Options
Research questions for Matte Proof Lincoln collectors
Duane
Posts: 645
Dear Matte Proof and Mint State Lincoln Collectors-
As part of a research project that is actively proceeding, may I ask all of you who either own a certified 1909 MPL and/or a 1909VDB MPL, and/or 1909/1909VDB circulation strikes, or other certified non-1909 MPLs or certified non-1909 circulation strike Lincoln Cents minted between 1909 and 1917 (or have access to close up reverse photos of these coins), to take a few minutes of your time and look closely at the coins and/or expanded photos in your collection, on the coin's reverse, in the relevant place indicated by the attached cropped photograph below, and indicate (via the attached survey) whether or not you are able to see the particular 'mark' in the attached photograph on your coin, or in your photograph? The particular year of the coin in the attached photograph has been intentionally omitted. By "certified" I refer to a coin which has been authenticated by a commercial grading service. Should you have more then one coin, than a PM or email to (duane.blake@comcast.net, or my assistant, victoria.angelatova@gmail.com) explaining the nature of your findings would probably be the best way to proceed, and we will keep a record of the information transmitted for the research group.
The particular mark, which we believe may have some diagnostic value, is being referred to as the "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic", and refers to the fairly easy to spot diagonal line inside of the "C" in CENT on the reverse of a Lincoln Cent, and can be seen in the photograph running from the Northwest area of the "C" and downward to the Southeast area within the "C" in Cent, as shown in the attached cropped photograph which is attached below this description. The significance of the die line or die gouge will be explained after we have gathered all the information we seek to either prove or disprove what is now a hypothesis. Of course, if anyone does have a theory about why this mark does or does not appear on the reverse of Lincoln Cents (either MPLs or circulation strikes) is it is presently an open question, the group members are encouraged to feel free to put forth their theories on the message board, PMs, emails, or telephone calls.
Please feel free to comment freely should you find the "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic” on MPL or circulation strikes on years other then the 1909, as well, or notice other potential diagnostics that you consider relevant and/or unique for specific years (chances are good that you may).
Remember, our collective group knowledge is stronger then the knowledge of any one individual, and that is why all of our group input is so important. I will make an announcement when we have gathered enough information to indicate a real working theory with any statistical significance behind it. At this time, we have only had a small sample group to work with, so the present survey is very important to move forward.
Enjoy the research and thank you very much for your time!
Sincerely,
Duane Blake
As part of a research project that is actively proceeding, may I ask all of you who either own a certified 1909 MPL and/or a 1909VDB MPL, and/or 1909/1909VDB circulation strikes, or other certified non-1909 MPLs or certified non-1909 circulation strike Lincoln Cents minted between 1909 and 1917 (or have access to close up reverse photos of these coins), to take a few minutes of your time and look closely at the coins and/or expanded photos in your collection, on the coin's reverse, in the relevant place indicated by the attached cropped photograph below, and indicate (via the attached survey) whether or not you are able to see the particular 'mark' in the attached photograph on your coin, or in your photograph? The particular year of the coin in the attached photograph has been intentionally omitted. By "certified" I refer to a coin which has been authenticated by a commercial grading service. Should you have more then one coin, than a PM or email to (duane.blake@comcast.net, or my assistant, victoria.angelatova@gmail.com) explaining the nature of your findings would probably be the best way to proceed, and we will keep a record of the information transmitted for the research group.
The particular mark, which we believe may have some diagnostic value, is being referred to as the "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic", and refers to the fairly easy to spot diagonal line inside of the "C" in CENT on the reverse of a Lincoln Cent, and can be seen in the photograph running from the Northwest area of the "C" and downward to the Southeast area within the "C" in Cent, as shown in the attached cropped photograph which is attached below this description. The significance of the die line or die gouge will be explained after we have gathered all the information we seek to either prove or disprove what is now a hypothesis. Of course, if anyone does have a theory about why this mark does or does not appear on the reverse of Lincoln Cents (either MPLs or circulation strikes) is it is presently an open question, the group members are encouraged to feel free to put forth their theories on the message board, PMs, emails, or telephone calls.
