Options
New 1909 MPL Die
soty27
Posts: 1,956
Back in February I purchased a 1909 PCGS PR66RB Matte Proof Lincoln. When I got the coin in hand I noticed that there were no die diagnostics as mentioned in Kevin Flynns book. I contacted Brian Wagner via PM on the forums about the coin not showing any diagnostics. Brian then told me that he had previously saw the coin during lot viewing and determined that there were no die diagnostics. As far as he was concerned, PCGS considered it a matte proof and they would probably back up their guarantee but that I should probably contact Kevin Flynn. I was then talking with Brian Wagner at the Baltimore show regarding the Legend VDB. He mentioned that Charmy had a Raw 1909 that appeared to be a matte proof with no diagnostics. I walked to Charmys table with Brian and was discussing the 1909 with no diagnostics. Kevin then stated that there may be another die and gave possible reasons for another die. I then saw Charmys coin in hand and walked Brian Wagner back down to my table where I showed him high resolution photos of my MPL that I did not have with me at the time. I talked to Brian about maybe sending him some more images of the coin por possibly sending him the coin to have in hand. That was the last timne I theard about the potential new die. I got a message from illini420 today regarding a news story in the PCGS newsletter about the discovery of a new 1909 MPL die. While I or my concerns about the coin are not mentioned in the article, at least my coin received publicity. Although it would have been nice to at least have my concerns about the coin mentioned.
It doesn't seem right at all to just brush my coin aside as basically the discovery coin for the new die even though I was discussing this coin at least a month before Brian, Charmy, and Kevin were discussing the raw coin. I find it a bit tasteless.
My 1909 PCGS PR66RB MPL:
PCGS Article
It doesn't seem right at all to just brush my coin aside as basically the discovery coin for the new die even though I was discussing this coin at least a month before Brian, Charmy, and Kevin were discussing the raw coin. I find it a bit tasteless.
My 1909 PCGS PR66RB MPL:
PCGS Article
0
Comments
Obviously, I don't know the specifics but you should have been mentioned in the article. Regarding the 1909 MPL I continue to accept the Leonard Albrecht reporting of THREE obverse dies for that coin. One of the dies was the one used for all 1909VDB MPL coins. Albrecht shows pictures of what he used to determine that three dies were used. Kevin says this has not been verified. I assume NOBODY has seen a 1909 obverse MPL with the diagnostics shown in the 1982 report. I also assume that many, many Lincoln cent MPL collectors do not have a copy of the pictures from that report in order to compare. That obverse 2 with the large die crack under Lincoln's bust might exist in someones collection if they had a desire to check it out. I'm sure Brian has seen many MPL's and I would appreciate his comment on this new "so called" discovery piece.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
I want to start off by saying that it was not my intent to leave anyone out of this story but lets start at the beginning.
When I first became aware of the coin that Soty posted here "he did not own" the coin. It was in a Heritage auction and I became aware of it when previewing auction lots. It was heavily toned and I couldn't see any obverse diagnostics. It just became kind of a curiosity coin that I put in the back of my mind. Soty PM'd me after he bought the coin in the Auction and asked me 2 questions. Did I preview the coin as he did in the Heritage auction and did I also notice that It didn't seen to have any of the known 1909 MPL obverse diagnostics. I answered yes to both questions. I told him to contact "Kevin Flynn" about the coin and maybe mail it to him for his opinion but to my knowledge I don't think Soty persued my idea? That was the last communication I had with Soty until I saw him at the Baltimore show.
A month goes by and I am at the Baltimore show, Charmy shows me her "raw" 1909 MPL that had been cracked out of a PCGS holder that seems to have no 1909 obverse diagnostics either. This time I can look at the coin out of the holder. I tell Charmy, I think her coin is a MPL but it would be nice if Kevin could see the coin as well and possibly authenicate it. A few seconds later Kevin walks up to the table, we were kind of stunned that he appeared as soon as I mentioned his name. I had no idea that he was at the coin show. He took the coin and said he would take images and see he could authenicate it as a Matte Proof. At this time I had absolutely "no diagnostics" to go by but did communicate with Soty at the show about this other coin and how they "might" be related to each other. I looked at some images on his computer of his coin as he didn't have the PCGS example with him but couldn't tie anything together from this observation. I would wait to see what Kevin would come up with.
