more likely been gem quality PR65 or even higher. The VDB was around $200 in PR63 and could have been as much as $1,000 in the highest grade.
From your transcription of Dave's words: "...mailed off a check, totaling into four figures..." From that comment, the check was somewhere below $10,000 and someplace above $1,000. We don't know the actual total number of coins but just from the general tone of the words, it sounds like somewhere between 15 and 25 coins? There could very well have been a VDB in the group! Hopefully, if there was, it wasn't one that ended up in the trash!
I don't have a Red Book for 1966 but do have 1958, 1963 and 1968.
Prices for the proof coins at PR63 in each book:
1958 1963 1968
1909 VDB 15 140 350
1909 6.50 30 85
1910 6.50 30 85
1911 6.50 30 85
1912 6.50 30 95
1913 6.50 27.50 95
1914 10 50 185
1915 12.50 65 275
1916 15 80 300
Interesting that not long before Dave's unfortunate event in 1966, the 1916 was actually priced HIGHER than the VDB! It was nominal, just a buck or two but it illustrates the subjective nature of coin values. In 1955 the VDB was $9 and the 1916 was $8. In 1952 the VDB was $7.50 and the 1916 was $8!! I'll take a roll of each please... Where's my time machine?!
Thanks for typing that out! I can see why it is a story that once read, isn't very easily forgotten. Any coin collector would be devastated, at least temporarily after going through such an experience.
In the "old days" when the transaction took place, Matte Proofs weren't valued nearly as highly as now. Still, that was after a significant "boom" in the coin market where prices had recently shot up by anywhere from 4 times to as much as 10 times or more. Most of the MPLs were around $50 in PR63 but I would think these would have more likely been gem quality PR65 or even higher. The VDB was around $200 in PR63 and could have been as much as $1,000 in the highest grade.
From your transcription of Dave's words: "...mailed off a check, totaling into four figures..." From that comment, the check was somewhere below $10,000 and someplace above $1,000. We don't know the actual total number of coins but just from the general tone of the words, it sounds like somewhere between 15 and 25 coins? There could very well have been a VDB in the group! Hopefully, if there was, it wasn't one that ended up in the trash!
I don't have a Red Book for 1966 but do have 1958, 1963 and 1968.
Prices for the proof coins at PR63 in each book:
1958 1963 1968
1909 VDB 15 140 350
1909 6.50 30 85
1910 6.50 30 85
1911 6.50 30 85
1912 6.50 30 95
1913 6.50 27.50 95
1914 10 50 185
1915 12.50 65 275
1916 15 80 300
Interesting that not long before Dave's unfortunate event in 1966, the 1916 was actually priced HIGHER than the VDB! It was nominal, just a buck or two but it illustrates the subjective nature of coin values. In 1955 the VDB was $9 and the 1916 was $8. In 1952 the VDB was $7.50 and the 1916 was $8!! I'll take a roll of each please... Where's my time machine?!
David,
Interesting that I too was interested in what those MPL's were selling for in 1966. I didn't have any of the old Red Books from that era still in my possession, but I did have a 1996 book by David Lange (currently working for NGC) called the Complete Guide to Lincoln Cents. It's a great 360 page+ book with lots of detail by year of all business strike & proof Lincoln's. I highly recommend it if you can find a copy on the internet. Anyway, on pages 303 thru 311 he details the MPL's showing proof prices in 1950, 1965, 1980 and 1995. For 1965 he has only one price which is probably what you show as PR63. His numbers are as follows:
1909VDB $275
1909 70
1910 70
1911 70
1912 60
1913 67.50
1914 150
1915 220
1916 220
It is interesting to me how these prices mostly fit between your Red Book numbers for 1963 & 1968 (which really represent the years 1962 & 1967) since the Red Book is published in the year before the book's date.
Of course, Dave Bowers and Fred Vollmer were dealing wholesale and these prices were retail so assuming a fair margin I could guess that about 100 MPL's were involved with most being 1909 thru 1913. A few of the other four dates maybe but those last ones must have been the cheaper ones in my mind. Anyway, fun playing the guessing game. Steve
Do you have any MPLs in the PCGS registry? (Please forgive me for not knowing the answer to that...I'm relatively new here and don't know many names of the folks here yet or the names on their sets)
Steve, it IS fun to speculate! I didn't consider the fact that those coins would have been at dealer to dealer prices so your estimate sounds much better.
