Buffalo matte proof book

kevinj

Wanted to get the Buffalo matte proofs done also.

Was thinking of doing a second edition of the Lincoln cent matte proof book and combining with the Buffs,
but the first edition has to sell out, and not sure how long that will be.

The primary purpose of the Buff matte book would be to
document all die diagnostics for all Buff proofs between 1913 and 1916
do a date by date analysis
provide other analysis which is specific or helpful to the Buff mattes.

I do not want any matte analysis, archive research, mintages, which would be duplicated from the Lincs.

I would also like to include analysis from experts on this series.

If anyone has other suggestions on what needs to be in this book, please advise.

Also looking for coins to study and document die diagnostics.

Thanks
Kevin
kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com

commoncents05

Please include the 1936 Brilliant, Satin, and 1937 as well!

-Paul

RWB

Sounds like an excellent idea! They were the Mint's last attempt to make something distinctive for collectors until 1936, and are closely related by production.

BUFFNIXX

wonder if he will be doing a piece on the 1935 satin finish proof.

ricko

Interesting... I would get one to supplement my Buff collection and literary resources. Cheers, RickO

Shamika

Don't forget to include some reference to the supposed 1917 proofs even if they are spurious.

RWB

The only reference to them is: "They don't exist."

BUFFNIXX

to RWB -- Master Collector (whatever that means)
there are 1917 matte proof buffalo nickels.

coinguy1

<< <i>to RWB -- Master Collector (whatever that means)
there are 1917 matte proof buffalo nickels. >>

You obviously choose to believe so. But the major grading companies have never documented one and the large majority of experts do not believe that they exist.

The "Master Collector" title was not chosen by RWB, but rather, automatically generated by the number of posts here. However, RWB is one of THE preeminent numismatic researchers, and is in a much better position to know about the official existence (or lack thereof) of such coins than most of us.

coinguy1

<< <i>Wanted to get the Buffalo matte proofs done also.

Was thinking of doing a second edition of the Lincoln cent matte proof book and combining with the Buffs,
but the first edition has to sell out, and not sure how long that will be.

The primary purpose of the Buff matte book would be to
document all die diagnostics for all Buff proofs between 1913 and 1916
do a date by date analysis
provide other analysis which is specific or helpful to the Buff mattes.

I do not want any matte analysis, archive research, mintages, which would be duplicated from the Lincs.

I would also like to include analysis from experts on this series.

If anyone has other suggestions on what needs to be in this book, please advise.

Also looking for coins to study and document die diagnostics.

Thanks
Kevin
kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com >>

Hi Kevin, what about the 1927 Specimen pieces?

commoncents05

<< <i>

<< <i>Wanted to get the Buffalo matte proofs done also.

Was thinking of doing a second edition of the Lincoln cent matte proof book and combining with the Buffs,
but the first edition has to sell out, and not sure how long that will be.

The primary purpose of the Buff matte book would be to
document all die diagnostics for all Buff proofs between 1913 and 1916
do a date by date analysis
provide other analysis which is specific or helpful to the Buff mattes.

I do not want any matte analysis, archive research, mintages, which would be duplicated from the Lincs.

I would also like to include analysis from experts on this series.

If anyone has other suggestions on what needs to be in this book, please advise.

Also looking for coins to study and document die diagnostics.

Thanks
Kevin
kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com >>

Hi Kevin, what about the 1927 Specimen pieces? >>



Mark, I asked the same question on the Registry Forum. Text


-Paul

crypto79

<< <i>

<< <i>to RWB -- Master Collector (whatever that means)
there are 1917 matte proof buffalo nickels. >>

You obviously choose to believe so. But the major grading companies have never documented one and the large majority of experts do not believe that they exist.

The "Master Collector" title was not chosen by RWB, but rather, automatically generated by the number of posts here. However, RWB is one of THE preeminent numismatic researchers, and is in a much better position to know about the official existence (or lack thereof) of such coins than most of us. >>



I am with Mark on this one and it was well said.

RWB

Re: 1927 “Special Strike” nickels.

The coins in question appear to have been struck from chrome plated dies. There is ample evidence that the mint was experimenting with die plating, and the work was inspired by research done at BEP. Correspondence between the two “money factories” gets down to the level of Mint asking BEP for voltage and amperage suggestions.

