Getting close to examples of original Matte Proof Lincoln packaging ??

WingedLiberty1957

I have been on the hunt for original Matte Proof Lincoln (1909-1916) packaging.
I realize that was around 100 years ago.

I am guessing it might just be some "hard" (not cottony soft) tissue paper and perhaps a 2x2 envelope???

I would be interested in buying the old packaging if anyone has some.
Or if anyone has or knows of any photographs, let me know where.

Thanks

JustNeedCoins

This is a great thread!

keyman64

<< <i>This is a great thread! >>

Not my series but I do like them and threads like this get my interest.

SanctionII

If I recall correctly the 1909 VDB MPL that is the best of the best (formerly an NGC PF68 and was graded PF67+ by PCGS) had been stored in what may have been the original mint packaging for most of its post production life and that this packaging is what imparted the gorgeous colors on the coin.

Maybe someone else will pipe up and give details about the packing this TOP POP MPL was in.

MrEureka

The coins would have been mailed in US Treasury Dept envelopes with red wax seals, typically as part of a proof set.

I don't know how the individual coins were wrapped inside the envelopes, but tissue paper sounds like the only reasonable guess.

WoodenJefferson

An author in the Lincoln Cent Resource said the following:


Matte proof Lincoln cents were packaged in “tarnish proof” tissue paper. This tissue paper had a
high sulfur content and did little to prevent tarnish. In fact, the tissue paper over time often created
interesting toning. Matte proof Lincoln’s can have a wide range of rainbow colors. This toning often
adds to a coins appeal; the more vivid the toning the better. Red examples do exist. It is believed
that these red examples were removed from there tissue packaging early and well preserved.

You can google the source, I have no idea where this information was gleaned from, perhaps you can find out.

WingedLiberty1957

This was as close as I could come to the MPL run (1909-1916). The 1902 packaging at the bottom was just 7 years before the start of the MPL's. So it was probably quite similar to the bottom photo. It's cool seeing this original Mint packing. This was from the auction of The Time Capsule Collection in 2011 (the tip came from CU member LusterLover). The tissue paper used to wrap the coins (which imparted great color when the conditions were right) is shown at the bottom (or bottom right) of each photo.

1899 Proof Packaging:


1902 Proof Packaging:

WingedLiberty1957

I did some levels adjustment and doubled the size on the photo of the 1902 proof set packaging ...

It's interesting to see the magical "hard" tissue paper (bottom right) that imparted all that great color. It looks so non-descript -- just basic white.
It's helping me to understand the tissue paper used (more like a glossy thin sheet of paper -- not like the crinkly tissue paper we have today).

Apparently the big envelopes had a red wax seal on them (as was posted above) -- some of the oil/grease from the wax left an impression on the large envelope flap.
It's cool seeing this bit of (almost lost) history.

coinsarefun

Very cool....thanks for posting as I have never seen this before!

MacCrimmon

<< <i>I did some levels adjustment and doubled the size on the photo of the 1902 proof set packaging ...

It's interesting to see the magical "hard" tissue paper (bottom right) that imparted all that great color. It looks so non-descript -- just basic white.
It's helping me to understand the tissue paper used (more like a glossy thin sheet of paper -- not like the crinkly tissue paper we have today).

Apparently the big envelopes had a red wax seal on them (as was posted above) -- some of the oil/grease from the wax left an impression on the large envelope flap.
It's cool seeing this bit of (almost lost) history.

>>




Cool stuff!!! I'm thinking of calling my congressman though to see about having that "PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE - $300", indexed for inflation. They still say the same thing today; shouldn't they at least add a ZERO?

illini420

The packaging shown above from the 1890s appears to be more modern than the 1890s from what I've seen out there over the years regarding early proof packaging. The only one I could find with photos still online is an 1891 Set that was in Goldberg a couple of years ago and the envelope looked much older than the ones shown above and had an old wax seal to keep it closed.




The set didn't meet reserve at that Jan 2011 auction, but I remember it selling in one of their later auctions. The original envelope was falling apart and the more people that looked at it in lot viewing the worse it seemed to get unfortunately... should have been better protected in a hard case.


