Options
KEVIN FLYNN'S NEW LINCOLN CENT MATTE PROOF BOOK
Steve
Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭
I've had a couple of days to briefly "look over" the vast amount of information and pictures in this new book. I want to thank Kevin and all the others, some of whom are on this board, who have contributed their knowledge and expertise to provide new and valuable information about the matte proof Lincoln cents. I am sure we will be talking about and referring to lots of this in the coming weeks and months. Every collector who has ANY interest in MPL's should own this book for their reference.
Steve
Steve
0
Comments
Had fun at Baltimore, the highlight was a 1916 that Brian showed me
that was the earliest die state and best strike I had ever seen on
a Lincoln Cent Matte Proof. I told Brian it look like a first strike with the
surfaces and strike.
Talked to the grading services and dealers at the show about the book
and matte proofs in general.
I hope this book will inspire more people to collect them
Thanks
Kevin
Kevin,
I received my hardcopy today, thank you, a book on MPL's was long overdue, the average collector knows nothing of MPL's, now that will change,
some advice for everyone reading this, buy those MPL's now because John Q. will be after them....
Thanks again Kevin,
Eric
The pictures are of decent quality, and the information regarding diagnostics will be very valuable to those seeking to form an opinion about a raw coin in hand, or to establish the die state and pairing of a certified coin. As any good author should do, Mr. Flynn used any and all archival material to detail what is known regarding production times and deliveries of the coins. Hopefully today I will have the time to read the mint related correspondence which should provide some material that is not readily available through previously published works. The year by year analysis seems like familiar information, which readers of QDB's Lincoln Cent book, or Langes' work will find already covered.
Several contributors to the text have provided interesting material, in particular Mr. Blakes concept of a visual impact grading system.
I am troubled by several references to these coins being "hot" and "in demand"....because such statements made at the peak of a bull market sometimes have a way of helping to 'turn the lights out'. Let us hope this does not happen.
There were a few typos, incorrect dates and improper word useage but that could be corrected in future editions.
One thing which was not covered in enough depth in my opinion, is a photographic analysis of exactly what TPG concepts of RD RB and BN are. Perhaps the available photo pool was insufficent to cover the scope of this, but I would have liked to have seen at least 20 color corrected images of various MPLs in these three color designations, all on one page, so we could see 'the look'. This comes from the fact every time I examine my 1916 I fail to see how any grader could have assigned BN to this coin....when it clearly matches much better with RB.
So all in all, I am pleased with the book, and it will become a valued reference. Thanks Kevin for a Great Book.
<< <i>The year by year analysis seems like familiar information, which readers of QDB's Lincoln Cent book, or Langes' work will find already covered.
There were a few typos, incorrect dates and improper word useage but that could be corrected in future editions.
One thing which was not covered in enough depth in my opinion, is a photographic analysis of exactly what TPG concepts of RD RB and BN are. Perhaps the available photo pool was insufficent to cover the scope of this, but I would have liked to have seen at least 20 color corrected images of various MPLs in these three color designations, all on one page, so we could see 'the look'. This comes from the fact every time I examine my 1916 I fail to see how any grader could have assigned BN to this coin....when it clearly matches much better with RB.
>>
Thanks for your comments.
If you find typos, please email me with a list and I will be sure to correct in any future editions.
On the date by date analysis, there was alot of information which was not covered by QDB and Lange, of course, since they are covering
the same subjects (i.e. LCMPs), there will be cross over, there is alot more detail in striking characteristics, mintages, certified, prices
realized, values, side by side photos of proof and business strikes..... that is presented here.
On the RD, RB, BN colors, I agree, it would be useful to have more examples. Problem is that, in my opinion, the grading services are
not consistent in their opinion on this. At Baltimore, Brian and I were laughing on some of the slabbed RBs and RDs that Brian had,
some of the RBs clearly had more red than the RD specimens. I have seen this over and over. Same when comparing BN and RB,
the difference which divides the categories is a grey area and up to the opinion of the grader(s). As you stated with your 1916,
it is certified brown when it has more RB than some RB certified specimens.
This gives me an idea which I might look into to help this problem.
Thanks
Kevin
www.kevinjflynn.com
kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com
Congratulations for the new matte proof Lincoln cent book! It’s a much needed and significant addition to the growing body of factual and historically-based literature.
What are your thoughts on the actual 'delivered to the collector' mintage figure for the VDB proof?
On the Red vs. Red Brown debate, Tim Liston and I have had many discussions both in private and here on the forum about this, and it seems to boil down to personal opinion at this point about whether "red" describes a color or the condition of a copper coin. Copper is different than other metals used for coins, and when a coin turns brown, that is not the same thing as one that develops colorful toning. Tim was/is a big advocate that "brown" is really a condition more than it is a color, and that a coin in a red condition with some color toning on it was still a red coin so long as the surfaces are still in tact as it was when it left the mint.
