1917 Matte Proof Lincoln?

coindudeonebay

I've heard that one existed, read about it in Breen's Encyclopedia but never saw a picture of one till today. Is this the real deal? Does anyone know more about this?

LanceNewmanOCC

.
the archives has a lot to say about it.
.

coindudeonebay

Copy and paste for me! Apparently my search ninja skills are rusty.

crypto79

Breen's COA do nothing for me. I doubt that it will ever be collectively consider a real proof

Unknown

This content has been removed.

lusterlover

There's been threads about this in the past. I will believe it when I see one in a PCGS slab.

coindudeonebay

I actually did a search, I guess it wasn't exhaustive enough. I've since found some of the other threads. Thanks.

TopographicOceans

IN COD WE TRUST
Sounds fishy to me

lasvegasteddy

very dicey subject here...1917 proofs
most all "experts"...discard such in wholesale condemnation fashion

TPG's even have such a stance

not to derail this thread on the lincoln...but look at the 1917 quarter

below is taken from heritage auction #5436 1996 ana signature sale #163

1917 Type One MS 64 Accompanied By Breen Proof Papers. The satiny surfaces are overlaid with light gray-russet toning. For further information about this remarkable coin we quote a letter of authentication from Walter Breen that he wrote at the ANA in Cincinnati, July 23, 1988:
"This certifies that I have examined the accompanying coin and that I unhesitatingly declare it a genuine 1917 Type I quarter proof (matte variant).
"On comparing it to another such proof I find that the striking quality is the same, showing far more detail on head, shield, central drapery, feet, breast feathers, &c., than do the regularly seen full head 1917's; the surfaces, obviously untampered, differ from those of business strikes.
"Number surviving is uncertain. Within the last 20 odd years I have seen possibly 7 specimens."
Our only hesitation in calling the coin a proof is that neither of the major grading services recognize proof strikings for Standing Liberty quarters. However, to those with experience in this series, the coin's status should be obvious.
Ex: 1989 FUN Sale (Mid-American, 1/89), lot 2680, where it realized $31,000. (NGC ID# 242Z, PCGS# 5706)

ok
so pcgs price guide bears no proof standing liberty quarter...right

this below is from pcgs coin facts...

NO STARS BELOW EAGLE (1916-1917)
Date
Mintage for
Circulation
Mintage of
Proofs
Notes
1916
52,000
est. 5 <------------------- ???
Very scarce as a circulation strike. Proofs are extremely rare and have a satin, slightly matte finish.
1917
8,740,000
est. 10 <------------------- ???

my take is sometimes experts are closed minded to what just may be fact outside of their limited reach of knowledge
one could rest assured on actual mint records found in the national archives...if they were "entered" into mint record

one step further...why not
1964 sms
does national archives behold mint records of these that were found when the mint director/superintendent passed away?
why is a cloud of mystery found shrouding the 1964 sms

and yet.... pcgs does recognize these

"opinion based" stances of experts confuse me at times
even those who stand on "national archival records" footing

write me off as one please
but what i presented here should raise more then an eye brow

so 1917 proof quarters...coinfacts saw enough to include them
hmm...the mint...pressing proofs in 1917
quarters only???

there was a major shuffle going on with the "new" quarters....i know of 3 types of 1917 quarters where only 2 are acknowledged
type 1 A....bare breasted
type 1 B....no nipple...no "V" under shield...belly button covered...less defined dress creases...neck muscles removed...head and hair changed

type 2.....chain mail added to breast

i'm no expert
even if i was
i for one wouldn't deny something....i couldn't disprove ...

coindudeonebay

Teddy, thanks for your wonderful insight. I pleasing read.

crypto79

<< <i>very dicey subject here...1917 proofs
most all "experts"...discard such in wholesale condemnation fashion

TPG's even have such a stance

not to derail this thread on the lincoln...but look at the 1917 quarter

below is taken from heritage auction #5436 1996 ana signature sale #163

1917 Type One MS 64 Accompanied By Breen Proof Papers. The satiny surfaces are overlaid with light gray-russet toning. For further information about this remarkable coin we quote a letter of authentication from Walter Breen that he wrote at the ANA in Cincinnati, July 23, 1988:
"This certifies that I have examined the accompanying coin and that I unhesitatingly declare it a genuine 1917 Type I quarter proof (matte variant).
"On comparing it to another such proof I find that the striking quality is the same, showing far more detail on head, shield, central drapery, feet, breast feathers, &c., than do the regularly seen full head 1917's; the surfaces, obviously untampered, differ from those of business strikes.
"Number surviving is uncertain. Within the last 20 odd years I have seen possibly 7 specimens."
Our only hesitation in calling the coin a proof is that neither of the major grading services recognize proof strikings for Standing Liberty quarters. However, to those with experience in this series, the coin's status should be obvious.
Ex: 1989 FUN Sale (Mid-American, 1/89), lot 2680, where it realized $31,000. (NGC ID# 242Z, PCGS# 5706)

ok
so pcgs price guide bears no proof standing liberty quarter...right

this below is from pcgs coin facts...

