Options
The 1917 Matte Proof Lincoln: Fact or Fiction?
WingedLiberty1957
Posts: 2,961 ✭✭✭✭✭
I am kind of amazed how there still appears to be some controversy over whether any Matte Proof Lincoln's were struck in 1917. Most numismatists believe that 1916 was the last (final) year of the Matte Proof Lincoln era. What amazes me is how I still find vestiges of information pointing to the existence of a single 1917 Matte Proof Lincoln
For example if you look at the Wikipedia website for Lincoln Cent Mintage's, it lists "1917 Matte Proof Lincoln, mintage 1"
Wikipedia Lincoln Cent Mintages
Another example of this type of documentation is in my 2012 Official Redbook (A Guide Book of U.S. Coins), that actually has a line for the "1917, Matte Proof", although they list no mintage and no price. In the summary paragraph for Lincoln Cents, they write "Matte Proof coins were made from 1909 through 1916, and an exceptional specimen dated 1917 is reported to exist".
I do find it sort of strange and interesting how there appears to be references to a phantom 1917 Matte Proof in these well-known and recent references.
Does anyone know the details on this supposed 1917 Matte Proof? Was it a doctored coin that was eventually declared to be tooled or faked?
If anyone knows of any images of this phantom coin, please post. I would love to see them.
It is curious that this question has not been put to rest yet (nearly 100 years later).
[NOTE that I edited this post to add this photo: I did a quick search on 1917 Matte Proof Lincoln and found this image. I have no idea if this is the coin the documentation above is referring to or not. There seems to be an awful lot of flaws on the coin (nicks). If I saw this coin, I have to admit that I would NOT be thinking Matte Proof but something more along the lines of an MS63/64.
For example if you look at the Wikipedia website for Lincoln Cent Mintage's, it lists "1917 Matte Proof Lincoln, mintage 1"
Wikipedia Lincoln Cent Mintages
Another example of this type of documentation is in my 2012 Official Redbook (A Guide Book of U.S. Coins), that actually has a line for the "1917, Matte Proof", although they list no mintage and no price. In the summary paragraph for Lincoln Cents, they write "Matte Proof coins were made from 1909 through 1916, and an exceptional specimen dated 1917 is reported to exist".
I do find it sort of strange and interesting how there appears to be references to a phantom 1917 Matte Proof in these well-known and recent references.
Does anyone know the details on this supposed 1917 Matte Proof? Was it a doctored coin that was eventually declared to be tooled or faked?
If anyone knows of any images of this phantom coin, please post. I would love to see them.
It is curious that this question has not been put to rest yet (nearly 100 years later).
[NOTE that I edited this post to add this photo: I did a quick search on 1917 Matte Proof Lincoln and found this image. I have no idea if this is the coin the documentation above is referring to or not. There seems to be an awful lot of flaws on the coin (nicks). If I saw this coin, I have to admit that I would NOT be thinking Matte Proof but something more along the lines of an MS63/64.
3
Comments
Perhaps eventually (hopefully) all the references and documentation out there will eventually zero in on no Matte Proofs in 1917.
It's just strange that I still find so many references to it.
The fact that it's STILL listed in the Redbook is kind of amazing.
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
Based on the image, I can say that exceptional MS coins such as these do exist for the date range 1915 to 1917, but all of them that I've seen have some giveaway that pins it as a non-MPL. I have never seen an MS coin with truly a mirrored edge, though. For the coin above, the thing that strikes me is the way the letters in the legend seem to blend into the fields. Could be the lighting, though. Also, 3 o'clock on the reverse the edge doesn't really look flat. Plenty of MS coins have some flat edge, some with more, some with less, but every true MPL I've seen it's like 100%.
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>You know, I could see D. Carr doing that eventually. >>
He's pretty much ruining american numismatics after each piece he creates.
<< <i>Perhaps eventually (hopefully) all the references and documentation out there will eventually zero in on no Matte Proofs in 1917.