Kevin reports back a couple of weeks later and says he is declaring Charmy's coin as a "new 1909 die MPL discovery". In the article I sent to PCGS I thought she should get credit for the discovery but through editing it got removed? Kevin will note her though in his second edition of his book. Once I had Kevins written diagnostics of Charmy's coin I then went back to the Heritage Auction archives and could match two bold reverse diagnostics that were common between Charmy's and Soty's coin that made me feel fairly confident that the Heritage auction coin was most likely anoter example of this new die.
I will comment know comment on this new discovery piece.
The coin has two reverse diagnostic that really gives it away. There is a slanted long dieline in the "C" of cent and a small/over large "TE" in the word United. When I saw the dieline in the Heritage images is when I tied this action coin to the discovery coin. I am aware of the Leonard Albrecht reporting three dies of which there very well may be but I have probably viewed about 100 1909 MPL cents and a few VDB's as well and can say that all of those coins had the two known obverse diagnostic dielines as decribed in Kevin Flynn' book.
Finally, of the 1909 and 1909 VDB MPL's I have seen prior to Charmy's coin none of them have the dieline in the "C" of Cent or the small/large "TE" in united.
<< <i>
A month goes by and I am at the Baltimore show, Charmy shows me her "raw" 1909 MPL that had been cracked out of a PCGS holder that seems to have no 1909 obverse diagnostics either. This time I can look at the coin out of the holder. I tell Charmy, I think her coin is a MPL but it would be nice if Kevin could see the coin as well and possibly authenicate it. A few seconds later Kevin walks up to the table, we were kind of stunned that he appeared as soon as I mentioned his name. I had no idea that he was at the coin show. He took the coin and said he would take images and see he could authenicate it as a Matte Proof. At this time I had absolutely "no diagnostics" to go by but did communicate with Soty at the show about this other coin and how they "might" be related to each other. I looked at some images on his computer of his coin as he didn't have the PCGS example with him but couldn't tie anything together from this observation. I would wait to see what Kevin would come up with. >>
That is not true. When I asked you about the coin and no diagnostics you blew me off under the PCGS guarantee saying that they slabbed it as a Matte Proof and they should honor it under their guarantee if it wasn't. I also like how you failed to mention that I was standing there with you and my wife at my table and we walked down to her table to look at her coin to compare hers to the images of my coin. I was also standing there discussing this with you and Kevin at Charmys table once he arrived. You also failed to mention in your article that the buyer of the coin in the Heritage auction (ME) contacted you about the "no diagnostics". So now Charmy gets credit for discovery of a new die that I had mentioned to you over a month prior to you talking to Charmy and knowing of her example. Now you're trying to come into the thread and twist things around and talk about die markers on the coin. And to top it off when you decided to concrete the new discovery you didn't even have the decency to message me although I had been asking you about this coin for several months.
I think the whole scenario is BS and I thought you had more class than that.
You didn't take my advice, I "strongly recommended" you call/send the coin to Kevin Flynn! The one who "wrote the book on MPL's" will also authenicate MPL's. If you had follow my recommenation the auction coin would have been most likely authenicated before Charmy's came along and this article would not have existed today!
End of Story.
<< <i>You didn't take my advice, I "strongly recommended" you call/send the coin to Kevin Flynn! The one who "wrote the book on MPL's" will also authenicate MPL's. If you had follow my recommenation the auction coin would have been most likely authenicated before Charmy's came along and this article would not have existed today!
End of Story. >>
I emailed Kevin Flynn on 3 occasions with no response. I had talked to you on numerous occasions and was blown off by you as well. Even at Baltimore you failed to mention that I was there and contacted you. Even in your article you failed to mention that I was there with you trying to authenticate the coin and my coin as well. Now you're just trying to cover your tracks by trying to put it on me like I didn't follow through or something when in fact I did. So now the new "Discovery" coin is a raw dipped out 1909? The only reason its a discovery for her is because she's one of your friends.
So no, it's not the end of the story.
<< <i>
End of Story. >>
Brian,
How can we have an "end of story" when apparently Kevin Flynn is the sole determinator of new die state MPL's. I know he has convinced Whitman Publishing to accept the MPL mintages (except for 1911 for some unknown reason), but now the diagnostic determination also? For these things to "stick" within the hobby, much time needs to go by where many hobbyists can look at all the facts and then make determinations. It is hard for me to believe that ALL 1909VDB MPL's + ALL 1909 MPL's used just the ONE obverse die until suddenly, here in 2010 a "discovery coin" shows up and then a second "discovery coin" with the exact same diagnostics shows up. Until Kevin stated in his 2009 Matte Proof Lincoln book that Albrecht's pictures were "not verified", I had always believed that there were THREE obverse dies for the 1909 MPL's. Apparently Kevin believed that too in his 1996 book with John Wexler, page 349 of the "Authoritative Reference on Lincoln Cents" where he states Albrechts diagnostics for the three obverse dies word for word. I wonder what changed Kevin's mind in the past 13 years?