NO STARS BELOW EAGLE (1916-1917)
Date
Mintage for
Circulation
Mintage of
Proofs
Notes
1916
52,000
est. 5 <------------------- ???
Very scarce as a circulation strike. Proofs are extremely rare and have a satin, slightly matte finish.
1917
8,740,000
est. 10 <------------------- ???

my take is sometimes experts are closed minded to what just may be fact outside of their limited reach of knowledge
one could rest assured on actual mint records found in the national archives...if they were "entered" into mint record

one step further...why not
1964 sms
does national archives behold mint records of these that were found when the mint director/superintendent passed away?
why is a cloud of mystery found shrouding the 1964 sms

and yet.... pcgs does recognize these

"opinion based" stances of experts confuse me at times
even those who stand on "national archival records" footing

write me off as one please
but what i presented here should raise more then an eye brow

so 1917 proof quarters...coinfacts saw enough to include them
hmm...the mint...pressing proofs in 1917
quarters only???

there was a major shuffle going on with the "new" quarters....i know of 3 types of 1917 quarters where only 2 are acknowledged
type 1 A....bare breasted
type 1 B....no nipple...no "V" under shield...belly button covered...less defined dress creases...neck muscles removed...head and hair changed

type 2.....chain mail added to breast

i'm no expert
even if i was
i for one wouldn't deny something....i couldn't disprove ... >>



You don't deny the Easter bunny? Why are coin fairy tails different.

lasvegasteddy

"You don't deny the Easter bunny? "
well some easter bunnies make it hard to deny...ya know...just sayin

WingedLiberty1957

If a 1917 MPL did exist ... I imagine it would look something like this monster.

Love the dimples, the color, the detail, the near perfect fields. I suppose the razor sharp rims are the one missing diagnostic.

I can't remember who ones it ... CopperColor or CopperToning ... or something like that.

If the actual owner reads this ... post your name again! My memory is bad.



This graded ONLY MS64BN btw

coindudeonebay

That is one gorgeous coin. Whoever owned it got ripped too. There's no way that's a 64! At least a 66.

crypto79

<< <i>"You don't deny the Easter bunny? "
well some easter bunnies make it hard to deny...ya know...just sayin
>>



Check mate, I conceed the point

coppertoning

<< <i>If a 1917 MPL did exist ... I imagine it would look something like this monster.

Love the dimples, the color, the detail, the near perfect fields. I suppose the razor sharp rims are the one missing diagnostic.

I can't remember who ones it ... CopperColor or CopperToning ... or something like that.

If the actual owner reads this ... post your name again! My memory is bad.



This graded ONLY MS64BN btw >>

LanceNewmanOCC

<< <i>Copy and paste for me! Apparently my search ninja skills are rusty. >>



there are threads on how to properly search for threads. lol

i'm serious.
.

LanceNewmanOCC

.
i'm bumping a "customize forum settings" thread. make sure to read it carefully as you cannot access the archives unless you tell the software to let you.

i'll try to find 1-2 others to bump about the tech specs and featuers.
.

lkeigwin

Here's an old thread in which HRH commented.
Lance.

Shamika

<< <i>

<< <i>If a 1917 MPL did exist ... I imagine it would look something like this monster.

Love the dimples, the color, the detail, the near perfect fields. I suppose the razor sharp rims are the one missing diagnostic.

I can't remember who ones it ... CopperColor or CopperToning ... or something like that.

If the actual owner reads this ... post your name again! My memory is bad.



This graded ONLY MS64BN btw >>



>>







Whether or not the mint made proofs in 1917, this coin has the look of a proof all day long.

koynekwest

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>If a 1917 MPL did exist ... I imagine it would look something like this monster.

Love the dimples, the color, the detail, the near perfect fields. I suppose the razor sharp rims are the one missing diagnostic.

I can't remember who ones it ... CopperColor or CopperToning ... or something like that.

If the actual owner reads this ... post your name again! My memory is bad.



