Franklin question: 1961 DDR Proof

DennisH

Pardon this ignorance from a Morgan guy who knows little about Franklins. I'm curious about a coin one of my buddies has consigned to the Heritage Signature sale at the ANA Convention in Baltimore. It's a 1961 DDR Proof in PCGS-67.

Since I'm afflicted with VAM disease on the Morgan side of things, the concept of a DDR proof anything fascinating to me. On a large coin like the Franklin it's even more so. And on a proof it really makes me wonder. I'd have thought the attention to detail with proofs would have been much too critical for that kind of thing to happen.

Are these types of major die errors common with Franklins... and especially with proofs? Are there Franklin "variety guys" to any extent? We Morgan VAM guys are all over the place.

I see from the online PCGS pop report data that the total number of 1961 DDR proofs they've graded is only about 1/2% of the number of 'regular' proofs they've graded. Are they really that rare, and are there enough folks who care about them to make it a desirable coin?

Any help or thoughts would be most appreciated.

Cameonut

I will be watching the Heritage auction to see how it goes. I think it will sell well north of $5k - I saw one sell at $6500.

The 1961 DDR Franlin (Die 3) is really the only major proof Franklin doubled die - the others from 61 and the other dates are really somewhat minor. Minor doubled dies are relatively common, but not generally collected, so they don't command much of a premium. The big 61 DDR is very rare so it commands a hefty premium. I have only seen one or two cameos over the years - it makes me wonder if the Mint discovered their error and was successful in recovering much of the early mintage. Obviously some got out and I always wonder if there is a huge hoard of dcams or cameos out there to be discovered. Check your 61 proof sets - the doubling is very obvious to the naked eye.

The Registry does drive some demand for this coin - it is the only proof Doubled Die for the series in the Registry.

Here is a photo of one of mine with a closup to see the doubling on the reverse. I found it in one of those infamous "unopened proof sets".

DennisH

Many thanks for the information! I'm even more fascinated by the coin now than before. I also hope that none of my Morgan buddies catch me looking at proof sets at a show one of these times.

seanq

<< <i>
The 1961 DDR Franlin (Die 3) is really the only major proof Franklin doubled die - the others from 61 and the other dates are really somewhat minor. Minor doubled dies are relatively common, but not generally collected, so they don't command much of a premium. The big 61 DDR is very rare so it commands a hefty premium. I have only seen one or two cameos over the years - it makes me wonder if the Mint discovered their error and was successful in recovering much of the early mintage. Obviously some got out and I always wonder if there is a huge hoard of dcams or cameos out there to be discovered. Check your 61 proof sets - the doubling is very obvious to the naked eye.
>>



Quick follow-up question about the line I highlighted above. In the Cherrypickers' Guide the notes for this variety state that most examples are found with some degree of frost, which JT Stanton took to mean that the doubled die was caught and removed from service early in its life cycle. Your coin, the Heritage coin and your own observations would appear to contradict that. I can't see them any more, but which version would the PCGS pops back up?


Sean Reynolds

19Lyds

DDOs and DDRs can occur with any coin regardless of the manufacturing process. Some are not as dramatic as others but the big one's are simply awesome to look at!





As with anything that is collectible, you actually have to give it more than just a passing glance and once you note the difference, it 's you in the head!

Cameonut

<< <i>

<< <i>
The 1961 DDR Franlin (Die 3) is really the only major proof Franklin doubled die - the others from 61 and the other dates are really somewhat minor. Minor doubled dies are relatively common, but not generally collected, so they don't command much of a premium. The big 61 DDR is very rare so it commands a hefty premium. I have only seen one or two cameos over the years - it makes me wonder if the Mint discovered their error and was successful in recovering much of the early mintage. Obviously some got out and I always wonder if there is a huge hoard of dcams or cameos out there to be discovered. Check your 61 proof sets - the doubling is very obvious to the naked eye.
>>



Quick follow-up question about the line I highlighted above. In the Cherrypickers' Guide the notes for this variety state that most examples are found with some degree of frost, which JT Stanton took to mean that the doubled die was caught and removed from service early in its life cycle. Your coin, the Heritage coin and your own observations would appear to contradict that. I can't see them any more, but which version would the PCGS pops back up?


Sean Reynolds >>




I figured my comments might get a response.

The pops as of today are as follows:

PCGS 51 brilliant 1 cameo
NGC 54 brilliant 3 cameos 1 ultracameo

Or taken a different way, 5 of 110 graded pieces are cameo or a little less than 5% of the population.