Please feel free to comment freely should you find the "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic” on MPL or circulation strikes on years other then the 1909, as well, or notice other potential diagnostics that you consider relevant and/or unique for specific years (chances are good that you may).
Remember, our collective group knowledge is stronger then the knowledge of any one individual, and that is why all of our group input is so important. I will make an announcement when we have gathered enough information to indicate a real working theory with any statistical significance behind it. At this time, we have only had a small sample group to work with, so the present survey is very important to move forward.
Enjoy the research and thank you very much for your time!
Sincerely,
Duane Blake
0
Comments
Interested to see what it all means
Edited to add, the diagonal line diagnostic is NOT present on my 1909-S VDB PCGS MS65RD.
Edited again to add that the diagonal line diagnositc is also NOT present on my 1909-S NGC MS64RD
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
1- 1909 VDB MS65RD
1- 1909 VDB DDO MS65RD
1- 1909 P MS66RD
1- 1910 PR66RB
1- 1910 P MS65RD
1- 1911-d MS65RD
1- 1911-s MS65RB
1- 1915 PR66BN
1- 1916 PR65RB
It is NOT on:
1- 1909 VDB MS65RD
1- 1909 PR66RB
Or any other of my MS coins before 1916.
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
C'mon guys, this is going to benefit OUR group. Please look at your MPLs and non-MPLs. What do you see?
Watersport?
Ambro?
Teddy?
I examined all 6 of my 1909 PCGS certified coins for the diagnostic you displayed with my 16x. I saw the diagnostic on my 1909VDB business strike ONLY. I did not see the diagnostic on my 1909, 1909 SVDB, 1909S business strikes or my 1909VDB MPL or my 1909 MPL. Hope this information helps.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
It helps a lot. You are going to be surprised (I think when we get the results and tally them).
With your 6 coins, Matt's 9 coins, my 4 coins, illini420s coins, and the research team's roughly 20ish coins, I think we are starting to cet a real sampling.
I will PM you the possible meanings, not that you have put in your information, as you cannot skew the results.
Duane
Link to JUMBOTRON Trueview image
I can also see it on my 1915-D MS-65RB:
I'll have to look at a few others I have this evening......no MPL's though, anymore
Lincoln set Colorless Set
In my collection (or coins I once owned, but now have only the Tru-Views), I can see that reverse "C" marker every year of my MPLs, from 1910-1916. But it is not visible of any of the 3 proof 1909s I own!
But the "C" marker is visible on one one raw 1909 that I am not sure if it is MS or PR as the coin has proof diagnostic and looks proof. Why?
If you need the WF text or pages, let me know, and I can scan them for you.
Duane
***C'Mon MPLs! We are are passionate and curious group of collectors. What is going on here?? Any theories?????***
Isn't anyone slightly curious what happened at the mint in 1909?
1909 plain ms67 yes
1909VDB ms67 yes
1909 S VDB ms66 no
1909VDBDDO ms66 yes very sharp almost like a cut
1909 plain pr65rd no
1909plain pr65rb no
1909plain pr63rb no
1909 S/horizs ms65 yes
1909S ms66 yes sharply defined
So theres a bit more data...
Awesome! Thank you. The MPL hat is on me : ) This is very important information! And it happens to be consistant with what had been expected.
So we see more support......
1909 and '09VDB MS - "C" mark usually seen
1909 and '09VDB PR - "C" mark usually NOT seen
1910-1916 PR - "C" mark almost always seen
1910-1916 MS - "C" mark?? need more data
Why is the "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic” seen on 1910-1916 MPLs or 1909 circulation strikes but NOT on 1909 or 1909VDB MPLs?
I will PM you my theory.
Duane
I guess you want it that way. You may feel free to write me at duane.blake@comcast.net if interested.
Thanks for letting me hound you....
Duane
Duane
but it is NOT on my 14 D. need to hear from more ms business strike teens coins.
From large trueview images I observe the following:
No Reverse C hairline on either of the two 1909 VDB PR65RB or 64RB images I studied.
BW
i was a lil skerred when she asked how much my 12' cost though
My 1915 PR66BN
My 1911-d MS65RD
My 1911-s MS65RB
So there you go.