This graded ONLY MS64BN btw >>



>>



"Whether or not the mint made proofs in 1917, this coin has the look of a proof all day long. >>



As I said back in '07-I'm by no means an expert on these tho I've learned a little more in the ensuing seven years. In my opinion, the rims don't look anything like a matte proof on the coin pictured. It takes more than matte like surfaces and a sharp strike to make a true matte proof. As RWB has stated-these were struck on a hydraulic medal press and not, as is commonly thought, on a business strike press and struck twice. This is indicated by a letter from the Director of the Mint Nellie Tayloe Ross in 1936 in response to complaints about the the dull (satin) finish. I will quote and caps are mine-"Proof coins being struck at the Mint at the present time are MADE IN EVERY DETAIL EXACTLY AS THEY HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE PAST, NAMELY the planchets are carefully selected and EACH ONE STRUCK INDIVIDUALLY ON A HYDRAULIC PRESS and handled so that one coin cannot mar another."

I was at one time convinced that a 1917 Buffalo nickel was one of these clandestine "proofs" but I believe I was in error. I no longer have that coin.

lkeigwin

There's the "look", but the rims are a giveaway.
Lance.

koynekwest

Many business strikes from this era have the matte-like surfaces and confuse the issue greatly-I've owned a few of these myself including the aforementioned 1917 nickel. The EDGE of any purported 1917 coin should be examined in addition to the strike, surfaces, and rims-it should be of uniform thickness with no beveling (compare the edge of a modern proof with a modern business strike-the proof will appear to be thicker even tho it is not) and, on the silver coins the reeding should be sharp, uniform and squared at the top of each individual reed.

ambro51

There is a die polish line to the upper right of UNUM on the OP coin illustrated.

ambro51

There is a die polish line to the upper right of UNUM on the OP coin illustrated. This marker could be the key.... Does the die strike any other year MPL? Does that die marker exist on business strike issues? Personally I have my doubts because I'm seeing that trace of the obverse bust ( diagonal to the left of one cent) which appears on most business strikes. Also, "no luster" is not the same as the roughly granular surfaces on MPLs

garrynot

<< <i>There's been threads about this in the past. I will believe it when I see one in a PCGS slab. >>



I was doing some research recently for a presentation and I read that NGC has certified 5 Carson City dates as Proofs; one each date and PCGS has only recognized the 1893-CC as a branch mint proof. So the chances of PCGS certifying this coin is nil. The photo in the OP Does not help.

Just sayin.

BUFFNIXX

This coin should be given the superlative "matte proof-like". I have one like this with rims that are nearly completely squared. I feel matte proof dies were used in some cases to produce
business strikes but were not given enough pressure to bring up those fully squared sharp rims we associates with matte proof Lincolns.
In summary this coin should be called "MS64 R&B matte proof like". I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

BUFFNIXX

The 1917 cent shown at the top is NOT a business strike. What you want to call it is up to you. I got into a p@@sing match with a prolific numismatic author over this coin a few days ago over on the other big board. (I don't think he posts here anymore). Better to not talk about 1917 proofs. Too many people get upset.

MrEureka

Every time these threads come up, my answers will get shorter. But once again, here goes:

Long ago, I had a 17 Cent with INS papers calling it a proof. It was well struck and had lots of heavy die scratches. I was not convinced it was proof, but I have yet to see another 17 that looks like it.

Again long ago, I saw a 17 Buff that I considered thoroughly convincing. It looked substantially different and better than the ones Breen certified. (He did one or two of those for me, back in the day.)

Hope that helps.

koynekwest

<< <i>This coin should be given the superlative "matte proof-like". I have one like this with rims that are nearly completely squared. I feel matte proof dies were used in some cases to produce
business strikes but were not given enough pressure to bring up those fully squared sharp rims we associates with matte proof Lincolns.
In summary this coin should be called "MS64 R&B matte proof like". I don't think there is anything wrong with that. >>



That's a reasonable solution to this mess.

joecopper

An interesting thread

ambro51

......so this is "selective acceptance" of Breens research?

RedneckHB

I used to own that 1917. Its a beauty but no way a proof.

Steve

I will repeat what I have said here many times before:

When PCGS and/or NGC holder a 1917 Lincoln cent and state on the label it is a Matte Proof, I will accept the fact that there is a legitimate 1917 MPL. Until that happens I do not believe that a legitimate 1917 MPL exists.

Steve

BUFFNIXX

"When PCGS and/or NGC holder a 1917 Lincoln cent and state on the label it is a Matte Proof, I will accept the fact that there is a legitimate 1917 MPL. Until that happens I do not believe that a legitimate 1917 MPL exists". to Steve, this will never ever happen as it would upset the balance in the matte proof lincoln cent registry sets.