EDIT: I do have the Lange book, just bought it a couple of weeks ago actually. Someone on eBay had it for sale. Even though it is somewhat dated, I've found it to be quite useful. Lange has a way of writing that inspires my interest and enthusiasm. He brings those old Lincolns back to life which makes it not only a good reference book but fun too.
At the Dallas ANA I was shown the "1917 Matte Proof" that Breen made his assessments off of. It had flat rims like you would see on a Matte, but was definitely not a MPL. It had been pressed by something. Whatever flattened the rim also buckled the edge. Perhaps it was pressed by an encasement. It looked sharp like a MPL, but no way was it.
At the Dallas ANA I was shown the "1917 Matte Proof" that Breen made his assessments off of. It had flat rims like you would see on a Matte, but was definitely not a MPL. It had been pressed by something. Whatever flattened the rim also buckled the edge. Perhaps it was pressed by an encasement. It looked sharp like a MPL, but no way was it.
Rick, thanks for putting to rest this urban legend.
At the Dallas ANA I was shown the "1917 Matte Proof" that Breen made his assessments off of. It had flat rims like you would see on a Matte, but was definitely not a MPL. It had been pressed by something. Whatever flattened the rim also buckled the edge. Perhaps it was pressed by an encasement. It looked sharp like a MPL, but no way was it.
Rick, thanks for putting to rest this urban legend.
Like I've always said: Anyone who wants to SELL a "1917 Matte Proof Lincoln cent" need only get PCGS or NGC to certify that it is a genuine Matte Proof Lincoln cent. IF the coin was offered for sale in a legitimate PCGS or NGC holder I would imagine there would be collectors who would like to buy the coin. The problem is that we collectors do NOT believe that such a coin exists which one of the two major grading services would certify as genuine. Steve
OK. I got it. You're Doug Wright and yes, your collection is in the registry and it is awesome. EXTREMELY awesome. ALL red too.
1914 PR68 RD. In my dreams, that one. WOW!!! A-M-A-Z-I-N-G!
When you put those coins up for auction, it won't be a sale, it will be an event. It seems sad to break up such an artful and impressive collection but that is what happens to all of them eventually.
I recently purchased three raw MPL's from an old collection and submitted them to PCGS for certification. All came back as 65s (one red), conservative in my opinion. There are still a few original coins out there.
I know this discussion has been "put to bed" many times already but the other day I had a new idea about evidence for the correct number of VDB proofs.
The obverse die used for the VDB proofs continued to be used for the 1909 plain matte proofs after the VDB was no longer being made. So knowing that the individual dies used on all the proofs from the number of known observed dies, individual dies did not seem to be pushed past about 1,000 pressings. So my question is this:
How is it that the obverse die used for the VDB was continued to be used for a significant amount of the 1909 plain proofs if it already had been pushed for well over "1,194" pressings? (After all, the mint rejected a percentage of the proofs on top of the released number, so it seems to me that the VDB obverse die would be completely "pooped out" after 1,194 pressings and wouldn't have been used any further. This seems especially true when you add in the number of rejected proofs.) This, along with the small amount of actual surviving VDB proofs seems further circumstantial evidence that 420 might actually be the correct number of VDB proofs and not the number 1,194 that was later seen and published by Kevin Flynn in his book. Maybe the 1,194 number was actually the total number of uses for that particular die; 420 for the VDB and the remaining 774 for the 1909 plain die "number 1". Perhaps it was entered into the book at the mint without this further explanation. Total speculation I know but the larger number just seems wrong from the small number of VDB proofs we see and the continued use of that obverse die.
I know from shopping that a good percentage of the 1909 plains have the same obverse die that was used for the VDB. Those little lines coming down from the nose did start to finally wear out and then a 2nd obverse die was eventually used for the "plain" 1909 but not until quite a significant number of them were made with the VDB obverse die.
