I think chramys coin may simply be a die state from the alredy discovered albrecht die stated previously in his book, I could be completly wrong but from reading the die markers stated in the pcgs newsletter there are at least one that I can recall off the top of my head as already being listed by albrecht.
On another note in kevins book it states that the other albrecht dies were not confirmed so would this make my coin the first to confirm it ?
<< <i>I think chramys coin may simply be a die state from the alredy discovered albrecht die stated previously in his book, I could be completly wrong but from reading the die markers stated in the pcgs newsletter there are at least one that I can recall off the top of my head as already being listed by albrecht. On another note in kevins book it states that the other albrecht dies were not confirmed so would this make my coin the first to confirm it ? >>
Chris,
My book lists coins which I have known or read about, but which I have not verified.
My objective is to hopefully inspire readers to look for new or different dies and publish for the benefit of all. Listing as not verified does not mean they do not exist, it simply means the author could not verify the coin absolutely and therefore is choosing not to list it as a specimen that they have verified and will attest to.
I do not know and cannot confirm that your variety is the first which has been shown since Albrecht's book was published. It is the first specimen I have seen a photo of outside of Albrecht, that is what I can confirm.
I read those threads and none of the listed examples or diagnostics are found on the obverse of my coin. I am pretty sure I nailed it as being the albrecths variety, and I also do not think there is another one out there that has been varified.
I have been following this thread and the companion thread on the US Coin Forum with interest.
I just looked at the 1909 V.D.B. cent I posted about earlier and again through a 10x loupe. I compared it with the pictures posted in this thread that show:
1. the "LIBERTY" on the coin which soty27 has and the "LIBERTY" on a coin in Heritage archives;
2. the close up of the "C" in "CENT" on the reverse of a 1909 cent that has a diagonal die marker inside of the "C"; and
3. the close of of Soty27's coin next to the Albrecht Obverse #3 coin pictured in his 1980s publication [which show die markers in front of Lincoln's nose].
After looking at my 1909 V.D.B. and comparing same to the pictures described above, my coin:
1. has a "LIBERTY" that looks exactly like the "LIBERTY" shown on the coin in the Heritage archives;
2. has the diagonal die marker inside of the "C" on the reverse; and
3. does not have the die markers in front of Lincoln's nose that are present in the Albrecht Obverse #3.
Does anyone know of a 1909 V.D.B. matte proof that has items 1. and 2. above and that does not have the Albrecht Obverse #3? If so, details please.
I also compared my 1909 V.D.B. with a circulation strike MS 1909 V.D.B. that I have in a 7070 Type Album. The two coins are very different in appearance. The coin from the 7070 album has a softer, mushier appearance with much less design detail; does not have square angular rims; and has lettering that is flatter than on the 1909 V.D.B. that I suspect may be a matte proof.
This thread and the companion thread on the US Coin Forum is a great example of the best of the forums.
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.
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 >>
Kevin, First, thanks again for participating here. You know I sometimes am critical of certain things you report on but I have always respected what you do for the hobby and the research you perform. In order to NOT take this thread away from the main theme which is the 1909 MPL and its diagnostics, I have sniped some of your comments to me to just respond to the above.
Roger did provide Whitman with the 1,725 number for 1911 MPL's and told me the support information was private with Whitman. Maybe Dennis Tucker could tell us (the hobby) the basis of that count. The historical number is 1,733 and the medal and proof coin books 1 & 2 as well as your count is 2,411. I continue to wonder where in the world did Roger get that 1,725 count that now resides in the Red Book for 1911 MPL's.
It is interesting that you apparently just RECENTLY saw proof of the fact that the US Mint was producing minor proof sets and silver proof sets in the MPL era. I was made aware of that fact many, many years ago and in fact David Lange wrote plenty about it in his 1996 book on the Lincoln cents.
I can agree with the possibility that the US Mint SOLD 420 1909VDB MPL's. The 1,194 number represents the quantity delivered to the coiner as good. The quantity actually struck was 1,503 as per your own reporting.
Now one quick question for you on this thread's focus. Do you think that Charmy's 1909 MPL could possibily been from Albrecht's die 2 or die 3 obverse? Someone said the coin had been cracked out of a NGC holder which tells me the NGC graders had to have some logical basis for attributing the coin as genuine and then grading it. With so much discussed regarding whether a given coin is a REAL MPL or a business strike, do you think that NGC just missed that one? Thanks Again. Steve
Kevin, I can agree with the possibility that the US Mint SOLD 420 1909VDB MPL's. The 1,194 number represents the quantity delivered to the coiner as good. The quantity actually struck was 1,503 as per your own reporting. Now one quick question for you on this thread's focus. Do you think that Charmy's 1909 MPL could possibily been from Albrecht's die 2 or die 3 obverse? Someone said the coin had been cracked out of a NGC holder which tells me the NGC graders had to have some logical basis for attributing the coin as genuine and then grading it. With so much discussed regarding whether a given coin is a REAL MPL or a business strike, do you think that NGC just missed that one? Thanks Again. Steve >>
Steve,
Where are you getting 1,503, I never said 1,503 I said 1,194 were struck and delivered.
