Has anyone seen a 1917 Type 1 Proof Standing Liberty Quarter?
kookoox10
Posts: 538 ✭✭✭
I know there was never any proof strikes in the series, but there was some word of "trial" pieces that were struck in the form of a 1917 Type 1. Has anyone ever seen or heard of one of these examples existing or is it just an urban legend in numismatics?
0
Comments
It is an amazing coin in hand...with some qualifications needed to be a 68. The surfaces are basically flawless. I saw no marks at all on the coin, but the luster is off given the strange matte surfaces.
S Mint Specimen?
siliconvalleycoins.com
<< <i>This coin resides in a very strong collection out West. I have seen it in hand and it is something special, as you can see by the price realized.
It is an amazing coin in hand...with some qualifications needed to be a 68. The surfaces are basically flawless. I saw no marks at all on the coin, but the luster is off given the strange matte surfaces.
S Mint Specimen? >>
Taint a proof. Nice coin but I wouldn't have paid $46,000 for it.
<< <i>Taint a proof >>
1. Never said it was a proof
2. You make lots of assumptions of what it is or isn't without seeing it in hand
<< <i>Nice coin but I wouldn't have paid $46,000 for it. >>
3. That is why you don't own it.
siliconvalleycoins.com
In J.H. Cline's most recent Standing Liberty Quarters 4th Edition,
he has a copy of a letter from Walter Breen, dated July 23, 1988 that
states:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
This certifies that I have examined the
accompanying coin and that I unhesitantly declare
it's 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, (sharing ?) for
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.
Respectfully submitted,
Walter Breen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you have a moment, see if you can read the book on line,
I believe Stella Press ( DLRC Press ) may have have it listed
and it's free. Cline makes no comments about the Proof coins.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
New Barber Purchases
He always seemed to be seeing proofs.
siliconvalleycoins.com
1. There are no records indicating any “proof” coins were made dated 1917.
2. No 1917 “proof” has been authenticated by PCGS or NGC.
3. All of the artists who designed the new coins in 1916 objected to mirror surfaces (as attempted on some 1916 pattern pieces).
4. At least one of the major grading services cannot differentiate a 1916 medal press “proof” from a piece struck on a production press. (The production press origin is confirmed by documentation unknown to the TPG.)
5. Medal press quarter dollar test pieces dated 1917 were likely struck for mint engineering use and might have been seen in January 1917 by the coin’s designer. However, none of these pieces, of any design, have ever been identified.
6. 1916 experimental and pattern pieces are known in uncirculated and circulated conditions, indicating that some of these reached circulation
7. No reason to make “proof” Lincoln cent or Buffalo nickel. Conformance with matte die practice would have required sandblasting the dies. No record of this.
Likelihood of existence of 1917 “proofs” is very slim.
Q: Curiously, what is the coin which is the subject of your #4 above?
1917 quarter pattern with part of the leaves scratched off. Documents distinctly state it was made on a production press so the director could see what normal coins would look like. (A . . . TPG . . . decided it was a “proof” of some sort. (Note: this comment edited by me; you may read the unedited comment ATS.)
Q: How do you tell if a coin was made with a medal press vs a production press? (without watching it being made)
A planchet deforms differently under pressure from a medal press than a production press. Most of the visual indicators of a proof coin, other than a mirror surface for older ones, are artifacts of the type of press used and the force applied. If you read descriptions of high quality proof coins, and remove references to the mirror fields, everything else comes from the strike. (In general, proof dies and normal dies were identical except for polishing of the field.)
Check out the Southern Gold Society
<< <i>In J.H. Cline's most recent Standing Liberty Quarters 4th Edition,
he has a copy of a letter from Walter Breen, dated July 23, 1988 that
states:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
This certifies that I have examined the
accompanying coin and that I unhesitantly declare
it's 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, (sharing ?) for
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.
Respectfully submitted,
Walter Breen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you have a moment, see if you can read the book on line,
I believe Stella Press ( DLRC Press ) may have have it listed
and it's free. Cline makes no comments about the Proof coins. >>
A dealer friend of mine used to jokingly say coins were worth less if they came with a Walter Breen letter.
<< <i>In J.H. Cline's most recent Standing Liberty Quarters 4th Edition,
he has a copy of a letter from Walter Breen, dated July 23, 1988 that
states:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
This certifies that I have examined the
accompanying coin and that I unhesitantly declare
it's 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, (sharing ?) for
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.
Respectfully submitted,
Walter Breen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you have a moment, see if you can read the book on line,
I believe Stella Press ( DLRC Press ) may have have it listed
and it's free. Cline makes no comments about the Proof coins. >>
Breen had the reputation, in his later years, of providing letters of authentication for just about anything ... for the right price.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>
<< <i>Taint a proof >>
1. Never said it was a proof
2. You make lots of assumptions of what it is or isn't without seeing it in hand
<< <i>Nice coin but I wouldn't have paid $46,000 for it. >>
3. That is why you don't own it. >>
You seem to be angry for no apparent reason.
The topic of this thread is PROOF 1917 SLQ.
Lighten up.
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>RWB has done a lot of research, I trust him >>
I certainly concur. His "Renaissance of American Coinage" is a fascinating and very worthwhile read-I highly recommend it!
merse
Not angry at all. I just thought your post was rather unhelpful and ignorant.
No way you could say it was or wasn't a proof looking at the picture, yet you state it as fact. I actually agree with you, but HAVE seen the coin in hand. The specimen question label was used because I thought the coin germaine to the conversation, in that it MAY be a specially struck coin.
What WASN'T germaine to the conversation was whether or not you would have paid 46,000 for it.
Coinlieutenant
siliconvalleycoins.com
<< <i>
What WASN'T germaine to the conversation was whether or not you would have paid 46,000 for it.
Coinlieutenant >>
Oh, so all of a sudden discussing the price one is willing or unwilling to pay isn't germane?
That would limit lots of the posts here!
No need to continue this conversation on a potentially great thread.
Let's keep searching for a special SLQ.
siliconvalleycoins.com
<< <i>Just a dig Senex. As you said...lighten up.
Why make a dig at all?
It's just as easy to be nice as nasty.
2) Watched the current owner (a very astute under-the-radar collector) buy it.
3) Know the underbidder, whose remark to me was "How much can an MS68FH be worth?"
Not a proof.
BTW, both you guys suck at flame wars. One of you even apologized!
<< <i>
<< <i>This coin resides in a very strong collection out West. I have seen it in hand and it is something special, as you can see by the price realized.
It is an amazing coin in hand...with some qualifications needed to be a 68. The surfaces are basically flawless. I saw no marks at all on the coin, but the luster is off given the strange matte surfaces.
S Mint Specimen? >>
Taint a proof. Nice coin but I wouldn't have paid $46,000 for it. >>
Granted, my 17 t1 isn't an "s", but it's better looking than that one.
Since when did we limit our comments to the germaine?
siliconvalleycoins.com
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
1917 proof lincoln head cent which lives in Hawaii
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"