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
<< <i>
End of Story. >>
Brian,
How can we have an "end of story" when apparently Kevin Flynn is the sole determinator of new die state MPL's. I know he has convinced Whitman Publishing to accept the MPL mintages (except for 1911 for some unknown reason), but now the diagnostic determination also? For these things to "stick" within the hobby, much time needs to go by where many hobbyists can look at all the facts and then make determinations. It is hard for me to believe that ALL 1909VDB MPL's + ALL 1909 MPL's used just the ONE obverse die until suddenly, here in 2010 a "discovery coin" shows up and then a second "discovery coin" with the exact same diagnostics shows up. Until Kevin stated in his 2009 Matte Proof Lincoln book that Albrecht's pictures were "not verified", I had always believed that there were THREE obverse dies for the 1909 MPL's. Apparently Kevin believed that too in his 1996 book with John Wexler, page 349 of the "Authoritative Reference on Lincoln Cents" where he states Albrechts diagnostics for the three obverse dies word for word. I wonder what changed Kevin's mind in the past 13 years?
Steve
Steve,
Another collector wrote me and told me that he has 10 certified 1909 MPL cents and one of his coins matches matches "mostly" with Charmy's coins diagnostics?
I am not sure how many of the dignostics on Soty's coin match exactly with Charmy's either except for the two I mentioned on the reverse.
BW
<< <i>
Finally, of the 1909 and 1909 VDB MPL's I have seen prior to Charmy's coin none of them have the dieline in the "C" of Cent or the small/large "TE" in united. >>
Thats funny because my coin has the dieline in the C of cent but apparently that was part of your selective memory as well. On another note MY coin matches the leonard albrecht obverse #3 die and reverse #A die as seen clearly in his images published in his book in october 1983 of witch I own and have compared my coin to. Odly enough you are missing a very key diagnostic in your so called discovery but I obviously cant mention what that would be because you would probly try and take credit for that as well.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Finally, of the 1909 and 1909 VDB MPL's I have seen prior to Charmy's coin none of them have the dieline in the "C" of Cent or the small/large "TE" in united. >>
Thats funny because my coin has the dieline in the C of cent but apparently that was part of your selective memory as well. On another note MY coin matches the leonard albrecht obverse #3 die and reverse #A die as seen clearly in his images published in his book in october 1983 of witch I own and have compared my coin to. Odly enough you are missing a very key diagnostic in your so called discovery but I obviously cant mention what that would be because you would probly try and take credit for that as well. >>
maybe you have a different coin than Charmy's? send it to Kevin Flynn since he authenicates matte proofs and he can let you know.
I apparently have a 1909 Lincoln Cent that has the diagonal mark inside of the "C" in "Cents" and that does not have the standard diagnostics for a 1909 MPL Cent. If my coin is an MPL, luck and good fortune has smiled on me.
Sanction,
I have not see any certified 1909 VDB MPLS that have that die marker in the "C" of cent but I don't have the final say.
<< <i>Chris,
Obviously, I don't know the specifics but you should have been mentioned in the article. Regarding the 1909 MPL I continue to accept the Leonard Albrecht reporting of THREE obverse dies for that coin. One of the dies was the one used for all 1909VDB MPL coins. Albrecht shows pictures of what he used to determine that three dies were used. Kevin says this has not been verified. I assume NOBODY has seen a 1909 obverse MPL with the diagnostics shown in the 1982 report. I also assume that many, many Lincoln cent MPL collectors do not have a copy of the pictures from that report in order to compare. That obverse 2 with the large die crack under Lincoln's bust might exist in someones collection if they had a desire to check it out. I'm sure Brian has seen many MPL's and I would appreciate his comment on this new "so called" discovery piece.