I speculated that the Mint might only reported 420 as that what was sold in the silver proof sets with the remainder of 1194 - 420 sold in minor proof sets.
On Charmy's coin, I can verify that the coin had the rims, borders, and edges of a matte proof besides having the matte surface texture. I can also verify I checked and saw none of the diagnostics listed for any of the 1909P matte proofs listed in Albrecht. I will stake my reputation that this is a matte proof.
Your original post challenged my listings and that I expressed opinions, not facts which were supported, please explain what listings were not supported.
My book lists coins which I have known or read about, but which I have not verified.
My objective is to hopefully inspire readers to look for new or different dies and publish for the benefit of all. Listing as not verified does not mean they do not exist, it simply means the author could not verify the coin absolutely and therefore is choosing not to list it as a specimen that they have verified and will attest to.
I do not know and cannot confirm that your variety is the first which has been shown since Albrecht's book was published. It is the first specimen I have seen a photo of outside of Albrecht, that is what I can confirm.
Kevin >>
Kevin, With the publication of your MPL book last year it seems a number of people in the hobby now consider YOU to be the sole expert regarding things like diagnostics and mintage because of your acknowledged research into the subject. Certainly RWB (Roger Burdette) falls into that category too. The problem to me is that when YOU say that YOU cannot verify a particular point, many in the hobby then dismiss that point. I have always known about Albrecht's THREE obverse dies analysis with PICTURES. I think you need to be very specific when you say you can't verify something. You have a powerful voice in the hobby. Look at how you got Whitman publishing to change the MPL counts. They didn't change the mintage counts for nickels, dines, quarters or halves to conform to the Metal and Proof books of the US Mint. But they did change the Lincoln mintages primarily based on your research. So lots of hobbyists here will follow what you say as FACT rather than just your informed opinion. I think it is important to always remember that as you write in the future. JMHO. Steve
That quote is from the US Coin Forum thread (page 3) ... written by Doug (DMWJR), who obviously knows a GREAT deal about this series. I am curious about the 1982 discovery.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>Kevin, I can agree with the possibility that the US Mint SOLD 420 1909VDB MPL's. The 1,194 number represents the quantity delivered to the coiner as good. The quantity actually struck was 1,503 as per your own reporting. Now one quick question for you on this thread's focus. Do you think that Charmy's 1909 MPL could possibily been from Albrecht's die 2 or die 3 obverse? Someone said the coin had been cracked out of a NGC holder which tells me the NGC graders had to have some logical basis for attributing the coin as genuine and then grading it. With so much discussed regarding whether a given coin is a REAL MPL or a business strike, do you think that NGC just missed that one? Thanks Again. Steve >>
Steve,
Where are you getting 1,503, I never said 1,503 I said 1,194 were struck and delivered.
I speculated that the Mint might only reported 420 as that what was sold in the silver proof sets with the remainder of 1194 - 420 sold in minor proof sets.
On Charmy's coin, I can verify that the coin had the rims, borders, and edges of a matte proof besides having the matte surface texture. I can also verify I checked and saw none of the diagnostics listed for any of the 1909P matte proofs listed in Albrecht. I will stake my reputation that this is a matte proof.
Your original post challenged my listings and that I expressed opinions, not facts which were supported, please explain what listings were not supported.
Kevin >>
Kevin, We are both responding at the same time and I apologize if I miss something. The 1,503 number for 1909VDB MPL's is from your report of the coins struck on July 30th, 1909. Now we all realize many of those coins were no good and were immediately scrapped but the fact remains that the presses actually struck 1,503 coins and reported that FACT in the metal and proof books. Now, there must be a reason the US Mint personnel in 1909 reported 1,503 coins STRUCK. You have used your informed judgement to exclude the bad coins and report only 1,194 as good. Nothing wrong with that but you shouldn't also then say that the mint struck 1,194 and that is the mintage.
My understanding of US mint proof sales in that era was that the minor coins were sold as a set. (Cents & Nickels) and that the silver proof sets were also sold as a set (Dimes, Quarters & Halves) It does not make sense to me to assume 420 of these 1909VDB's were sold in Silver proof sets. The possibility that 1,194-420 or 774 1909VDB MPL's were sold in minor proof sets with nickels also does not make sense to me for a couple of reasons. The numbers don't jive with reported nickel counts and the quantities supposidely in the hand of collectors is much higher than current availability would indicate exists.
Your comments on Charmy's coin I can accept what you say. With further verification and hopefully holdering by PCGS or NGC we might have another die identified for the 1909 plain MPL.
