<< <i>Kevin, When you declared Charmy's coin a MP and came out with the complete diagnostics of both the obverse and reverse of her coin, this triggered me to go back to the HRCA archives and look at Chris's coin image. What I saw was definately the slanted dieline within the "C" of CENT and also the small/large letters in the TE of united. I thought that since I have never seen a 1909 plain or VDB with this slanted dieline, I could now assume that the reverses match on Charmy and Chris's coin. I believe that when Chris puts up one of his detailed images of his coins reverse, we will be able to agree that both coins have same reverse but not a match of the obverses. Since you have stated that Charmy's coin has no trace of any dielines in front or out from the nose, I believe that Charmy's/Chrisis coin have the same reverses but different obverses?? Both coins have to be scare though because they are the first 1909's that the slanted dieline and sm/lg TE of united that I have seen after viewing probably around 100 1909 Matte Proof cents either VDB or none. edited for sp: >>
Brian, Chris is sending me the coin so I will be able to make an absolute determination if the reverses were the same Kevin >>
I knew you two could work this out, if you just got together. Suffice it to say, my faith in humanity is restored.
<< <i>Ya know...if this thread had explosions and half nakkid wimmin....it would make a pretty good prime time TV show! >>
And a fast red car! Gotta have a fast red car!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
p.s. I found the post that Soty quoted here. -- it was in the Registry forum. Sorry for my confusion -- what Soty was saying makes a bit more sense now, although I tend to believe the first coin that lands in the hand of the authoritative author is the discovery coin, yet it seems to me that there is a bit more middle ground for all concerned and given the circumstances (or at least my understanding of them). >>
My comment given there. TD
Edited to copy said comments here:
FWIW, Leonard Albrecht was working for me at ANACS when he did his matte proof die study. I cannot remember all of the coins that he used for the study, but Leonard was a very good numismatist and a very meticulous person, and if he said that something existed, I would accept that statement as correct over Kevin Flynn's statement that it did not exist.
MOO
Tom DeLorey >>
Edited to repeat the following apology posted on the Registry Forum:
<< FWIW, Leonard Albrecht was working for me at ANACS when he did his matte proof die study. I cannot remember all of the coins that he used for the study, but Leonard was a very good numismatist and a very meticulous person, and if he said that something existed, I would accept that statement as correct over Kevin Flynn's statement that it did not exist. MOO Tom DeLorey >>
Tom,
From what I remember reading, there were 100 sets of each year someone had brought to ANACS which was the primary basis for this book, I think it was JP Martin that told me this.
Please do not state something I did not say, I never stated they did not exist, on page 94 of my book, I state that there were several listings which were unverified. Obviously I included these so that if someone did have them, they could be included in any future additions. The title they are under is "Unverified Lincoln Cent Matte Proof Die Diagnostics." I even included the diagnostics of a 1909 VDB that I viewed from an auction in 1994 as unverified as I have not found a verifying specimen.
If you would like to compare my listings of Lincoln cent matte proofs to Leonard's I would gladly accept the challenge, I list several die marriages and die states which Leonard did not. I would appreciate you using specifics for comparisons and not generalizations.
I never dismissed or put down Leonard in my book as you have generally and without basis done here to my book. In Leonard's book, page 2, Leonard states "The diagnostics described here are drawn from ANA certification Service files of known dies and die states. However, other genuine Matte Proof coins also could exist." Leonard does not state he view all of the coins and diagnostics, that they were part of the ANA files.
Kevin >>
Kevin,
You are correct that you did not say that Albrecht varieties 2 and 3 for 1909 plain did not exist. I apologize for repeating something somebody here without waiting for the opportunity to check your book first. I should have waited until I had the facts.
You did state that Albrecht's varieties 2 & 3 "have yet to be verified." Leonard did his work in a room with several trained authenticators that he could and did consult with, and we published his work under the auspices of the American Numismatic Association Certification Service in the official ANA publication. What more does it take to "verify" die characteristics?
Again, I apologize for my statement.