It's an interesting question, and I think if an authority on the subject spoke directly to this condition vs. color issue, we would all be more aligned in our thinking. To me the most beautiful Lincolns are true original red condition coins, whether they have some color or look exactly like they did when they left the mint 100 years ago.
<< <i>Kevin, after having read the correspondence at the rear of the book, as it pertains to the VDB coin, I am of the opinion that the smaller number (420) is far more realistic than the larger (1194).
What are your thoughts on the actual 'delivered to the collector' mintage figure for the VDB proof? >>
Can you present which letters support the conclusion of 420.
We know 1194 were delivered on August 2. We know sales of Lincoln cents started on August 2.
We know demand for the new Lincoln cent were literally through the roof as people were
standing in long lines at the Mints. We know production of the VDB lincoln cents were stopped
on August 5th.
From the letters, we know people/dealers who ordered late in October could not get the VDB proofs from
the Mint. We know that the VDB businesss strike cents were not melted. There are no documents
stating that the proofs were melted. We have a letter from the Director of the Mint on December 9th
stating that the orders for the VDB proofs were filled as received and the stock was soon exhausted.
There is no mention from the director that any VDB proofs were melted.
There is one sales article from Lyman Low Rare Coins stating that only 420 were made, which we know
is incorrect as 1194 were specifically made and delivered.
From all the evidence, my conclusion was that 1194 were struck and delivered, and that they were sold
quickly based upon the high demand.
Thanks
Kevin
I am waiting to get my copy of the 2010 Red Book to see how their numbers compare with what Kevin is using. I am a firm believer in CONSISTENCY as far as this MPL mintage reporting is concerned. The hobby deserves this. It had it for 50 years. I have no problem with the hobby reporting corrected figures when they are accepted by most leaders in the hobby. Right now the 2009 Coin World annual and the 2009 Scott Travers "Insiders Guide to US Coin Values" to name two, continue to use the traditional numbers. After everyone has had a chance to review Kevin's book, I would love to get back to a discussion of this subject. Also, how about a new thread about the MPL diagnostics as reported by Leonard Albrecht in 1983 and by Kevin Flynn in 1996 and 2009? This should all be informative, educational and lots of fun.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>To prepare for what may be a continued discussion about 1909VDB and all the other MPL mintages you may enjoy again reviewing this thread from April of last year.
I am waiting to get my copy of the 2010 Red Book to see how their numbers compare with what Kevin is using. I am a firm believer in CONSISTENCY as far as this MPL mintage reporting is concerned. The hobby deserves this. It had it for 50 years. I have no problem with the hobby reporting corrected figures when they are accepted by most leaders in the hobby. Right now the 2009 Coin World annual and the 2009 Scott Travers "Insiders Guide to US Coin Values" to name two, continue to use the traditional numbers. After everyone has had a chance to review Kevin's book, I would love to get back to a discussion of this subject. Also, how about a new thread about the MPL diagnostics as reported by Leonard Albrecht in 1983 and by Kevin Flynn in 1996 and 2009? This should all be informative, educational and lots of fun.
Steve
Hi Steve,
I talked to Whitman at Baltimore about the totals in the Red Book. I said that some were wrong and I could show the logic.
They said they would consider changing. I told them no, do not, the more they change their totals, the more they
will loose credibility. The general numbers are close to where they should be.
My goal in the book was to present the facts such as number delivered, date delivered, number rejected and so on, so that
the reader could understand the basis of the counts, but more imporantly how they coorilate with each other (Lincs, Buffs, Barbers....).
These facts also support other conclusions drawn in the book. For example, the fact that the Mint was striking proof coins late
in December supports the conclusion that their was demand for xmas and from those who forgot to order and were doing so last
minute.
I agree, it would be nice if everyone was consistent.
Some of these totals are in grey area. For example, for 1912, there were 2172 reported in Book 1 from the archives and 2372
from Book 2. The difference being 200 in Book 2 on April 24th, 1912 is not in Book 1. When I looked at this in Book 2, it stated
200 Bronze cents. These were listed with the other normal coinage (cents through half dollars). Every where else they were
listed as Copper or Cents. It is my belief someone read this and thought they were patterns or something else and therefore
did not record them in Book 1. Of course, I do not have proof of this so to speak, but all the other totals and delivery dates align,
and this Bronze cent insertion is listed with the other denoms which follows normal procedure for book 2.
But as this is a conlcusion and not an absolute fact, it can be open to interpertation.
My goal is to present the facts, conclusions drawn, and the basis of those conclusions.
I used to hate books which gave conclusions without the supporting argument.