I hope I have clarified your concerns at least a little. Steve
I posted this on the US coin forum and am pasting this here also:
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/Chris's coin have the same reverses but different obverses?? Both coins have to be scarce though because they are the first 1909's that have 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.
UPDATE!
"Kevin has told me Chris is sending his coin out to him and he will report back to the forum his findings regarding both of the coins"
Brian Wagner Rare Coins, Specializing in PCGS graded, Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels varieties.
Thanks for the image but no, I have seen that on the MS 1909 VDB's its the Proof 1909 VDB where I have never seen the slash dieline in the C. Below is a 1909 VDB proof and the close up below is from a 1910 MPL that has the dieline in the C. I have only seen this slash dieline twice on 1909 proof cents and that is on the reverse of both coins, Charmy and Chris's that are being discussed in the two threads, US/Reg form.
Reverse from 1910 MPL Upper and 1909 VDB MPL lower coin
Brian Wagner Rare Coins, Specializing in PCGS graded, Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels varieties.
Through my own personal research yesterday I've determined that my coin is the Albrecht Obverse #3, I believe the reverse to be Albrecht Reverse B. Although I cant remember Charmys coin enough with absolute detail, I don't believe Charmys coin to be a new die but simply one of the Albrecht dies. If we can get images of that coin posted on here we can compare and I would bet that there are die markers on Charmys coin that match one of the Albrecht varieties. In my opinion although I'd need an image that its starting to sound like the Charmy reverse is an Albrecht variety and Kevin may have discovered other die markers in addition to the ones that Albrecht already listed but at this point a lot of them sound too similar in my opinion although I could be completely wrong.
My 1909 has almost all of the "new die" markers
Here is a picture of my reverse. It does have the small over large TE of UNITED as well as several other characteristics of Charmys coin (although it may be difficult to see in this particular image).
1. The Albrecht Unverified Reverse B states "Several die scratches from the M of UNUM south to the left of the top of the wheat stalk" Kevins new diagnostics for the "new die" states "Die scratch from M of UNUM left into the field above E of ONE." It sounds extremely similar and I don't think its a coincidence.
2. The Albrecht Unverified Reverse B states "Many die scratches through and to the right of E of cent" Kevins new diagnostics for the "new die" states "Die scratch from the center of E to the N of CENT."
3. The Albrecht Reverse A states "Die chip at 3 o'clock". Kevins new diagnostics for the "new die" states "Die chip next to the rim at 3 o'clock"
I sent the coin to Kevin yesterday to see if he can confirm my opinion of my coin. It should arrive there today and it's pretty easy to tell from the images and in hand that my obverse is the Albrecht 3 and I believe the reverse to be Albrecht B
Thanks for posting the clear image of your coins reverse which I can clearly see the small/large "TE" in united as well as the slanted dieline in the C of CENT. I will wait for Kevin's confirmation but I am convinced your coin and Charmy's match on the reverses. Now, lets see what Kevin has to say about the obverse of each coin.
BW
Brian Wagner Rare Coins, Specializing in PCGS graded, Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels varieties.
Thanks for posting the clear image of your coins reverse which I can clearly see the small/large "TE" in united as well as the slanted dieline in the C of CENT. I will wait for Kevin's confirmation but I am convinced your coin and Charmy's match on the reverses. Now, lets see what Kevin has to say about the obverse of each coin.
BW >>
I agree, it would appear that our coins match as far as the reverse, I am pretty sure they do not match on the obverse though. On another note part of me really thinks they are the reverse B from albretch book but I am not posotive on that part. Its still very exciting to me however to have verified the obverse of my coin to the previously unverified alrecht obverse.
Heres that die marker line in the C.....all the way into 1917! A LOT of working dies had been stamped out by then, and it is on all the other proofs, as well as the business strikes.
I don't think it should change anything as long as its says "proof "on the holder. Please understand the coin was cracked out of a PCGS PR65RB holder, that's tag was in the flip with the coin when I was handed the coin at Charmy's talble.
Brian Wagner Rare Coins, Specializing in PCGS graded, Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels varieties.
<< <i>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.