Tom DeLorey
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
<< <i>Kevin,
When you declared Charmy's coin a MP and came out with the complete diagnostics of both the obverse and reverse of her coin, this triggered me to go back to the HRCA archives and look at Chris's coin image. What I saw was definately the slanted dieline within the "C" of CENT and also the small/large
letters in the TE of united. I thought that since I have never seen a 1909 plain or VDB with this slanted dieline, I could now assume that the reverses match on Charmy and Chris's coin. I believe that when Chris puts up one of his detailed images of his coins reverse, we will be able to agree that both coins have same reverse but not a match of the obverses.
Since you have stated that Charmy's coin has no trace of any dielines in front or out from the nose, I believe that Charmy's/Chrisis coin have the same reverses but different obverses?? Both coins have to be scare though because they are the first 1909's that the slanted dieline and sm/lg TE of united that I have seen after viewing probably around 100 1909 Matte Proof cents either VDB or none.
edited for sp: >>
Brian,
Chris is sending me the coin so I will be able to make an absolute determination if the reverses were the same
Kevin >>
I knew you two could work this out, if you just got together. Suffice it to say, my faith in humanity is restored.
PS: At least, for the time being.
<< <i>Ya know...if this thread had explosions and half nakkid wimmin....it would make a pretty good prime time TV show! >>
And a fast red car!
Gotta have a fast red car!
<< <i>
<< <i>Thanks Brian, I am.
Take care...Mike
p.s. I found the post that Soty quoted here. -- it was in the Registry forum. Sorry for my confusion -- what Soty was saying makes a bit more sense now, although I tend to believe the first coin that lands in the hand of the authoritative author is the discovery coin, yet it seems to me that there is a bit more middle ground for all concerned and given the circumstances (or at least my understanding of them). >>
My comment given there.
TD
Edited to copy said comments here:
FWIW, Leonard Albrecht was working for me at ANACS when he did his matte proof die study. I cannot remember all of the coins that he used for the study, but Leonard was a very good numismatist and a very meticulous person, and if he said that something existed, I would accept that statement as correct over Kevin Flynn's statement that it did not exist.
MOO
Tom DeLorey >>
Edited to repeat the following apology posted on the Registry Forum:
<< FWIW, Leonard Albrecht was working for me at ANACS when he did his matte proof die study. I cannot remember all of the coins that he used for the study, but Leonard was a very good numismatist and a very meticulous person, and if he said that something existed, I would accept that statement as correct over Kevin Flynn's statement that it did not exist.
MOO
Tom DeLorey >>
Tom,
From what I remember reading, there were 100 sets of each year someone had brought to ANACS which was the primary basis
for this book, I think it was JP Martin that told me this.
Please do not state something I did not say, I never stated they did not exist, on page 94 of my book, I state that there were
several listings which were unverified. Obviously I included these so that if someone did have them, they could be included in
any future additions. The title they are under is "Unverified Lincoln Cent Matte Proof Die Diagnostics." I even included
the diagnostics of a 1909 VDB that I viewed from an auction in 1994 as unverified as I have not found a verifying specimen.
If you would like to compare my listings of Lincoln cent matte proofs to Leonard's I would gladly accept the challenge,
I list several die marriages and die states which Leonard did not. I would appreciate you using specifics for comparisons
and not generalizations.
I never dismissed or put down Leonard in my book as you have generally and without basis done here to my book.
In Leonard's book, page 2, Leonard states "The diagnostics described here are drawn from ANA certification Service files of known
dies and die states. However, other genuine Matte Proof coins also could exist."
Leonard does not state he view all of the coins and diagnostics, that they were part of the ANA files.
Kevin >>
Kevin,
You are correct that you did not say that Albrecht varieties 2 and 3 for 1909 plain did not exist. I apologize for repeating something somebody here without waiting for the opportunity to check your book first. I should have waited until I had the facts.
You did state that Albrecht's varieties 2 & 3 "have yet to be verified." Leonard did his work in a room with several trained authenticators that he could and did consult with, and we published his work under the auspices of the American Numismatic Association Certification Service in the official ANA publication. What more does it take to "verify" die characteristics?
Again, I apologize for my statement.
Tom DeLorey