Some of these totals I consider absolutes, for example when the counts from Book 1 and 2 align, or as with the 09 VDB we have
a specific delivery of these. Other totals can fall more into grey area. Sometimes, as with the 1912, we can find reasonable
explanations. For others, such as the 1916, one of the books was no longer updated.
Kevin
Thanks for the kind words about my articles. On the AURA eye appeal grading method, I've worked out a lot of the conceptual challenges, and the methods discussed are in greater detail, and now those full methods are almost ready to be filed in a patent application that I have been diligently working on. I do think that eye appeal is as meaningful to buyer demand as technical grade, and thought that splitting the two makes sense (due to the temporal element that eye appeal can change, which was the biggest challenge to overcome). Hopefully, the numismatic community will like the idea in some form.
Duane
HI KEVIN,
I love when people talk about what constitutes a Red/Brown coin vs. a Bn coin. I say it is more important to distinguish Natural color vs. artificial color. It is further
important to know Original skin vs Recolored skin. Has the coin been dipped and stripped ?
I say both grading services regularly encapsulate and grade recolored Matte Proof Lincoln cents because they are commercially acceptable.
The fact that Bn, R/B and Red Matte Proof Lincoln cents are enjoyed and collected equally in todays market is testament to "who cares" what the grading service calls the
color of a Matte Proof Lincoln Cent today. If you want to play the game then crack out the coin and try for a new grade.
Ambro51 - Have you ever tried to buy a beautiful stunning Matte Proof Lincoln cent in auction lately ?
Kevin - Great book and the best of luck on your future endevors
Stewart Blay
I know what you're saying though...
Thanks for your response. Regarding again the 1909VDB MPL mintage issue, one item I noticed that was documented by you in the National Archive Letters section concerned Lyman Low of Rare Coins-Foreign Exchange in New York. You show a number of letters exchanged between him and US Mint and other government officials in the later part of 1909. You also include a sales article published by Lyman Low of Rare Coins-Foreign Exchange in New York on page 118 of the book. I would like to quote what you wrote:
" Minor proof sets of the first issue of Lincoln cents cannot be had at the Mint. The supply of proof cents of that issue is long since exhausted. There were only 420 of them made, and they are therefore rare. The sets are already quoted at above a dollar. The Indian proof cent of 1909 is also rather rare."
This sales article by Lyman Low was obviously written around the 1909 - 1910 timeframe. Was this sales article quote from the National Archieves or from some other reference? Was it some PRINTED document or article that YOU actually saw or was it quoted from some other reference? The reason I ask these questions is the sales article by Lyman Low's reference to "only 420 of them made". From other correspondence I have had with you and with Roger Burdette I understood that no reference to "420" was found during the period surrounding the first minting of the Lincoln cent in 1909. If that number appears in print during that timeframe it does provide some validity to what was later provided to the hobby by mint officials in my opinion. I am not questioning the facts from the two mint books. Only that this number of 420 might give us some insight that 420 were actually released or sold by the US Mint. Your comments are appreciated. Thanks.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>Kevin,
Thanks for your response. Regarding again the 1909VDB MPL mintage issue, one item I noticed that was documented by you in the National Archive Letters section concerned Lyman Low of Rare Coins-Foreign Exchange in New York. You show a number of letters exchanged between him and US Mint and other government officials in the later part of 1909. You also include a sales article published by Lyman Low of Rare Coins-Foreign Exchange in New York on page 118 of the book. I would like to quote what you wrote:
" Minor proof sets of the first issue of Lincoln cents cannot be had at the Mint. The supply of proof cents of that issue is long since exhausted. There were only 420 of them made, and they are therefore rare. The sets are already quoted at above a dollar. The Indian proof cent of 1909 is also rather rare."
This sales article by Lyman Low was obviously written around the 1909 - 1910 timeframe. Was this sales article quote from the National Archieves or from some other reference? Was it some PRINTED document or article that YOU actually saw or was it quoted from some other reference? The reason I ask these questions is the sales article by Lyman Low's reference to "only 420 of them made". From other correspondence I have had with you and with Roger Burdette I understood that no reference to "420" was found during the period surrounding the first minting of the Lincoln cent in 1909. If that number appears in print during that timeframe it does provide some validity to what was later provided to the hobby by mint officials in my opinion. I am not questioning the facts from the two mint books. Only that this number of 420 might give us some insight that 420 were actually released or sold by the US Mint. Your comments are appreciated. Thanks.
Steve
Steve,
This was in the National Archives.
I agree that it is interesting that they use the 420 figure. This does not however certify that 420 was made. Had this
been written from an official at the Mint, it would carry much more weight.
I cannot tell you after 20 years researching the archives stories have changed over time and when passed through people.
I tend to give more weight to original letters from the individuals who created the history.