<< <i>Through my own personal research yesterday I've determined that my coin is the Albrecht Obverse #3, I believe the reverse to be Albrecht Reverse B. Although I cant remember Charmys coin enough with absolute detail, I don't believe Charmys coin to be a new die but simply one of the Albrecht dies. If we can get images of that coin posted on here we can compare and I would bet that there are die markers on Charmys coin that match one of the Albrecht varieties. In my opinion although I'd need an image that its starting to sound like the Charmy reverse is an Albrecht variety and Kevin may have discovered other die markers in addition to the ones that Albrecht already listed but at this point a lot of them sound too similar in my opinion although I could be completely wrong. My 1909 has almost all of the "new die" markers Here is a picture of my reverse. It does have the small over large TE of UNITED as well as several other characteristics of Charmys coin (although it may be difficult to see in this particular image). 1. The Albrecht Unverified Reverse B states "Several die scratches from the M of UNUM south to the left of the top of the wheat stalk" Kevins new diagnostics for the "new die" states "Die scratch from M of UNUM left into the field above E of ONE." It sounds extremely similar and I don't think its a coincidence. 2. The Albrecht Unverified Reverse B states "Many die scratches through and to the right of E of cent" Kevins new diagnostics for the "new die" states "Die scratch from the center of E to the N of CENT." 3. The Albrecht Reverse A states "Die chip at 3 o'clock". Kevins new diagnostics for the "new die" states "Die chip next to the rim at 3 o'clock" >>
Chris,
Thanks for the photo, I cannot see if there is a die scratch in the lower UN of UNITED and TAT of STATES. Thanks for sending the coin, as soon as I get it tomorrow I will scope and document all diagnostics.
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 >>
Tom,
Thank you for your apology.
For the book I wrote, I would and could not include matte proofs which I did not verify myself. As I am attesting that the varieties I included are actual matte proofs and the diagnostics are verified by myself. To do otherwise would be the same as including hearsay, which I will not do. I included them simply for reference, hoping someone would find one which I could view.
In any future edtions of this book, I will update to state something to the effect of "The following varieties have yet to be verified by the author. The varieties listed here which reference varieties from Albrecht Lincoln Cent Matte Proof book were verified by Leonard Albrecht and the ANA staff."
I believe Chris has the Albrecht #3. With the large die crack for #2 in an obvious location, I would bet that it was removed early and most likely very rare.
<< <i>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 >>
Tom,
Thank you for your apology.
For the book I wrote, I would and could not include matte proofs which I did not verify myself. As I am attesting that the varieties I included are actual matte proofs and the diagnostics are verified by myself. To do otherwise would be the same as including hearsay, which I will not do. I included them simply for reference, hoping someone would find one which I could view.
In any future edtions of this book, I will update to state something to the effect of "The following varieties have yet to be verified by the author. The varieties listed here which reference varieties from Albrecht Lincoln Cent Matte Proof book were verified by Leonard Albrecht and the ANA staff."
I believe Chris has the Albrecht #3. With the large die crack for #2 in an obvious location, I would bet that it was removed early and most likely very rare.
Kevin >>
Kevin,
I am very excited to see what you ahev to say about the reverse of my coin, it is lacking some of the new diagnostics but has some others. It should be interesting to hear what you have to say.
<< <i> In any future edtions of this book, I will update to state something to the effect of "The following varieties have yet to be verified by the author. The varieties listed here which reference varieties from Albrecht Lincoln Cent Matte Proof book were verified by Leonard Albrecht and the ANA staff."
I believe Chris has the Albrecht #3. With the large die crack for #2 in an obvious location, I would bet that it was removed early and most likely very rare.
Kevin >>
That sounds reasonable.
I agree that Albrecht Var. 2 must be very rare. Sometimes it happens. Back at ANACS we had authenticated hundreds of 1928-P dollars with internal notes listing them as die varieties 1, 2 or 3, when one day we got in a genuine coin that became die variety 4. I don't think I ever saw another one, though they may have had some after I left.
TD
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.
It appears that the reverse of Soty's coin is a CONECA SD-1-R-IV+VIII , below is a pic of the reverse of a pcgs 1909 PR64RD (OGH) that I bought and sold about 2yrs ago, I think that I have more pics of the coin and slab on my pc at work.....I have also seen the CONECA SD-1-R-IV+VIII on Business Strike 1909 Cents.
I believe Chris has the Albrecht #3. With the large die crack for #2 in an obvious location, I would bet that it was removed early and most likely very rare.
Kevin >>
Kevin,
I am very excited to see what you ahev to say about the reverse of my coin, it is lacking some of the new diagnostics but has some others. It should be interesting to hear what you have to say. >>
Chris, Kevin, Last Wednesday and Thursday we all were absorbed with this exciting story involving the 1909 MPL. What have you guys found out?
Any updates? I would like to see close ups of Charmy's coin if any are available yet. Seems like we are awaiting confirmation that Chris' coin is one of the Albrecht coins from the 1982 article, and Charmy's has the same reverse, but maybe not the same obverse.
<< <i>Any updates? I would like to see close ups of Charmy's coin if any are available yet. Seems like we are awaiting confirmation that Chris' coin is one of the Albrecht coins from the 1982 article, and Charmy's has the same reverse, but maybe not the same obverse. >>
Doug,
Kevin has both coins for study and will report back to us soon.
Brian Wagner Rare Coins, Specializing in PCGS graded, Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels varieties.
