Hey Matteheads, check this out

66RB

I was looking through a few old blue Whitman folders recently and I was checking the 09 dates to make sure the right coins were in the right spots. I pulled this 1909 out to make sure the VDB was there, but before I could even check I took note of how thick the planchet was and how square the edges were. Sure enough, it was a 1909 VDB. Of course I immediately checked for the diagnostics that should be present for a 1909 VDB matte proof, but unfortunately they're not visible. If it's not obvious, the 'offending' coin is on the right Both coins are 1909 VDB's.

Any thoughts or theories?

STONE

Proof planchet, regular strike?

I have no idea, don't mind me

66RB

<< <i>Proof planchet, regular strike?

I have no idea, don't mind me >>



I have no idea either Stone, thanks for the reply though

cohodk

I've seen a few 1910's that have wider(thicker) rims. They were not MPLs.

WaterSport

Thick planchets for all dates are not uncommon. It occurs from not evenly pressing out or rolling the copper sheets evenly to mint specifications. In the high tech world we now live, it is less common on modern cents.

WS

66RB

Guys, I appreciate the responses. I didn't think it was a matte proof, but I did have thoughts that maybe it could have been struck on a matte proof planchet, as Stone had suggested. It is funny how square the rims are and how well struck it is, and that's what initially perked my interest in this particular coin. Here's the obverse and reverse photos, again, the 'offender' on the right

drwstr123

Here's another that has the 'look' of a MPL, but none of the diagnostics. Recently graded 91 .

jacktheknife

66RB,
The reverse strike on your "culprit" coin is hammered! May not be a matte, but still pretty cool.

Jack

lusterlover

That certainly is facinating. As Jack said, the strike is matte-like. Are you sure there are no die polish lines under the nose

tradedollarnut

Proof planchet, regular strike?

It's not the planchet that causes proofs to have wide square rims, it's the striking pressure and repeated strikes.

66RB

<< <i>66RB,
The reverse strike on your "culprit" coin is hammered! May not be a matte, but still pretty cool.

Jack >>



Thank You Jack, I agree it is very well struck

TDN, wouldn't more pressure and repeated strikings have a tendency to result in a thinner planchet?

tradedollarnut

My interpretation was that he was insinuating that proof planchets are wider than circulation strike planchets prior to striking - which is not the case.

flykite

Great coin! I would submit this as a matte....I think there is better than a 50/50 chance it comes back a proof!

Ed

robec

<< <i>Great coin! I would submit this as a matte....I think there is better than a 50/50 chance it comes back a proof!

Ed >>



I agree. The upside potential certainly outweighs the downside.

ambro51

From my understanding, the Proof cent was only struck ONE time, though at higher pressure.

66RB

That would certainly be something.....at the very least I'm going to bring it to the Philly show and get some 'in-hand' opinions on it.

I'll keep you guys updated, either way.

Rob

curly

<< <i>

<< <i>TDN, wouldn't more pressure and repeated strikings have a tendency to result in a thinner planchet? >>



Lets see if I can answer this one for you, brother.

The blank planchet is put into a collar before striking. This prevents the metal from flowing outward like pancake batter. When the die is correctly set as to pressure and depth, the metal has nowhere to flow but into all the devices of the die.

renomedphys

Obviously this thread is heading in the wrong direction. First of all, the "offender" coin's rims aren't square all the way around. Second, they are not of uniform width. Third, if the coin doesn't show clear diagnostics... well, it doesn't even really matter. The thing's obviously not a proof, and I don't need a glass to know it.

BWRC

EagleEye

Here is a very well struck MS piece with the matte-like surface indicative of early die states. It has squared rims but alas, none of the diagnostics. I can't see the edge, but I suspect it is not mirrored, as typical proofs are.

ambro51

I seem to recall awhile back we figured out that both the VDB and the plain 09 proofs DIDNT have that little angular depression line inside the C in cent, but it showed up in all the business strikes.

I see that on both these coins, so I suppose thats a valid business strike diagnostic? A little thread archive work would dig that up.

Duane

Yeah, that was my theory, and it seems to still hold true. Thanks for remembering!