What would be nice, and perhaps a different angle of attack is for someone to look to see what happened to Lyman Low,
if there are any letters from them, perhaps something could be found from the Mint. This would be something which would
carry much more weight, and possibly clarity.
This could be an exageration to help sales, this could be a misinterpertation. They also say the 1909 Indian cent proofs
are rather rare. The 1909 Indian cent proofs was towards the high end of mintage. If I am selling something and say it
is rare, do you think this would help sales?
What I do know, and can prove is that 1194 were delivered on Aug 2, 1909, and that the Mint said demand was high and
all were sold quickly. There are no meltage figures or figures of coins returned to the Medal room.
If you find something which comes from the Mint from 1909 which states only 420 were sold, that would carry alot of weight.
Kevin
What no one recorded is the guy on August 5 1909 saying..."no more VDBs sent out...they are changing the design. Just throw those in the melt pot"
and 1194 minus 420 is exactly how many went into the melt pot. (hey, its a theory that explains a lot)
kevin...great job on shedding some light here and making me blush in credits
truly my 1st "series topic" numismatic book i've sat down with...
i truly loved how you presented this kevin along with brian's perspective and found many smiles with those letters addressing public outcry over availability issues.
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
What no one recorded is the guy on August 5 1909 saying..."no more VDBs sent out...they are changing the design. Just throw those in the melt pot"
and 1194 minus 420 is exactly how many went into the melt pot. (hey, its a theory that explains a lot)
***********
Ambro-
So if that letter was actually extant, what you are suggesting is that 774 (1194-420) 1909VDB MPLs in fact left the mint. If this were true, this would make the VDB second to the 1916 in released population (600 released for the 1916). So in fact the 1916 is really the rarest MPL?
I'm not arguing your position (I think it has real viability), but I've always tried to reconcile why the certification numbers suggest that the VDB is more rare. Any thoughts on why that is so?
Duane
It says:
What no one recorded is the guy on August 5 1909 saying..."no more VDBs sent out...they are changing the design. Just throw those in the melt pot"
and 1194 minus 420 is exactly how many went into the melt pot. (hey, its a theory that explains a lot)
so 774 were undistributed, and melted on or shortly after August 5 1909
So I suggest up to a certain point 420 had been sold, sent out..... though 1194 were in fact coined. After it was decided the design was changed, you could certainly not recall the 420 already sent out...but you certainly could melt the balance that were still at the mint.
I also have thought in the past that "new design" could in fact be translated to mean the "new design" of the Lincoln Cent as a whole (as oposed to the 'old' Indian Head Cent design ), or "New Design" could mean the new design of the VDB (in the narrow sense), as differentiated from the 1909 plain.
If you read the sentence carefully, that very point about what was intended by the phrase "new design" is unclear, at least in my mind. Yet we always take it at face value to mean the latter. If it is understood the other way, your entire theory makes sense.
Duane
IMHO we will NEVER resolve the issue of mintage for the 1909VDB MPL or for that matter all the other MPL mintages because we "try" too hard to get it right. For instance, based on the famous "Book 1" in the archives it clearly states that on July 30, 1909 a total of 1,503 proof Lincoln cents were STRUCK at the US Mint. Why is THAT number not used? Well, Kevin says that 309 were not accepted by the coiner. They were bad strikes. It sounds very reasonable, BUT why stop there. I believe that the US Mint annual report for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1910 supports the historically reported quantities of 1909 VDB MPL's SOLD as 420 and the 1909 non VDB MPL's SOLD of 2,198 or a total MPL's SOLD in 1909 of 2,618. Actually, the US Mint report shows 30 coins less or 2,588. Add the 2,175 Indian head cents SOLD in 1909 and you get a total of 4,763 proof cents sold in 1909. Since the US Mint sold cents and nickels together in 1909 as "minor proof sets", it is interesting that the 2010 Red Book as well as just about every other publication continue to show the 1909 proof mintage of Liberty nickels as 4,763. And so the SOLD quantities are probably the historically reported quantities that the Red Book used until 1998. Since proof coins are SOLD by the US Mint to collectors, it seems reasonable and logical to report quantities of proofs that way. Obviously, business strike mintage IS quantity manufactured.
Anyway, as far as the 1909VDB MPL most of us now acknowledge that only about 400 of these coins got into the hands of collectors and probably less than 200 still exist. Based on certified pop reports and the fact of crossovers and crackouts, I believe most of us would agree that less than 150 are currently in certified holders and any that are not in a PCGS, NGC or ANACS holder would be suspect by any potential buyer as to being a REAL MPL. So we will continue to argue if the mintage is 1,503, 1,194, 1000, 420 or somewhere in between.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
I noticed that the 1916 on the cover was one that I owned last year. Cool. Too bad I also sold it.