From Kevin Flynn's detail report of US Mint records it shows that on July 30th, 1909 the US Mint "struck" 1,503 proof Lincoln cents with the reverse VDB. That was the total number of 1909VDB MPL's struck. The next striking of proof Lincoln cents took place on August 16th when 1,287 proof Lincoln cents were struck. Certain other documents say that this second bunch was struck after it was decided not to use the reverse with the VDB anymore. Obviously, some or all of this second bunch used the same obverse die as was used on the first bunch struck on July 30th. Since only one obverse die and one reverse die was used to produce the first batch and obviously a new reverse die was needed to produced the reverses without the VDB, it seems clear to me that only 1,503 coins were struck with the VDB reverse and this all happened on July 30th, 1909.
Now the records that Kevin provided also show that on August 2nd, 1909 1,194 of the 1,503 coins that were struck on July 30th were "delivered" from the Metal room to the coiner which was then judged to be the "official" mintage. The US Mint records that show 1,503 coins were struck on July 30th also "say" that 1,000 of those coins were "accepted". But regardless of what the US Mint records say, we have human people making judgments about the records. It is human people who might question the reality of EXACTLY 1,000 of the coins being acceptable. Why not use another US Mint record that says 1,194 were delivered to the coiner. That number might seem "more realistic" than just 1,000. Of course, I might say that only 1,000 of the coins were accepted and even though 1,194 went to the coiner, 194 of those coins were not acceptable and were not used to produce the final quantity of 1909VDB MPL's. Of course, we all probably figure that another several hundred of the coins that were given to the coiner never were used either. So why not we all accept the 420 the Guide Book had reported until the 1998 edition. We all know that NOBODY knows the true number and nobody ever will. Just my two cents worth. Steve
Comments
For every 1 1909 VDB MPL PCGS graded slab ...
there are this many PCGS graded slabs of other dates (rounded to nearest whole number) ...
1909 VDB slabs = 1 (reference point)
1909 slabs = 4
1910 slabs = 4
1911 slabs = 4
1912 slabs = 4
1913 slabs = 5
1914 slabs = 3
1915 slabs = 3
1916 slabs = 2
So out of every 30 random PCGS slabbed Matte Proof Lincolns you stumble across:
- 1 of them will be a 1909 VDB
- 2 of them will be a 1916
- 3 of them will be a 1915
- 3 of them will be a 1914
- 4 of them will be a 1912
- 4 of them will be a 1911
- 4 of them will be a 1910
- 4 of them will be a 1909
- 5 of them will be a 1913
PCGS Slab Populations
Back of the Envelope (Rough) Estimate of Mintages (with way too many assumptions taken!)
Let's say the old published number of 420 minted 1909 vdb's was correct. If we assume there is some slight correlation between the mintage's and the current PCGS slab counts (which is a big leap I realize!). One might make an argument for mintage's that look more like what is shown below. These numbers are at least in line with the relative PCGS slab populations -- and might seem more "qualitatively right" in that they match up more with reality (in terms of the marketplace). In each case it's assumed that roughly 30% of the original mintage made it into PCGS slabs. A 30% number that I got by dividing the old semi-established mintage of 1909 vdb's of 420 coins, with approximately 127 of those currently in PCGS slabs. Of course this does not account for crack-outs and resubmits and I did not add in the NGC slab counts. And Genuines are not accounted here either. So this is just a "food for thought" analysis and not to be taken that seriously.
MY BACK OF THE ENVELOPE ESTIMATED MINTAGES (with too many assumptions taken):
1909VDB.....420
1909.........1,753
1910.........1,548
1911.........1,504
1912.........1,508
1913.........1,941
1914.........1,322
1915.........1,071
1916...........724
-------------------
Totals......11,791
When you compare my back of the envelope estimates of mintage's (above) with the old redbook mintage's (below), it's interesting ... The 1909 VDB is spot on by design ... and the 1911, 1914, and 1915 mintage's are pretty darn close. For the rest of the dates, my estimated mintage's (based on field population of PCGS slabs) are substantially lower (by about 30%) than the old redbook mintage's.
OLD REDBOOK MINTAGES:
1909VDB.....420
1909.........2,198
1910.........2,405
1911.........1,733
1912.........2,145
1913.........2,848
1914.........1,365
1915.........1,150
1916.........1,050
-------------------
Totals......15,314
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
I appreciate your analysis and I guess each of us could come up with rationale explanation of existing quantities for each of the nine MPL's.