Sounds good. It would be somewhat surprising if there was a fourth obverse die discovered for such a limited run, so I am really curious. That certainly doesn't mean it would be out of the question at all with a first year run either, but surprising nonetheless. With both coins having the same reverse, I strongly suspect that the obverses will turn out to be the same, but the proof of the pudding is always in the eating ...
I have heard back from kevin but he is waiting to get charmys coin back for a closer look. I will wait until kevin posts here with the information he has shared with me.
Comments
On another note in kevins book it states that the other albrecht dies were not confirmed so would this make my coin the first to confirm it ?
<< <i>I think chramys coin may simply be a die state from the alredy discovered albrecht die stated previously in his book, I could be completly wrong but from reading the die markers stated in the pcgs newsletter there are at least one that I can recall off the top of my head as already being listed by albrecht.
On another note in kevins book it states that the other albrecht dies were not confirmed so would this make my coin the first to confirm it ? >>
Chris,
My book lists coins which I have known or read about, but which I have not verified.
My objective is to hopefully inspire readers to look for new or different dies and publish for the benefit of all.
Listing as not verified does not mean they do not exist, it simply means the author could not verify the coin absolutely and
therefore is choosing not to list it as a specimen that they have verified and will attest to.
I do not know and cannot confirm that your variety is the first which has been shown since Albrecht's book was published.
It is the first specimen I have seen a photo of outside of Albrecht, that is what I can confirm.
Kevin
This was done before Kevin's book, but well after Albrecht's. You may have already seen it.
Link
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
<< <i>Here is a date by date analysis done by some forum members. It is titled for the VDB, but there are links to the other dates included.
This was done before Kevin's book, but well after Albrecht's. You may have already seen it.
Link >>
I read those threads and none of the listed examples or diagnostics are found on the obverse of my coin. I am pretty sure I nailed it as being the albrecths variety, and I also do not think there is another one out there that has been varified.
I just looked at the 1909 V.D.B. cent I posted about earlier and again through a 10x loupe. I compared it with the pictures posted in this thread that show:
1. the "LIBERTY" on the coin which soty27 has and the "LIBERTY" on a coin in Heritage archives;
2. the close up of the "C" in "CENT" on the reverse of a 1909 cent that has a diagonal die marker inside of the "C"; and
3. the close of of Soty27's coin next to the Albrecht Obverse #3 coin pictured in his 1980s publication [which show die markers in front of Lincoln's nose].
After looking at my 1909 V.D.B. and comparing same to the pictures described above, my coin:
1. has a "LIBERTY" that looks exactly like the "LIBERTY" shown on the coin in the Heritage archives;
2. has the diagonal die marker inside of the "C" on the reverse; and
3. does not have the die markers in front of Lincoln's nose that are present in the Albrecht Obverse #3.
Does anyone know of a 1909 V.D.B. matte proof that has items 1. and 2. above and that does not have the Albrecht Obverse #3? If so, details please.
I also compared my 1909 V.D.B. with a circulation strike MS 1909 V.D.B. that I have in a 7070 Type Album. The two coins are very different in appearance. The coin from the 7070 album has a softer, mushier appearance with much less design detail; does not have square angular rims; and has lettering that is flatter than on the 1909 V.D.B. that I suspect may be a matte proof.
This thread and the companion thread on the US Coin Forum is a great example of the best of the forums.
Thanks PCGS for being our host.
<< <i>
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.
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 >>
Kevin,
First, thanks again for participating here. You know I sometimes am critical of certain things you report on but I have always respected what you do for the hobby and the research you perform. In order to NOT take this thread away from the main theme which is the 1909 MPL and its diagnostics, I have sniped some of your comments to me to just respond to the above.
Roger did provide Whitman with the 1,725 number for 1911 MPL's and told me the support information was private with Whitman. Maybe Dennis Tucker could tell us (the hobby) the basis of that count. The historical number is 1,733 and the medal and proof coin books 1 & 2 as well as your count is 2,411. I continue to wonder where in the world did Roger get that 1,725 count that now resides in the Red Book for 1911 MPL's.
It is interesting that you apparently just RECENTLY saw proof of the fact that the US Mint was producing minor proof sets and silver proof sets in the MPL era. I was made aware of that fact many, many years ago and in fact David Lange wrote plenty about it in his 1996 book on the Lincoln cents.
I can agree with the possibility that the US Mint SOLD 420 1909VDB MPL's. The 1,194 number represents the quantity delivered to the coiner as good. The quantity actually struck was 1,503 as per your own reporting.
Now one quick question for you on this thread's focus. Do you think that Charmy's 1909 MPL could possibily been from Albrecht's die 2 or die 3 obverse? Someone said the coin had been cracked out of a NGC holder which tells me the NGC graders had to have some logical basis for attributing the coin as genuine and then grading it. With so much discussed regarding whether a given coin is a REAL MPL or a business strike, do you think that NGC just missed that one?
