Any comments from Matte heads

robec

on this thread going on in the U.S. Coin forum?


Link

Duane

I commented - I'd like to see the 1909 that was posted with that die crack - never seen one outside of a book.

renomedphys

Interesting indeed...

robec

It makes me wonder if one day they will have sub-categories per each year based on diagnostics. And if the value of a coin will be at a premium dependent on which diagnostic it has. It would appear that the 1909, for example, would be rarer with the die crack than those without. Soon collectors will be trying to obtain the MPL's based on die pairs. Although collecting any example at this point is rather cost prohibitive already.

BWRC

Will the real Matte Proof cent please stand?

robec

It's quite obvious. That is a beautiful example Brian. Besides all the obvious signs, the rim on the reverse really separates the two.

BWRC

Nice strike for a MS 1911 but the real difference putting diagnostics aside is in the "detail" obverse not bad but the reverse is not even close to the MPL detail.

Duane

Tough choice. Can I think about it for a while?

WaterSport

So with all the questions and discussions and high resolution photos and now a book, do we know anything more about Matte dies and there post production use? Or is the jury still out? The Posse needs Know!

WS

BWRC

<< <i>So with all the questions and discussions and high resolution photos and now a book, do we know anything more about Matte dies and there post production use? Or is the jury still out? The Posse needs Know!

WS >>



From RWB on the US coin forum about Matte Proof dies:

Tuesday November 04, 2008 6:54 PM (NEW!)



Comments about matte proof Lincolns & Buffalos.
1. All working dies were made the same way and are of the same quality.
2. Production dies were hardened and sent to the press room for use by the coiner.
3. Production dies were used in high-speed presses set at the minimum pressure (approx 60-80 tons/sq inch for cents) required to produce a well struck coin. Approximately 200,000 coins could be struck from a new die before it lost sharpness or cracked and had to be replaced. However, some dies lasted only a few hundred strikes before failing or being damaged.
4. Matte proof dies were sandblasted, then hardened and sent to the medal press room for use by the coiner.
5. Matte proof dies were used in low speed, high-pressure hydraulic presses at a pressure (approx 100 tons/ sq inch for cents) selected to bring up the maximum detail of the dies. Approximately 1,000 coins could be struck from a new die before the matte surface began to show flow lines and other deterioration sufficient to withdraw it from proof use. Sometimes proof dies lasted longer and sometimes they failed after only a few strikes.
6. Matte proof dies could not be refinished for proof use, but could be put into use for making production coins.

These two factors – die surface and strike pressure – are the primary causes of differences between a proof and non-proof coin.

ambro51

A question on point 6,

Wouldn't the reuse of these dies for BS coins have caused the existance of "more" matte proofs, as certified today, since they would carry those little diagnostics along with them?

BWRC

<< <i>A question on point 6,

Wouldn't the reuse of these dies for BS coins have caused the existance of "more" matte proofs, as certified today, since they would carry those little diagnostics along with them? >>



Good question,

I search for these diagnostics on well struck philly mints of the Matte Proof era but have not found any matches yet. I use Albrecht as my reference but keep this in mind. According to "Bowers" Matte Proof lincoln cents had specially prepared planchets which were used in their production where MS coins would not have the same planchets if any matches were found. So the intent of the coiner would lead one to believe a MS coin was the intended result.

1910 MP Planchet beside same date business strike planchet.

robec

That is a great point Brian and a great illustration.

ambro51

So, this reuse may be speculation on our part....a century later. Are there any period mint records that would indicate that to be the case?

Just my theory, but I feel that the Medal room was a 'mint unto itself' and the swapping around of coining dies would not have happened.

BWRC

<< <i>So, this reuse may be speculation on our part....a century later. Are there any period mint records that would indicate that to be the case?

Just my theory, but I feel that the Medal room was a 'mint unto itself' and the swapping around of coining dies would not have happened. >>



I talked with an individual yesterday that has intensely studied MPL cents, according to what he told me he would agree with your statement that no swapping of coining dies happened with the Matte Proofs. So I guess we have opinions for each possible case concerning the MPL cents.

Duane

Guys-

All points well-taken. But as you can understand, the author of the up-coming book, Kevin Flynn, has asked us to maintain the confidentiality of what we are learning and writing.

If you want to find out the answers to many common questions about planchets and die manufacturing, many of the books by Bowers, Lange or even Tomaska for the modern era proofs are very enlightening.

Whether proof dies were used for MS coins is a question we are working on - buy the book!!!

Seriously, we are literally woring our tails off to answer some of these questions scientifically. Be patient!

Maybe a re-visit to the string for the "Reverse C Diagnostic" we wrote about months ago would be helpful??

Regards,

Duane

ambro51

Back in my college days...seeking the obscure....I embarked on a study of the Byzantine Empire. My main instructor, Dr. Demetrios Constantelos , made it very clear to me that any study on my part would be limited by my knowledge of written Greek. Whatever 'new' that was to be learned would only come from study of the original source material. Much of this was, and is, held by Dumbarton Oaks in Washington DC. Any work on my part, using what was written by modern authors...would not qualify as research, but only as a rewriting of what is known and what is 'thought' to be fact. Greek, however, remained 'greek to me', so any great insight I would have had into this part of the past was limited to basically stirring the pot again, and cooking the same meal with the same ingredients.

This can be taken as an analogy to any research into Matte Proof Lincolns. Unless any researcher is using archival material nearly a century old, and in fact, discovering NEW century old information....nothing will come of it except the same meal on a different plate.