Steve
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
In my opinion, the REAL problem here is Kevin Flynn has caused confussion in the hobby by stating in his 2009 book on Matte Proof Lincoln cents that Leonard Albrecht's diagnostics for the second and third obverse dies of the 1909 MPL were "not verified". Since many of the MPL collectors here have treated everything that Kevin said in his book as "gospel" we now have a situation where some collectors and dealers in MPL's "believe" there WAS only one obverse 1909 MPL diagnostic used for BOTH the 1909VDB MPL and the 1909 (plain) MPL. Albrecht, back in 1982 published and provided PICTURES for THREE different 1909 MPL's. One of those three obverses was also used on the 1909VDB MPL. Kevin, in his book, dismisses Albrecht's pictures and states there was only ONE obverse 1909 MPL die used, the same die used for all the 1909VDB MPL's with the same 2 key obverse diagnostics.
This thread is about a supposed NEW discovery coin. I do not know if this coin shows different diagnostics and pictures than the diagnostics and pictures shown by Albrecht in 1982. Chris (soty27) says something about this earlier. BUT, I think we all need to be very careful before we dismiss Leonard Albrecht's diagnostics and before we all accept EVERYTHING Kevin Flynn says and writes as being the last word on MPL's. Kevin has done much for the hobby with his research and his writing, but in MANY cases it is just HIS opinion and not necessarily supported with hard evidence. JMHO.
I would suggest we take this thread to the Set Registry forum if anyone wants to continue it because it will probably get "lost" in the Coin Forum as the day goes along.
Steve
-------------------------
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
WS
This thread and the companion thread on the US Coin Forum has rekindled my interest in having the 1909 V.D.B. cent I have looked at by someone who knows MPL cents. Do you ever make it to any West Coast shows? If so maybe we can meet and I can show the coin to you. To me the coin looks much better that other MS early Lincolns that I have, with a strong strike, lots of detail in the design elements and squared off rims.
SanctionII.
SanctionII
I go to all 3 of the yearly Long Beach shows and would be glad to take a look at your coin if you plan on attending any of them.
TX
BW
<< <i>I remember seeing a raw 1909 MPL at the FUN show. I ran over to grab a copy of Flynn’s book to see if the diagnostics were there. They were not, so I told the dealer it’s not an MPL....Now you got me wondering!
WS >>
Same thing here. Recently took a chance on one on ebay, got it in and has no diagnostics. The reverse is struck up better than anything I have ever seen before on an ms example. Also has the strong rims, but I have not handled enough of the mpl's to know for sure. It is one of 10 coins at PCGS being graded, so I guess we'll find out at the end of April. I'll be the one crowing my good fortune if it comes back mpl. Later , Shag
Yes....I know....Im only one little guy here with a computer but HERE is why I dont think it IS a matte proof.
Top image is the coin in the current thread. Bottom image is a PR65 from Heritage archives. Note that the letters are very much less defined on the top coin. Especially so on the bottom of the R and T. High pressure medal room presses make those letters crisp. Production presses do NOT.
Also, that thing with the diagonal line in the C in CENT is a big concern. Though I did not take the time to scan over all the hundreds of images on heritage archives, I did not find a single Proof with that marker. And, as I recall....this was a major thread discussion some months back, and the conclusion was that the Proof, VDB or non VDB, did not contain that marker.
Frankly, I think PCGS has got it wrong. This current coin under discussion has not only a different obverse die, but a different reverse die.
<< <i>I dont think its a matte proof.
Yes....I know....Im only one little guy here with a computer but HERE is why I dont think it IS a matte proof.
Top image is the coin in the current thread. Bottom image is a PR65 from Heritage archives. Note that the letters are very much less defined on the top coin. Especially so on the bottom of the R and T. High pressure medal room presses make those letters crisp. Production presses do NOT.
Also, that thing with the diagonal line in the C in CENT is a big concern. Though I did not take the time to scan over all the hundreds of images on heritage archives, I did not find a single Proof with that marker. And, as I recall....this was a major thread discussion some months back, and the conclusion was that the Proof, VDB or non VDB, did not contain that marker.
Frankly, I think PCGS has got it wrong. This current coin under discussion has not only a different obverse die, but a different reverse die. >>
I will take some better images of it today and show you the markers.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
That mark is found on business strikes for years, so it was impressed into the HUB which transferred it to working dies. Are we to believe now that a new obverse/reverse die combo was used to strike a very very small amount of MPLS for possibly the last proof coining run in 1909? Certainly, that mark is a major factor here.