Thanks Again.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
I can agree with the possibility that the US Mint SOLD 420 1909VDB MPL's. The 1,194 number represents the quantity delivered to the coiner as good. The quantity actually struck was 1,503 as per your own reporting.
Now one quick question for you on this thread's focus. Do you think that Charmy's 1909 MPL could possibily been from Albrecht's die 2 or die 3 obverse? Someone said the coin had been cracked out of a NGC holder which tells me the NGC graders had to have some logical basis for attributing the coin as genuine and then grading it. With so much discussed regarding whether a given coin is a REAL MPL or a business strike, do you think that NGC just missed that one?
Thanks Again.
Steve
Steve,
Where are you getting 1,503, I never said 1,503
I said 1,194 were struck and delivered.
I speculated that the Mint might only reported 420 as that what was sold in the silver proof sets with the
remainder of 1194 - 420 sold in minor proof sets.
On Charmy's coin, I can verify that the coin had the rims, borders, and edges of a matte proof besides having the matte surface texture.
I can also verify I checked and saw none of the diagnostics listed for any of the 1909P matte proofs listed in Albrecht.
I will stake my reputation that this is a matte proof.
Your original post challenged my listings and that I expressed opinions, not facts which were supported, please explain
what listings were not supported.
Kevin
<< <i>
Chris,
My book lists coins which I have known or read about, but which I have not verified.
My objective is to hopefully inspire readers to look for new or different dies and publish for the benefit of all.
Listing as not verified does not mean they do not exist, it simply means the author could not verify the coin absolutely and
therefore is choosing not to list it as a specimen that they have verified and will attest to.
I do not know and cannot confirm that your variety is the first which has been shown since Albrecht's book was published.
It is the first specimen I have seen a photo of outside of Albrecht, that is what I can confirm.
Kevin >>
Kevin,
With the publication of your MPL book last year it seems a number of people in the hobby now consider YOU to be the sole expert regarding things like diagnostics and mintage because of your acknowledged research into the subject. Certainly RWB (Roger Burdette) falls into that category too. The problem to me is that when YOU say that YOU cannot verify a particular point, many in the hobby then dismiss that point. I have always known about Albrecht's THREE obverse dies analysis with PICTURES. I think you need to be very specific when you say you can't verify something. You have a powerful voice in the hobby. Look at how you got Whitman publishing to change the MPL counts. They didn't change the mintage counts for nickels, dines, quarters or halves to conform to the Metal and Proof books of the US Mint. But they did change the Lincoln mintages primarily based on your research. So lots of hobbyists here will follow what you say as FACT rather than just your informed opinion. I think it is important to always remember that as you write in the future. JMHO.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
I admit I did not read every word of this thread, but, I did find the above sentence very signifcant. Can some post the 1982 story please.
Wondercoin
P.S. I am looking forward to examining my PR65RB coin!
<< <i>"The entire thing is a little stretched IMO. It is quite a leap to call this a new discovery, when it was reported in 1982."
I admit I did not read every word of this thread, but, I did find the above sentence very signifcant. Can some post the 1982 story please.
Wondercoin
P.S. I am looking forward to examining my PR65RB coin! >>
What 1982 story are you reering to ?
Wondercoin
<< <i>Kevin,
I can agree with the possibility that the US Mint SOLD 420 1909VDB MPL's. The 1,194 number represents the quantity delivered to the coiner as good. The quantity actually struck was 1,503 as per your own reporting.
Now one quick question for you on this thread's focus. Do you think that Charmy's 1909 MPL could possibily been from Albrecht's die 2 or die 3 obverse? Someone said the coin had been cracked out of a NGC holder which tells me the NGC graders had to have some logical basis for attributing the coin as genuine and then grading it. With so much discussed regarding whether a given coin is a REAL MPL or a business strike, do you think that NGC just missed that one?
Thanks Again.
Steve
Steve,
Where are you getting 1,503, I never said 1,503
I said 1,194 were struck and delivered.
I speculated that the Mint might only reported 420 as that what was sold in the silver proof sets with the
remainder of 1194 - 420 sold in minor proof sets.
On Charmy's coin, I can verify that the coin had the rims, borders, and edges of a matte proof besides having the matte surface texture.
I can also verify I checked and saw none of the diagnostics listed for any of the 1909P matte proofs listed in Albrecht.
I will stake my reputation that this is a matte proof.
Your original post challenged my listings and that I expressed opinions, not facts which were supported, please explain
what listings were not supported.