For now, David Lange’s published information is the best in print. Eventually, I think the holes will be filled in as researchers work through the mass of unindexed press copy books and other materials. (I have never compared the reverse of one of these 1927 experimental pieces with the reverse of any matte proof Buffalo, so Breen’s statements [Heritage description] about identical dies will have to be verified by others.)

Unlike fictional coins (1917 proofs, 1933 quarters, etc.) these critters are real and have a documentary background of increasing depth.

(Note: These will occupy a small sub-section of the 1929-1946 book currently being researched. The amount of space depends on what can be discovered between now and publication.)

BUFFNIXX

I have personally seen two 1917 slabbed/certified matte proof buffalo nickels in other than Hertz and Avis slabs:
one was Matte Proof-58 (slight rub)
while the other was Matte Prooof-63 (cleaned).
buffnixx

coinguy1

<< <i>I have personally seen two 1917 slabbed/certified matte proof buffalo nickels in other than Hertz and Avis slabs:
one was Matte Proof-58 (slight rub)
while the other was Matte Prooof-63 (cleaned).
buffnixx >>

For those who don't already know, please state which slabs the coins were in. And let's face it, there is a very good reason they are not in the holders of much more respected grading companies.

BUFFNIXX

Here ya go!!

BUFFNIXX

Ops! I meant to display the obverse first, here is is.

Shamika

<< <i>The only reference to them is: "They don't exist." >>



I tend to agree that they don't exist, but then again the Mint claimed there were no 1933 Double Eagles that existed and yet...

Besides, 1917 proofs make for a great story.


Edit: Before anyone says it, I realize that the Mint never claimed that 1933 Double Eagles were never minted unlike the 1917 proofs. My point was merely that you can't always believe what the Mint officially states.

Shamika

That's an amazing strike!

cmerlo1

While I can appreciate that that nickel has an exceptional strike, it will NEVER be regarded in that plastic as a genuine 1917 matte proof. Period. It's a shame, and it's not fair, buy the coin not the holder yada yada yada, but it's reality. Until that coin makes it's way into PCGS plastic as a matte proof, it's a mis-labeled, well struck business strike. Why not submit it and see what they have to say?

BUFFNIXX

To cemerlo1 - in my opinion there will never be any 1917 proof coinage slabbed by either pcgs or ngc
It would be a waste of time submitting this one or any of the others -- the unique 1917 cent -- the nickel -- the quarter -- or the half dollar
(there is no 1917 proof Mercury dime). They absolutely will not do them. When the 1927 proofs were discovered in 1989 by Heritage Rare Coin Galleries and then submittd to NGC for slabbing -- the president of NGC at the time (I believe his last name was Salsberg) said and I can remember this quote vividley -- "I could have sworn that they were proofs" and after saying this they were slabbed as Mint State and given the one world quallifier of "specimen". I think these were eventually crossed over to pcgs slabs. I can remember seeing a picture of the slab in coin world in 1989 and then wondering after him saying they were proofs the were then slabbed as Mint State -- specimen. And it goes on and on.
regards -- buffnixx

BUFFNIXX

To Shamika -- yes the strike on this coin is totally amazing. Look at all the slabbed 1917 buffalo nickels in the Heritage Rare Coin Galleries auction archives and just try to find one that even approaches this specimen. buffnixx

BUFFNIXX

Here is a 1917 "58" doubled die reverse nickel that will be going to NGC for crossover soon. This one is not controversial like the 1917 matte proof. I have to send it ot NGC because PCGS has no net grading. But it will be crossed over to "Avis". Is there anyone here who would rather have a net grade than the genuine only attritute? buffnixx

BUFFNIXX

With NGC, Anacs, and ICG doing net grading why is pcgs not doing it? Baffles me. I was sure that pcgs's much touted announcement of THE BIG ONE
was going to include net gradeing. But no? Makes no sense to me. buffnixx

koynekwest

I would be all in favor of PCGS doing net grading on the genuine coins.