One key point I would like to add. I believe that the 1909VDB existing examples are an outliner compared with the other eight dates of existing MPL's. For instance I believe copper dealer specialists do have quantities of the eight dates in their inventories NOW available for sale to customers. I believe these same dealers do NOT have ANY 1909VDB MPL's in their inventory.
Also, we all know that 53 of the 1909VDB MPL's are currently in the hoard. My guess is that there are currently only about 150 of the 1909VDB MPL's in existence and they are almost exclusively in PCGS or NGC holders. If any other true 1909VDB MPL's exist today which are not certified I believe the hobby will not accept them as true 1909VDB MPL's without certification.
Finally, I believe there are a few THOUSAND examples of the other eight MPL's currently in collections or dealers inventories.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
1909: 1600
VDB: 400
1910: 1500
1911: 1450
1912: 1450
1913: 1800
1914: 1300
1915: 1000
1916: 700
These are actually posted on another thread that you started on the U.S Coins forum, where you asked about news on the VDB hoard. I just took the surviving numbers and multiplied them by a number from the ratio of existing coins and the reported mintage numbers for 1914 and 1915. It just seemed logical to me that the surviving population would be fairly consistent across the board with the actual number of coins released from the mint. The only variation might be that a slightly higher number of VDB proofs may have been kept because it was the first year of a new issue. That would actually suggest an even LOWER number of VDB proofs released to collectors.
In any case, matte proof Lincolns should be more valuable than they actually are in reality. With the popularity of Lincoln cents among collectors this seems to be a contradiction. What I think is happening is that Lincoln collectors in general are put off by the cost and difficulty of acquiring proofs so they just ignore them. I'm hoping they gain in popularity again and have another revival. I think they are awesome and often very eye catching. Of course the difficulty of the VDB is a problem but if the hoard ever gets released, perhaps that might stimulate the action for MPLs once again.
I especially like the VDB mintage of 400 and the 1916 mintage of 700 ... and the rest falling in line from there based on POPs of slabs in the marketplace. With the highest mintage being the 1913 somewhere in the 1800-1950 range. It's sort of a "reverse engineering" way to find mintage's.
If you believe the old Redbook number that lists the 1913 mintage at a whopping 2,848 ... it implies that over 2,000 1913 MPLs were lost somehow. Seems to me if the 2848 number was correct, we would be seeing nearly 900 PCGS slabbed 1913's today, instead of the 587 we actually see.
But like Steve posted above, it's a complex topic, and I thought his comment on the "delaer inventory" of VDB interesting and true. Of course the 53 coin MPL hoard is REALLY skewing things ... if that person did not snarf up so much of the available population, there would be more VDB's in dealer inventories (IMHO).
And of course, one does have to start with mint records if one is going to do any sort of scientific analysis. And the mint records do imply higher starting numbers. Even though the reverse engineered number seem more correct.
I do think that the very low sales price of 8 cents for a Proof Nickel and Proof Cent back in the year of issue ... along with the Matte (not highly Mirrored) surfaces of the coins ... probably led many not to particularly treasure or value these Mattes esp through the 1930's ... so a 30% survival rate seems both plausible and realistic. I would not be surprised if a substantial number of these were spent into circulation during the early part of the 20th Century.
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
I have long believed that the "traditional" "mintage" numbers for MPL's were close to what were actually SOLD. This could be, and probably was less than the number actually MINTED. To me, minting means STRUCK. In production, a counter in the machinery keeps track of that number I believe. For PROOF coins produced during the 1900-1916 period, I understand the one cent and five cent pieces were sold together and the dime, quarter, and half dollar were also packaged together for sale. Obviously, certain sales or distributions were also of single coins. The point is that the proof coins were MADE to be SOLD to collectors and I believe most US Mint records showed that. Unfortunately, the US Government fiscal year at that time ended on June 30th. Today, of course, it ends on September 30th. We collectors are interested in total year numbers at December 31st. Unfortunately, that kind of breakout is difficult to find in historical data , much of which is now destroyed.
I agree with both of your estimates based on current certified counts because they come close to the "traditional" reported numbers which I believe were developed from mint information going back to the actual times. There should be little doubt that the number of coins STRUCK of MPL's in the 1909 thru 1916 years as shown in Kevin Flynn's analysis is probably accurate. The so called "good" or "delivered to coiner" number may be partially judgemental but in any case, not ALL of those coins were actually SOLD or DISTRIBUTED.