It's just strange that I still find so many references to it.
The fact that it's STILL listed in the Redbook is kind of amazing. >>
i'd go to national archives myself to research...this link gives time saving data reference to confirm or not
this thread has a link...which bears interesting reading...with background data
1917 thread
I would be pretty skeptical of a 1917 Matte Proof Lincoln cent, but you never know. Didn't Joel
Rettew have a collection he bought that had several "Proof" 1917 pieces? This would have
been a long time ago.
<< <i> Didn't Joel Rettew have a collection he bought that had several "Proof" 1917 pieces? This would have
been a long time ago. >>
This is going waaaayyy back in the memory archives, but weren't some 1917 proofs included in the "Great Eastern Collection" offered in one of Joel's fixed price catalogs around 1976 or 1977? It's been too long and I no longer have a lot of references from that far back.....
ANA LM5200
<< <i>Fiction. I believe the Red Book has acted irresponsibly by not removing this line item. >>
I am with Dr. Bush!
<< <i>
<< <i>You know, I could see D. Carr doing that eventually. >>
He's pretty much ruining american numismatics after each piece he creates.
The fact that it's STILL listed in the Redbook is kind of amazing. >>
Oh please!! I think you are grossly overstating D. Carr's influence on American numismatics.
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Matte Proof Lincolns are determined by die diagnostics and not by a wire rim. This was Walter Breens misconception. I have personally examined Walter Breens supposed 1917 Matte Proof Lincoln and determined it had a tooled edge or rim and I actually saw the tooled marks.
I have also examined a few other supposed 1917 Matte Proof Lincolns and they were all not Proofs. The die diagnostics for a 1917 Matte Proof Lincoln would have to be the same as. 1916 Matte Proof Lincoln as there was no new die made for Proofs after 1916.
Ken Bressett should remove any reference to a 1917 Proof from the Red book as should Wikipedia. However I am just a humble collector who does not not know everything about Lincoln cents.
Stewart Blay
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>You know, I could see D. Carr doing that eventually. >>
He's pretty much ruining american numismatics after each piece he creates.
The fact that it's STILL listed in the Redbook is kind of amazing. >>
Oh please!! I think you are grossly overstating D. Carr's influence on American numismatics. >>
Amen my friend!
by Dentuck
You harp and you scold,
But it's your news that's old!
Don't be a schnook. Take a look ---
The 1917 Proof ain't in the Red Book.
.... see page 118 of the 2013 edition.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
<< <i>BEHIND THE TIMES
by Dentuck
You harp and you scold,
But it's your news that's old!
Don't be a schnook. Take a look ---
The 1917 Proof ain't in the Red Book.
.... see page 118 of the 2013 edition. >>
But the mention of the exsistence of an exceptional 1917 matte proof is still found on the page before. So it's still in there.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>it's strange that it is impossible to prove a 1917 Matte Proof Lincoln Cent DOESN"T exist. >>
Perhaps not so strange, but rather logical. Regardless, lack of proof that something does not exist should not preclude its removal.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Until either PCGS and/or NGC certify a 1917 MPL as a legitimate proof Lincoln cent I will not believe such a coin exists. I believe the same way about a so called 1959 Lincoln cent with the wheat ears reverse. Buffnixx believes very strongly in the existence of the 1917MPL but his belief dosen't for one second make it a fact in my opinion. It was great that Dennis Tucker got the line for the 1917 MPL out of the 2013 Red Book AFTER many, many years of it showing up.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
As for the other denominations, I've seen one convincing proof 1917 Nickel. I've seen 4-5 "Breen-papered Proof" nickels that might be special strikes but are more likely just first strikes. I've seen no 1917 dimes or quarters that had even slight claims to proof status. And I've seen a few 1917 Walkers that were satiny and sharp enough to be interesting, but not enough to be convincing. All of this is relevant because it provides circumstantial clues as to what we might expect in a 1917 proof Lincoln.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Take a good look at the 1927 "specimen" strike buffalo nickel that is in the Heritage auction archives. An obvious matte or satin finish proof which is not called one. Why not? Registry sets maybe?
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I've handled several of the 1927 specimens. While they are clearly very well struck and have a different finish than business strikes, I don't think they were struck as proofs. (For those unfamiliar with the issue, these coins were most likely produced in an experiment with chrome plating the dies. If RWB were here, he might be able to shed more light on this. But since he has been banned, I'll stick with my story.)
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
"You harp and you scold,
But it's your news that's old!
Don't be a schnook. Take a look ---
The 1917 Proof ain't in the Red Book."
I am looking at my 2012 large print edition of the Redbook on page 113 and I quote ....
"MATTE PROOF COINS WERE MADE FOR COLLECTORS FROM 1913 TO 1916 AND
AN EXCEPTIONAL SPECIMEN DATED 1917 IS ALSO REPORTED TO EXIST".
They were made for release to collectors from 1913 to 1916 but not for release to collectors in 1917.
And if you turn to page 114 in the aforementioned Redbook you will see that there is specific mention and
an entry for the 1917 matte proof Lincoln head cent right below the line for the 1917 doubled die obverse cent,
although there is no priceing information given, just the usual dash. So illini420's litte poem is an incorrect little ditty.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I believe have a,,1917proof cent
I believe I have discovered what a matte proof 1917 penny looks like
1917 proof penny
I hear that one was still in the hopper just waiting
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
6 YEAR OLD THREAD ALERT
Troll Alert!
No VDB?!
The cent in Joesph's post is dated "1917" - yep.
The fact is fiction!
Still an interesting read for those of us born since 2012.
Most of the below is from The Authoritative Reference on Lincoln Cents, Authoritative Reference on Buffalo Nickels, Authoritative Reference on Mercury Dimes
In Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of United Sates and Colonial Proof Coins 1722 - 1989, Breen lists a 1917 Lincoln cent matte proof. Breen states "One seen from a set (below), rev. not proofed, dramatically cleaned; obv. has matte finish, like 1916." Under the 1917 Buffalo nickel matte proof, Breen states: "1917 Five Cents (enlarged). Matte finish. Ex Ira Reed set, Joel Rettew." Under Set, Breen states: "Set. Ex Ira Reed in 1930's, to a collector in Philadelphia who stopped in 1942, and whose holdings were sold early in 1976 to Joel Rettew. The set has been broken up. No duplicate is reported."
On page 219, under the chapter The Clandestine Years, 1917 - 1935, Breen states under Five Cents: Two seen, the broken die coin (break from rim through L into field) from the same set as the cent, the perfect die coin a later discovery. Both have matte finish, like 1916, with the same detail definition. Both have knife-rims in the same part of circumference.
In Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins, Breen claims that there are 3 1916 Mercury dime proof specimens known.
Dave Bowers in his 2008 book, A Guide Book to Lincoln Cents, stated that the author had verified no specimens with the matte proof characteristics or reliable market listings.
David Lange in his 1999 book, The Complete Guide to Lincoln Cents, stated that the author had not personally examined a 1917 cent having the characteristics of a proof cent. In David Lange's book, The Complete Guide to Buffalo Nickels, Second Edition, David comments on page 178, that one of the specimens claimed by Breen to be a Matte Proof was submitted to NGC for certification as a proof. Dave concluded that the coin exhibited a extremely strong strike from unworn dies, but that the surfaces were of a slightly different texture. That the NGC grading team concluded that the coin did not merit proof status. In David Lange's The Complete Guide to Mercury Dimes, Second Edition, under the Proof Coinage section, Lange states on page 224 that the only confirmed specimen of a 1916 Mercury dime proof is at the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian Institution's Museum of American History in Washington D.C. This was also listed as Breen's first pedigree in his proof book.
Neither PCGS or NGC, or any of the other grading services have certified a 1917 matte proof cent or nickel.
There are no official United States Mint records of proof coins struck in 1917. No records have been discovered at the National Archives stating that proof coins were struck in 1917. In the Annual Report of the Director of the Mint for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1917, on page 31, it states "Minor Proof Coins ..... Pieces:939, Nominal Value: 27.99. For the 1918 Fiscal Year Director of the Mint's Report, no proof coins are listed as struck. At the National Archives, the book entitled: The Metal and Proof Coin Book, lists proof coins struck between 1909 and 1916. No 1917 matte proofs are listed for any coinage.
No Barber coinage proofs were struck in 1916. The only proof coinage struck in 1916 was the Lincoln cent and Buffalo nickel. It was decided not to strike proof coinage in 1916 for the new Mercury dime, Liberty Standing quarter, or Liberty Walking half dollar.
For the 1913 through 1915 Director of the Mint's Report, it lists the coins manufactured for proofs. Starting in 1916, they list the number sold during the fiscal year.
In a letter Mint Director von Engelken wrote to Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Adam Joyce on October 18, 1916, von Engelken decided to cease production of all proof coins based upon the Mint losing money on all proofs struck and the large number of complaints from collectors. "I am in receipt of your letter of October 17th. Effective at once, you will please discontinue the manufacture of proof coins."
Sandblasting was not used on silver coins before 1917, but was used on 1921 and 1922 Peace Dollars and on the 1928 Hawaiian commemorative half dollars. Sandblasting was also used on the working dies for matte proof Lincoln cents struck between 1909 and 1916 and Buffalo nickels struck between 1913 and 1916. Proof coins during this period were struck in the Medal Room with the hydraulic presses to create a deeper impression. The process of creating proof coins, including sandblasting was described in James Rankin Young’s 1903 book titled The United States Mint at Philadelphia, with excerpts in the archive section in the back of this book.
Several characteristics of a proof coin include sharp details in the design elements and wire edge rims. It is possible that a coin struck from a new pair of working dies will show sharp design details and a wired rims. What differentiates most proofs from circulation strikes is the surfaces on the fields. For Brilliant Proofs, the dies were polished as were the planchets, producing a mirror-like fields. For the Matte Proofs, such as the Buffalo nickels, these coins exhibit a granular, dull, non-reflective surfaces. This makes differentiating Matte Proofs from strongly struck coins from new dies much more difficult. The only way to learn to tell the difference is to examine as many certified Matte Proofs as possible, comparing the surfaces to normal business strikes for the same year.
Between 1909 and 1915, the Barber dime, quarter, and half dollar proofs were all struck as brilliant proofs with polished working dies. In 1916, three new designs were created for the dime, quarter, and half dollar. Barber dimes and quarters were struck in 1916, but not the half dollar. No Barber proof coins were struck in 1916. The three new designs in 1916 had curvature and texture, which made it difficult to create brilliant proofs. In addition, the artist opposed brilliant proofs. In a letter from Adolph Weinman to Charles Barber on July 18, 1916, Weinman stated that he was troubled with the polished background, that the reflection was so intense that it is difficult to get a clear impression of the design.
Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Adam Joyce wrote the following to Mint Director von Engelken on October 17, 1916:
"The issue of the silver coins of the new design will complete the series of changes in the coin designs. The ground of all these designs is uneven, which makes it impossible to produce proof coins which are distinctive from the regular coins made on the coining presses from new dies, the only difference between the proofs and the regular coins being the sharper edge and design. Formally the full set of proofs was made in January or February and orders filled when received, but since the manner of manufacture and issuing the proofs has been changed so that some of the denominations may not be issued until later in the year (we are only allowed to make each denomination after the regular coins for circulation have been issued) great dissatisfaction has been shown by persons desiring these proofs and a seemingly unnecessary amount of correspondence entailed on this office, returning orders and answering complaints. In order to distinguish gold proofs from the regular issue, it has been necessary to give them a sandblast finish, which changes the appearance of the coins to such an extent that it is almost impossible to put them in circulation. This is something I am not sure we have a right to do. The extra charge for the silver and minor proof coins, 5 cent, does not cover the cost of manufacture. I would, therefore, suggest for your consideration the advisability of ceasing the manufacture of proof coins."
In a letter Mint Director von Engelken wrote Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Adam Joyce on October 18, 1916, von Engelken decided to cease production of all proof coins based upon the Mint losing money on all proofs struck and the large number of complaints from collectors. "I am in receipt of your letter of October 17th. Effective at once, you will please discontinue the manufacture of proof coins."
As was seen in the letter from Adam Joyce on October 17, 1916 , the ground of the designs of the three new coins was uneven, making it impossible to produce proofs. His reference is obviously focused on the difficulty in polishing the fields to make them mirrored, as Joyce further states that the only difference between the proofs and regular coins would be sharper edge and design. As it was decided to cease all proof production, there was no reason to solve this problem.
In a letter from Joyce to Woolley dated June 24th, 1916, Joyce states that the sample quarter and half dollar coins of the new design were struck from polished dies. This demonstrates that specimens struck for the Director or Secretary of the Treasury for approval were created with the same process as used for proof coinage. Putting forth the best possible specimens would obviously help present the aesthetic beauty of the coins. Joyce does not state that the Mercury dimes were struck on polished planchets, but it is assumed that the same technique would have been used to help promote the dimes to the Director and Secretary of Treasury.
Charles Barber was the Chief Engraver of the Mint from 1879 through 1916. Barber had an extensive pattern set that was part of his estate. When Barber died in 1916, George T. Morgan took over as the Chief Engraver. Morgan was replaced in 1923 by James Sinnock upon Morgan's death. In Sinnock's estate sale in 1962, several matte and satin commemorative proofs were offered that no proof coins were officially struck for that series. Morgan was not known for creating patterns for himself like Barber and Sinnock.
As a proof coins are defined by the method of manufacture, not the condition of the coin, in order for any 1917 coin of any denomination to be declared as a proof, there must exist some evidence that the United States Mint at Philadelphia intended to strike these coins as proofs. For if the method of manufacture was not intended to create a proof, these coins cannot be classified as proofs. Because there are no official Mint records stating proofs were struck in 1917, we must next attempt rely on the proof characteristics that are used to identify proofs from this era. This includes a sharply struck details in the coin, knife-like rim edge, mirror-like edge, and wider rims. No coins have been verified with these characteristics.
Stewart Blay showed me a 1917 Lincoln cent that came with a certification letter from Walter Breen stating it was a matte proof. The coin was examined under a microscope and tooling was found on the inside edges to make they appear sharper.
A certification was issued by Walter Breen with one of the 1917 Buffalo nickels that Breen believed to be a Matte Proof. Breen compared the 1917 to an authenticated 1916 Buffalo nickel Matte Proof. Breen concluded that the striking quality was the same on both coins. That the 1917 had sharp inner and outer rims. That the 1917 had considerably more detail in the Indian's hair and on the bison that on the 1916. The surfaces on both coins were indentical.
Back in the 1990s the Smithsonian claimed they had a 1917 Lincoln Cent matte proof, the specimen was examined and found to be an XF.
This does not mean a 1917 proofs cannot exist, but the probability of a true specimen existing is 0 to extremely low.
If a specimen is offered, look for tooling, cleaning, or other types of altering. It would be mandatory to have it certified by one of the primary grading services to get their opinion. If one did exist, it should be very close to the proof characteristics of the 1916 Lincoln cent matte proofs.
In summation, in October 1916 the Mint stopped making proof coins for all denominations based upon the Mint looisng money on proofs and the large number of complaints. Three new series were introduced in 1916 with no proofs struck for them as Barber stated in would be difficult to strike proofs in these series because of the curvature and texture of the surfaces. In 1916 and 1917 the int was busy with the new series. No 1917 proof coinage are part of teh Smithsonian collection. No 1917 proofs have been verified by the major grading services. No national archive or mint records have been found stating that 1917 proofs were struck. Of course, given the saying that almost anything is possible, it is possible that a 1917 proof exists, but the evidence shows that this is extremely improbable.
Kevin J, All great evidence. My personal belief is that a 1917 MPL does not exist.
However if one did exist, I wonder sometimes if it might look a bit like this. This example is a PCGS MS64BN (why so low?) owned by Robec. No it's not a Proof, I know that, but I guess I can understand how these highly detailed examples from recently retooled dies might fool some.
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
Great discussion....An ongoing mystery, though likely none exist...Most evidence obtained to date, supports this. With little but anecdotal comment to lend credence to the existence of such a cent. For me, I believe one does not exist.... Cheers, RickO
There is only one reason I believe there might be a 1917 proof (set)
A major collector I know, said he owned a 1917 proof set before it was broken up in the 1970s.
Even though there were no proof sets officially created in 1917, it is possible (given that anything is possible, but extremely improbable) that a set was created clandestinely by Mint personnel. I have never seen a 1917 proof coin, but that does not mean it does not exist.
People believe the 1964D Peace Dollars do not exist, I know they do........
I heartlily concur with Kevin. I once saw a 1917 type one standing liberty quarter that to me carried it’s own credentials and was definitely a proof or specimen or special striking.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I like Kevin's analysis and information, thanks for that. And I quite agree that just because there are written letters, etc. does not mean of a certainty that they do not exist.
I have not seen any of Breen's examples, nor any other purported examples so can say nothing about them. I have seen other coins with expert opinions that they had been tooled (in particular rims), and carefully looked at them with changing lighting and magnifications and have not always agreed.
Well, just Love coins, period.
I wonder if there were similar U.S Mint letters and documentation written in 1912 on the Liberty Nickel?
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
“In summation, in October 1916 the Mint stopped making proof coins for all denominations based upon the Mint looisng money on proofs and the large number of complaints. Three new series were introduced in 1916 with no proofs struck for them as Barber stated in would be difficult to strike proofs in these series because of the curvature and texture of the surfaces. In 1916 and 1917 the int was busy with the new series. No 1917 proof coinage are part of teh Smithsonian collection. No 1917 proofs have been verified by the major grading services. No national archive or mint records have been found stating that 1917 proofs were struck. Of course, given the saying that almost anything is possible, it is possible that a 1917 proof exists, but the evidence shows that this is extremely improbable.”
improbable yes, impossible no.
Yup, and there are not supposed to be any 1913 liberty head nickels. !!!!!
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Fiction.
Same with the 1917 Buffs, fiction.
I suppose it's possible but those who believe they have a 1917 MP of any denomination should get them examined by someone who is a well renowned expert in the field of matte proof coinage.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
ABOVE IS NOT OWNED BY ME NOR HAS IT EVER.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
EXACLTY, IF THERE ARE ANY MORE FLOATING AROUND OUT THERE I EXPECTD IT TO BE A NICE BROWN OR RED AND BROWN PIECE LIKE THIS. GREAT CALL!!
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Is there a good online analysis showing edge diagnostics comparing business strikes vs the 09-16 proofs? Most of the photos I've seen show only the obverse and reverse, which can be deceiving as we can see from this classic thread. But what about the edges? Can the edges be used to authenticate with any certainty? How sharp is the transition from rim to edge? Are the edges of these early proofs mirrored, while business strikes are not?
http://macrocoins.com
Check out my Lincoln cent matte proof book, I did a complete analysis for each year, including side by side edge analysis, lots of photos.
Some years, the BS can be found with stronger edges than MP
Small denomination/coin, less pressure to fully strike.....