Until someone presents good edge photos of their 1917 MPL I don't think this exists as a distinct strike from unique dies prepared for 1917 proof coinage. Remember by 1916 collectors had made their voices HEARD that they didn't like the matte look. The Mint decided No More Proofs. Why then would they authorize create and strike ...how many?... secret 1917 Proofs? All Hokum and possibly one fantasy Breen promogulated.
<< <i>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. >>
awesome 17 there i still love stewarts 1919...that one he presented left me speechless...i think it was a ms69 if i recall right
but yeah until one is presented for challenge....and it better be good enough for the challenge he'd be up against too
everything in life is but merely on loan to us by our appreciation....lose your appreciation and see
One thing I've noticed on MPLs is that besides the outside rim being sharp and squared off, the inside rim is or appears to be as well.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
<< <i>One thing I've noticed on MPLs is that besides the outside rim being sharp and squared off, the inside rim is or appears to be as well. >>
Those and the EDGE of the coin have been overlooked characteristics for matte proof coinage for a long time. Everyone seems to pay attention only to strike and surface characteristics which is only part of the story.
A few years ago, Stewart Blay showed me a 1917 Lincoln cent that had the accompanying papers stating it was a proof. I scoped it at 60x, found tooling marks on the inside of the rim to make it sharper, showed Stewart, he agreed it was artificially made to look like a proof.
I do not believe any proofs were made in 1917. Morgan took over as Chief Engraver in early 1917, he died in 1923 and was replaced by John Sinnock. I do not believe Morgan would have done this himself. He was busy with the new designs plus I do not believe he was like this. Sinnock made a few varieties, such as some matte proofs during the 1920s that were part of his estate sale. Of course, this does not preclude someone with access striking coins to make something close such as was done in 1912 with the 1913 vnicks. Remember also the 1964 mint sets that came out of the estate of Eva Adams. I had heard that there was a 1917 proof set that was broken up in the early 1970s, will have to look further into these. Of course, it is sometimes easy to confuse matte striking characteristics and matte surfaces with business strikes. I have seen 1911 matte proofs where the surfaces were worn down and were almost satin proofs. I have seen 1910 business strikes that had sharper rims than mattes. 1916s have probably the best striking characteristics as compared to other years, business strikes are also usually sharp.
The photos shown here present a sharply struck coin for a 1917, but I have seen sharply struck 1917s in high grade, that are most likely early strikes from a die. The surface texture needs to be examined in great detail to determine if it is from a sandblasted die to make the matte surfaces.
If the surfaces are not matte, but the coin is sharply struck, how do you determine if it is a proof or business strike? A proof by definition, is the method and intent of manufacture, was a method of manufacture used to process the working dies and planchets to create and striking characteristics and surface texture. You can use the condition of the coin, especially comparing it to a proof from the same time frame, but for proofs such as mattes, this is much more difficult. I would take this 1917 and compare side by side with a nice 1916 matte proof
The intent of manufacture is the purpose they were struck, are they intended to be proofs. Usually we learn this from the archives and communications. Also, how were they distributed, were they put into circulation or sold as proofs, or provided as mementos
I am doing a book on the 1838-O half dollar. I have determined that the ten struck on the first striking were especially struck, I would call them specimen coins, but on the second striking, Tyler polished the reverse to give it a mirror finish, I believe this brought coins struck on the second striking to the level of being called a proof.
Just my opinion Kevin
Below is what I wrote on the 1917 in my linc cent matte proof book
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." 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. Neither PCGS or NGC, or any of the other grading services have certified a 1917 matte proof cent. 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. 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." 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. Because there are no official Mint records stating proofs were struck in 1917, we must 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. Two specimens that were claimed to be 1917 Lincoln cent matte proofs were examined by Stewart Blay. Mr. Blay found that both specimens exhibited tooling on the inside edges. This does not mean a 1917 Lincoln cent matte proof 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.
Comments
<< <i>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. >>
awesome 17 there
i still love stewarts 1919...that one he presented left me speechless...i think it was a ms69 if i recall right
but yeah
until one is presented for challenge....and it better be good enough for the challenge he'd be up against too
<< <i>One thing I've noticed on MPLs is that besides the outside rim being sharp and squared off, the inside rim is or appears to be as well. >>
Those and the EDGE of the coin have been overlooked characteristics for matte proof coinage for a long time. Everyone seems to pay attention only to strike and surface characteristics which is only part of the story.
<< <i>Here's my 1917:
Very nice
I scoped it at 60x, found tooling marks on the inside of the rim to make it sharper, showed Stewart, he agreed it was artificially made to look like a proof.
I do not believe any proofs were made in 1917. Morgan took over as Chief Engraver in early 1917, he died in 1923 and was replaced by John Sinnock.
I do not believe Morgan would have done this himself. He was busy with the new designs plus I do not believe he was like this.
Sinnock made a few varieties, such as some matte proofs during the 1920s that were part of his estate sale.
Of course, this does not preclude someone with access striking coins to make something close such as was done in 1912 with the 1913 vnicks.
Remember also the 1964 mint sets that came out of the estate of Eva Adams.
I had heard that there was a 1917 proof set that was broken up in the early 1970s, will have to look further into these.
Of course, it is sometimes easy to confuse matte striking characteristics and matte surfaces with business strikes.
I have seen 1911 matte proofs where the surfaces were worn down and were almost satin proofs.
I have seen 1910 business strikes that had sharper rims than mattes.
1916s have probably the best striking characteristics as compared to other years, business strikes are also usually sharp.
The photos shown here present a sharply struck coin for a 1917, but I have seen sharply struck 1917s in high grade, that are most likely early strikes from a die.
The surface texture needs to be examined in great detail to determine if it is from a sandblasted die to make the matte surfaces.
If the surfaces are not matte, but the coin is sharply struck, how do you determine if it is a proof or business strike?
A proof by definition, is the method and intent of manufacture, was a method of manufacture used to process the working dies and planchets to create and striking characteristics and surface texture.
You can use the condition of the coin, especially comparing it to a proof from the same time frame, but for proofs such as mattes, this is much more difficult.
I would take this 1917 and compare side by side with a nice 1916 matte proof
The intent of manufacture is the purpose they were struck, are they intended to be proofs.
Usually we learn this from the archives and communications. Also, how were they distributed, were they put into circulation or sold as proofs, or provided as mementos
I am doing a book on the 1838-O half dollar. I have determined that the ten struck on the first striking were especially struck, I would call them specimen coins,
but on the second striking, Tyler polished the reverse to give it a mirror finish, I believe this brought coins struck on the second striking to the level of being called a proof.
Just my opinion
Kevin
Below is what I wrote on the 1917 in my linc cent matte proof book
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."
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.
Neither PCGS or NGC, or any of the other grading services have certified a 1917 matte proof cent.
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.
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."
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.
Because there are no official Mint records stating proofs were struck in 1917, we must 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.
Two specimens that were claimed to be 1917 Lincoln cent matte proofs were examined by Stewart Blay. Mr. Blay found that both specimens exhibited tooling on the inside edges.
This does not mean a 1917 Lincoln cent matte proof 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.