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
"I looked at the rest of the matties I have, and yes that mark is on each and every one. All the way through the 1916. it is also on the nice 1917 business strike Ive got"
Ambro, I assume you mean, as everyone else who has responded, that the "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic” mark IS seen on "each and every " MPL you have from 1910 to 1916, BUT NOT on the proof 1909 or 1909VDBs??? Is that correct?
As for all my 1910-1916 Matte Proofs, and all the 1910-1916 Matte Proofs of everyone who have responded, the "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic” IS seen.
BUT, from everyone's responses, the 1909 and 1909VDB Matte Proofs DO NOT display the "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic". However, on the mint state 1909 and 1909VDB coins, the "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic” is seen sometimes (but we need more data).
BUT, the same question is posed to all: Why is the "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic” seen on 1910-1916 Matte Proofs (and 1910-1916 circulation strikes) and on 1909/1909VDB circulation strikes but **NOT** on the 1909 or 1909VDB Matte Proof Lincolns????
The only coins that the "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic" is NOT SEEN is on the 1909 or 1909VDB Matte Proof Lincolns. The big question is for ALL MPL collectors is Why???
Does anyone have a theory on why the "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic" is NOT SEEN is on the 1909 or 1909VDB Matte Proof Lincolns, based on the information we have gathered up until this point?? What are the possibilities?
Duane
I can confirm that the 'C' mark is indeed on the reverse of my 15-D......
Lincoln set Colorless Set
this truly is a discovery here that has me lost on a theory "as if " it was on the master hub which was used for many years production and only some by chance dies were polished inadvertantly correcting this?
preluding to all dies were produced off one master for proof and buisness and then final die prep established if dies were proof or buisness as intended use.sound about right?
i'll pm kevin to see if this was on my 11 and speety with my 12 to expedite this inquiry
marks image of my 14 shows something there
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
A "thin die scratch running above the date" fits the strict technical description as we view it on the coin, but we really need need Kevin Flynn to confirm the specific die line, and whether he was referring to a die line which runs horizontal across the the top of the date, or a vertical die scratch starting at the top of last "9 in 1909 and runnning upwards towards Lincoln's nose (like yours, see attached below).
My 'guess' is only that, and I think that the only person(s) qualified to anwser that statement regarding the die line in this case is one of two men who wrote the analysis on page page 349 of the book. I have looked at 5-7 differant samples of proof VDBs and plain '09s, and cannot be sure, as the results show that the dieslines I have veiwed run horizontal to the 1909 and at times vertical to the date, and the answer I have is therefore inconclusive. I checked my certified 1909VDB MPL, my certified 1909 MPL plains by eye, and got more 'angled' dies lines, running from anout the "19" in the date upward at an able towards Licoln's nose, or sometimes straight across the date. On the raw 1909 dates, I found that the die lines eun in both horizontal and vertical directins in relation to the date, so again, inconclusive. I think this is why we need a book of diagnostics, a compendium, with photos. A pictire is work a 100,000 words, among other things, in this case.
Kevin, what definition did you have in mind when writing a "thin die scratch running above the date"? One other question; do mint state coins typically exhinit polish lines?
One this is for sure, however, is that the "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic" can be clearly seen in your coin at fairly low magnification.
Time to bring Kevin Flynn into this discusion......he will know what he meant when he wrote....
Regards,
Duane
and correct, it is not on any of my Matte 09 coins.
I just looked and I think I can see a trace of this on my 32 ms65 some angles it looks like it. not sure though I think more early BS coins need to be looked atl
It does look like the first dies made didnt have this mark, which was probably a bit of debris between the master hub and a die, which in stamping made this little mark that endured for many years. All the reverse dies had the mark, after awhile. Denver used early dies, since its no on my 14D. still need to hear from early D coins.
So the first dies made were the proofs, and the S VDBs They dont have the mark. and from there..............................
<< <i>
Time to bring Kevin Flynn into this discusion......he will know what he meant when he wrote....
