A fantasically toned 1936 Proof Lincoln ... and Satin vs. Brilliant differentiation

WingedLiberty1957

The following coin is not mine. I think this was recently graded and imaged, does anybody recognize this coin (or know it's history?) ( kudos and pat on the back to whoever owns this!!!)

PCGS said Brilliant ... Looks Satin


Cert Verification page

It's interesting that the photo shown on the PCGS Cert Verificaiton page (linked above) is not a TrueView (since there is no TrueView background). I always thought that to get a (non-fingerprint) photo of a coin on the PCGS cert verification page, that it had to be TrueView photographed. This coin breaks that paradigm, so I wonder if this is a new policy of PCGS to photograph all coins and post pictures on the Cert Verif page, even if no TV photo was ordered.

Also I was wondering, if you all thought this was a Brilliant or a Satin Proof? The PCGS graders called this coin above a Brilliant Proof. I probably would have guessed it was a Satin proof due to the lack of a brilliant mirror.



A second question:

I was wondering if anybody knows the "tells" on differentiating a Brilliant from a Satin proof (for 1936 Lincoln Cents).

I recently had this 1936 graded, and the PCGS graders called this one a Satin Proof. I would have sworn it was a Brilliant Proof (just look at the mirrors!).

There must be something about the Brilliant vs. Satin proof differentiation that I just don't get or understand. If anyone has any input one the best way to differentiate a Brilliant from a Satin proof, please post.

PCGS said Satin ... Looks Brilliant






Here is another somewhat confusing example. This is a stunningly beautiful 1936 proof owned by CU Member Goldbully (kudos to Goldbully for picking this monster up). This was called Brilliant by the PCGS graders. I probably would have called it a Satin Proof (since it doesn't have that shiny reflective mirror-like finish).

PCGS said Brilliant ... Looks Satin




So what "tell" are the PCGS graders looking at to differentiate Satin vs Brilliant? Any ideas? I would love to learn.

lasvegasteddy

i asked the same question in this link...my coin displays polish lines in field...amazing looking mirrors though with cam frosting
36 satin link

rmpsrpms

I have a 1950 Satin proof that I bought long ago from a dealer who sold it as a business strike. This was in the very early days of the TPGs when "MS65" meant "best investment grade" and I remember the dealer saying "if anything's an MS65, this one is" and charged me a premium for it. There were 2 other dealers in the shop at the time and they both looked at the coin and agreed. As I remember he charged me $3 when 1950 MS65 Cents were probably $1 at most. I got the coin home and it had sharp rims and mirror edges. It's still in the Kointain I put it in 20 years ago and soon as I have the guts to remove it I'll photograph it. Point is this was a well-respected and experienced dealer who looked at the coin and said it was a business strike, so that tells you what to expect from Satin finish Cents, at least for 1950.

robec

Hi Ray
I wish you would take a photo of the 1950 Lincoln.
I wasn't aware the mint produced anything other than brilliant proofs in 1950.

lasvegasteddy

<< <i>Hi Ray
I wish you would take a photo of the 1950 Lincoln.
I wasn't aware the mint produced anything other than brilliant proofs in 1950. >>



i'd love to see this attributed as such

only true oddity i aware of pertains with the 1964 sms series
ngc and pcgs state them to be "sms"
anacs at first have labeled some as 1964 satin...


now pcgs even has changed from sms to sp for 65-67...i'm not sure if that will apply to 1964 too

but yeah
a 1950 satin labelled i'd love to see

rmpsrpms

<< <i>

<< <i>Hi Ray
I wish you would take a photo of the 1950 Lincoln.
I wasn't aware the mint produced anything other than brilliant proofs in 1950. >>



i'd love to see this attributed as such

only true oddity i aware of pertains with the 1964 sms series
ngc and pcgs state them to be "sms"
anacs at first have labeled some as 1964 satin...


now pcgs even has changed from sms to sp for 65-67...i'm not sure if that will apply to 1964 too

but yeah
a 1950 satin labelled i'd love to see >>



Not an oddity...they're listed in the Red Book as I remember and QDB gives a sentence describing them in his "A Guide Book of Lincoln Cents":

"The earlier Proofs of the year have a hybrid finish that is mirrorlike but with some satiny graininess."

