Home PCGS Set Registry Forum

This should help identify 1916 MPL Cents>

Recently, posters have been putting up images of 1916 Lincoln Cents and asking the forum if theirs is the real thing, a MATTE PROOF cent from 1916. With the recent publication of Kevin Flynn's Matte Proof Lincoln Cent book he has identified the 1916 MPL cent as having 2 obverse dies that I believe have very easy diagnostics to locate. Both coins in the images provided are 1916 MPL cents graded by PCGS as PR66RB.

Die #1: I have seen die #1 show up on about a 10 to one ratio over die #2. The obverse diagnostics for die #1 will show the 3 lines below the 1916 date. Some call it a pitchfork. This coin shows about the most detailed example of the diagnostic I have seen. I see it on the other die 1's as well but not as bold. Kevin states in his book that the pitchfork dielines on die #1 are "not" seen on very early diestates though. You will have to look to the reverse of these EDS Die#1 where there should be a Die scratch from the rim to the top right of the first U of Pluribus to identifly an EDS of Die #1 Obverse matching along with Die #1 reverse.

Die #2: There are markers on Obverse die #2 that you can look for. First is the bold dielines behind Lincolns hair and bust. Then look in the circle of the 9 and you will see a raised "arc" of metal, this is the 2nd diagnostic for this die. If anyone knows of anything else out there please bring forth a detailed image of a 1916 MPL cent that would differ from this information. Kevin states that Die #2 obverse matches with Die #2 reverse.


DIE #1 DIE #2
imageimage
Brian Wagner Rare Coins, Specializing in PCGS graded, Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels varieties.

Comments

  • Brian:
    Fascinating stuff, your images really stand out. Considering your own experience and seeming rarity for Die 2 specimens, does this make a Die 2 1916 MPL more valuable than a Die 1 specimen?
    Jonathan
  • BWRCBWRC Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭
    Thanks Jonathan,

    I would say that at the present time maybe a small premium for Die #2 but if more collector's come into collecting Matte Proof's and take an interest in trying to get the different die combinations then it's price could start to rise more compared to Die #1. I really have no preference myself at the current time but have noted how scarce Die #2 is compared to Die #1.

    On another note. I do have a collector who is looking for a different MPL cent date where there are two Dies like the 1916. He has one of the Dies and will pay strongly for the other die that is extremely hard to located. I will not say the date he is looking for as I don't want him to have to pay an extrodinary price to acheive his collecting goal. I look at every coin of this date that he is looking for and have still not come across the missing Die combination. Hopefully, in the future I will have good news for him.

    Brian
    Brian Wagner Rare Coins, Specializing in PCGS graded, Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels varieties.
  • ChrisRxChrisRx Posts: 5,619 ✭✭✭✭
    My 1916 only has the die striations from the top of the first U in Pluribus all the way to the N in Unum. No other visible diagnostics so I assume mine is a very early die #1?
    image
  • BWRCBWRC Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭


    << <i>My 1916 only has the die striations from the top of the first U in Pluribus all the way to the N in Unum. No other visible diagnostics so I assume mine is a very early die #1? >>



    I would assume you are right.

    Another 1916 that I bought arrived yesterday. I looked it over and could see weak detail of the pitch fork lines below the date. So this is Die #1, a later die state.

    Another collector called me and to my surprise told me he owned 5 1916 MPL cents. After looking his coins over here was his tally.

    A Die #1 EDS.
    A Die #1 Mid to late diestate.
    3 die#2's

    The tally continues.
    Brian Wagner Rare Coins, Specializing in PCGS graded, Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels varieties.
  • Brian,

    Aside from the obverse striation diagnostics that you illustrate very well, I have noticed that the 3 examples of the 1916 die state #2 that I have seen have surfaces that are not as heavily 'matte' as the die state #1 coins. The die state #2 surfaces tend to be more 'satiny' and possess greater reflectivity, in my experience.

    I was thinking that this feature may likely be a result of the die state #2 batch of 300 planchets being more heavily buffed pre-strike? Does that make sense?

    Also, if there were 2 batchs of 300 coins struck for the die state #1 and #2, and the second batch was not fully subscribed and sent/mailed to collectors, that may account for the uneven die state #1 to #2 ratio.

    Duane
  • BWRCBWRC Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Brian,

    Aside from the obverse striation diagnostics that you illustrate very well, I have noticed that the 3 examples of the 1916 die state #2 that I have seen have surfaces that are not as heavily 'matte' as the die state #1 coins. The die state #2 surfaces tend to be more 'satiny' and possess greater reflectivity, in my experience.

    I was thinking that this feature may likely be a result of the die state #2 batch of 300 planchets being more heavily buffed pre-strike? Does that make sense?

    Also, if there were 2 batchs of 300 coins struck for the die state #1 and #2, and the second batch was not fully subscribed and sent/mailed to collectors, that may account for the uneven die state #1 to #2 ratio.