Regards,
Duane >>
Yes, Duane, it is time to bring Kevin into this discussion. It also might be helpfull to bring Roger (RWB) into this discussion also. As you recall a few months ago we all had a great discussion on the mintage of the 1909VDB MPL. This seems to be envolving into what Kevin claims on page 349 of his book regarding diagnostics for a second or third die on the 1909VDB MPL. I have repeatedly requested Kevin to show with pictures the descriptions he provides. So far he has not been able to do so. I think it would be great for the hobby if this "project" that Duane is doing leads to some PROOF that a second or third die WAS actually used in the production of 1909VDB MPL's. At this point, I for one, believe that ONLY the obverse and reverse dies described with the three diagnostics by Albrecht was used to produce 1909VDB MPL's.
The above comments of course are separate from the "reverse C" discussion, at least I think they are. JMHO. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
I do not see the "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic” on any of my three 1909 PR65RD's. Also, seems to be missing on my 1911 PR66RD and 1912 PR65RD. I don't have immediate access to my other MPL presently.
Regards,
Jonathan
Duane, Your PM function is turned off......
PM function turned back on....sorry.....
Think proofs and master hubs.....
The "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic" IS related to the fact that one can see the the diagnostic on 1909 MS (and other MS coins and NOT on 1909 proofs, and is a possible diagnostic to help authenticate MPLs for the years 1910-1916 (and POSSIBLY for PR 1909s and 1909VDBs, in some instances - that is what we are trying to figure out). Also, the fact that the "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic" can been seen on many proofs between 1910-1916 is relevant. It is premature to let the cat out of the bag before more information is collected.
I do have a theory re the "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic", and am running it by some people with more experience with MPLs then me. So far, there are several possible explanations, and I do want to share with the group, as I think that more heads are better than less.... but not quite yet. BUT, all theories YOU may have are welcome and I have begged for them! : ) Why would the "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic" be on (some) proofs specifically between 1910 - 1916, but (seemingly) not on the proofs of 1909 or 1909VDB? That is the question??
**What happenned at the mint that might have caused this lack of a "C" mark on the PROOF 1909s?**
In terms of the "thin die scratch running above the date", a photo would be great to confirm whether the scratch run diagonal or horizontal. I'm sure Kevin has one.....as he says so in the string he started one week ago entitled "Need photos for Lincoln cent matte proof book"!!! He said he has a photo for "Obverse #2: ......Thin die scratch running above the date." But, Kevin had also requested from the group an entire week ago that he needs a list of die photos (he lists the photos he needs) but very few people responded, and I know personally that Kevin has been enormously busy with multiple family commitments....
So, let's all pitch in, help Kevin with the photos he has asked for to help the project, and this project will be a community effort, and therefore a much better product, IMHO.....
Duane
my 11 aided though...yayy
i'm still thinking something happened to the master after 09 that all working dies were hubbed from
great job here duane and kevin,
to think after 100 years a thorough comprehensive state of the art research will bear it's fruit...finally
depending how comprehensive a photo-gallery chapter unfolds i may still persue a matty photo gallery and see how many of each date/grade and shade including set's i can wrangle up so we all have a phot book only to have laying around the house while all matty's hide in safes and sdb's
has anyone ever used an optical comparator for die measurements as to address the fat rim address?
planchets...has any thickness or dia research been done too?
edges...obscured by holders but raw ones...are the edges moreso polished withouth collar scraping?
btw...duane...your offer of incentive of matthats...my hats off to you and your heart of gold you toss in this mix here
******i still think we as team matty need to get together and do something special for brian and watersport...like all of us asking stewie to create a stewie marble on our dime...something though...as stewie i'm sure has much on his plate working with rock to begin with...
like motel 6
"i'll leave my pm on here"...just maybe the likes of all whom brian and watersport has aided will kick in thoughts and their $$$ part too...i'm in...no pm's yet
I did think along those same lines of reasoning, and wrote to a major Lincoln writer about how the physical dimensions of a Lincoln Cent (circulation strike) is 1.58mm, specific gravity 8.84, and weight down to the one thousandths; 3.110. I was trying to 'objectively' get some measurements that I could use to differentiate a MSL from a MPL from just the physical coin measurements, with nothing more. The Lincoln writer/professional grader told me that the analysis was not going to take me anywere, and not to continue the line of reasoning, and it was not an area of analysis that would not go anywere.