Kevin >>
Kevin,
We are both responding at the same time and I apologize if I miss something. The 1,503 number for 1909VDB MPL's is from your report of the coins struck on July 30th, 1909. Now we all realize many of those coins were no good and were immediately scrapped but the fact remains that the presses actually struck 1,503 coins and reported that FACT in the metal and proof books. Now, there must be a reason the US Mint personnel in 1909 reported 1,503 coins STRUCK. You have used your informed judgement to exclude the bad coins and report only 1,194 as good. Nothing wrong with that but you shouldn't also then say that the mint struck 1,194 and that is the mintage.
My understanding of US mint proof sales in that era was that the minor coins were sold as a set. (Cents & Nickels) and that the silver proof sets were also sold as a set (Dimes, Quarters & Halves) It does not make sense to me to assume 420 of these 1909VDB's were sold in Silver proof sets. The possibility that 1,194-420 or 774 1909VDB MPL's were sold in minor proof sets with nickels also does not make sense to me for a couple of reasons. The numbers don't jive with reported nickel counts and the quantities supposidely in the hand of collectors is much higher than current availability would indicate exists.
Your comments on Charmy's coin I can accept what you say. With further verification and hopefully holdering by PCGS or NGC we might have another die identified for the 1909 plain MPL.
I hope I have clarified your concerns at least a little.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
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/Chris's coin have the same reverses but different obverses?? Both coins have to be scarce though because they are the first 1909's that have 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.
UPDATE!
"Kevin has told me Chris is sending his coin out to him and he will report back to the forum his findings regarding both of the coins"
Thanks for the image but no, I have seen that on the MS 1909 VDB's its the Proof 1909 VDB where I have never seen the slash dieline in the C. Below is a 1909 VDB proof and the close up below is from a 1910 MPL that has the dieline in the C. I have only seen this slash dieline twice on 1909 proof cents and that is on the reverse of both coins, Charmy and Chris's that are being discussed in the two threads, US/Reg form.
Reverse from 1910 MPL Upper and 1909 VDB MPL lower coin
My 1909 has almost all of the "new die" markers
Here is a picture of my reverse. It does have the small over large TE of UNITED as well as several other characteristics of Charmys coin (although it may be difficult to see in this particular image).
1. The Albrecht Unverified Reverse B states "Several die scratches from the M of UNUM south to the left of the top of the wheat stalk" Kevins new diagnostics for the "new die" states "Die scratch from M of UNUM left into the field above E of ONE." It sounds extremely similar and I don't think its a coincidence.
2. The Albrecht Unverified Reverse B states "Many die scratches through and to the right of E of cent" Kevins new diagnostics for the "new die" states "Die scratch from the center of E to the N of CENT."
3. The Albrecht Reverse A states "Die chip at 3 o'clock". Kevins new diagnostics for the "new die" states "Die chip next to the rim at 3 o'clock"
I sent the coin to Kevin yesterday to see if he can confirm my opinion of my coin. It should arrive there today and it's pretty easy to tell from the images and in hand that my obverse is the Albrecht 3 and I believe the reverse to be Albrecht B
Chris,
Thanks for posting the clear image of your coins reverse which I can clearly see the small/large "TE" in united as well as the slanted dieline in the C of CENT. I will wait for Kevin's confirmation but I am convinced your coin and Charmy's match on the reverses. Now, lets see what Kevin has to say about the obverse of each coin.
BW
<< <i>Chris,
Thanks for posting the clear image of your coins reverse which I can clearly see the small/large "TE" in united as well as the slanted dieline in the C of CENT. I will wait for Kevin's confirmation but I am convinced your coin and Charmy's match on the reverses. Now, lets see what Kevin has to say about the obverse of each coin.
BW >>
I agree, it would appear that our coins match as far as the reverse, I am pretty sure they do not match on the obverse though. On another note part of me really thinks they are the reverse B from albretch book but I am not posotive on that part. Its still very exciting to me however to have verified the obverse of my coin to the previously unverified alrecht obverse.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
I don't think it should change anything as long as its says "proof "on the holder. Please understand the coin was cracked out of a PCGS PR65RB holder, that's tag was in the flip with the coin when I was handed the coin at Charmy's talble.
I have two 1918 P cents in PCGS holders and neither have the diemarker in the C.
<< <i>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
<< <i>Through my own personal research yesterday I've determined that my coin is the Albrecht Obverse #3, I believe the reverse to be Albrecht Reverse B. Although I cant remember Charmys coin enough with absolute detail, I don't believe Charmys coin to be a new die but simply one of the Albrecht dies. If we can get images of that coin posted on here we can compare and I would bet that there are die markers on Charmys coin that match one of the Albrecht varieties. In my opinion although I'd need an image that its starting to sound like the Charmy reverse is an Albrecht variety and Kevin may have discovered other die markers in addition to the ones that Albrecht already listed but at this point a lot of them sound too similar in my opinion although I could be completely wrong.
My 1909 has almost all of the "new die" markers
Here is a picture of my reverse. It does have the small over large TE of UNITED as well as several other characteristics of Charmys coin (although it may be difficult to see in this particular image).
