Options
“MORE Research questions for hard core Matte Proof Lincoln collectors”
Duane
Posts: 645
Dear Matte Proof Linclon Collectors:
What do you think about the discussion that is going on regarding Matte Proof Lincoln Cents? Your opinion matters, and the more reasoned opinions we voice, the better our opinions will be heard by the numismatic grading communities.
Do you believe, based on hard or circumstantial evidence you have read or been exposed to thus far on the message board or in other venues, and from your own knowledge and experience, that Matte Proof Lincoln cents were struck at the Philadelphia Mint in 1909, using Matte Proof dies, planchets and various matte proofing methods, and that the Mint fully intended those coins to be sold as Matte Proof coins, but subsequently, the coins were deemed to be sub-standard and defective Matte Proof coins for any number of reasons (for brevity sake, herein referred to as “Hybrid Matte Proof Coins”), but nonetheless, while minted with the intent to be matte proof coins, the coins were eventually released to the public as circulation strikes?
A) Yes; if ‘yes’ please just respond yes (further elaboration is not asked for, if not desired).
-If yes, and a detailed elaboration is thought to be helpful, why? (Not obligatory)
a) The Mint was still experimenting with its proofing procedures?
b) The MPL/MS Hybrids coins were so close in detail, that the Mint honestly thought that the general public would be know the difference, or the difference in the coin types would not matter to the public?
c) David Lange’s argument about coiner’s intent in the string entitled “Research questions for Matte Proof Lincoln collectors” is logical and persuades me? [http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=30&threadid=677828&STARTPAGE=3]
d) The coins were not what the public wanted in proof coins, so the coins did not sell as well as the Mint would have liked?
No; if ‘no’ please just respond no (further elaboration is not asked for, if not desired).
-If no, and a detailed elaboration is thought to be helpful, why? (Not obligatory)
a) The Mint had truly perfected its proofing processes, and the public could tell a MPL from a circulation strike (there were no ‘defective hybrid’ coins)?
b) The mint would have destroyed the defective matte proof coins, and not circulated them?
c) David Lange’s argument about coiner’s intent in the string entitled “Research questions for Matte Proof Lincoln collectors” is not persuasive? [http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=30&threadid=677828&STARTPAGE=3]
d) I have not seen enough evidence to convince me that the defective coins were placed into circulation?
C) Other thoughts? (Please feel free to voice).
Thank you for your input. My goal is to see 100 opinions reflected on this subject, as the questions are important ones, and the answers are not just “academic”. They will help us to begin clarifying the confusion surrounding the MPL Series, and the truth of our answers will be reflected in the value of our collections and the betterment of our collecting experience. Please feel free to add questions where I have missed, as I am just one person, with one point of view.
What do you think about the discussion that is going on regarding Matte Proof Lincoln Cents? Your opinion matters, and the more reasoned opinions we voice, the better our opinions will be heard by the numismatic grading communities.
Do you believe, based on hard or circumstantial evidence you have read or been exposed to thus far on the message board or in other venues, and from your own knowledge and experience, that Matte Proof Lincoln cents were struck at the Philadelphia Mint in 1909, using Matte Proof dies, planchets and various matte proofing methods, and that the Mint fully intended those coins to be sold as Matte Proof coins, but subsequently, the coins were deemed to be sub-standard and defective Matte Proof coins for any number of reasons (for brevity sake, herein referred to as “Hybrid Matte Proof Coins”), but nonetheless, while minted with the intent to be matte proof coins, the coins were eventually released to the public as circulation strikes?
A) Yes; if ‘yes’ please just respond yes (further elaboration is not asked for, if not desired).
-If yes, and a detailed elaboration is thought to be helpful, why? (Not obligatory)
a) The Mint was still experimenting with its proofing procedures?
b) The MPL/MS Hybrids coins were so close in detail, that the Mint honestly thought that the general public would be know the difference, or the difference in the coin types would not matter to the public?
c) David Lange’s argument about coiner’s intent in the string entitled “Research questions for Matte Proof Lincoln collectors” is logical and persuades me? [http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=30&threadid=677828&STARTPAGE=3]
d) The coins were not what the public wanted in proof coins, so the coins did not sell as well as the Mint would have liked?
No; if ‘no’ please just respond no (further elaboration is not asked for, if not desired).-If no, and a detailed elaboration is thought to be helpful, why? (Not obligatory)
a) The Mint had truly perfected its proofing processes, and the public could tell a MPL from a circulation strike (there were no ‘defective hybrid’ coins)?
b) The mint would have destroyed the defective matte proof coins, and not circulated them?
c) David Lange’s argument about coiner’s intent in the string entitled “Research questions for Matte Proof Lincoln collectors” is not persuasive? [http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=30&threadid=677828&STARTPAGE=3]
d) I have not seen enough evidence to convince me that the defective coins were placed into circulation?
C) Other thoughts? (Please feel free to voice).
Thank you for your input. My goal is to see 100 opinions reflected on this subject, as the questions are important ones, and the answers are not just “academic”. They will help us to begin clarifying the confusion surrounding the MPL Series, and the truth of our answers will be reflected in the value of our collections and the betterment of our collecting experience. Please feel free to add questions where I have missed, as I am just one person, with one point of view.
0
Comments
WS
metal working is second nature to me and was my life...just not at the us mint last shop i vied for was livermoore labs...so with that said...;
all i can include is only opinion here (take it for what it's worth)
as lincoln today still holds high reguard in 1908 his "commemorative" coin had to be an epic in excitement at the mint.
where are the 08 trials or patterns or is that myth?
i can see the "proof coinage department" of the mint enstilling upmost in it's presentation to even like watersport mentioned the importing of a new finish to ice the cake.this was first "roman finish" being applied to copper us coinage by research and developement.
i inject "matte finish" was termed as to not pay homeage to the french or use a prior term merely.a first commemorative intended for mass use in everyday commerse using one of the more celebrated presidents who walked 16? miles to return a cent.so yes a new finish had to compliment such proofs.
i can envision many members of the mint reviewing several proposed die preparations and post strike enhancements even spilling into the lunchroom.
i'd figuire no one could bring themselves to melting any of these unless true inferior examples resulted from trial runs.merely by honor of abe would discarding any examples be considered in respect.
i can see after all things were "ironed out" and proof coiners in the proof room were producing respectfull numbers/quality and the buisness department coiners producing their respectfull numbers/quality...what to do with the prior inspection runs was decided in that some were bought by mint workers and the rest being proof and buisness examples just tossed in a buisness hopper with no more address.
as now all the refining was done and time issues overlaid with just how many could be made with expected demand to be very high.
maybe duane...just maybe my reply added in someway on what should be a great thread here
That is an excellent idea, and Kevin and I have been thinking about that approach. But like I wrote in the other post, there are five different ways to actually make matte-type proofs! Ted, in terms of the honor of Lincoln and the 1908 commems, it is my understanding that mint director Frank Leach ordered all Lincoln patterns destroyed, and the were (See Burdette, Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908 for mor information). There were about 11 patterns struck, and Leach had them all destroyed. He clearly was not a Lincoln-lover.
Duane