I have a Philladelphia mint report dated 12/31/1961 (courtesy of PhillyJoe) that shows that 618 reverse dies were used to make 3,556,367 pieces for an average of 5,754 pieces per die. The report also shows 5 reverse dies returned to the engraver - but there is no further explanation.

If the doubled die was "average" I would expect a population of over 5,000 pieces, but just over 100 have been certified. This would support a hypothesis that the Mint's quality control caught the error and quarantined what it could. I am not familiar with the Mint's inventory procedures in 1961, but I know that where I used to work, when we found a quality problem we stopped production and contained all discrepant material. When the mint stopped production and how far back they quarantined material is only known by those Mint employees.

My thought is that more than 5 cameos ought to be out there - I thought the dies produced more than 5 cameos before the frost faded.

Upon futher analysis of the data, also find the following for the rest of the graded 1961 proof population:

PCGS 8346 brilliant 895 cameo 249 dccam
NGC 6387 brilliant 1955 cameo 225 ultracam

Or 3324 pcs are cameo out of a total of 18,057 graded or 18%. This is not unexpected, I would expect the percentage to be highly skewed toward cameos. However, another calculation shows that the other 617 remaining dies produced 3324 cameos or 5 cameos per die - the same as the DDR!

I know it is very dangerous to look at population reports and assume the distributions are normal and consistent. Drawing conclusions from non-normal samples of the distributions (the pops) is also dangerous as the samples are not random. In any event, it is interesting to note that for this DDR there are very few cameos and the overall population of the variety is very small. As far as JT's comments that most have frost, I can only say that the pops and my experience seem to contradict those statements.

I welcome any other discussion - and yes, these proof varieties have gone to my head! (but they are so cool!)

keets

it's difficult to make any blanket statement as to when the Mint discovered the error(if they even did) and what that may have done to affect the number of coins which grade Cameo or Deep Cameo. if the dies would have been swapped out as a pair, maybe estimates could be made, but in 1961 the Mint was still removing a die from service independant of the other die in the press. that means that the chances of two-sided frost is much lower than what you might expect overall, but higher for any given die pair that started out fresh together. that's probably why Tomaska notes that only certain dies struck the best coin.

another coin where this comes into play is the 1971 No "S" Jefferson Nickel: one obverse die and one or two Reverse dies before the error was discovered.

also, i've always assumed that during the 1950-1970 era a single die could strike as many as 15-20 coins before the frost degraded to just Cameo and as many as 50 before it further degraded to the point where we'd call it brilliant yet still have faint frost. the presumption that a certain percentage of Cameo coins came from a die based on the graded pops is in error and would only hold true if they swapped the die pairs out as a pair or only graded one side, such as the reverse. it's nice logic, but it's incorrect.

keets

also, if the Mint had put a hold on all Proof coins when they found the error, some Deep Cameo Reverse coins would have had to have been shipped already along with the possibility of some two sided Cameo and Deep Cameo coins. how could the ones that were brilliant-----later strikes-----have been shipped but the earlier strikes were kept in the Mint facility???? that doesn't make sense.

Cameonut

Keets - some interesting points to think about.

It is certainly possible that the doubled reverse die was exchanged independently of the obverse. If that were the case, we would see some dcam or cam reverses matched with brilliant obverses (and vice versa). I think I have seen about 10-15 of the 110 pcs graded by NGC and PCGS - only one was a true cameo on both sides. All the rest were brilliant on both sides - at most a slight amount of cameo. Even my coin posted above is brilliant on both sides even though the photo suggests some cameo on the obverse. I have yet to see a one sided ddr with a dcam side - but they sure could be out there.

As I stated above, it is dangerous to look at the overall pops for the 1961 cameos and draw any meaningful conclusions, but the same die change practices were in place for the rest of the 1961 production.

I can offer the following hypothetical with respect to the lack of cameos: We already know the Mint had/has poor inventory control based on all the discussion on the modern First Strikes. If they discovered the error and went to the warehouse - what would they retrieve? Since we already know they do not practice FIFO inventory control, perhaps the ones that got shipped were later in the production run and the 'first strikes' were found, quarantined, and destroyed. It is anyones guess.

At the end of the day, PCGS and NGC have only certified a total of 5 coins in cameo. That is far fewer that what I would expect. And I still don't think the data/observations support the Stanton comment that most examples exhibit some degree of frost. Perhaps the degree of frost is quite low.