I'll let it rest there. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
Remember Dave Bowers THREW OUT a large number of Matties many many years ago by accident. Who knows what dates were in there. Was THAT where a number of VDBs went??
That info appears in the Red Book series on Lincoln Cents by David Bowers. In 1966 the superior value of the 1909VDB MPL was well known. I'm sure David and Fred Vollmer would have known if any of the missing coins were VDB's. My guess is probably none were VDB's. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Remember Dave Bowers THREW OUT a large number of Matties many many years ago by accident. Who knows what dates were in there. Was THAT where a number of VDBs went??
Holy Moly! Did Bowers really say that. OMG that is a costly boo-boo. I'd still be crying over that one.
Remember Dave Bowers THREW OUT a large number of Matties many many years ago by accident. Who knows what dates were in there. Was THAT where a number of VDBs went??
Holy Moly! Did Bowers really say that. OMG that is a costly boo-boo. I'd still be crying over that one.
From pages 70 & 71 of Dave's book:
I recall an interesting incident in 1966, I believe it was when I needed to reinforce our stock of Matte Proof cents and contacted Fred Vollmer, an Indiana dealer who was active in the field and employed a Teletype machine. Fred had delivered reliable quality before, and was one of just a few dealers who were savy enough to distinguish an authentic Matte Proof. After a telephone discussion , he agreed to review his stock of Matte Proofs and send me ones that were up to my "fussy" standards. He did not know how many of each he had, so we agreed on a price I would pay for each coin 1909VDB thru 1916 to be multiplied by the number of coins he could find of each date. They arrived in due course, I inspected them, found they were all just dandy, and mailed off a check, totaling into four figures, to him.
He soon called, asking where the rest of his money was, and stating I had paid only about half of what I had agreed to. This came as a surprise to me! I reviewed the paperwork at my end, and shared it with him. I had paid completely in full, the amount agreed upon. "There were more coins than those", he said! After going back and forth and checking with one of his employees, he concluded that after making up my main package and wrapping in brown paper, a clerk had placed additional coins he or she had found to the outside of the brown wrapper, then put another wrapper around everything. At my end, these extra coins had been tossed in the trash! We chatted and, agreeable to both of us, split the difference for the missing coins.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting story, but if there were any 1909VDB's in that transaction, I have to believe those would have been priced out separately for obvious reasons. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Wow! That is quite a story.
Thanks for typing that out! I can see why it is a story that once read, isn't very easily forgotten. Any coin collector would be devastated, at least temporarily after going through such an experience.
In the "old days" when the transaction took place, Matte Proofs weren't valued nearly as highly as now. Still, that was after a significant "boom" in the coin market where prices had recently shot up by anywhere from 4 times to as much as 10 times or more. Most of the MPLs were around $50 in PR63 but I would think these would have more likely been gem quality PR65 or even higher. The VDB was around $200 in PR63 and could have been as much as $1,000 in the highest grade.
From your transcription of Dave's words: "...mailed off a check, totaling into four figures..." From that comment, the check was somewhere below $10,000 and someplace above $1,000. We don't know the actual total number of coins but just from the general tone of the words, it sounds like somewhere between 15 and 25 coins? There could very well have been a VDB in the group! Hopefully, if there was, it wasn't one that ended up in the trash!
I don't have a Red Book for 1966 but do have 1958, 1963 and 1968.
Prices for the proof coins at PR63 in each book:
1958 1963 1968
1909 VDB 15 140 350
1909 6.50 30 85
1910 6.50 30 85
1911 6.50 30 85
1912 6.50 30 95
1913 6.50 27.50 95
1914 10 50 185
1915 12.50 65 275
1916 15 80 300
Interesting that not long before Dave's unfortunate event in 1966, the 1916 was actually priced HIGHER than the VDB! It was nominal, just a buck or two but it illustrates the subjective nature of coin values. In 1955 the VDB was $9 and the 1916 was $8. In 1952 the VDB was $7.50 and the 1916 was $8!! I'll take a roll of each please... Where's my time machine?!
Steve,
Wow! That is quite a story.
Thanks for typing that out! I can see why it is a story that once read, isn't very easily forgotten. Any coin collector would be devastated, at least temporarily after going through such an experience.