As to the planchets, aside from being polished, there is nothing done to them differently from MSL planchets (as far a s I know). Is the pre-strike polishing of the planchets important? Does it effect the overall look of the finished product surface, in your opinion?
And in your opinion, were the coins sandblasted after they were struck, or the dies sandblasted before striking the planchets? And importantly, did the methods of matte proofing change year by year? And what about the rims. Were they polished before the striking, or after? What does the literature say?
So I have obviously been tring to use other methods to authenticate and differentiate MPL from MSL coins.
But what does the "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic" mean, in terms of the master hubbing and die process? Were any changes made between 1909 and 1910, and can we find proof in the literature?
Duane
being ex-aerospace i know optical comparators can reviel if a smaller outside diameter produced the wider rims...it just makes sense and is a very accurate means of precise measurements.
what if production numbers achieved allowed proof dies into buisness production floor...morgans achieve "pl/dmpl" why not lincolns too
<<<As to the planchets, aside from being polished, there is nothing done to them differently from MSL planchets (as far a s I know). Is the pre-strike polishing of the planchets important? Does it effect the overall look of the finished product surface, in your opinion?>>>
of course planchet prep plays importance here as a smoother surface to begin with allows easier flows from nooks n crannies,striations are reduced.were proof's in planchet forum merely discarded for lincolns only?i'd think lincoln planchets would of had concern for coiners in the proof department for displaying the mints finest abilities.
<<<And in your opinion, were the coins sandblasted after they were struck, or the dies sandblasted before striking the planchets? And importantly, did the methods of matte proofing change year by year? And what about the rims. Were they polished before the striking, or after? What does the literature say?>>>
i can not make professional injecture here as in casual reading only it is presented undefined by all.some say this..some say that.i am one to find credence to a import address of "roman finish" found across the sea's being experimented.
imho sand blast/acid etching of dies and final die products could of been "selected from test pieces".imho finding blasted dies a happy medium.many matte proof lincolns display a waxy polished field i'd think was a result from "lds" as surface of the die smoothed by "metal flow-polishing" during full production approved use of dies.
soft metals can polish hard ones by friction and heat...water can drill a hole in anything as a subject principal...machine shops now have waterjet cutting as a viable process...look what a dripping faucet does or waterfalls to hard elements below...copper is harder then water as note
my 14 reverse clearly displays a smoothed field bearing signs of a pebbly under it
hopefully my 2cents add in someway here
I don't know the dates on the San Francisco production, does anyone?
so it does look like you got a reverse diagnostic, a 1909 VDB or 1909 plain Matte Proof doesn't have this die marker. If true, thats a HECK of a wonderful way to tell them possible proofs....
The dies were messed with. I think each time a new diagnostic appears, the sandblasting was redone (or polished down). The operator, well, being a good machine worker, cleaned the dies, adjusted here and there, tightened things up, checked alignment and maybe re-sandblasted at least once during the run. Maybe like 1000 coins into it or so. Probably if you used some program you could overlay hi closeups of a given field on one coin with the same field on another similar diagnostic coin, you will find the tiny little dimples are all exactly the same...Like stars in the sky, you could find similar patterns.
That original Wheat Back hub....my goodness the US MINT got its value for the dollar there, eh? How many Thousands of dies were stamped from that thing. It must have been one well made piece of metal, and I wonder if it still exists...
one must consider the mint having seperate production departments
buisness and proof
so the vast 25 million buisness products were by a crew and proof's were by another crew "master coiners"
"From June 1909 to August 1909 the Phila. Mint worked overtime making 25 million 1909 VDB cents, to have ready for the August 2 launch......August 5, the treasury stops the minting of the cent until new dies can be obtained without the VDB on the reverse (Reverse Dies). August 12, first sample NON vdb coins are in hand. Mid month August the Treasury is shipping NON vdb coins...... so it does look like you got a reverse diagnostic, a 1909 VDB or 1909 plain Matte Proof doesn't have this die marker. If true, thats a HECK of a wonderful way to tell them possible proofs...."