Please don't take this as a comment on Mr. Flynn, or his book. After all, I've watched Charlie Chaplins "City Lights" at least fifty times...and I enjoy it just as much every time. Any book that covers our favorite little coin will be interesting to any of us who collect them. I do hope however that a definitive book is in the works here, and not 'the same meal'.

Duane

Ambro51-

Fair enough. I know that you are familiar with the "Rorschach" test that tends to indicate that people see what they want to see in anything, including ink blots and even historical writings (I would guess). So, while we may all be looking at the same historical writings (or not), that does not mean our interpretation of the writings need be the same.

Further, even if the book simply picked up were Albrecht stopped, and compiled all the historical and newly-recognized diagnostics into one new source, that would still be worth the price of admission, IMO. What did you pay for the 15 page Albrecht pamphlet, BTW? (Assuming you bought it, which I imagine that you have).

Third, look at the bright side – you can’t lose more then $25 on the book!! –You just made 50 times that on one 1909 63RB sale. So I would not lose any sleep over the book

Are my several points well-taken?

Regards,
Duane

P.S. Ironically, I am actually right now reading the Dumbarton Oaks publication entitled “The Collections” (an eclectic compilation of the Byzantine [and other] collections of the Bliss family). Highly recommended. It’s a look into the collection itself, but more fascinating to me, the psychology of the collector. Good stuff.

RWB

Re: comment on #6, above.

Excellent points. There is likely considerable “fuzzyness” between what looks like a matte proof and what doesn’t. We don’t know what criteria the coining dept. used to determine when a proof die was no longer usable, so the “tale end” of use of a specific proof die might have surfaces closer to a circulation strike. However, the medal press’ mechanical effects should have remained consistent (see the edge photos posted above).

(In the gold series, a new die – with no special preparation – was used to strike satin proofs in the medal press. Any new die could be used. Sandblast proofs were simply satin ones, that were sandblasted after striking.)

At various times, the “medal room” was either a separate room, or just a corner of the main press room. The press room could also be several rooms. I don’t recall what the plant layout was in 1909-1916.

kevinj

<< <i>It makes me wonder if one day they will have sub-categories per each year based on diagnostics. And if the value of a coin will be at a premium dependent on which diagnostic it has. It would appear that the 1909, for example, would be rarer with the die crack than those without. Soon collectors will be trying to obtain the MPL's based on die pairs. Although collecting any example at this point is rather cost prohibitive already. >>



Hi Bob,

I believe collectors should decide for themselves how they wish to collect and what they enjoy.
I believe collecting also evolves, look at the large and half cent community. It used to be one
of each type, then of each date, then one of each subcategory.
Its still your choice how to collect.

This is a good thing though as it provides more information regarding verification, die states.
For some, the die state will be able to identify which was an earlier die state which might lead
to a better quality strike. On the 14 obverse, I found that the later die state with the scratches
under the chin was much more common than the earlier die state without. Should this command
a premium, that is up to the collecting community, not me or my book.

Kevin

kevinj

<< <i>This can be taken as an analogy to any research into Matte Proof Lincolns. Unless any researcher is using archival material nearly a century old, and in fact, discovering NEW century old information....nothing will come of it except the same meal on a different plate.
Please don't take this as a comment on Mr. Flynn, or his book. After all, I've watched Charlie Chaplins "City Lights" at least fifty times...and I enjoy it just as much every time. Any book that covers our favorite little coin will be interesting to any of us who collect them. I do hope however that a definitive book is in the works here, and not 'the same meal'. >>



Hi Ambro51,
Have you read any of my authoritative reference type books.
I do not write a book unless I fully believe I can add something new, different, facts, perspective,
which will help the reader.
I just finished a commem book, there were 30+ books previously written books, I read most, I knew
I could do better. Have you seen my 1894-S dime book? My Ike book, Linc cent, Buffalo nickel, three
cent nickel, Barber series of books....?
If you fully believe nothing can be done to improve the information on the matte proofs and are judging
the book before you open the cover, then, of course, it is your choice not to purchase one. I would not
be offended.
I do not expect to have all of the answers in this book. In fact, some issues, such as 1909 Albrecht Obv 2 and 3,
I plan currently to present as unverified, as every example I have seen, or requested others to view are
of Obv 1. But one of my sub objectives is to get collectors to think more. if someone proves me wrong, I enjoy
that as that means they are providing information, discussion which enhances the knowledge of the general
community.
For those who choose to purchase, I would enjoy hearing your feedback after reading the book.
I am excited about the book, but will let the book speak for itself when people read it. I have found through
research answers to questions presented on the mattes, and also refuted some of the previous beliefs.

Thanks
Kevin

robec

<< <i> On the 14 obverse, I found that the later die state with the scratches
under the chin was much more common than the earlier die state without. Should this command
a premium, >>



Hi Kevin,

Since that is the one I have, I say a resounding yes!

ambro51

Mr. Flynn, you may be misinterperting what my message is.

I welcome a well researched book. I trust you will be the one to provide it.

Original source material on obscure subjects is difficult to come by. Hopefully, your research has uncovered and catagorized what was, and is, known on the subject.

Please pardon my good natured "poking with a stick".

lasvegasteddy

<<<I do not expect to have all of the answers in this book. In fact, some issues, such as 1909 Albrecht Obv 2 and 3,
I plan currently to present as unverified, as every example I have seen, or requested others to view are
of Obv 1.>>>

hey kevin,
one thing i've noticed if you look at ambro's 1909 and most anyother like gobrechts 1909...it appears as the "L" of liberty has a short base line and a long base line.

as i say..."it appears to me" looking at the images


then also if you compare gobrechts colorfull images looking at the reverse....it appears to me
the "E" of e pluribus is different....his 09vdb top line of the e angles up whereas his 09 is str8 and square