In the "old days" when the transaction took place, Matte Proofs weren't valued nearly as highly as now. Still, that was after a significant "boom" in the coin market where prices had recently shot up by anywhere from 4 times to as much as 10 times or more. Most of the MPLs were around $50 in PR63 but I would think these would have more likely been gem quality PR65 or even higher. The VDB was around $200 in PR63 and could have been as much as $1,000 in the highest grade.
From your transcription of Dave's words: "...mailed off a check, totaling into four figures..." From that comment, the check was somewhere below $10,000 and someplace above $1,000. We don't know the actual total number of coins but just from the general tone of the words, it sounds like somewhere between 15 and 25 coins? There could very well have been a VDB in the group! Hopefully, if there was, it wasn't one that ended up in the trash!
I don't have a Red Book for 1966 but do have 1958, 1963 and 1968.
Prices for the proof coins at PR63 in each book:
1958 1963 1968
1909 VDB 15 140 350
1909 6.50 30 85
1910 6.50 30 85
1911 6.50 30 85
1912 6.50 30 95
1913 6.50 27.50 95
1914 10 50 185
1915 12.50 65 275
1916 15 80 300
Interesting that not long before Dave's unfortunate event in 1966, the 1916 was actually priced HIGHER than the VDB! It was nominal, just a buck or two but it illustrates the subjective nature of coin values. In 1955 the VDB was $9 and the 1916 was $8. In 1952 the VDB was $7.50 and the 1916 was $8!! I'll take a roll of each please... Where's my time machine?!
David,
Interesting that I too was interested in what those MPL's were selling for in 1966. I didn't have any of the old Red Books from that era still in my possession, but I did have a 1996 book by David Lange (currently working for NGC) called the Complete Guide to Lincoln Cents. It's a great 360 page+ book with lots of detail by year of all business strike & proof Lincoln's. I highly recommend it if you can find a copy on the internet. Anyway, on pages 303 thru 311 he details the MPL's showing proof prices in 1950, 1965, 1980 and 1995. For 1965 he has only one price which is probably what you show as PR63. His numbers are as follows:
1909VDB $275
1909 70
1910 70
1911 70
1912 60
1913 67.50
1914 150
1915 220
1916 220
It is interesting to me how these prices mostly fit between your Red Book numbers for 1963 & 1968 (which really represent the years 1962 & 1967) since the Red Book is published in the year before the book's date.
Of course, Dave Bowers and Fred Vollmer were dealing wholesale and these prices were retail so assuming a fair margin I could guess that about 100 MPL's were involved with most being 1909 thru 1913. A few of the other four dates maybe but those last ones must have been the cheaper ones in my mind. Anyway, fun playing the guessing game. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
My set is hitting the auction block this fall
Do you have any MPLs in the PCGS registry? (Please forgive me for not knowing the answer to that...I'm relatively new here and don't know many names of the folks here yet or the names on their sets)
EDIT: I do have the Lange book, just bought it a couple of weeks ago actually. Someone on eBay had it for sale. Even though it is somewhat dated, I've found it to be quite useful. Lange has a way of writing that inspires my interest and enthusiasm. He brings those old Lincolns back to life which makes it not only a good reference book but fun too.
At the Dallas ANA I was shown the "1917 Matte Proof" that Breen made his assessments off of. It had flat rims like you would see on a Matte, but was definitely not a MPL. It had been pressed by something. Whatever flattened the rim also buckled the edge. Perhaps it was pressed by an encasement. It looked sharp like a MPL, but no way was it.
Rick, thanks for putting to rest this urban legend.
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase/2819
At the Dallas ANA I was shown the "1917 Matte Proof" that Breen made his assessments off of. It had flat rims like you would see on a Matte, but was definitely not a MPL. It had been pressed by something. Whatever flattened the rim also buckled the edge. Perhaps it was pressed by an encasement. It looked sharp like a MPL, but no way was it.
Rick, thanks for putting to rest this urban legend.