    Duane >>



    Duane,

    I agree mostly with what you say, I have only had one Die#2 in hand so far and agree that the surface of this particular coin (the one pictured in the post) was not as granular as the Die #1's I have handled. It is also about the most reflective MPL cent I have examined except for the obverse of the Ex Stewart Blay 1914 PCGS PR66RB that was in your collection when finished. What about the sandblasting of the working dies? as Kevin mentions on page 12 last paragraph of his book. So was the working Die for obverse #2 possibly blasted with a finer grain of sand than used on Die #1? or the time of the sandblast was applied to Die #2 less than Die #1 ? this would cause a finer matte surface of the working Die. If the planchet's were more heavily buffed it would cause this effect but Kevin thinks this would defeat the purpose of sandblasting the dies and seems to weigh against this theory.
    Brian Wagner Rare Coins, Specializing in PCGS graded, Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels varieties.


  • << <i>

    << <i>Brian,

    Aside from the obverse striation diagnostics that you illustrate very well, I have noticed that the 3 examples of the 1916 die state #2 that I have seen have surfaces that are not as heavily 'matte' as the die state #1 coins. The die state #2 surfaces tend to be more 'satiny' and possess greater reflectivity, in my experience.

    I was thinking that this feature may likely be a result of the die state #2 batch of 300 planchets being more heavily buffed pre-strike? Does that make sense?

    Also, if there were 2 batchs of 300 coins struck for the die state #1 and #2, and the second batch was not fully subscribed and sent/mailed to collectors, that may account for the uneven die state #1 to #2 ratio.

    Duane >>



    Duane,

    I agree mostly with what you say, I have only had one Die#2 in hand so far and agree that the surface of this particular coin (the one pictured in the post) was not as granular as the Die #1's I have handled. It is also about the most reflective MPL cent I have examined except for the obverse of the Ex Stewart Blay 1914 PCGS PR66RB that was in your collection when finished. What about the sandblasting of the working dies? as Kevin mentions on page 12 last paragraph of his book. So was the working Die for obverse #2 possibly blasted with a finer grain of sand than used on Die #1? or the time of the sandblast was applied to Die #2 less than Die #1 ? this would cause a finer matte surface of the working Die. If the planchet's were more heavily buffed it would cause this effect but Kevin thinks this would defeat the purpose of sandblasting the dies and seems to weigh against this theory. >>



    Brian,

    Yeah; a variation on the sandblasting process is a more logical explanation now that I think of it. Thanks for the analysis.

    It might be interesting to compare the surfaces of Die #2 coins at high mag to see if the tiny ridges are identically placed (the ridges being created from the negative pocks on the die surface from the sand particle contact). I think Matt Chapman actually did this for three Die #1 coins and found some close patterning of the sand blast bumps.

    Duane
  • renomedphysrenomedphys Posts: 3,489 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>It might be interesting to compare the surfaces of Die #2 coins at high mag to see if the tiny ridges are identically placed (the ridges being created from the negative pocks on the die surface from the sand particle contact). I think Matt Chapman actually did this for three Die #1 coins and found some close patterning of the sand blast bumps.

    Duane >>


    Duane and Brian,

    The patterns of the bumps on the three coins I saw were not close, they were exactly the same. I could easily put this question to rest in five minutes if I were able to get the die#2 coin under my lens.


  • << <i>

    << <i>It might be interesting to compare the surfaces of Die #2 coins at high mag to see if the tiny ridges are identically placed (the ridges being created from the negative pocks on the die surface from the sand particle contact). I think Matt Chapman actually did this for three Die #1 coins and found some close patterning of the sand blast bumps.

    Duane >>


    Duane and Brian,

    The patterns of the bumps on the three coins I saw were not close, they were exactly the same. I could easily put this question to rest in five minutes if I were able to get the die#2 coin under my lens. >>



    I guess that answers the question about whether it was the dies or planchets being sand blasted.

    Matt - have you done the comparison with any other years? I'm thinking that because the 1915s are tough to authenticate, a coin's 'phrenology' might be an additional factor to consider when proving a genuine MPL.

    I also think that you should forward the experiment to Kevin Flynn, Matt.
  • renomedphysrenomedphys Posts: 3,489 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>I guess that answers the question about whether it was the dies or planchets being sand blasted.

    Matt - have you done the comparison with any other years? I'm thinking that because the 1915s are tough to authenticate, a coin's 'phrenology' might be an additional factor to consider when proving a genuine MPL.

    I also think that you should forward the experiment to Kevin Flynn, Matt. >>


    Duane,

    Not to hijack this thread with stories of the 1915, but I have compared the photos of my two 1915s and I can also without a doubt state that the dimpling pattern on the two coins are EXACTLY the same. I will post a comparison area later when I have access to all of my large photos. The area behind the neck is very telling. You will see.
Sign In or Register to comment.