Home U.S. Coin Forum
Options

Is this the first verified circulated Matte Proof Lincoln?

The conundrum of Matte Proof Lincoln Mintages vs. Slab Count Populations.

I always thought the reason the PCGS + NGC Slab counts were so much lower than the estimated original mintage's of Matte Proof Lincolns were that many were spent into circulation.

This table which was compiled in the Fall of 2011, shows that originally minted Matte Proof Lincolns totaled close to 18,800. Yet only around 4,500 total resided in NGC or PCGS slabs in the Fall of 2011.
Since you rarely if ever see raw Matte Proof Lincolns for sale, I can only conjecture that the total remaining raw population (or other "off-brand" TPG slabbed) Matte Proof Lincolns is probably less than 1000 coins total (if that). So that accounts for 5,500 total Matte Proof Lincolns. So what happened to the missing 13,300 MPL's?

image

Til now I don't recall seeing a verified circulated Matte Proof Lincoln that could at least start to possibly verify this theory, until I stumbled across this old Stacks Bowers auction of a "circulated" PR58BN 1916 Matte Proof Lincoln.
This sold in a Stacks Bowers Auction in January 2011 for $644

Jan 2011 Stacks Bowers Auction Link

I found two Trueview photos of this coin, one in the old PCGS TrueView database and one in the new PCGS TrueView database. Funny that I like the old photo better! I wonder if this went through some sort of restoration, if it did, it must have been at PCGS since the Cert numbers are the same. Or perhaps it's just different lighting on the 2nd (later) shot?

I suppose this leads some credence to this theory that at least some (perhaps many, perhaps many thousands) Matte Proof Lincolns were spent into circulation. Of course they would have to be remaining in a high enough condition today to have enough die markers or other attributes to verify their status as a Matte Proof. It's an interesting discussion.


Old PCGS TrueView Database (http://www.pcgs.com/TrueView/Medium/16112693.jpg)

PCGS PR58
image



New PCGS TrueView Database (http://images.pcgs.com/TrueView/16112693_Large.jpg)

PCGS PR58
image


If anyone has any photos of or information on any other verified circulated Matte Proof Lincolns, please post.

As a final thought, I suppose a PR58 grade, doesn't guarantee this coin saw general circulation, it might just be impaired (worn) from improper storage. Perhaps some old style "vest pocket" (is that the right term?) dealer jingled this around in his pocket for a few years (like what happened with one of the 1913 Liberty Nickels).

Comments

  • Options
    OldEastsideOldEastside Posts: 4,602 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sold for $644 in 2011, wow I understand those 1916 pennys are worth millionsimage

    Sorry couldn't resist

    Steve
    Promote the Hobby
  • Options
    ModCrewmanModCrewman Posts: 4,028 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Sold for $644 in 2011, wow I understand those 1916 pennys are worth millionsimage >>

    Well played. image
  • Options
    that really just looks mishandled more than circulated IMO
  • Options
    WingedLiberty1957WingedLiberty1957 Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Good point crypto

    But 58 means it's worn down from touching ... right? A 58 grade would imply at least some wear.

    If it had no wear and was just impaired, wouldn't it have graded PR60?

  • Options
    seanqseanq Posts: 8,594 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I confess to knowing nothing about the diagnostics for these, but I question whether the coin in the photos is a proof at all. Coins for the date are very well struck with lots of detail on the portrait. Also, the rim from K-3 to K-7 doesn't look square at all, nor does it in places on the reverse. Could this just be a mechanical error that was never corrected?


    Sean Reynolds
    Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.

    "Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
  • Options
    OldEastsideOldEastside Posts: 4,602 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Seriously I think that coin is worthy of reconsideration, I see no wear on it IMO

    Steve
    Promote the Hobby
  • Options


    << <i>Good point crypto
    But 58 means it's worn down from touching ... right? A 58 grade would imply at least some wear.
    If it had no wear and was just impaired, wouldn't it have graded PR60? >>


    58 can be from "cabinet wear". At any rate the average 58 is much more attractive then the average 60, IMO>
  • Options


    << <i>Good point crypto

    But 58 means it's worn down from touching ... right? A 58 grade would imply at least some wear.

    If it had no wear and was just impaired, wouldn't it have graded PR60? >>



    Wear doesn't always mean lost detail or high point rub. It can also mean impacted luster from field rub. This is the area that most novices get confused on the slider part of the grading scale. That looks like a proof that was manhandled and I bet if you rotated it the proof shimmer is lesser/different in the open fields compared to the protected areas.
  • Options
    LCSLCS Posts: 98 ✭✭✭

    30 plus years ago, it was estimated that approx 500 (plus or minus) of each year survived.

    The current number of certified examples bares out those estimates.

    Also note that the numbers of certified examples are somewhat high due to breakouts and resubmitions.

  • Options
    RelaxnRelaxn Posts: 922 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You can subtract 1 1916 from the surviving population... I got a nice one from @cohodk in 2010 or so... coin bagged for questionable color... I cracked it and hid it... not seen it since. Have moved 6 times since then... still no dice.

    Lord knows... think @robec may have imaged it at one point...

    C'est la vie.

    J

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file