Like I've always said: Anyone who wants to SELL a "1917 Matte Proof Lincoln cent" need only get PCGS or NGC to certify that it is a genuine Matte Proof Lincoln cent. IF the coin was offered for sale in a legitimate PCGS or NGC holder I would imagine there would be collectors who would like to buy the coin. The problem is that we collectors do NOT believe that such a coin exists which one of the two major grading services would certify as genuine. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
My set is hitting the auction block this fall
OK. I got it. You're Doug Wright and yes, your collection is in the registry and it is awesome. EXTREMELY awesome. ALL red too.
1914 PR68 RD. In my dreams, that one. WOW!!! A-M-A-Z-I-N-G!
When you put those coins up for auction, it won't be a sale, it will be an event. It seems sad to break up such an artful and impressive collection but that is what happens to all of them eventually.
I recently purchased three raw MPL's from an old collection and submitted them to PCGS for certification. All came back as 65s (one red), conservative in my opinion. There are still a few original coins out there.
Congratulations!!
Any photos? What dates?
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
A 1909 and two 1910s
Great start!! Gotta love the matties!
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
Interesting that xxx31 graded RD and xxx30 graded RB.
I might have gone the other way, but what do I know!
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
I know this discussion has been "put to bed" many times already but the other day I had a new idea about evidence for the correct number of VDB proofs.
The obverse die used for the VDB proofs continued to be used for the 1909 plain matte proofs after the VDB was no longer being made. So knowing that the individual dies used on all the proofs from the number of known observed dies, individual dies did not seem to be pushed past about 1,000 pressings. So my question is this:
How is it that the obverse die used for the VDB was continued to be used for a significant amount of the 1909 plain proofs if it already had been pushed for well over "1,194" pressings? (After all, the mint rejected a percentage of the proofs on top of the released number, so it seems to me that the VDB obverse die would be completely "pooped out" after 1,194 pressings and wouldn't have been used any further. This seems especially true when you add in the number of rejected proofs.) This, along with the small amount of actual surviving VDB proofs seems further circumstantial evidence that 420 might actually be the correct number of VDB proofs and not the number 1,194 that was later seen and published by Kevin Flynn in his book. Maybe the 1,194 number was actually the total number of uses for that particular die; 420 for the VDB and the remaining 774 for the 1909 plain die "number 1". Perhaps it was entered into the book at the mint without this further explanation. Total speculation I know but the larger number just seems wrong from the small number of VDB proofs we see and the continued use of that obverse die.
I know from shopping that a good percentage of the 1909 plains have the same obverse die that was used for the VDB. Those little lines coming down from the nose did start to finally wear out and then a 2nd obverse die was eventually used for the "plain" 1909 but not until quite a significant number of them were made with the VDB obverse die.
More musings from a coin obsessive. OK then!
From Kevin Flynn's detail report of US Mint records it shows that on July 30th, 1909 the US Mint "struck" 1,503 proof Lincoln cents with the reverse VDB. That was the total number of 1909VDB MPL's struck. The next striking of proof Lincoln cents took place on August 16th when 1,287 proof Lincoln cents were struck. Certain other documents say that this second bunch was struck after it was decided not to use the reverse with the VDB anymore. Obviously, some or all of this second bunch used the same obverse die as was used on the first bunch struck on July 30th. Since only one obverse die and one reverse die was used to produce the first batch and obviously a new reverse die was needed to produced the reverses without the VDB, it seems clear to me that only 1,503 coins were struck with the VDB reverse and this all happened on July 30th, 1909.
Now the records that Kevin provided also show that on August 2nd, 1909 1,194 of the 1,503 coins that were struck on July 30th were "delivered" from the Metal room to the coiner which was then judged to be the "official" mintage. The US Mint records that show 1,503 coins were struck on July 30th also "say" that 1,000 of those coins were "accepted". But regardless of what the US Mint records say, we have human people making judgments about the records. It is human people who might question the reality of EXACTLY 1,000 of the coins being acceptable. Why not use another US Mint record that says 1,194 were delivered to the coiner. That number might seem "more realistic" than just 1,000. Of course, I might say that only 1,000 of the coins were accepted and even though 1,194 went to the coiner, 194 of those coins were not acceptable and were not used to produce the final quantity of 1909VDB MPL's. Of course, we all probably figure that another several hundred of the coins that were given to the coiner never were used either. So why not we all accept the 420 the Guide Book had reported until the 1998 edition. We all know that NOBODY knows the true number and nobody ever will. Just my two cents worth. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry