to RWB: How would you like it if I or someone else on the board started calling you "Burdie" Burdette? I still cannot get over you calling Walter Breen "Wally" Breen. Did you start that or did you pick it up from someone else? There is no good reason to do that except to belittle the person whilest at the same time exibiting a certan aura of intellectual superority. His rep has suffered greatly by what he did (well documented here too) and that has probably far overshadowed anything good he did for the hobby. I met him at the August 1989 at the ANA summer show. He was an unusual person to say the least. You would really be better served in the future by calling him Walter.
buffnixx
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
<< <i>Ops! I meant to display the obverse first, here is is. >>
I am not an expert on matte proof Buffalo nickels, but I have seen a few and the field in this coin is not textured like a matte proof and this coin seems to have some lustre to it. What am I missing?
<< <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 >>
I think the Buffalo nickel is one of the two or three most beautiful coins ever designed in the world. Please include great pictures and lots of them!! Then I will definitely buy the book!
I've been called all sorts of names both positive and negative; that's just life. As for good ol' Wally Breen, he did what he did - some good, some bad, some ugly.
To your "…exibiting[sic] a certan [sic] aura of intellectual superority[sic]" comment: What a joke!
Breen had the kind of mind that could think rings around yours truly and just about anyone else. The only claim I make is that I’ve done a lot of grubby, hands-on work and presented it to collectors as accurately and honestly as my meager abilities permit. If there are errors, omissions, inaccuracies or differences of opinion, readers are invited to seek out the original materials – nearly everything I’ve published is referenced to the location of source material down to the box and folder level.
Sorry I missed some of the debate here, was watching the registory forum.
On Breen, I have to thank Walter as one of reasons I started writing was because I found so many mistakes in his works, I wanted to correct. I found that Breen made facts out of hearsay, and presented opinions and theories as facts. The difficultly of this was that for years I would show people absolute proof of the facts, and they would state that it was in writing in Breen's book, therefore must be true. I was also told that Breen could be bought to offer his opinion on a subject. Some of Breen's works opened doors, but I did learned to use them for reference, not for facts.
On the subject of a proof, a proof is defined by intent in manufacture. Were they intended to be struck as proofs. We have different types of proofs generated over the course of our Mint from Satin Proofs, Brilliant Proofs, Matte Proofs, and a few deviations and combinations.
I found Archive records which stated that all of the Isabella quarter planchets were polished, yet these are not considered proofs. We have the New Rochelle Commem, where 50 were struck on polished planchets, these are known as specimen strikes. So we have deviations that are meant to be something special, but were not intended to be struck as proofs.
During each era in history, we have to examine with in the constraints of that era, for example, there is only 1 known 1851 Trime proof. It is believed this was the coin created by Longacre and submitted to the President. I believe it was meant by Longacre not to be a proof persay for the collecting community, but a proof to represent perfection in his coin and the best example to submit for review. Early coins were struck as proofs for foreign dignateries and private individuals, it was not until 1858 that they were sold in sets to the general public.
In 1916, Director of the Mint F.J.H. von Engelken stopped the manufacture of all proofs because it was not cost effective and to many complaints. In addition, there were the new designs to focus on. So proofs were not authorized by the Mint in 1917.
In addition, there are records in the Archives which lists all of the matte proofs, no proofs are listed for 1917.
We also need to consider proofs generated internally by personal inside the Mint such as the 1913 Lib nickels, several different proofs which were part of Chief Engraver John Sinnock's estate. These are undocumented proofs which are sometimes produced, but not authorized. Charles Barber was chief engraver until his death in February of 1917. Barber had one of the finest collectors of patterns as part of his estate. Barber was replaced by Morgan, who, in my opinion, played by the rules, and I believe would not have made coins specifically for himself or for private venture.
The coins also speak for themselves and can teach us alot. I like to compare a proof with a EDS mint state specimen and see the differences on the rims, edges, borders, design elements, and surface texture. What is expected for each, and which defines the difference.
On grading services, I agree, they have the most experience, and are usually the best to offer an opinion based upon their experience on examining thousands of coins. But, they are human like the rest of us, and therefore can make mistakes. I have found several coins certified as MS by a major grading service which I knew to be proofs, I had them resubmitted and certified as proofs by other grading services. This is not to state that frequently make mistakes, quite the opposite, the high frenquency is that their analysis on what it is (MS or Pr) is correct, but that it can happen.
I know Tom Arch had examined thousands of Buffs as that is his passion, he has cherried several proofs from MS holders. I also believe as minor proof sets which contained the cent and nickel were sold almost at face value, that people, when needed, might have used these to purchase food and such and put them into circulation. At the Jenks sale, minor proof sets were sold for less than face value.
From a intent purpose, I would state that no proofs were intended to be struck in 1917, there are no documented proofs struck, and I do not believe Morgan would have struck them.
On the other side of the coin, examining the coin may show qualities which are not normally found on a 1917 Buffalo, this is worth looking into. Maybe someone wanted to test a hydraulic press with a harder to strike planchet such as nickel. Maybe it was from the first die hubbed and used to strike a coin.
We plan to examine and present all possibilities. From my research on the socalled 1917 Linc matte, I concluded it did not exist, and actually examined a specimen Breen claimed was, it was tooled on the inside of the rim to create sharper edges and rims.
On the 1927, obviously for a satin strike, there was no special preperation of the dies, no polishing, sandblasting, or other methods which could be used to distinguish them apart.
What Dave Lange told me was that the surfaces looked different than normal coins, more smoother, flatter, as if struck from a press with greater pressure. I would agree that if they were for experimental purposes, they should be called specimen strikes.
Here is another thing to think about. Only 24 1894-S dimes were struck. These were not struck as proofs, they were not called proofs until 1942 in a auction catalog. Most of the experts agree they are not proofs. They were not struck on special coin presses and no special care was given to the dies and planchets. yet, some of the major grading services certify them as proofs. When asked, most would state they agreed that they were not proofs, but that they call them proofs as the numismatic community has accepted them as proofs.
I do not believe there is a 1917 buff matte proof, but intend on figuring it out, and also will include the opinions of others to help show all perspectives in a nice logical helpful manner to let the collector draw their own conclusions.
<< <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 >>
Paul,
This is not true, the 1913 Lib nickel, 1894-S Barber dime, and many of the internal generated proofs such as several commens which came from the Sinnock estate has been certified as proofs. There are no archive documents to support these as proofs. early proofs, especially before 1850 were hardly ever documented, each era is different, you have to study that era within those constraints, habits, and routines.
proofs is based upon intent of manufacture, it should result in higher quality of strike, and exhibit sharpness, and could have better fields, but depends on the process used at the time.
The majority of proofs we have archive documents to support, but that is not the rule. I agree it helps establish intent as they are specifically listed as proofs.
Chief Coiner Franklin Peale has his own little private enterprise going inside the Mint generating coins and medals, these were not documented. The Type II and Type III 1804 dollars struck in the 1850s were not documented, they were struck for sale for profit by Mint personal. yet many of these are called proofs.
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. >>
Mark,
I agree with this 100%, coins are the result of the intent of manufacture. They refect the special means or process used to differentiate them from normal coins. They can be used in themselves to designate a proof status. This of course is an interpretation, and could be incorrect, but I believe is the closest and highest probability we can come to being correct.
I would respectfully disagree when acceptable standards, such as the designation of the 1894-S dime as a proof, because it is accepted in the numismatic community.
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. >>
I agree with Roger's lack of respect for Breen. I have read Roger's work and know his dedication in his research. I have the same lack of respect for Breen. Based on number of ficticious facts presented, I can only conclude that Breen did not care, or that he assumed that his name and reputation were above question, and therefore believed he could not be wrong. In my opinion, this level or arrogance can only do more harm than good.
Roger has studied this era and time period (1917) more than probably any other researcher. His beliefs are more than just opinion.
Of course, there is always the unknown. For example, we have the 1913 Lib nickel which were struck with 1913 pbv dies which were returned from the Mint. We have an oportunistic Mint employee who creates them for profit. Is it possible that a 1917 proof was struck on a hydraulic press, yes, is it likely or probable, no, there are no records, like the 1913 Lib, of a 1917 proof surfacing and being sold as a proof from a former Mint employee.
Would it be possible to examine your 1917 coins? Can I show them to Roger?
Roger,
If Tom permits, would you like to examine these coins so we can draw our conclusion based upon the coins? I agree with Mark's statements that the coins speak for themselves.
I would like both of your evaluations and conclusions for the book and for everyone else to enjoy and learn from two of the leading experts on this era and these coins.
<< <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 >>
No reason to apoligize, I love hot topics, brings some of the mystery into a series. For myself something to investigate and figure out. Even if I do find the exact reasons, to present what the facts, opinions, and conclusions are. This is the kind of stuff I love researching and writing about.
To expand a little on Kevin’s comments about “proofs….”
Normal procedure during the 20s-70s (and maybe later), was to make several examples on a medal press, sandblast them (as one would certain medals) and show them to the Director and other officials for final approval of the design. Although we do not have documents stating this occurred for ALL designs during that period, enough examples exist to confirm the process.
The Philadelphia mint was supposed to keep track of these sandblast proofs, but I’ve seen nothing to preclude Sinnock or Roberts, etc. from swapping out one of the “proofs” for their personal collection. Charles Barber had a magnificent collection of pattern and experimental coins, but there was nothing illegal about it. Philadelphia Chief Clerk Fred Chaffin had a small safe in the mint building for his coin collection.
These kinds of things were just not worth much back then.
Kevin - would be pleased to examine it/them anytime that is convenient. I'll be at ANA Thurs-Sat, if that helps. There are several others who should also examine the coin(s), much as was done with the "new" 1913 nickel in Baltimore a couple of years ago.
I will be at the ANA on Thursday. I was told that the 1917 was not available for inspection, which of course is the right of the owner. For the Buffalo proof book, I will based my conclusions on the available information, which as of now, lean heavily against any possibility an 1917 Buffalo nickel matte proof.
I remember the Smithsonian claimed to have a 1917 Linc matte proof, the coin was an XF with no proof striking or surface characteristics. If there was 1917 proof set created, the first would most likely have gone to the Cabinet collection, which was move to the Smithsonian in the late 1920s.
Large organizations which had alot of political clout such as the ANS would also have had a strong influence in obtaining a proof if one was available, there were none there.
If one was created for profit from an internal source, it would have most likely come through an auction, none of which have been offered. None were part of the estate of any of the mint engravers or other personal.
The possibility of a 1917 matte proof being struck and purchased by a collector, who would have had to known of its rarity, then those coins being spent or somehow sold as ordinary coins is such a low probability that I would agree with the assertion by some here in this post that there needs to be some physicial foundation of Mint records to prove their existance.
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
Kevin -- your point made in the above sentence by you makes all this convesation about any 1917 proof coinange irrelevant and moot until such time that someone dredges up a verifiable mint document stating that these coins were indeed intentionally struck.
As for as a lack of respect for Breen, it is anyone's right to disrespect the person for whatever reason(s) they choose to do so. The only thing that really ranckled me in this thread was the use of the childish nickname Wally. He never went by that nickname! (And I have an idea who started it.)
Tom Arch buffnixx
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Kevin, Fortunately, most of the people concocting fantasy pieces don’t know enough about minting to make an interesting fake. Those who stick circulation strikes in holders are just delusional.
It does not surprise me that suddenly “the coin is not available.” I’ve not seen all sorts of rarities under similar evaporative circumstances.
<< <i>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
Kevin -- your point made in the above sentence by you makes all this convesation about any 1917 proof coinange irrelevant and moot until such time that someone dredges up a verifiable mint document stating that these coins were indeed intentionally struck.
As for as a lack of respect for Breen, it is anyone's right to disrespect the person for whatever reason(s) they choose to do so. The only thing that really ranckled me in this thread was the use of the childish nickname Wally. He never went by that nickname! (And I have an idea who started it.)
Tom Arch buffnixx >>
Despite what you wrote above, based on previous "Specimen" and "Proof" designations utilized by NGC and PCGS for numerous esoteric coins, I am confident that if a 1917 Nickel carrying unmistakable Proof credentials, surfaced, it would be recognized as such.
If I examined the coin, comparing it to a genuine 1916 Buff matte, and found similar striking characteristics in the design details, rims, borders, edges, and similar surface texture to a matte proof Buff, I would stated what I observed in my book and form an opinion and present my conclusions in the book. I would not care what the grading services would do. As the author of my book, I must state what I believe to be true, presenting the facts and conclusions, and/or if the facts do not lead to an obvious and absolute conclusion, state what I believe as a theory and open up both sides of the coin so to speak so the reader can decide.
I know Roger would do the same, irrelevant of some of the bad blood on this post, he would stay objective in his evaluation and present what he found from his experience.
In addition, I know if Roger and I do believe it was struck as a matte proof from our evaluation, some of the grading services would possibly reconsider their position.
I stated in my response previous that without a coin to examine, we must judge the existance of a 1917 matte buff by the archive and Mint records, and the nonexistance of any coins sold at auctions or from Mint employees. I believe Mark stated previously and I agreed that coins have been certified as proofs before based on the coins themselves. As the coins reflect the process used to create them.
<< <i>Kevin, Fortunately, most of the people concocting fantasy pieces don’t know enough about minting to make an interesting fake. Those who stick circulation strikes in holders are just delusional. It does not surprise me that suddenly “the coin is not available.” I’ve not seen all sorts of rarities under similar evaporative circumstances. >>
Roger,
It would be interesting to get Larry Briggs's view on this. Curious to see what characteristics he saw which differentiated it from a business strike and verified it as a matte proof.
Despite what you wrote above, based on previous "Specimen" and "Proof" designations utilized by NGC and PCGS for numerous esoteric coins, I am confident that if a 1917 Nickel carrying unmistakable Proof credentials, surfaced, it would be recognized as such. >>
Mark,
I can think of a few examples such as the 1851 Three cent trime proof, 1964 specimen strikes, 1927 specimen nickel, many of the early proofs struck before 1850, and some of the proofs which have come from the estates of individuals like former chief engraver Sinnock.
As just an average Lincoln cent collector who is certainly NOT an expert in grading or authentication, I came to the conclusion many years ago that for those Lincoln cents that are questionable as to their authenticity, I would rely on PCGS and/or NGC to determine. I'm referring to the 1917 MPL and the 1959 or 1959D with a wheat ears reverse. Since neither have been certified by PCGS or NGC, as far as I am concerned, they just don't exist. I also know that some people WANT to believe they exist, and maybe they do, but I MUST rely I people in the hobby who can judge the situation must better than I can. JMHO. Steve
Despite what you wrote above, based on previous "Specimen" and "Proof" designations utilized by NGC and PCGS for numerous esoteric coins, I am confident that if a 1917 Nickel carrying unmistakable Proof credentials, surfaced, it would be recognized as such. >>
Mark,
I can think of a few examples such as the 1851 Three cent trime proof, 1964 specimen strikes, 1927 specimen nickel, many of the early proofs struck before 1850, and some of the proofs which have come from the estates of individuals like former chief engraver Sinnock.
Kevin >>
Kevin, I didn't want to derail the thread from the subject of Proof Buffalo Nickels, but since you mentioned it a second time.....
I first saw the 1851 Proof Trime when I was still a grader at NGC and was wowed by the coin. Shockingly, to me, it looked like an obvious Proof. Even better, though, years later, it came up for sale while I was working for Pinnacle Rarities. And eventually, I was privileged to have placed it with a client.
I have never seen another Type l Three Cent Silver of that or any other date, which looked anything like a Proof, and consider it to be one of the most special of all U.S. coins. It is truly unique as a Proof Type coin - THE Type l Three Cent Silver!
It would be interesting and possibly quite enlightening if the "proofs" from that 1917 set that sold in 1976 could be tracked down and studied using today's criteria to verify just what they actually are. Though this might prove quite difficult, maybe even impossible, I would think that a set designated as proofs and/or specimens might be found with enough searching-certainly such special coins would leave some kind of trail.
On the 1959D wheat back reverse, this coin does exist and has been authenticated by the Mint as genuine. I remember talking to JP Martin about the coin. JP had examined for several hours and could not prove it to be fake. JP concluded as I did though that it was not genuine.
Therefore as the Mint could not prove it to be fake, it was concluded to be genuine. In my opinion, looking at all the markers on the coin, I concluded that it was not a genuine mint issue, but a counterfeit in my opinion. Just because it has not been proven fake, does not mean it is genuine.
<< <i>It would be interesting and possibly quite enlightening if the "proofs" from that 1917 set that sold in 1976 could be tracked down and studied using today's criteria to verify just what they actually are. Though this might prove quite difficult, maybe even impossible, I would think that a set designated as proofs and/or specimens might be found with enough searching-certainly such special coins would leave some kind of trail. >>
not sure I remember reading about the 1917 set sold in 1976, can you provide details please
Kevin, I didn't want to derail the thread from the subject of Proof Buffalo Nickels, but since you mentioned it a second time..... I first saw the 1851 Proof Trime when I was still a grader at NGC and was wowed by the coin. Shockingly, to me, it looked like an obvious Proof. Even better, though, years later, it came up for sale while I was working for Pinnacle Rarities. And eventually, I was privileged to have placed it with a client. I have never seen another Type l Three Cent Silver of that or any other date, which looked anything like a Proof, and consider it to be one of the most special of all U.S. coins. It is truly unique as a Proof Type coin - THE Type l Three Cent Silver! Thanks for letting me celebrate it. >>
Mark,
I had heard from Stewart and others that it was absolutely a proof, it had the brilliance, striking, and all proof characteristics of a proof made during that era. I heard it was overseas in a collection, believe I know who. As the only Type I proof, it is an extremely rare coin, one to be cherished. Thanks for sharing your thoughts from when you were lucky enough to examine.
I examined the 1852 specimen Breen claimed was a proof and photographed for the book, it was obviously not a proof.
not sure I remember reading about the 1917 set sold in 1976, can you provide details please
Kevin -- The set consisting of a 1917 cent, nickel, (no dime), quarter, and half dollar were auctioned by New England Rare Coin Galleries in their "Publik II" auction in 1976. In David Haul's 1987 book entitled "A Mercenaries Guide to the Rare Coin Market" he claimed partialy responsibility for this set having been discovered but he later came to the conclusion that the coins were just "cherry uncs" as he stated in the book, a copy of which I have.
Tom Arch buffnixx
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Kevin - I have prepared for you a copy of Mark Van Winkle's presentation at the 1989 ANA convention titled "1927 SPECIMEN BUFFALO NICKELS OF 1927". As you probably know he is a current employee of Heritage Rare Coin Galleries. This 30 minute lecture complete with slides presents much interesting information for these 1927 coins which were discovered just a few months earlier. I attended that ANA convention (just 100 miles from my home in Akron Ohio) but did not attend this presentation. I purchased this VCR tape over 15 years ago and it is very interesting and informative. Hope it helps you. Will be mailing it out tomorrow. Tom Arch
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
The Philadelphia mint was supposed to keep track of these sandblast proofs, but I’ve seen nothing to preclude Sinnock or Roberts, etc. from swapping out one of the “proofs” for their personal collection. Charles Barber had a magnificent collection of pattern and experimental coins, but there was nothing illegal about it. Philadelphia Chief Clerk Fred Chaffin had a small safe in the mint building for his coin collection. =============================================================================================================== Probably about the same time that Mark Van Winkle was giving his presentation on the 1927 specimen nickels at the August 1989 ANA convention in Pittsburgh I was getting a letter of authentication at the same place from Walter Breen on my 1935 "MS-65 satin finsh special striking" buffalo nickel that I had purchased from Heritage Galleries after having been notified of its availability by Mark Van Winkel. Walter's letter is as follows. (This was my only experience with Mr. Breen).
Walter Breen Box 352 Berkely CA 94701 August 17, 1989
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This certifies I have examined the accompanying coin and that I unhesitatingly declare to be genuine and as described below: It is a 1935 Buffalo nickel described as a "Specimen Striking". It has extraordinay sharpness obviously and visibly from two blows from the dies. This extra impression has imparted not only extra design detail as on proofs but extra sharpness on innder and outer rims, again as on proofs. Surfaces are satiny, though unlike eiether the 1916, 1917, 1927, or 1936 type 1 proofs. It is uncertain if any special treatment was done to the surfaces as normally with proofs. This is the first such piece I have seen.
Respectfully submitted, Walter Breen.
Walters letter seemed to be right on the money. He did not call it something esoteric but rather described it perfectly. One thing he did miss is the dry riverbed pattern of cracks/lines that links this single 1935 buffalo to production from chromium plated dies like the 1927 coins. I think this might have been one of Sinnock's personal pieces, just like the 1927 coins, just my opinion. So this coin has a uniques signiture that proves it is not a regular production piece. These microcracks are very prominent within the denomination FIVE CENTS. The coin carries its own credentials and unique signiture.
Though this certificate and my single experience with Breen was positive, I can now see how these have become a real blight on the hobby now.
Tom Arch buffnixx
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
If the date on this 1935 nickel were 1936 I would call it a proof. But since the date is 1935 and there is no documentation then the term "MS-65 special striking" fits perfectly. This is exactly the term that Heritage used. Thus it is not a proof -- no documentation -- no proof. Tom Arch
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I have had the opportunity to see photos of the 1917 matte proof Lincoln cent which currently resides in Hawaii. It lives! It is the real deal!! NO QUESTION!! No one would doubt the legitimacy of this coin after seeing these photos. buffnixx
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
As I have said many times, when the owner of this coin decides to have expert graders from PCGS and/or NGC examine the COIN, not the PICTURE and IF the experts agree that it is a genuine 1917 Lincoln MPL, then, and only THEN will I agree to accept the fact that a 1917 MPL exists. I am not alone in feeling this way, and all the comments and pictures , etc that you or others provide will not change are minds. I truely believe that you KNOW that the experts will NOT slab the coin and so you will continue to talk about it. Sorry, even Dennis Tucker's decision to leave those blank lines in the RED BOOK does not change the fact that the 1917 MPL is not a recognized coin by the hobby. JMHO. Steve
Regardless of the differences of opinions set forth in the previous posts, I have truly enjoyed reading each individual's post and feel more educated for them. I love Buffalo nickels and have most every book written about them. I have studied the several counterfeit attempts and successes, but never studied the proofs. My error, which I hope to correct. Kevin, I truly thank you for your effort in your latest book on the cent and nickel and RWB I applaud your work on presenting your great efforts to provide us with the mint's records in your books. Tom, I love your coin and would love to view it some day. Probably will not happen, but one can hope. I think it would be a great move on Tom's part to provide his 1917 Buffalo for Kevin and Roger to view inhand and anyone else with their credentials, but I respect your right to deny this opportunity. I personally do not feel anyone would lose in this endeavor, but then that is only my opinion. Again, thank you for your post Kevin and to Roger and Tom's posts, also. Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Kevin, Loved your Lincoln book, but I would request better pictures in the Buff book. I'm sure you could find help around here. Good luck and keep us posted on your progress...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
Comments
I still cannot get over you calling Walter Breen "Wally" Breen. Did you start that or did you pick it up from someone else?
There is no good reason to do that except to belittle the person whilest at the same time exibiting a certan aura of intellectual superority.
His rep has suffered greatly by what he did (well documented here too) and that has probably far overshadowed anything good he did for the hobby.
I met him at the August 1989 at the ANA summer show.
He was an unusual person to say the least.
You would really be better served in the future by calling him Walter.
buffnixx
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
<< <i>Ops! I meant to display the obverse first, here is is.
I am not an expert on matte proof Buffalo nickels, but I have seen a few and the field in this coin is not textured like a matte proof and this coin seems to have some lustre to it. What am I missing?
<< <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 >>
I think the Buffalo nickel is one of the two or three most beautiful coins ever designed in the world. Please include great pictures and lots of them!! Then I will definitely buy the book!
I've been called all sorts of names both positive and negative; that's just life. As for good ol' Wally Breen, he did what he did - some good, some bad, some ugly.
To your "…exibiting[sic] a certan [sic] aura of intellectual superority[sic]" comment: What a joke!
Breen had the kind of mind that could think rings around yours truly and just about anyone else. The only claim I make is that I’ve done a lot of grubby, hands-on work and presented it to collectors as accurately and honestly as my meager abilities permit. If there are errors, omissions, inaccuracies or differences of opinion, readers are invited to seek out the original materials – nearly everything I’ve published is referenced to the location of source material down to the box and folder level.
On Breen, I have to thank Walter as one of reasons I started writing was because I found so many mistakes
in his works, I wanted to correct. I found that Breen made facts out of hearsay, and presented opinions and theories
as facts. The difficultly of this was that for years I would show people absolute proof of the facts, and they would
state that it was in writing in Breen's book, therefore must be true. I was also told that Breen could be bought
to offer his opinion on a subject. Some of Breen's works opened doors, but I did learned to use them for reference,
not for facts.
On the subject of a proof, a proof is defined by intent in manufacture. Were they intended to be struck as proofs.
We have different types of proofs generated over the course of our Mint from Satin Proofs, Brilliant Proofs, Matte Proofs,
and a few deviations and combinations.
I found Archive records which stated that all of the Isabella quarter planchets were polished, yet these are not considered proofs.
We have the New Rochelle Commem, where 50 were struck on polished planchets, these are known as specimen
strikes. So we have deviations that are meant to be something special, but were not intended to be struck as proofs.
During each era in history, we have to examine with in the constraints of that era, for example, there is only 1 known 1851
Trime proof. It is believed this was the coin created by Longacre and submitted to the President. I believe it was meant by
Longacre not to be a proof persay for the collecting community, but a proof to represent perfection in his coin and the best
example to submit for review. Early coins were struck as proofs for foreign dignateries and private individuals, it was not until
1858 that they were sold in sets to the general public.
In 1916, Director of the Mint F.J.H. von Engelken stopped the manufacture of all proofs because it was not cost effective and
to many complaints. In addition, there were the new designs to focus on. So proofs were not authorized by the Mint in 1917.
In addition, there are records in the Archives which lists all of the matte proofs, no proofs are listed for 1917.
We also need to consider proofs generated internally by personal inside the Mint such as the 1913 Lib nickels, several different
proofs which were part of Chief Engraver John Sinnock's estate. These are undocumented proofs which are sometimes produced,
but not authorized. Charles Barber was chief engraver until his death in February of 1917. Barber had one of the finest collectors
of patterns as part of his estate. Barber was replaced by Morgan, who, in my opinion, played by the rules, and I believe would not
have made coins specifically for himself or for private venture.
The coins also speak for themselves and can teach us alot. I like to compare a proof with a EDS mint state specimen and see the
differences on the rims, edges, borders, design elements, and surface texture. What is expected for each, and which defines
the difference.
On grading services, I agree, they have the most experience, and are usually the best to offer an opinion based upon their
experience on examining thousands of coins. But, they are human like the rest of us, and therefore can make mistakes. I have
found several coins certified as MS by a major grading service which I knew to be proofs, I had them resubmitted and certified
as proofs by other grading services. This is not to state that frequently make mistakes, quite the opposite, the high frenquency
is that their analysis on what it is (MS or Pr) is correct, but that it can happen.
I know Tom Arch had examined thousands of Buffs as that is his passion, he has cherried several proofs from MS holders.
I also believe as minor proof sets which contained the cent and nickel were sold almost at face value, that people, when needed,
might have used these to purchase food and such and put them into circulation. At the Jenks sale, minor proof sets were sold
for less than face value.
From a intent purpose, I would state that no proofs were intended to be struck in 1917, there are no documented proofs struck,
and I do not believe Morgan would have struck them.
On the other side of the coin, examining the coin may show qualities which are not normally found on a 1917 Buffalo, this is worth
looking into. Maybe someone wanted to test a hydraulic press with a harder to strike planchet such as nickel. Maybe it was from
the first die hubbed and used to strike a coin.
We plan to examine and present all possibilities. From my research on the socalled 1917 Linc matte, I concluded it did not exist,
and actually examined a specimen Breen claimed was, it was tooled on the inside of the rim to create sharper edges and rims.
On the 1927, obviously for a satin strike, there was no special preperation of the dies, no polishing, sandblasting, or other
methods which could be used to distinguish them apart.
What Dave Lange told me was that the surfaces looked different than normal coins, more smoother, flatter, as if struck from
a press with greater pressure. I would agree that if they were for experimental purposes, they should be called specimen
strikes.
Here is another thing to think about. Only 24 1894-S dimes were struck. These were not struck as proofs, they were not
called proofs until 1942 in a auction catalog. Most of the experts agree they are not proofs. They were not struck on special coin
presses and no special care was given to the dies and planchets. yet, some of the major grading services certify them as proofs.
When asked, most would state they agreed that they were not proofs, but that they call them proofs as the numismatic
community has accepted them as proofs.
I do not believe there is a 1917 buff matte proof, but intend on figuring it out, and also will include the opinions of others
to help show all perspectives in a nice logical helpful manner to let the collector draw their own conclusions.
Thanks
Kevin
You see what most see. It's a nice coin, but it does not carry "proof" credentials.
<< <i>
<< <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 >>
Paul,
This is not true, the 1913 Lib nickel, 1894-S Barber dime, and many of the internal generated proofs such as several commens
which came from the Sinnock estate has been certified as proofs. There are no archive documents to support these as proofs.
early proofs, especially before 1850 were hardly ever documented, each era is different, you have to study that era within
those constraints, habits, and routines.
proofs is based upon intent of manufacture, it should result in higher quality of strike, and exhibit sharpness, and could have
better fields, but depends on the process used at the time.
The majority of proofs we have archive documents to support, but that is not the rule. I agree it helps establish intent as they
are specifically listed as proofs.
Chief Coiner Franklin Peale has his own little private enterprise going inside the Mint generating coins and medals, these were
not documented. The Type II and Type III 1804 dollars struck in the 1850s were not documented, they were struck for sale
for profit by Mint personal. yet many of these are called proofs.
Just food for thought
Kevin
Mark,
I agree with this 100%, coins are the result of the intent of manufacture. They refect the special means or process used to
differentiate them from normal coins. They can be used in themselves to designate a proof status. This of course is an
interpretation, and could be incorrect, but I believe is the closest and highest probability we can come to being correct.
I would respectfully disagree when acceptable standards, such as the designation of the 1894-S dime as a proof, because
it is accepted in the numismatic community.
Kevin
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. >>
I agree with Roger's lack of respect for Breen. I have read Roger's work and know his dedication in his research.
I have the same lack of respect for Breen. Based on number of ficticious facts presented, I can only conclude that Breen
did not care, or that he assumed that his name and reputation were above question, and therefore believed he could
not be wrong. In my opinion, this level or arrogance can only do more harm than good.
Roger has studied this era and time period (1917) more than probably any other researcher. His beliefs are more than
just opinion.
Of course, there is always the unknown. For example, we have the 1913 Lib nickel which were struck with 1913 pbv dies which were
returned from the Mint. We have an oportunistic Mint employee who creates them for profit. Is it possible that a 1917 proof was
struck on a hydraulic press, yes, is it likely or probable, no, there are no records, like the 1913 Lib, of a 1917 proof surfacing and being
sold as a proof from a former Mint employee.
Kevin
<< <i>
Better photos. The MPL book's photos were disappointing, to be frank. >>
Feel free to write your own book, please, if you believe you can do better, be my guest.
Would it be possible to examine your 1917 coins?
Can I show them to Roger?
Roger,
If Tom permits, would you like to examine these coins so we can draw our conclusion
based upon the coins? I agree with Mark's statements that the coins speak for themselves.
I would like both of your evaluations and conclusions for the book and for everyone else
to enjoy and learn from two of the leading experts on this era and these coins.
Thanks
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <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 >>
No reason to apoligize, I love hot topics, brings some of the mystery into a series. For myself something to
investigate and figure out. Even if I do find the exact reasons, to present what the facts, opinions, and conclusions
are. This is the kind of stuff I love researching and writing about.
Kevin
Normal procedure during the 20s-70s (and maybe later), was to make several examples on a medal press, sandblast them (as one would certain medals) and show them to the Director and other officials for final approval of the design. Although we do not have documents stating this occurred for ALL designs during that period, enough examples exist to confirm the process.
The Philadelphia mint was supposed to keep track of these sandblast proofs, but I’ve seen nothing to preclude Sinnock or Roberts, etc. from swapping out one of the “proofs” for their personal collection. Charles Barber had a magnificent collection of pattern and experimental coins, but there was nothing illegal about it. Philadelphia Chief Clerk Fred Chaffin had a small safe in the mint building for his coin collection.
These kinds of things were just not worth much back then.
I will be at the ANA on Thursday. I was told that the 1917 was not available for inspection, which of course is the
right of the owner. For the Buffalo proof book, I will based my conclusions on the available information, which as of now,
lean heavily against any possibility an 1917 Buffalo nickel matte proof.
I remember the Smithsonian claimed to have a 1917 Linc matte proof, the coin was an XF with no proof striking or
surface characteristics. If there was 1917 proof set created, the first would most likely have gone to the Cabinet collection,
which was move to the Smithsonian in the late 1920s.
Large organizations which had alot of political clout such as the ANS would also have had a strong influence in obtaining
a proof if one was available, there were none there.
If one was created for profit from an internal source, it would have most likely come through an auction, none of which
have been offered. None were part of the estate of any of the mint engravers or other personal.
The possibility of a 1917 matte proof being struck and purchased by a collector, who would have had to known of its rarity,
then those coins being spent or somehow sold as ordinary coins is such a low probability that I would agree with the
assertion by some here in this post that there needs to be some physicial foundation of Mint records to prove their existance.
Kevin
Kevin -- your point made in the above sentence by you makes all this convesation about any 1917 proof coinange irrelevant and moot until such time that someone dredges up a verifiable mint document stating that these coins were indeed intentionally struck.
As for as a lack of respect for Breen, it is anyone's right to disrespect the person for whatever reason(s) they choose to do so.
The only thing that really ranckled me in this thread was the use of the childish nickname Wally.
He never went by that nickname!
(And I have an idea who started it.)
Tom Arch
buffnixx
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Fortunately, most of the people concocting fantasy pieces don’t know enough about minting to make an interesting fake. Those who stick circulation strikes in holders are just delusional.
It does not surprise me that suddenly “the coin is not available.” I’ve not seen all sorts of rarities under similar evaporative circumstances.
<< <i>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
Kevin -- your point made in the above sentence by you makes all this convesation about any 1917 proof coinange irrelevant and moot until such time that someone dredges up a verifiable mint document stating that these coins were indeed intentionally struck.
As for as a lack of respect for Breen, it is anyone's right to disrespect the person for whatever reason(s) they choose to do so.
The only thing that really ranckled me in this thread was the use of the childish nickname Wally.
He never went by that nickname!
(And I have an idea who started it.)
Tom Arch
buffnixx >>
Despite what you wrote above, based on previous "Specimen" and "Proof" designations utilized by NGC and PCGS for numerous esoteric coins, I am confident that if a 1917 Nickel carrying unmistakable Proof credentials, surfaced, it would be recognized as such.
If I examined the coin, comparing it to a genuine 1916 Buff matte, and found similar striking characteristics
in the design details, rims, borders, edges, and similar surface texture to a matte proof Buff,
I would stated what I observed in my book and form an opinion and present my conclusions in the book.
I would not care what the grading services would do. As the author of my book, I must state what
I believe to be true, presenting the facts and conclusions, and/or if the facts do not lead to an obvious
and absolute conclusion, state what I believe as a theory and open up both sides of the coin so to speak
so the reader can decide.
I know Roger would do the same, irrelevant of some of the bad blood on this post, he would stay objective
in his evaluation and present what he found from his experience.
In addition, I know if Roger and I do believe it was struck as a matte proof from our evaluation, some of the
grading services would possibly reconsider their position.
I stated in my response previous that without a coin to examine, we must judge the existance of a 1917 matte buff
by the archive and Mint records, and the nonexistance of any coins sold at auctions or from Mint employees.
I believe Mark stated previously and I agreed that coins have been certified as proofs before based on the coins
themselves. As the coins reflect the process used to create them.
Thanks
kevin
<< <i>Kevin,
Fortunately, most of the people concocting fantasy pieces don’t know enough about minting to make an interesting fake. Those who stick circulation strikes in holders are just delusional.
It does not surprise me that suddenly “the coin is not available.” I’ve not seen all sorts of rarities under similar evaporative circumstances. >>
Roger,
It would be interesting to get Larry Briggs's view on this. Curious to see what characteristics he saw which differentiated it
from a business strike and verified it as a matte proof.
kevin
Despite what you wrote above, based on previous "Specimen" and "Proof" designations utilized by NGC and PCGS for numerous esoteric coins, I am confident that if a 1917 Nickel carrying unmistakable Proof credentials, surfaced, it would be recognized as such. >>
Mark,
I can think of a few examples such as the 1851 Three cent trime proof, 1964 specimen strikes, 1927 specimen nickel,
many of the early proofs struck before 1850, and some of the proofs which have come from the estates of individuals like
former chief engraver Sinnock.
Kevin
I also know that some people WANT to believe they exist, and maybe they do, but I MUST rely I people in the hobby who can judge the situation must better than I can. JMHO. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>[ >>
Despite what you wrote above, based on previous "Specimen" and "Proof" designations utilized by NGC and PCGS for numerous esoteric coins, I am confident that if a 1917 Nickel carrying unmistakable Proof credentials, surfaced, it would be recognized as such. >>
Mark,
I can think of a few examples such as the 1851 Three cent trime proof, 1964 specimen strikes, 1927 specimen nickel,
many of the early proofs struck before 1850, and some of the proofs which have come from the estates of individuals like
former chief engraver Sinnock.
Kevin >>
Kevin, I didn't want to derail the thread from the subject of Proof Buffalo Nickels, but since you mentioned it a second time.....
I first saw the 1851 Proof Trime when I was still a grader at NGC and was wowed by the coin. Shockingly, to me, it looked like an obvious Proof. Even better, though, years later, it came up for sale while I was working for Pinnacle Rarities. And eventually, I was privileged to have placed it with a client.
I have never seen another Type l Three Cent Silver of that or any other date, which looked anything like a Proof, and consider it to be one of the most special of all U.S. coins. It is truly unique as a Proof Type coin - THE Type l Three Cent Silver!
Thanks for letting me celebrate it.
On the 1959D wheat back reverse, this coin does exist and has been authenticated by the Mint as genuine.
I remember talking to JP Martin about the coin. JP had examined for several hours and could not prove it to
be fake. JP concluded as I did though that it was not genuine.
Therefore as the Mint could not prove it to be fake, it was concluded to be genuine.
In my opinion, looking at all the markers on the coin, I concluded that it was not a genuine mint issue,
but a counterfeit in my opinion. Just because it has not been proven fake, does not mean it is genuine.
Kevin
<< <i>It would be interesting and possibly quite enlightening if the "proofs" from that 1917 set that sold in 1976 could be tracked down and studied using today's criteria to verify just what they actually are. Though this might prove quite difficult, maybe even impossible, I would think that a set designated as proofs and/or specimens might be found with enough searching-certainly such special coins would leave some kind of trail. >>
not sure I remember reading about the 1917 set sold in 1976, can you provide details please
Kevin, I didn't want to derail the thread from the subject of Proof Buffalo Nickels, but since you mentioned it a second time.....
I first saw the 1851 Proof Trime when I was still a grader at NGC and was wowed by the coin. Shockingly, to me, it looked like an obvious Proof. Even better, though, years later, it came up for sale while I was working for Pinnacle Rarities. And eventually, I was privileged to have placed it with a client.
I have never seen another Type l Three Cent Silver of that or any other date, which looked anything like a Proof, and consider it to be one of the most special of all U.S. coins. It is truly unique as a Proof Type coin - THE Type l Three Cent Silver!
Thanks for letting me celebrate it.
Mark,
I had heard from Stewart and others that it was absolutely a proof, it had the brilliance, striking, and all proof characteristics of a proof
made during that era. I heard it was overseas in a collection, believe I know who. As the only Type I proof, it is an extremely rare
coin, one to be cherished. Thanks for sharing your thoughts from when you were lucky enough to examine.
I examined the 1852 specimen Breen claimed was a proof and photographed for the book, it was obviously not a proof.
Kevin
This is part of the Wally Breen problem: what of his vast output can be trusted?
Kevin --
The set consisting of a 1917 cent, nickel, (no dime), quarter, and half dollar were auctioned by New England Rare Coin Galleries in their "Publik II" auction in 1976. In David Haul's 1987 book entitled "A Mercenaries Guide to the Rare Coin Market" he claimed partialy responsibility for this set having been discovered but he later came to the conclusion that the coins were just "cherry uncs" as he stated in the book, a copy of which I have.
Tom Arch
buffnixx
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I have prepared for you a copy of Mark Van Winkle's presentation at the 1989 ANA convention titled "1927 SPECIMEN BUFFALO NICKELS OF 1927".
As you probably know he is a current employee of Heritage Rare Coin Galleries. This 30 minute lecture complete with slides presents much interesting information for these 1927 coins which were discovered just a few months earlier. I attended that ANA convention (just 100 miles from my home in Akron Ohio) but did not attend this presentation. I purchased this VCR tape over 15 years ago and it is very interesting and informative. Hope it helps you.
Will be mailing it out tomorrow.
Tom Arch
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
It was at this show -- the 1989 ANA convention in Pittsburgh -- that I met Walter Breen.
It was quite an experience.
Tom Arch
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
===============================================================================================================
Probably about the same time that Mark Van Winkle was giving his presentation on the 1927 specimen nickels at the August 1989 ANA convention in Pittsburgh I was getting a letter of authentication at the same place from Walter Breen on my 1935 "MS-65 satin finsh special striking" buffalo nickel that I had purchased from Heritage Galleries after having been notified of its availability by Mark Van Winkel. Walter's letter is as follows. (This was my only experience with Mr. Breen).
Walter Breen
Box 352 Berkely CA 94701
August 17, 1989
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This certifies I have examined the accompanying coin and that I unhesitatingly declare to be genuine and as described below:
It is a 1935 Buffalo nickel described as a "Specimen Striking". It has extraordinay sharpness obviously and visibly from two blows
from the dies. This extra impression has imparted not only extra design detail as on proofs but extra sharpness on innder and outer rims,
again as on proofs. Surfaces are satiny, though unlike eiether the 1916, 1917, 1927, or 1936 type 1 proofs. It is uncertain if any special
treatment was done to the surfaces as normally with proofs.
This is the first such piece I have seen.
Respectfully submitted,
Walter Breen.
Walters letter seemed to be right on the money. He did not call it something esoteric but rather described it perfectly. One thing he did miss is the
dry riverbed pattern of cracks/lines that links this single 1935 buffalo to production from chromium plated dies like the 1927 coins. I think this might have been one of Sinnock's personal pieces, just like the 1927 coins, just my opinion. So this coin has a uniques signiture that proves it is not a regular production piece.
These microcracks are very prominent within the denomination FIVE CENTS. The coin carries its own credentials and unique signiture.
Though this certificate and my single experience with Breen was positive, I can now see how these have become a real blight on the hobby now.
Tom Arch
buffnixx
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
"MS-65 special striking" fits perfectly. This is exactly the term that Heritage used.
Thus it is not a proof -- no documentation -- no proof.
Tom Arch
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Any word when it will be released?
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
<< <i>Please include the 1936 Brilliant, Satin, and 1937 as well!
-Paul >>
Might as well do all the proof Buffalo issues.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>Wonder how this book is coming.
Any word when it will be released? >>
When it's released, let me know...
Tom -- Thanks for bring the thread back up. I admire your passion.
buffnixx
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
I think it would be a great move on Tom's part to provide his 1917 Buffalo for Kevin and Roger to view inhand and anyone else with their credentials, but I respect your right to deny this opportunity. I personally do not feel anyone would lose in this endeavor, but then that is only my opinion.
Again, thank you for your post Kevin and to Roger and Tom's posts, also.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain