Options
1917 MPL; whats the story?
waterzooey
Posts: 412
For years the red book as listed the 1917 MPL. When i talk to some dealers they say they have seen 1917 MPL's. Whats the story? just wondering...
S
S
0
Comments
David Hall commented about a so-called 1917 MPL that he examined and I believe
that he determined that it was nothing more than a very "cherry" example.
I'm sure that you can find the thread if you search.
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage.
ANA Member R-3147111
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>I will believe that a 1917 MPL exists when either PCGS or NGC certifies and slabs one. Until that time there are NO 1917 MPL's. Steve
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase/2819
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Steve -- I looked at your registry set as you advertised in your post to this thread and it is to keep people like you satisfied that pcgs and ngc will under no circumstances ever slab any 1917 coin as a proof. Does not matter what the coins credentials are, it ainta neva gonna get slabbed by either Hertz or Avis. This would create an instant rarity and thus make the hallowed registry sets incomplete! Imagine that!!
David Hall was partly responsible for the discovery of the 1917 matte proof set that contained a cent, nickel, quarter, and half dollar in the New England Rare Coin Gallery "Public II" auction in 1976 I believe. David then said though he was partly responsible for this sets discovery that he now thought they were just "cherry uncs" whatever that is. I thought a cherry was when, well I will not go there. I think David realized that this type of rarity could cause problems with people building sets. He was right. buffnixx
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
It's Bigfoot in copper.
Free Trial
<< <i>I will believe that a 1917 MPL exists when either PCGS or NGC certifies and slabs one. Until that time there are NO 1917 MPL's. Steve
Steve -- I looked at your registry set as you advertised in your post to this thread and it is to keep people like you satisfied that pcgs and ngc will under no circumstances ever slab any 1917 coin as a proof. Does not matter what the coins credentials are, it ainta neva gonna get slabbed by either Hertz or Avis. This would create an instant rarity and thus make the hallowed registry sets incomplete! Imagine that!!
David Hall was partly responsible for the discovery of the 1917 matte proof set that contained a cent, nickel, quarter, and half dollar in the New England Rare Coin Gallery "Public II" auction in 1976 I believe. David then said though he was partly responsible for this sets discovery that he now thought they were just "cherry uncs" whatever that is. I thought a cherry was when, well I will not go there. I think David realized that this type of rarity could cause problems with people building sets. He was right. buffnixx >>
Well, registry sets didn't start until many years, er decades after 1976, so you can't blame David.
Free Trial
<< <i>I will believe that a 1917 MPL exists when either PCGS or NGC certifies and slabs one. Until that time there are NO 1917 MPL's. Steve
Steve -- I looked at your registry set as you advertised in your post to this thread and it is to keep people like you satisfied that pcgs and ngc will under no circumstances ever slab any 1917 coin as a proof. Does not matter what the coins credentials are, it ainta neva gonna get slabbed by either Hertz or Avis. This would create an instant rarity and thus make the hallowed registry sets incomplete! Imagine that!!
David Hall was partly responsible for the discovery of the 1917 matte proof set that contained a cent, nickel, quarter, and half dollar in the New England Rare Coin Gallery "Public II" auction in 1976 I believe. David then said though he was partly responsible for this sets discovery that he now thought they were just "cherry uncs" whatever that is. I thought a cherry was when, well I will not go there. I think David realized that this type of rarity could cause problems with people building sets. He was right. buffnixx >>
buffnixx,
I DO appreciate the fact that you are a believer in the existence of 1917 matte proofs. I can see from the fact that you have made only 178 posts here in six years and many have been on THIS subject that you are VERY interested in the 1917 matte proof "story". I can assure you that I would be very pleased to see PCGS or NGC certify a 1917 MPL. It would then be very interesting to see what such a coin would bring at auction. It is true that I take pride in owning the complete set of Lincoln PROOF cents with major varieties, but if a unique or 2 or 3 examples of 1917 MPL's should be discovered I wouldn't get upset over it. My participation in the Set Registry is strictly for "fun". I have no illusions of being #1 ever. I am just happy to participate. As regards to PCGS NEVER certifying such a coin, I would expect that they never would unless a REAL example was discovered. They certainly certified three examples of the 1958 DD Lincoln cent and look what that does to the top people who collect Lincoln cent business strikes from 1909 thru 1958 OR to present. All but three of them can NEVER have a complete set. (By the way, I am completely opposed to PCGS requiring this variety in the Set Registry) Anyway, buffnixx, I think you have the right to believe anyway you want about the 1917 Matte proofs, just as I or any of us on these boards have the right to believe what we want to. That is what makes this hobby so great.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I also disagree with many people in this thread who put great stock in the fact that there are two slabbing companies who have not slabbed these extremely rare (if they exist) coins. It is quite clear that mere financial interests of these companies are what have prevented these being slabbed, if they have been submitted. IOW, they just may not authenticate them merely because they don't want to be on the hook if further research would show them to be non-proofs, even if they really did think they are proofs. (The recent guarantee changes at a four-letter initialed company may have removed this incentive to some extent, but that's a wholenother topic.) This paragraph should also not be read as saying that none of the people who work/consult at slabbing companies can give well-informed findings. I would certainly respect the opinions on specific coins, for example, of John Dannreuther at PCGS and David Lange at NGC, given that we get opinions unbiased by any financial considerations.
I would also respect the opinions of other experts on specific coins, for example David Akers, Kevin Flynn, Tom DeLorey, Larry Briggs, and Roger Burdette, among others. Of course remember we are not talking in general, but rather actual, specific coins. If such proof-attributed 1917 coins could be re-found, we could each of them and others writing up reports as to why they think such coins are proofs or not, and how confident they are. We could also introduce other people, and maybe include a "proof test" where other coins which are known "without dispute" to be proofs or business strikes to be included, to see how much their opinion to be considered.
So now let's move to a specifc example. In Superior's session of Auction '90, lot 1012 is a 1917 Lincoln cent authenticated as a proof by ANACS, and later in Stack's June 19-20, 1991 sale, lot 34. (Certificate E-6930). (In the latter sale, a note by Walter Breen is also mentioned, but I know they are not worth the purple ink they're presumably singed with.) So this brings up some questions.
1) Where is this specific coin now?
2) Who at ANACS called it a proof?
3) If this coin could be found now, what would the above experts say about it?
4) If other coins once called 1917 proofs are found now, what would the above say about them.
After enough of such coins are researched to modern standards, we can form some good conclusions. If we are lucky, some of this work is already done. Please inform us if it is. I just do not think that companies concerned mainly or only with the bottom line is anywhere close to the best way of answering such questions.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
I can state that: "Quetzalcoatlus still exist. Early humans mistook them for angels. Humans thought children were being taken to heaven by angels." I could publish a book on the subject, and repeat the statement as something I believe to be factual. I could add all sorts of religious and quasi-scientific arguments.
But, in neither case do the artifacts exist to support the contentions.
<< <i>There are several people who do in fact believe this coin does exsist. Here is a book published in 1983 ish that in fact does state the exsistence of the 1917 MPL.
I can state that: "Quetzalcoatlus still exist. Early humans mistook them for angels. Humans thought children were being taken to heaven by angels." I could publish a book on the subject, and repeat the statement as something I believe to be factual. I could add all sorts of religious and quasi-scientific arguments.
But, in neither case do the artifacts exist to support the contentions. >>
I posted the book as a reference to simply state that there are others who do believe in the coin not as a reference to the coin exsisting. But you keep on with your Quetzalcoatlus and please keep us posted.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
<< <i>Mine is displayed next to my 1910-S VDB. >>
You too.
I also have a cherry red 1922-S which looks as nice as all the PCGS S-Mint Lincolns I've seen in MS67RD. It was given to me by Mrs. Gloria Baker Topping as a gift in 1959. Mrs. Topping was the daughter of R.T. Baker, who was Director of the Mint when she was born. She said it was presented to her as a special reminder of when she first ran at the age of 2.
I also enjoyed reading the comment by MacCrimmon about the 1922S coin he has in beautiful RED condition. I believe the "story" he tells is true because it would make no sense to me for him to fabricate such a story here on these boards. BUT, for me, or any other collector to suddenly believe that a 1922S Lincoln cent exists is a BIG stretch. I'm sure MacCrimmon doesn't have a picture of this coin that he could share with us. Or maybe if he did have such a picture he wouldn't know how to upload. I'm sure MacCrimmon wouldn't want to have PCGS take a look at the coin and possibly authenticate it. The logic of its source from his story makes it very believable, but somehow, at least to me, the facts provided just make it another "story" like the 1917 MPL. JMHO. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>Part of what makes this hobby so interesting and fun for me is to read stories provided on these boards. The "book" Chris refers to and shows the cover of above is the Leonard Albrecht pamphlet showing pictures and the diagnostics for each of the nine Matte Proof Lincoln cents. For 1917 NO pictures are shown and the following comment is made: "Though not an official proof issue, the 1917 was probably a special striking for presentation. Should have the basic diagnostics of Matte Proof cents." I take that comment to mean that Albrecht had never seen this so called presentation strike but had heard of it in 1983 when the pamphlet was published. Probably from Breen's writings. Point to me is we don't have any first hand documentation of the existence of the coin. I know Roger Burnette (RWB) has researched this whole subject for his books, so when he makes the comment he did above in this thread, it carries alot of weight for me.
I also enjoyed reading the comment by MacCrimmon about the 1922S coin he has in beautiful RED condition. I believe the "story" he tells is true because it would make no sense to me for him to fabricate such a story here on these boards. BUT, for me, or any other collector to suddenly believe that a 1922S Lincoln cent exists is a BIG stretch. I'm sure MacCrimmon doesn't have a picture of this coin that he could share with us. Or maybe if he did have such a picture he wouldn't know how to upload. I'm sure MacCrimmon wouldn't want to have PCGS take a look at the coin and possibly authenticate it. The logic of its source from his story makes it very believable, but somehow, at least to me, the facts provided just make it another "story" like the 1917 MPL. JMHO. Steve
Steve, you're right in that I don't have a picture of the 22-S. My camera is on the fritz right now, and these mini-strokes I keep having has caused me to forget exactly how do the 'image thingy'. As to PCGS, they are grading too tight now, so I'll wait for them to relax things a bit so this unique Lincoln can be justly graded 67RD (same for my 1910-S VDB).
And Roger, please forgive my little tale of fancy.
The active imagination derives from my mother who happened to be born not far from Mehl's office in FW.....now that part is true.
<< <i>The rims always tell the truth...............
Sorry but I don't care what date is on that, it wouldn't be mistaken as a MP. Fields are flat and brilliant.
<< <i>I will believe that a 1917 MPL exists when either PCGS or NGC certifies and slabs one. Until that time there are NO 1917 MPL's. Steve
Steve -- I looked at your registry set as you advertised in your post to this thread and it is to keep people like you satisfied that pcgs and ngc will under no circumstances ever slab any 1917 coin as a proof. Does not matter what the coins credentials are, it ainta neva gonna get slabbed by either Hertz or Avis. This would create an instant rarity and thus make the hallowed registry sets incomplete! Imagine that!!
David Hall was partly responsible for the discovery of the 1917 matte proof set that contained a cent, nickel, quarter, and half dollar in the New England Rare Coin Gallery "Public II" auction in 1976 I believe. David then said though he was partly responsible for this sets discovery that he now thought they were just "cherry uncs" whatever that is. I thought a cherry was when, well I will not go there. I think David realized that this type of rarity could cause problems with people building sets. He was right. buffnixx >>
I think this faulty reasoning. If David Hall/PCGS is presented with a coin that can be determined to be a proof, they will slab it. The effect this would have on registry sets would not be considered in the equation.
On a related note, I have seen one 1917 Buffalo that I considered to be a no-questions proof. It was 30+ years ago, and I have not seen it (or any others) since.
And I've never seen a dime, quarter or half that I considered to be proof, but a few of the halves have made me think real hard.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>I had one about 25 years ago that had been certified by INS as a proof. Although it did not look like a proof to me, it had heavy die striations that I have yet to see on another 1917.
On a related note, I have seen one 1917 Buffalo that I considered to be a no-questions proof. It was 30+ years ago, and I have not seen it (or any others) since.
And I've never seen a dime, quarter or half that I considered to be proof, but a few of the halves have made me think real hard. >>
Was that 5c the one bought by several others and myself in a '83 or '84 Bowers and Ruddy two coin lot with a phony 24-S? If so, or if not, John Dannreuther, a PCGS founder, thought so too. He was a partner on the deal. I was later told by JD that PCGS would never certify one because its existence could not be verified by any Mint records. Really can't argue too hard against that type of decision, which was, BTW, operative long before registry sets.
Florida dealer Fred Colombo had a '17 50c that occupied half an hour of JD's and mine at a Long Beach show ten years or more ago.
Anyone here consider the possibility of a 1927 5c proof or specimen?
CJ - No. I've probably seen four or five like the one you recall, but they're nowhere near as convincing as the one I saw at the 1982 Boston ANA. (And BTW, the fake was a 27-S, not a 24-S!)
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>I was later told by JD that PCGS would never certify one because its existence could not be verified by any Mint records. Really can't argue too hard against that type of decision, which was, BTW, operative long before registry sets. >>
You can easily argue against that statement.....how many coins has PCGS certified which do not have any official mint records?
The answer = MANY
BTW, MrE, I was so bedazzled by the 1917 in the lot I don't think I even caught whether the S-mint was kosher. As he has so often, Buffalo Bill set me straight
Wish I'd seen the one that you have.
First Lust. then Greed.
But mostly, it's about the adventure
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
the coin currently lives in Hawaii.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"