OldIndianNutKase

<< <i>I will repeat what I have said here many times before:

When PCGS and/or NGC holder a 1917 Lincoln cent and state on the label it is a Matte Proof, I will accept the fact that there is a legitimate 1917 MPL. Until that happens I do not believe that a legitimate 1917 MPL exists.

Steve >>



One cannot disagree with you that none of the major TPG's have certified any 1917 Lincoln proofs. But do you not have to define a "proof strike" in the terms of the year 1917. Very likely the Mint produced proof dies in anticipation of producing proof coins dated 1917 in 1916. It could be that coins were struck with these dies but on regular planchets. that produced very high quality strikes with sharp rims. The default opinion is that these coins were business strikes, mostly because the Mint did not acknowledge that proofs of this year were actually distributed. While it can be argued that they were or should be considered business strikes as such, should we now consider that coins struck with proof dies on business planchets to be "proof" specimens? I would suggest that the proof designation is not the province of the TPG's, but is of the Mint.

OINK

robec

This quote from RWB in a similar thread ATS.



<< <i>Further, making a die pair for matte proof cents was not a trivial matter (pun intended) and was not a no-cost activity. The mint director had killed collector proof coinage in October 1916 on the Philadelphia Mint Superintendent's recommendation.

Several folks have posted comments that are contrary to how the mints operated. Might I suggest some borrow a copy of From Mine To Mint and read the relevant sections? >>

OldIndianNutKase

<< <i>This quote from RWB in a similar thread ATS.



<< <i>Further, making a die pair for matte proof cents was not a trivial matter (pun intended) and was not a no-cost activity. The mint director had killed collector proof coinage in October 1916 on the Philadelphia Mint Superintendent's recommendation.

Several folks have posted comments that are contrary to how the mints operated. Might I suggest some borrow a copy of From Mine To Mint and read the relevant sections? >>

>>



Bob, Might it be reasonable to think that 1917 MPL dies were produced in 1916 prior to the October 1916 directive?

OINK

koynekwest

"One cannot disagree with you that none of the major TPG's have certified any 1917 Lincoln proofs. But do you not have to define a "proof strike" in the terms of the year 1917. Very likely the Mint produced proof dies in anticipation of producing proof coins dated 1917 in 1916. It could be that coins were struck with these dies but on regular planchets. that produced very high quality strikes with sharp rims. The default opinion is that these coins were business strikes, mostly because the Mint did not acknowledge that proofs of this year were actually distributed. While it can be argued that they were or should be considered business strikes as such, should we now consider that coins struck with proof dies on business planchets to be "proof" specimens? I would suggest that the proof designation is not the province of the TPG's, but is of the Mint."

OINK >>



It's the method of manufacture that determines a proof vs a non proof. Proofs were struck with increased pressure on a HYDRAULIC PRESS. If they were not struck on a hydraulic press, which imparts the flat and square rims on these proof coins, then they are not proofs-no matter how sharply they are struck.

robec

<< <i>

<< <i>This quote from RWB in a similar thread ATS.



<< <i>Further, making a die pair for matte proof cents was not a trivial matter (pun intended) and was not a no-cost activity. The mint director had killed collector proof coinage in October 1916 on the Philadelphia Mint Superintendent's recommendation.

Several folks have posted comments that are contrary to how the mints operated. Might I suggest some borrow a copy of From Mine To Mint and read the relevant sections? >>

>>



Bob, Might it be reasonable to think that 1917 MPL dies were produced in 1916 prior to the October 1916 directive?

OINK >>


It would be if there were any record of proof dies for 1917 to exist. I don't know of anyone who has come across any. There are records kept for all the proof dies made from 1909-1916, but none for 1917. I truly wish some record could be found.

roadrunner

<< <i>Breen's COA do nothing for me. I doubt that it will ever be collectively consider a real proof >>




I would place some value on an ANACs cert as well as dealer Martin Paul handling the FCI/Breen coin in 1989. Paul did quite well in those days if he felt the risk/reward ratio was in his favor.

Steve

In response to the "believers". If your mind WANTS to believe something, then you may very well believe it even if almost everyone else doesn't. I am NO expert on the details of matte proof Lincolns, although I have read a lot about them. I believe there is a LEGITIMATE reason that PCGS has NOT certified a 1917 MPL. I believe none of their expert graders have seen one in which they could, IN THEIR OWN MIND and with the knowledge they have gained over the years about the MPL history certify that it is a true matte proof Lincoln cent with a 1917 date. Steve

lasvegasteddy

this below is from pcgs coin facts...