1. The Albrecht Unverified Reverse B states "Several die scratches from the M of UNUM south to the left of the top of the wheat stalk" Kevins new diagnostics for the "new die" states "Die scratch from M of UNUM left into the field above E of ONE." It sounds extremely similar and I don't think its a coincidence.
2. The Albrecht Unverified Reverse B states "Many die scratches through and to the right of E of cent" Kevins new diagnostics for the "new die" states "Die scratch from the center of E to the N of CENT."
3. The Albrecht Reverse A states "Die chip at 3 o'clock". Kevins new diagnostics for the "new die" states "Die chip next to the rim at 3 o'clock" >>
Chris,
Thanks for the photo, I cannot see if there is a die scratch in the lower UN of UNITED and
TAT of STATES.
Thanks for sending the coin, as soon as I get it tomorrow I will scope and document all diagnostics.
Thanks again
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 >>
Tom,
Thank you for your apology.
For the book I wrote, I would and could not include matte proofs which I did not verify myself.
As I am attesting that the varieties I included are actual matte proofs and the diagnostics are verified
by myself. To do otherwise would be the same as including hearsay, which I will not do. I included them
simply for reference, hoping someone would find one which I could view.
In any future edtions of this book, I will update to state something to the effect of
"The following varieties have yet to be verified by the author. The varieties listed here which reference varieties
from Albrecht Lincoln Cent Matte Proof book were verified by Leonard Albrecht and the ANA staff."
I believe Chris has the Albrecht #3. With the large die crack for #2 in an obvious location, I would bet that
it was removed early and most likely very rare.
Kevin
<< <i>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 >>
Tom,
Thank you for your apology.
For the book I wrote, I would and could not include matte proofs which I did not verify myself.
As I am attesting that the varieties I included are actual matte proofs and the diagnostics are verified
by myself. To do otherwise would be the same as including hearsay, which I will not do. I included them
simply for reference, hoping someone would find one which I could view.
In any future edtions of this book, I will update to state something to the effect of
"The following varieties have yet to be verified by the author. The varieties listed here which reference varieties
from Albrecht Lincoln Cent Matte Proof book were verified by Leonard Albrecht and the ANA staff."
I believe Chris has the Albrecht #3. With the large die crack for #2 in an obvious location, I would bet that
it was removed early and most likely very rare.
Kevin >>
Kevin,
I am very excited to see what you ahev to say about the reverse of my coin, it is lacking some of the new diagnostics but has some others. It should be interesting to hear what you have to say.
Was it cracked out to get a better look or???? Thanks
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>
In any future edtions of this book, I will update to state something to the effect of
"The following varieties have yet to be verified by the author. The varieties listed here which reference varieties
from Albrecht Lincoln Cent Matte Proof book were verified by Leonard Albrecht and the ANA staff."
I believe Chris has the Albrecht #3. With the large die crack for #2 in an obvious location, I would bet that
it was removed early and most likely very rare.
Kevin >>
That sounds reasonable.
I agree that Albrecht Var. 2 must be very rare. Sometimes it happens. Back at ANACS we had authenticated hundreds of 1928-P dollars with internal notes listing them as die varieties 1, 2 or 3, when one day we got in a genuine coin that became die variety 4. I don't think I ever saw another one, though they may have had some after I left.
TD
<< <i>BWRC- Thanks for the reply on wether it is or was graded.
Was it cracked out to get a better look or???? Thanks >>
No, I think to put in an album?
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
It appears that the reverse of Soty's coin is a CONECA SD-1-R-IV+VIII , below is a pic of the reverse of a pcgs 1909 PR64RD (OGH) that I bought and sold about 2yrs ago,
I think that I have more pics of the coin and slab on my pc at work.....I have also seen the CONECA SD-1-R-IV+VIII on Business Strike 1909 Cents.
I think I have a few 09 MPLs lying around. I'll take a closer look at them.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Here are the pics of the 1909 PCGS PR64RD that I mentioned above.......
<< <i>
<< <i>
I believe Chris has the Albrecht #3. With the large die crack for #2 in an obvious location, I would bet that
it was removed early and most likely very rare.
Kevin >>
Kevin,
I am very excited to see what you ahev to say about the reverse of my coin, it is lacking some of the new diagnostics but has some others. It should be interesting to hear what you have to say. >>
Chris, Kevin,
Last Wednesday and Thursday we all were absorbed with this exciting story involving the 1909 MPL. What have you guys found out?
Thanks,
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>Any updates? I would like to see close ups of Charmy's coin if any are available yet. Seems like we are awaiting confirmation that Chris' coin is one of the Albrecht coins from the 1982 article, and Charmy's has the same reverse, but maybe not the same obverse. >>
Doug,
Kevin has both coins for study and will report back to us soon.