This is very interesting. But, Id certainly like to see some hi res photos of the OP coin, of LIBERTY> since, if it doesnt look as crisp and well defined, with flat surfaces and sharp angular points on the letters..............it didnt come off that medal press.
Here is a very clear shot of the reverse from a "1910" MPL cent PCGS PR64RD that has the slanted dieline within the "C" of CENT. This dieline is on the reverse of Charmy and Soty's 1909 MPL's. I have not seen this dieline on any other Matte Proofs from 1909 except for the two coins I mention in this post. Kevin would know believe there are two reverse dies included the newly discovered coins.
Since youve seen no other 1909 matties with the "mark", and Im thinking you have personally seen a good portion of the survivors, what does this tell you?
<< <i>Yeah Brian, thats it. Seems like it was impressed into the hub at some point in 1909. Finding that mark on a 1909 mattie means only one of two things. Its NOT a mattie, or that another reverse die for matte proofs was created in 1909.
Since youve seen no other 1909 matties with the "mark", and Im thinking you have personally seen a good portion of the survivors, what does this tell you? >>
I'm not sure what it tells Brian, but couldn't it be that the the 1909 and 1910 MPL share a reverse die? Considering the limited number of 1909's that show this mark, it seems to be to be a distinct possibility the relatively-unused 1909 reverse die was used again early in 1910.
What am I missing?
So no, it's not the end of the story. >>
Chris,
I did not receive an email from you, what email address did you email?
I use kevinj50@comcast.net and kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com. Neither of these have any emails
regarding a 1909 VDB proof with different diagnostics.
Had I received such an email, I would have requested you send the coin to me.
Kevin
As a diagnostic, it only applies to some 1909's. As I understand it, theres no evidence to suggest any lincoln cent die carryover from year to year (but of course I may be wrong with that).
<< <i>Mike that line in the C shows up on all lincoln cent reverses for many years thereafter. Its on all proofs and business strikes, and it gradually gets weaker and weaker, as it wears off the hub. Ive seen remnants of this on a 1932!
As a diagnostic, it only applies to some 1909's. As I understand it, theres no evidence to suggest any lincoln cent die carryover from year to year (but of course I may be wrong with that). >>
Thanks!
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
I'm a little confused (easy to do!). Question: Do the two 1909 cents in questions have:
A.: NO die characteristics
B.: The SAME die characteristic as Albrecht Variety 2 or 3, or
C.: Die characteristics DIFFERENT than Albrecht 1, 2 or 3?
Just wondering...Mike
p.s. the above question was asked by Tom in the US Coins forum, but I think it bears asking again here, as I'm confused and would like your opinion.
Obverse #3 die diagnostics to be "Heavy die polish to the right of the nose." He also shows an image. As seen below, the markings on my coin match 100% to the image that Albrecht showed in his original publication.
My coin with markings that match the Albrecht Obverse #3
The reverse of my coin appears to show all the diagnostics provided by Leonard Albrecht as provided in his 1983 publishment. He lists Reverse B diagnostics as "Heavy die polish by O in ONE. Die polish by T in CENT and
under CA in AMERICA." I will try to get some closeup images of these markings sometime today. I've read Leonards publication probably more than 100 times. Going through his diagnostics and comparing them to Kevin Flynns
matte proof book it appears as though what is stated in Kevin Flynns book as "die scratches" are stated in Leonard Albrechts book as "die polish". It seems as though what we now consider to be die scratches Leonard referred
to as heavy die polish. Upon further research in Kevin Flynns matte proof book there is one unverified reverse die which he referrs to as Reverse #2 crossreferenced to the Albrecht Reverse B.
Kevin lists the following diagnostics in addition to the Albrecht diagnostics:
1. Die scratch from the rim to the left of E of EPU to the left wheat stalk. - My coin appears to have this die scratch/die polish markings
2. Die scratch from the first dot of EPU down into the field. - A lot of toning, hard to tell. I will try to get some large images.
3. Vertical die scratches to the left and through the O in ONE. - My coin has several of these
4. Several die scratches from the M of UNUM south to the left of the top of the wheat stalk. - A lot of toning, hard to tell. I will try to get some large images.