coinguy1

<< <i>To cemerlo1 - in my opinion there will never be any 1917 proof coinage slabbed by either pcgs or ngc
It would be a waste of time submitting this one or any of the others -- the unique 1917 cent -- the nickel -- the quarter -- or the half dollar
(there is no 1917 proof Mercury dime). They absolutely will not do them. When the 1927 proofs were discovered in 1989 by Heritage Rare Coin Galleries and then submittd to NGC for slabbing -- the president of NGC at the time (I believe his last name was Salsberg) said and I can remember this quote vividley -- "I could have sworn that they were proofs" and after saying this they were slabbed as Mint State and given the one world quallifier of "specimen". I think these were eventually crossed over to pcgs slabs. I can remember seeing a picture of the slab in coin world in 1989 and then wondering after him saying they were proofs the were then slabbed as Mint State -- specimen. And it goes on and on.
regards -- buffnixx >>

Labeling a coin as "Specimen", as NGC/Mark Salzberg did in the case of the 1927 Nickels, is a far cry from labeling it "mint state". Often, that is done when a coin appears to have been specially made, but there is no official documentation for its production.

RWB

Uncirculated or “mint state” refers to the absence of wear.
“Specimen” means that the coin seems to be something unusual: different from normal production pieces. These two terms are based on observation of the coin.

“Specimen” does not necessarily mean the coin was specially made to serve some purpose. That part can only come from associated documentation. This is the only way to answer the “Why” part of the question.

Closely connecting 1927 “specimen” nickels with chrome die plating experiments will take time and research, but at present it seems likely.

The imaginary 1917 “proof” satisfies neither observation nor documentation. A high quality coin from a new die – nothing more.

astrorat

<< <i>To cemerlo1 - in my opinion there will never be any 1917 proof coinage slabbed by either pcgs or ngc >>



Why? This statement, without some justification, makes no sense. Is this some sort of numismatic conspiracy? If the coin is believed to be a proof...it will be certified as such. Just because SEGS certified the coin as a proof does not "prove" it is a proof.

Why not send it to ANACS? The company may not be as "accepted" in the current marketplace, but JP Martin is a darn fine, and honest, numismatist. You'll get your answer.

I get a distinct sense that you are defending a coin that you purchased as a proof, but nobody else (of numismatic weight) will agree with the designation. Sounds like it has found its final resting place in a SEGS slab.

Lane

BUFFNIXX

To Lane Brunner. Circa 1984 David Hall of PCGS wrote a book titled "The Mercenarys Guide to the Rare Coin Market". I have that book here in my house but like some of my books is currently misplaced. (I spent an hour looking for it this afternoon with no luck) So I have to paraphrase a bit. David said that although he was partly responslbie for getting this minor matte proof set ( missing the mercury dime) into New England Rare Coin Galleries Publik II sale in 1976 he later changed his mind about all four of them at once and now (1984) thought the coins were just "CHERRY UNCS"! These are the EXACT words he used in his 1984 book. He has been consistent and has not changed his mind. If I can find the book, which I will eventually, I will update this post if there is any inconsistency in my wording. (I do not think there is) But, the wording "cherry unc" is his. Thus in my opinion no 1917 coin of any denomination will ever be slabbed as a proof by pcgs or by extension ngc. Why should they do something like that for 30 or 50 bucks when it would cause so much controversy? buffnixx

BUFFNIXX

To astrorat --
"Why not send it to ANACS? The company may not be as "accepted" in the current marketplace, but JP Martin is a darn fine, and honest, numismatist"
I thought ANACS was one of the acceptable companies since Heritage will auction their slabs along with pcgs, ngc, icg, and ncs(ngc).
buffnixx

BUFFNIXX

"The imaginary 1917 “proof” satisfies neither observation nor documentation. A high quality coin from a new die – nothing more."
to rwb -- it amazes me that you can say this without having he coin in hand. buffnixx
But, I guess that settles it. buffnixx

BUFFNIXX

I want to apologize to Kevin Flynn for turning his thread into something that it should not have devolved in to. So I will not answer any more posts directed to me in this thread. It should have been a postive thread and the tone has been turned negative and away from its orignal intention. I will try to stiffle myself when becoming a contributor to future threads. I guess when you a 65 years old and have collected and studied the buffalo nickel for over 55 years you can get a bit carried away. And good luck to you Kevin on the book. It is needed. buffnixx

RWB

"The imaginary 1917 “proof” satisfies neither observation nor documentation. A high quality coin from a new die – nothing more."
Your comment about "cherry unc" is entirely consistent with the above. Also, nothing in the photos you've posted suggest a real matte proof.