NO STARS BELOW EAGLE (1916-1917)
Date
Mintage for
Circulation
Mintage of
Proofs
Notes
1916
52,000
est. 5 <------------------- ???
Very scarce as a circulation strike. Proofs are extremely rare and have a satin, slightly matte finish.
1917
8,740,000
est. 10 <------------------- ???


directly from pcgs coinfacts
quarters only were struck....hmmm...why only quarters???
or they weren't struck and this pcgs coinfacts is bogus???

Steve

<< <i>this below is from pcgs coin facts...

NO STARS BELOW EAGLE (1916-1917)
Date
Mintage for
Circulation
Mintage of
Proofs
Notes
1916
52,000
est. 5 <------------------- ???
Very scarce as a circulation strike. Proofs are extremely rare and have a satin, slightly matte finish.
1917
8,740,000
est. 10 <------------------- ???


directly from pcgs coinfacts
quarters only were struck....hmmm...why only quarters???
or they weren't struck and this pcgs coinfacts is bogus??? >>




Teddy,
Can you tell me EXACTLY within coinfacts that you found this information. (ie) under standing liberty quarters? type 1? type 2? Barber quarter?

My understanding from a number of sources is that NO PROOF QUARTERS were struck or issued with the 1916 date OR the 1917 date.

Steve

lasvegasteddy

<< <i>

Teddy,
Can you tell me EXACTLY within coinfacts that you found this information. (ie) under standing liberty quarters? type 1? type 2? Barber quarter?

My understanding from a number of sources is that NO PROOF QUARTERS were struck or issued with the 1916 date OR the 1917 date.

Steve >>


hey steve,
i don't have membership to coinfacts...but it pops up as free trial every once in awhile...i'd have to write for permission to post a screen shot of this here
just search...1917 type 1 quarter...look for a coinfacts page

one should also note...there are 2 different types of type 1 quarters...making 1917 type count to 3
no one discusses this either

different dies...you tell me...i see differences...many actually...many examples of both types of type 1's abound

OldIndianNutKase

<<hey steve,
i don't have membership to coinfacts...but it pops up as free trial every once in awhile...i'd have to write for permission to post a screen shot of this here
just search...1917 type 1 quarter...look for a coinfacts page

one should also note...there are 2 different types of type 1 quarters...making 1917 type count to 3
no one discusses this either

different dies...you tell me...i see differences...many actually...many examples of both types of type 1's abound>>

Teddy, I especially like your viewpoint. Apparently the Mint records do not acknowledge any 1917 proofs of any denomination, there may have been proof dies of 1917 coins produced before the end of 1916. And the Mint just used them for business strikes without the use of special planchets on a medal press. My opinion is that there may have been coins struck with proof dies, but they were not struck on a medal press with specially prepared planchets. So, if the Mint has never reported any 1917 proofs, there will never be any TPG certified proofs. And this will be based upon Mint records and not upon post Mint Speculation (PMS).

But the specimens that you posted were special. The Type 1 rev A should be known not as FH but FN (Full Nipple). And this is the type coin that I want in MY collection.

OINK

lasvegasteddy

here's actual link to coinfacts page that pops up on my computer
http://www.coinfacts.com/quarter_dollars/standing_liberty_quarters/standing_liberty_quarter_dolla.html

someone copy that link and go there and report back

proofs are referenced on my computer when it links there

as stated earlier in this thread
why are no records to be found on 1964 sms but they are accepted by all tpg companies...the examples can not be denied
why are there no records as late as 1964

now if
if someone actually comes forth with an example...that can't be denied...i'd hope tpg companies would change their stance
1964 sms shows us mint records present doubt

lol
oldindiannutcase
you bet..."FN" quite the belly button exposure too

i'm not sure how deep john kline researched
if he spent months at national archives researching mint records for his specialty in this series...i just don't have his book to know
where he stood on proof issued standing liberty quarters

i can see the director issuing order for die changes in 1917 and the die room making and presenting several design changes for approval
with test pieces being struck from those dies

surely that above isn't too far fetched as speculation
as it is what most can only do...myself included...GUILTY
unless one can afford to search through at the national archives...if such record keeping was even submitted

i love it though
this discussion stuff

DMWJR

Philadelphia produced some monster business strike Lincolns from 15-19. Sadly, they only made true proofs for 15 and 16. I would put more time into looking for a 1910 with a remnant VDB.

DMWJR

Here's my 1917:

[

Bochiman

Wow! Gorgeous!

DMWJR

My 15 MPL:

[/URL][/URL]