5. Many die scratch through and to the right of the E of CENT and the T of CENT. - My coin has these
6. Several die scratch from the A of AMERICA south. - My coin has these
Very interesting pictures and commentary. I see your comparison to Albrecht's picture at the left bottom of the page for 1909 in his pamphlet. Sounds like your "discovery piece" is one of the reported dies used for 1909's as reported by Albrecht in 1982. It would be great if we could get PCGS graders to confirm their basis for authenticity of 1909 MPL's diagnostics. I would further appreciate Kevin's comments here regarding this "discovery piece" and how the pieces may fit together. It is threads like these that make communication on these boards so worth while. We can all learn alot. Let's not get hung up on who gets credit for a "discovery piece". Let's ALL try to learn something more about the diagnostics of the 1909 (plain) MPL.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
and called me over. They were looking at Charmy's 1909 Lincoln cent matte proof which they stated was not
the one listed in the book.
Brian said that there was another individual at the show who had probably the same coin, that I should meet
them and view their coin also, Brian looked around and could not find you.
I looked at Charmy's coin, noted it did not have the diagnostics of 1909P #1, noted it had the rims, borders,
and edges of a matte proof, that it had a natural surface texture of a matte, but that it had a soft strike on the
head of Lincoln. The coin was raw, Charmy offered to allow me to photograph if I wished.
The next day I took the coin to my table and recorded and photographed all of the diagnostics from Charmy's coin.
Later I saw Brian, Jonathan and Chris were at the table, Chris showed me his coin, I verified the diagnostics
I had seen on Charmy's coin.
In my Matte book, I list where applicable who submitted the coin, I normally do not list the discoverer.
That is not my decision to make, nor the objective of my books, the objective of a coin book is to teach people
about coins. As Charmy permitted me to photograph her coins I will list Charmy as the the individual who submitted
this variety.
In general, it is my opinion that the discoverer is the first person who can show that they discovered and published
a variety. I would suggest that anyone who wishes to be listed as a discoverer simply have photographs taken and
publish them on a forum such as this.
Kevin
<< <i>For this particular variety, I was walking down the aisle at Baltimore, Brian and Jonathan were sitting at a table
and called me over. They were looking at Charmy's 1909 Lincoln cent matte proof which they stated was not
the one listed in the book.
Brian said that there was another individual at the show who had probably the same coin, that I should meet
them and view their coin also, Brian looked around and could not find you.
I looked at Charmy's coin, noted it did not have the diagnostics of 1909P #1, noted it had the rims, borders,
and edges of a matte proof, that it had a natural surface texture of a matte, but that it had a soft strike on the
head of Lincoln. The coin was raw, Charmy offered to allow me to photograph if I wished.
The next day I took the coin to my table and recorded and photographed all of the diagnostics from Charmy's coin.
Later I saw Brian, Jonathan and Chris were at the table, Chris showed me his coin, I verified the diagnostics
I had seen on Charmy's coin.
In my Matte book, I list where applicable who submitted the coin, I normally do not list the discoverer.
That is not my decision to make, nor the objective of my books, the objective of a coin book is to teach people
about coins. As Charmy permitted me to photograph her coins I will list Charmy as the the individual who submitted
this variety.
In general, it is my opinion that the discoverer is the first person who can show that they discovered and published
a variety. I would suggest that anyone who wishes to be listed as a discoverer simply have photographs taken and
publish them on a forum such as this.
Kevin >>
You seem to have the facts a bit off, my coin was not at the show , You have never looked at my coin nor compared it with charmys while at the baltimore show. I was also standing there when you and brian were looking at charmys while I was discussing my coin with brian, I showed images of my coin to brian and then walked to charmys table to try and compare her coin with mine and then back to my table again to compare the images.
Kevin,
<< <i>Chris,
Very interesting pictures and commentary. I see your comparison to Albrecht's picture at the left bottom of the page for 1909 in his pamphlet. Sounds like your "discovery piece" is one of the reported dies used for 1909's as reported by Albrecht in 1982. It would be great if we could get PCGS graders to confirm their basis for authenticity of 1909 MPL's diagnostics. I would further appreciate Kevin's comments here regarding this "discovery piece" and how the pieces may fit together. It is threads like these that make communication on these boards so worth while. We can all learn alot. Let's not get hung up on who gets credit for a "discovery piece". Let's ALL try to learn something more about the diagnostics of the 1909 (plain) MPL.
Steve
I dont think my coin is a discovery of a new die. I simply think that it is the first verified example of the albrecths die examples therefore making the assumption that there was only one die pair for the 1909 mpl untrue.