As noted more than two years ago. I offered to pay all expenses to have PCGS examine and certify your 1917 "proof" coin if they decide it is, in fact, a "proof."

The really unfortunate part is that at least a few 1917 proof quarters once existed – Type II. They were made on order from Director Baker to show to the House Coinage Committee. It is unclear if all were returned to Philadelphia for melting, or if Chairman Ashbrook kept a couple. (Ashbrook was an active coin collector at that time.)

As for Kevin’s book, I think he will exercise his usual good judgment in what to include and what to omit. In any case, it will be a fine addition to a compendium of updated hobby knowledge.

Shamika

<< <i>I want to apologize to Kevin Flynn for turning his thread into something that it should not have devolved in to. >>


I'm more to blame than anyone. I know proof 1917 Buffalo nickels are in all likelihood spurious. But the rumor of their existance fascinates me and so I love reading about them. Thus my comments above.

C

koynekwest

"The really unfortunate part is that at least a few 1917 proof quarters once existed – Type II. They were made on order from Director Baker to show to the House Coinage Committee. It is unclear if all were returned to Philadelphia for melting, or if Chairman Ashbrook kept a couple. (Ashbrook was an active coin collector at that time.)"

Never heard of those before. Fascinating!! Keep us posted if you dig up any new info about them.

coinguy1

<< <i>"The imaginary 1917 “proof” satisfies neither observation nor documentation. A high quality coin from a new die – nothing more."
Your comment about "cherry unc" is entirely consistent with the above. Also, nothing in the photos you've posted suggest a real matte proof.

As noted more than two years ago. I offered to pay all expenses to have PCGS examine and certify your 1917 "proof" coin if they decide it is, in fact, a "proof."

The really unfortunate part is that at least a few 1917 proof quarters once existed – Type II. They were made on order from Director Baker to show to the House Coinage Committee. It is unclear if all were returned to Philadelphia for melting, or if Chairman Ashbrook kept a couple. (Ashbrook was an active coin collector at that time.)

As for Kevin’s book, I think he will exercise his usual good judgment in what to include and what to omit. In any case, it will be a fine addition to a compendium of updated hobby knowledge. >>

Roger, were they supposedly produced as Matte or Satin examples?

RWB

There were no sandblast patterns made during 1916, so I presume the 1917-II pieces were satin proofs made on a medal press. If Ashbrook kept any as souvenirs, it is probable they were stolen with the rest of his collection in 1919.

Since a satin proof can be difficult to distinguish from an early production strike, identifying one of these would require agreement from a bunch of people.

coinguy1

<< <i>There were no sandblast patterns made during 1916, so I presume the 1917-II pieces were satin proofs made on a medal press. If Ashbrook kept any as souvenirs, it is probable they were stolen with the rest of his collection in 1919.

Since a satin proof can be difficult to distinguish from an early production strike, identifying one of these would require agreement from a bunch of people. >>

Thank you.

BUFFNIXX

to rwb:

"The really unfortunate part is that at least a few 1917 proof quarters once existed – Type II. They were made on order from Director Baker to show to the House Coinage Committee. It is unclear if all were returned to Philadelphia for melting, or if Chairman Ashbrook kept a couple. (Ashbrook was an active coin collector at that time."

My comment -- Since there is no current physical evidence of any one of these so-called 1917 type 2 proof quarters ever having showed up I believe these are "fictions" too -- just like the 1917 buffalo nickels are to you. However I have personally seen a 1917 type ONE matte proof standing liberty quarter that "carries its own credentials". If you want I can tell you where it is and maybe they would send it to you for your inspection. (Then again maybe they wouldn:t.) buffnixx

RWB

Production and review of the 1917-II quarter proofs is documented, unlike wishful thinking noted above.

I'd love to see any legitimate "matte proof" quarter. (Note that I have examined several of these and several other critters such as alleged "matte proof" Peace dollars. They invariably turn out to be exomint products, or some concoction accompanied by one of Wally Breen’s misguided letters of authenticity.)

[FYI - Determining what is a "proof" and what is not can be difficult. At least one on the 2 major grading services has long called a coin "proof" that is unequivocally documented as struck on a production press.]

commoncents05

<< <i>Production and review of the 1917-II quarter proofs is documented, unlike wishful thinking noted above. >>



This is the key point of this thread. PCGS or NGC will not designate a 1917 Nickel without actual documentation from the mint's archives that they were actually struck. Proof is not a condition, or a sharpness or strike or details. It is a special method of striking and preparation of the planchets and dies. These were documented when struck, and without proper documentation, they are just fantasy pieces.

-Paul

BUFFNIXX

to RWB --
Why are referring to Walter Breen as "Wally" Breen?
To me this is a patent sign of disrespect. -- buffnixx

BUFFNIXX

To commonecents05 --

"This is the key point of this thread. PCGS or NGC will not designate a 1917 Nickel without actual documentation from the mint's archives that they were actually struck. Proof is not a condition, or a sharpness or strike or details. It is a special method of striking and preparation of the planchets and dies. These were documented when struck, and without proper documentation, they are just fantasy pieces."

Then I guess by your logic the 1913 Liberty Head Nickels do not exist and are fantacy pieces.
Yet these have been slabbed by PCGS.
Using your logic above, they should not have been slabbed.
buffnixx

coinguy1

<< <i>To commonecents05 --

"This is the key point of this thread. PCGS or NGC will not designate a 1917 Nickel without actual documentation from the mint's archives that they were actually struck. Proof is not a condition, or a sharpness or strike or details. It is a special method of striking and preparation of the planchets and dies. These were documented when struck, and without proper documentation, they are just fantasy pieces."

Then I guess by your logic the 1913 Liberty Head Nickels do not exist and are fantacy pieces.
Yet these have been slabbed by PCGS.
Using your logic above, they should not have been slabbed.
buffnixx >>

I don't think that is an "apples to apples" comparison. The issue isn't whether 1917 Nickels exist, but whether they exist as Proofs. That said, I am guessing that one or coins have been designated as Proof, without "properl documentation" of their production.

RWB

to RWB --
Why are referring to Walter Breen as "Wally" Breen?
To me this is a patent sign of disrespect. -- buffnixx

Glad you caught that! Yep, but it’s conditional: with a lot of skepticism added.

Wally Breen was one of the hobby’s preeminent researchers. He probably forgot more than any of us will ever know. In later years he was also a fraud, charlatan and engaged in deception and fabrication that continues to befuddle researchers to this day. Almost none of his work from the “Encyclopedia” forward can be trusted: parts are excellent and parts are total inventions.

MikeInFL

<< <i>If anyone has other suggestions on what needs to be in this book, please advise. >>



Better photos. The MPL book's photos were disappointing, to be frank.

BUFFNIXX

OK lets see what I have learned here. For arguments sake someone turns up a no-question 1918 matte proof lincoln cent. Thick squared edges, matte finsh, in other words the whole nine yards. Based on its appearance alone most any knowledgeable Lincoln Cent MPL collector would immediately yell "Matte Proof"!! when seeing this coin for the first time. It then gets sent to pcgs or ngc for certification as a 1918 matte proof Lincoln cent. But Lo and behold!! there is no written record!! -- at least as having been located so far -- that this coin was ever officially struck as a proof. Because of this and this alone the coin could and would not be certified and called a matte proof. Some other weasel-wording would be used such as "MS-special striking" or "specimen" or even worse the coin would just be called uncirculated even though to most trained eyes the coin is a proof. However if at a later date some piece of official mint documentation turns up that alludes to this coin, then the owner could return it to pcgs or ngc with the appropriate documentation and at that time get it called "proof" instead of "specimen" or "special strike". I think this might be what happened to the 1927 specimen strike which was called "MS -- specimen" when sent to ngc for slabbing since at that time there was no documentation. (This was after they (3) were sent to pcgs and returned with no opinion I believe) And when it was crossed over to pcgs it is still labeled as "special strike" cause nothing has subsequently turned up as so far as documentation for this coins existence. Yet I am supposed to believe in the existence of 1917 type 2 SLQ's (which I do not) because someone can point to supposed mint documentation that these coins were minted? 1917 is a looooong time ago and none have ever turned up, so I doubt any ever were made. Whether or not any were made and then destroyed or put into circulation is unknown. There has never been even a sniff of one offered up for authentication.
In summary the mint records are more important that the appearance of the actual coin itself in determining whether or not pcgs or ngc calls a coin a proof. buffnixx

BUFFNIXX

Wally Breen was one of the hobby’s preeminent researchers. He probably forgot more than any of us will ever know. In later years he was also a fraud, charlatan and engaged in deception and fabrication that continues to befuddle researchers to this day. Almost none of his work from the “Encyclopedia” forward can be trusted: parts are excellent and parts are total inventions.

Which parts a fraud?
Which parts are inventions?

Fraud? Charlatan? Decption? Fabrication?
I would be careful about using such slanderous words to describe other people on this board like this. It does not seem necessary. Most people are well aware of WALTER'S problems ( please do not use Wally ) -- buffnixx

coinguy1

<< <i>OK lets see what I have learned here. For arguments sake someone turns up a no-question 1918 matte proof lincoln cent. Thick squared edges, matte finsh, in other words the whole nine yards. Based on its appearance alone most any knowledgeable Lincoln Cent MPL collector would immediately yell "Matte Proof"!! when seeing this coin for the first time. It then gets sent to pcgs or ngc for certification as a 1918 matte proof Lincoln cent. But Lo and behold!! there is no written record!! -- at least as having been located so far -- that this coin was ever officially struck as a proof. Because of this and this alone the coin could and would not be certified and called a matte proof. Some other weasel-wording would be used such as "MS-special striking" or "specimen" or even worse the coin would just be called uncirculated even though to most trained eyes the coin is a proof. However if at a later date some piece of official mint documentation turns up that alludes to this coin, then the owner could return it to pcgs or ngc with the appropriate documentation and at that time get it called "proof" instead of "specimen" or "special strike". I think this might be what happened to the 1927 specimen strike which was called "MS -- specimen" when sent to ngc for slabbing since at that time there was no documentation. (This was after they (3) were sent to pcgs and returned with no opinion I believe) And when it was crossed over to pcgs it is still labeled as "special strike" cause nothing has subsequently turned up as so far as documentation for this coins existence. Yet I am supposed to believe in the existence of 1917 type 2 SLQ's (which I do not) because someone can point to supposed mint documentation that these coins were minted? 1917 is a looooong time ago and none have ever turned up, so I doubt any ever were made. Whether or not any were made and then destroyed or put into circulation is unknown. There has never been even a sniff of one offered up for authentication.
In summary the mint records are more important that the appearance of the actual coin itself in determining whether or not pcgs or ngc calls a coin a proof. buffnixx >>

I think you set up a straw man's argument in order to try to make your point. Mint records are important, as are, of course, the characteristics of the actual coins in question.

If official documents indicate that 1917 Type Two Proof Quarters were struck, that wont matter, if someone submits one for a Proof designation, and the coin looks nothing like a Proof. Conversely, certain coins have been labeled as Proof or Specimen, even without official mint records of their production. And that's because the coins were convincing as having been specially made.

RWB

Which parts [sic] a fraud?
Which parts are inventions?

Fraud? Charlatan? Decption? [sic] Fabrication?
I would be careful about using such slanderous words to describe other people on this board like this. It does not seem necessary. Most people are well aware of WALTER'S problems ( please do not use Wally ) -- buffnixx

Some parts are known, others turn up as specialists update the research and find that Breen's assertions are meaningless. His references to archival sources are nearly useless so one cannot tell what he used as source material. This is what is so frustrating about Wally's work: the obvious excellence and numismatic genius combined with outright falsehood and deception. Many used to look at his encyclopedia, for example, and go "Wow!" now it as likely to be "Ouch."

I’ve described no one on this board in “slanderous” terms. Last check, Wally Breen was not a member. In fact, not much has been heard from the land of Breenisms in a long time.

Admittedly, I might be a bit harsher in criticism of Wally than others. If so, it is because for the past decade and more, I’ve been stumbling over his lies, errors, deceptions, fraudulent “certifications” and other squished skunk parts, in an insignificant attempt to put a little reality behind some of the finest numismatic art this nation has produced.


PS: I'm disappointed that you don't have a 1917 proof nickel or other proof coin of that date. It would be a fantastic find. But until the coin, itself, convinces multiple independent experts of its characteristics, it will be nothing more than a very, nice circulation strike.

karpman9

Wally Breen: Convicted Child Molestor ---> FACT<---Not Slander

Sorry to chime in but geez. Wally died in prison and if there is a hell, he no doubt has permanent residence for all of enternity. That's it. Bam me if you must.