Well, this one is not really mirrorlike at all but does have mirrored edges. It was also my first toned Lincoln and got me into collecting Lincoln toners.

I don't know if PCGS will list these as Satin Proof. Anyone know?

Ray

lasvegasteddy

"Not an oddity...they're listed in the Red Book as I remember and QDB gives a sentence describing them in his "A Guide Book of Lincoln Cents":

"The earlier Proofs of the year have a hybrid finish that is mirrorlike but with some satiny graininess." "

this apply's to 1936
but 1950?

WingedLiberty1957

I can verify that in the "Guidebook of Lincoln Cents" by David Bowers, he does write

"Earlier proofs of the year (1950) have a hybrid finish that is mirrorlike but with some satiny graininess"

This is listed in the subsection "The Year 1950" on page 210.

PCGS might not attribute, but other numistmatists have noticed this single year oddity.


I am not saying that my 1950 Proof Lincoln is a hybrid-satin ... but it's interesting that it does show at least a little bit of satiny graininess. Perhaps this was an early die state proof.

A Possible 1950 Hybrid-Satin?? (not attributed)

lasvegasteddy

nicccce 1950 as with those 36's too

truly a treat being schooled here that 1950 in fact was the same as 1936
satins and brilliants exsist

blu62vette

WL-

The first image looks like a coinfacts image, they do not use the background for those. PCGS can image any coin they want for use on coinfacts.

robec

<< <i>nicccce 1950 as with those 36's too

truly a treat being schooled here that 1950 in fact was the same as 1936
satins and brilliants exsist >>



Same here!! Thank you Ray and WL. That fact took completely by surprise.

keets

there really were no Satin Proofs struck in 1950. the coins which have that appearance(and they can be found in all the denominations) are apparently the result of in-experience at the Mint in technique since eight years had elapsed since Proof strikings were issued coupled with over-use of dies. the result is a coin(s) which lacks the true brilliance of a Proof as intended. to my knowledge coins with that finish can be found for 1950 along with scattered examples for 1951-2 by which time the workers had evidently figured things out. it took a while longer to get the frost issues consistent.

if you "search" you should be able to find threads, mainly dedicated to the Half-Dollar.

WingedLiberty1957

That makes a lot of sense, keets.
I bet that 8 year gap in proof production (1942-1950) left a big experience hole in the mint worker's knowledgebase.
It seems plausible that it took them a while to get up to speed again.

AUandAG

If you look at the strike on the three coins you will see that the satin proof is a much, much
more detailed die. Look at Lincoln's collar. I can only assume that the dies were prepared
differently and the business proof is not as detailed. Could that be?

Just a guess.

bob

rmpsrpms

<< <i>I can verify that in the "Guidebook of Lincoln Cents" by David Bowers, he does write

"Earlier proofs of the year (1950) have a hybrid finish that is mirrorlike but with some satiny graininess"

This is listed in the subsection "The Year 1950" on page 210. >>



Thanks for the verification. Being a newbie on the forum (only 6 years and 600-odd posts) and to collecting (just 40 years this year, still a YN!!) I appreciate it when my posts are verified for correctness. But a tip...when you verify someone's post, it's good to get the quote right...

Ray

keets

you will see that the satin proof is a much, much more detailed die

well, i'm not seeing that, but suuposing that it appears more detailed could be as simple as the picture/tone or a better struck/higher grade coin which would show more detail. i have always thought that the 1950 era coins which appear as Satin are better described as having a Matte finish more comparable to the SMS issues from the 1990's. those coins more closely mimic a high grade Mint State coin than a Proof coin. to that end, the 1936 Satin coins i've owne have all been unmistakeable Proofs with just a different appearance to the fields.

lusterlover

I guess you never stop learning. I would have said T1, T2, T2. Interesting theory about the detail. As Teddy mentioned, I commented on his thread that in my experience, the T1s have die polish lines on the obverse. Unfortunately, I don't have a trueview of my T1 66RD to illustrate this. That rainbowy color is usually seen on the T1s as well and that's what's fooling me here. For fun I have attached a picture of my T2 64RD.