<< <i>In general, it is my opinion that the discoverer is the first person who can show that they discovered and published
a variety. I would suggest that anyone who wishes to be listed as a discoverer simply have photographs taken and
publish them on a forum such as this. >>
By that definition, and the information in Albrecht, it appears neither one of these coins is a discovery coin, but rather a re-discovery of a previously-described variety (? or perhaps a new die pairing?).
Have I missed anything?
>>
Chris,
I stand corrected, you are right, you did not have the coin, I believe I saw the images on your computer, and I believed yours
was a confirming specimen.
Kevin
Have I missed anything? >>
The obverse and reverse which is listed as a new variety does not have the diagnostics
listed in Albrecht, therefore, it has never been listed before. I am sure that Charmy's coin did not have
the die scratches in front of the nose.
I do not like to use the term discovery piece, but in reality, it is the first time the diagnostics of this new variety
is listed in a public forum or book.
The specimen from Chris appears to have diagnostics consistent with Albrecht obv #3.
Kevin
<< <i>Hey Kevin,
I'm a little confused (easy to do!). Question: Do the two 1909 cents in questions have:
A.: NO die characteristics
B.: The SAME die characteristic as Albrecht Variety 2 or 3, or
C.: Die characteristics DIFFERENT than Albrecht 1, 2 or 3?
Just wondering...Mike
p.s. the above question was asked by Tom in the US Coins forum, but I think it bears asking again here, as I'm confused and would like your opinion. >>
Hi Mike,
C. The diagnostics displayed in Albrecht in obverse #2 and #3 were not on this 1909 P matte proof.
There were no die scratches in front of or below the nose, and no die crack from the rim to the bust.
There was an entirely new set of diagnostics.
Kevin
<< <i>By that definition, and the information in Albrecht, it appears neither one of these coins is a discovery coin, but rather a re-discovery of a previously-described variety (?or perhaps a new die pairing?).
Have I missed anything? >>
The obverse and reverse which is listed as a new variety does not have the diagnostics
listed in Albrecht, therefore, it has never been listed before. I am sure that Charmy's coin did not have
the die scratches in front of the nose.
I do not like to use the term discovery piece, but in reality, it is the first time the diagnostics of this new variety
is listed in a public forum or book.
The specimen from Chris appears to have diagnostics consistent with Albrecht obv #3.
Kevin >>
Thanks for your response, Kevin.
If I'm following things (which is certainly never a given
How can we have an "end of story" when apparently Kevin Flynn is the sole determinator of new die state MPL's. I know he has convinced Whitman Publishing to accept the MPL mintages (except for 1911 for some unknown reason), but now the diagnostic determination also? For these things to "stick" within the hobby, much time needs to go by where many hobbyists can look at all the facts and then make determinations. It is hard for me to believe that ALL 1909VDB MPL's + ALL 1909 MPL's used just the ONE obverse die until suddenly, here in 2010 a "discovery coin" shows up and then a second "discovery coin" with the exact same diagnostics shows up. Until Kevin stated in his 2009 Matte Proof Lincoln book that Albrecht's pictures were "not verified", I had always believed that there were THREE obverse dies for the 1909 MPL's. Apparently Kevin believed that too in his 1996 book with John Wexler, page 349 of the "Authoritative Reference on Lincoln Cents" where he states Albrechts diagnostics for the three obverse dies word for word. I wonder what changed Kevin's mind in the past 13 years?
Steve
Steve,
Actually, Whitman based their Matte proof numbers on both the research of myself and Roger Burdette.
One interesting thing I found regarding which might add some clarity to the 1909 VDB matte proof counts.
I was research an old auction catalogue, I had found two 1909 VDB Lincoln cent matte proofs, which was in a 1909
silver proof set, the second was part of a minor proof set (cent and nickel).
This is the first I had seen written verification of a 1909 minor proof set.
If you remember in the red book, for the cent and nickel cents from 1864 through 1873, there is a '+' next to the
proof counts, this is because the actual counts did not include specimens sold in the minor proof sets.
On my web site, www.kevinjflynn.com, I wrote an article about a archive book I found which listed minor proof sets
actually sold and included the counts.
What if 1194 represents the number struck, 420 represents the number sold in the silver proof sets, with the
remaining sold in the minor proof sets.
I have not found anything to confirm this, but it is an interesting theory.
Kevin
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Great Thread......
<< <i>Great Thread......
I agree it's a imformative thread, wish everyone would remember it is a hobby
and suppose to be fun and for the enjoyment of all.