************
That is the general thinking on one line of reasoning that has been developing based on the evidence that I'm seeing. For example, what do we do when we find a 1909 or '09VDB with a "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic" displayed (thus typically indicating a MS coin), but the coin has all or some of the other 1909 or '09VDB proof diagnostics? That is confusing?! Do we have a new die or die state ?
I propose this way of looking at these particular 1909 coins: These particular coins were intended to be (and were) created as legitimate proof coins, created with proof dies and proof methods, and were intended to be sold as matte proofs, but the mint was still experimenting in 1909, and these 'early matte proofs' were 'defective' in one way or the other, so the mint threw them into circulation to save time, as they were under a time crunch? (instead of a re-melt). The reason they did this was because they probably thought that no one would notice, as the proofs are similar in look as circulation strikes to begin with. Little did they know that collectors (who hated the proofs at the time) would actually care 100 years later! I would look at these coins as "Hybrid" proof coins. 'Hybrid" MS/proof circulation coins. But they are more 'proof' then 'mint state', as they were not intended to be circulation coins, and they were intended to be manufactured as proofs, and were stamped using proof dies and supposed to be legitimate 'proofs' coins (thus going to the "intent of the coiner", which I have been told by a very high-level numistmatist is of huge importance when diagnosing true proof coins). But the new 'proof' coins were defective in any number of ways, as the mint was just getting the new MPL process to work correctly, so they could not send the new proof coins to the collecting public with all seriousness. So the mint used the new MPL coining process initially as an 'experimental', teaching method, and 'tinkered' around with the method(s) to get it correct. The strikes made early in the matte proofing process could be justified as a training exercise for mint employees to 'practice until the mint employees got the new process correct' using proof dies in 1909, and the best (non-defective) proofs could be sent to collectors (maybe we see it now as a diferant die state). The confusion came many years later, as the attribution of true proofs would later be heightened, in today's age, because of the "hybrid" proofs released way back in 1909, and the pop numbers would therefore most likely have ended up reflecting disproportionately low numbers for VDBs (both have actually become true in today's MPL world). The problem, of course, was solved in 1910, when the master hubs were re-worked, and that's were the "Reverse C Hairline Diagnostic" was never removed. And as I have been told by experts, it is a compilation of diagnostic factors that 'prove' a proof coin, or more appropriately, whether the coiner had the intent to create s proof or mint state coin. So in this case, we very well may be looking at a new 1909 'proof' diagnostic, when considered with the totality of the other circumstances of the coin in this instance. The coins were 'intended' to be proofs (even if defective), so they ARE, in fact, proof (and not mint state).
Chances are, as Ambro notes, there will not be many of these 1909 'hybrid' proof coins available, as these coins were put into circulation, and that was the end of it. That may answer as to why the 1909VDB MPLs have a disproportunetely low number of certified coins. Either way, I beleive that the coins were intended to be proofs, even if the mint created defective coins.
It is just a new line of reasoning on a new proof die or method, but I am curious, what do we think as MPL collectors, as a group, of this particular line of reasoning?
Duane
i do not even own albriechts "mpl" book but only suspect much included is passive/covert opinion based.
diagnostic's here by members are more clear-comprehensive and precise.
breen bears truth to just how coin studies are mixed with ventures of beliefs in early days.
do those with books find many statements of fact attributed to us mint quotes or documentation?
at best we maybe lucky enough to solicit finding a us mint worker from when...1940 at best...even then would his memory serve viable in recall???
maybe some focus would be great if it included tracking down old mint workers to talk shop
a current study to be in address of "comprehension in depth" is great but limited to what it may by us mint archives.
advancement truly lay the many examples of matte proofs that are out of hiding coupled with imagetry that has also catapulted into a new dimension.
all said and done this is all a better late then never address superceeding albriechts work which was still confined to his access (limited) so let the internet-mpl enthusiast's proceed as a current comprehensive book appeals to me.
But all are free to add to the database of new ideas.....
DB
has an article ever found it's way into a newspaper there asking if any mint workers would discuss mpl even if from "grandpa told me" type of files?
speety returned my pm...my 12 in hand doesn't have the line in c diagnostic gleaming but he will inspect that issue to confirm
<<< do those with books find many statements of fact attributed to us mint quotes or documentation?>>>
which do you think best explains why matty's have wide rims?
an optical comparator would end any dispute here of latter answer...but here's a look into 2 possible wide rim answers...only one is right
till happy thoughts prevail...beat it you
<< <i>yer on a list speety after asking about a reward...ok
till happy thoughts prevail...beat it you >>
You're just mad i'm holding your 1912 MPL pictures hostage until all photos are taken and a nice finished product is available... and I have a matty in my possession right now so i'm allowed on the MPL...err registry... forum
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
from duane's reply earlier...
<<<The Lincoln writer/professional grader told me that the analysis was not going to take me anywere, and not to continue the line of reasoning, and it was not an area of analysis that would not go anywere>>>
this was when he was researching planchet specific's...go figuire..reasearch of ms to pr planchet variances and told..."and not to continue the line of reasoning"
i've heard the edges have a polished look to then so one without a polished look...with all 3 major diagnostics would support such claims
***********************************maybe***********************************************************
this thread will cover all research and top 10k replies so all images should be saved from being red x's in the future
I think that 3 dies could be possible, and would rule nothing out at this point.
Stewart said that he thinks that the extra unsold proofs were sold. That's another theory.
Ted, yes you can go to the archives and their are plenty of books. Kevin Wagner and Roger Burdette have been doing that for years....
On the rims, I'm just trying to get a hold of a certified raw MPL to see what the rims actually look like. It's all speculation anyway without prove. What the numistmatist/writer I had contact with told me was not to waste my time as the numbers in differences were SO small )1000ths of an inch), that's all.
Ambro-what's your theory and why?? I am not surprised that the '12 does not show the marker. Sometimes it's not there, or sometimes the coin's toning make the view difficult.
I don't see it on my '12 either. Different die or state??
Duane
actually duane,
my old aerospace eyes see more like 30/1000ths (per side).paper is .003 as human hair and .030 is 1/32 of an inch approx and a noteworthy amount to any die maker or inspection room
but was it the die diameter or the planchet size?
i guess i'll take lead here so stay tuned...as i care to know and share
the reason i address it here is we see fat rims being asked if they are matte proofs and these may very well be struck from old proof dies.
if studied and properly found true tpg co's may attribute "pl" to many if they are made aware of the die or planchet difference.
i see this as something also that should find it's way into any comprehensive compilation of mpl facts.
stay tuned on my findings
I understand and am not dismissive, but the gentleman wrote to me that it was a fruitless exercise. But you like the idea, so I would suggest: getting a number of raw mattes (certified, so you know that they have have already been authenticated and are not in holders, presumably);
1) Get a high level caliper, like the level you are talking; 2) Do the actual numerical analysis; 3) Report the numbers back to the group.
This is a great project; but a) I don't have the resources and b) was dissuaded. But I would love someone to tak the lead on this one - and tell what you find. Who knows??
Give it a try, I say!! Go for it! I'm on 2 or 3 other MPL projects right now (along with a job), and this is a volunteer effort! : )
It sounds like this is a project all on it's own, to me......
Duane
The difference is that big 400 ton hydraulic coining press in the medal room.
How the coin fills out all the available space is what changes between a BS and a Proof. If could be possible that the actual field to field thickness of the coin, at its lowest points, may be ever so thinner than a BS coin, since that extra metal to form those rims has to come from somewhere. That is pure speculation though...and not having any untombed mattes I'm not able to take the thought further.
My theory is that the mint put some coins in circulation that were struck on proof dies, but were not up to snuff. It is not so crazy that they would do it (in 1909), but I have to prove it. No one have been able to explain yet why the years from 1910 to 1916 some a reverse mark in the "C" in CENT, but the 1909s do not (except for a few). Why is that?
Brian thinks it is a master hub/die process, and I tend to think he is correct.
Duane