Looks like the entire set only cost $2.50 at the time

AMRC

<< <i>The packaging shown above from the 1890s appears to be more modern than the 1890s from what I've seen out there over the years regarding early proof packaging. The only one I could find with photos still online is an 1891 Set that was in Goldberg a couple of years ago and the envelope looked much older than the ones shown above and had an old wax seal to keep it closed.




The set didn't meet reserve at that Jan 2011 auction, but I remember it selling in one of their later auctions. The original envelope was falling apart and the more people that looked at it in lot viewing the worse it seemed to get unfortunately... should have been better protected in a hard case.


Looks like the entire set only cost $2.50 at the time >>



This is absolutely gorgeous.

GoldClause

<< <i>The packaging shown above from the 1890s appears to be more modern than the 1890s from what I've seen out there over the years regarding early proof packaging. The only one I could find with photos still online is an 1891 Set that was in Goldberg a couple of years ago and the envelope looked much older than the ones shown above and had an old wax seal to keep it closed.
) >>




I agree. Those envelopes are not contemporary to the proof sets. They look nothing like 1890's philatelic covers.

WingedLiberty1957

Maybe that was my mistake ??? I will delete the early 1890's envelopes I posted from the auction. I do think the 1899 and 1902 packing is correct (maybe?)

GoldClause

<< <i>Maybe that was my mistake ??? I will delete the early 1890's enveloped I posted from the auction. I do think the 1899 and 1902 packing is correct (maybe?) >>



I think those are from the 1930's. Just a guess, I could be wrong by 10-15 years either way, but I'm 99% certain they are not from 1899 or 1902.

CaptHenway

Silly question...have you asked the Smithsonian if they have any original packaging?

illini420

I also have several copies of the Numismatist from 1909-1916... I'll flip through those to see if there are any.

commoncents05

Here is a link to a previous thread showing an original 1914 Proof set with original shipping envelope.

-Paul

darktone

I hope you did not pay a lot for those. My guess also is they are much much newer than they are represented as.

WingedLiberty1957

I didn't buy the packaging ... these were auction photographs of supposedly original Proof Set packaging.

Below is a promotional blurb on the auction ...




Centennial Auctions Presents The Time Capsule Collection
Posted on 7/12/2011

Centennial Auctions will present a Time Capsule Estate collection on August 22, 2011 in Nashua, New Hampshire. Offering includes exceptional quality, NGC-certified proof coinage not offered since their original time of issue.

[North Conway, NH] – Just suppose your father took you, as a child, to the Philadelphia Mint in 1883 and bought you a brand new Proof Set, containing 1 cent through $1 coins. You watched as the coins were folded up in tissue paper and placed in an envelope. Suppose you decided that once you got older, in 1892, you would go to the Mint and buy one for yourself.

And suppose you kept doing that almost every year until 1916.

And suppose you never looked at any of those coins again.

And suppose you bought a few items along the way from Henry Chapman.

And then suppose your child, grandchildren and great grandchildren never looked at any of those particular coins again as they were simply placed in a box and handed down over the generations without ever being looked at.

Our office was called to appraise an estate coin collection this winter. We were told “there were Proof Sets from the 1800s and early 1900s”. Appraisal day was most remarkable as twenty five of them were evaluated.

Steve Schofield, appraiser and principal auctioneer for Centennial Auctions, remarked “since they left the Mint, no one had even viewed these sets for either side of 100 years. It was simply breathtaking to see original toned Gem after Gem literally appear again and again as each fold of paper was unwrapped. This is the most exciting overall numismatic discovery I’ve made since I started collecting coins in 1955 and becoming an auctioneer in 1981.”

If you attend day of auction preview, all will be on display, side by side. We guarantee a breathtaking sight for every numismatist. Of the 136 coins in these sets, consider the overall grades they have received for each level: (11) PF 68s, (34) PF 67s, (44) PF 66s and (19) PF 65s. That's 108 in the gem to monster category. In addition, there are (19) PF 64s. If that's not impressive enough, according to the NGC Census, 4 are finest known and 8 are tied for the finest known. Finally, just in case you didn't know, the original cost of a 1c-$1.00 six piece Proof Set was $2.50.

Centennial Auctions invite everyone who has never seen completely untouched material such as this to preview at the various venues listed and make time in their schedule to attend the auction on August 22, in Nashua.