@Insider2 said:
This is not a discussion about buybacks OR ANY PERSON NOMINATED by others. Please keep your opinions about other nominees by members to yourself.
I expressed no opinion in this thread about your list. You asked about who should be able to decide. In order for the coin to attract currency, it would need to be certified (read as backed by a guarantee) and so Salzberg's opinion and/or Hall's opinion are extremely important. JA's opinion also matters since so much weight is given to CAC. The others would be icing on the cupcake, but unless this ends up in PCGS or NGC plastic (preferably with a CAC sticker), many in the industry will never accept the coin.
Funny, I guess you were not around in the old days when the opinions of respected numismatists (no matter what their shortcomings were actually mattered. I wonder what would happen if everyone in the room EXCEPT CAC, PCGS, and NGC agreed it was a Proof. Would it be a Proof? Many would say no. Then Roger discovers a letter from the Director of the Mint stating that several PROOFS of various denominations were struck in 1917 and their distribution. Would it be a Proof then or would the three I mentioned hold out to save "face."
In the end, absent proof, the coin will stand on its own merits.
@Insider2 said:
This is not a discussion about buybacks OR ANY PERSON NOMINATED by others. Please keep your opinions about other nominees by members to yourself.
I expressed no opinion in this thread about your list. You asked about who should be able to decide. In order for the coin to attract currency, it would need to be certified (read as backed by a guarantee) and so Salzberg's opinion and/or Hall's opinion are extremely important. JA's opinion also matters since so much weight is given to CAC. The others would be icing on the cupcake, but unless this ends up in PCGS or NGC plastic (preferably with a CAC sticker), many in the industry will never accept the coin.
Funny, I guess you were not around in the old days when the opinions of respected numismatists (no matter what their shortcomings were actually mattered. I wonder what would happen if everyone in the room EXCEPT CAC, PCGS, and NGC agreed it was a Proof. Would it be a Proof? Many would say no. Then Roger discovers a letter from the Director of the Mint stating that several PROOFS of various denominations were struck in 1917 and their distribution. Would it be a Proof then or would the three I mentioned hold out to save "face."
In the end, absent proof, the coin will stand on its own merits.
There is a reason that period is referred to as the "old days." Those days are dead. The coin should stand on its own merits, but we all know it is all a game of plastic and sticker these days.
People sometimes overlook the obvious and believe they see what they want to see. Look at this 1917 business strike's surfaces and rims, and you see how a non-expert might think it an MPL and how an expert can be fooled at a glance with just a little tooling or sharpening. 1917 MS coins are one of my all time favorite dates in the series for the quality of the coins.
NGC, PCGS and now CAC do in fact hold that much power. the others "in the room" can persuade them to change their opinion on certain things but those three really go a long way towards legitimizing or authenticating most spurious Numismatic items. that works both ways, saying something is what it was thought not to be, saying something isn't what it was thought to be. that is how it should be if you pay attention to who is on the staff at a company like PCGS, their board of experts. I also presume that they know who is who and have some sort of working relationship with EVERYONE who might be considered, consultants if you will.
so yes, Cameonut would seem to be correct here because NGC, PCGS and now CAC tend to comprise the best Numismatic minds available.
--- true story: I came into ownership or an HK-2 US Semi-Centennial medal maybe around 2003-4. it had the date obliterated and appeared to have had something done to the rim. I sent it to NGC for authentication and they returned it with "unable to establish authenticity" written on the tag. sometimes even the experts can't sort things out and I thought it was decent of NGC to state that. it would have been easy to say "Not Genuine" but they weren't sure and admitted as much.
In the areas I collect, I strongly disagree with major TPG's on (not just our host)
1856 FE's that are not a proof striking. If they refuse to designate any more, why are they required in the MS set
1971 DDO is not a candidate for a designation as "Major Variety" over the 1970-s DDO. MS65 70-s still brings 10 times the price of the 71 in the same grade.
1858/7 Weak does not deserve a special designation. It is the same die pair as the Strong, just not as much of an underdate showing. The market can judge for itself how much emphasis to place on each coin based on the visibility of the underdate. What if you had a 1955 DDO cent where the die was polished down erasing most of the doubling. Would we need a 55 Strong and a 55 Weak? I understand the 1922 "plain" having three designations, but they are three different die combinations.
So no, the TPG's aren't 100% reliable or consistent when it comes to OPINIONS, which is what we have going on with the 1917. I haven't heard any reliable source (taken in full context) that would lead me to believe any 1917 MPL was ever produced.
@fiftysevener said:
As long as opinions have names attached I wouldn't need a buy back guarantee
?
I can see this exchange now:
EXPERT DEALER: We believe this to be one of the rare, fabled 1917 matte proof Lincoln cents... It has all of the diagnostics of a proof...
COLLECTOR: Great. How much would you offer for it?
-- Crickets --
COLLECTOR: You would be interested in owning such rare numismatic item?
EXPERT DEALER: It's not for us.
I see your point but that just means this expert dealer really cannot stand behind his opinion then right ? Even though this particular coin is damaged it is still going to be a wanted item especially if original 1977 holder is included.
@fiftysevener said:
As long as opinions have names attached I wouldn't need a buy back guarantee
?
I can see this exchange now:
EXPERT DEALER: We believe this to be one of the rare, fabled 1917 matte proof Lincoln cents... It has all of the diagnostics of a proof...
COLLECTOR: Great. How much would you offer for it?
-- Crickets --
COLLECTOR: You would be interested in owning such rare numismatic item?
EXPERT DEALER: It's not for us.
I see your point but that just means this expert dealer really cannot stand behind his opinion then right ? Even though this particular coin is damaged it is still going to be a wanted item especially if original 1977 holder is included.
I don't think offering an opinion morally binds someone to buy it. Plenty of experts and dealers are routinely asked for opinions, but that doesn't mean that they want the item. I also wouldn't expect them to do so. That's why having it in top TPGS plastic (and preferably with a sticker) matters in terms of liquidity and authentication alone.
@EagleEye said:
I have seen the coin, letter and cert. it is not a proof. It had edges similar to a proof but was slightly bent, likely removed from an encasement. 1917 proof cent does not exist.
You also contend that you can MS70 the beautiful natural blue color out on most copper cents. I'll trust the old timers at Anacs and breen before this opinion.
Experts disagree with each other and can be wrong. While I think Rick is wrong on his MS70 argument, I find him to be credible. I do not think Rick has ulterior motives, and I believe he genuinely believes what he says. Breen is a different story. For the right amount of money, prestige, drugs, etc., I think Breen would say anything. I would be interested in knowing who the ANACS graders were and their reasoning. Specifically, I am curious if Breen played a role in their decision making especially given his reputation as an authority at the time. I also wish we had better photos.
You have my info as to who the Authenticators were that called it a Proof. It was not graded because ANACS did not offer grading in 1977.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@EagleEye said:
I have seen the coin, letter and cert. it is not a proof. It had edges similar to a proof but was slightly bent, likely removed from an encasement. 1917 proof cent does not exist.
You also contend that you can MS70 the beautiful natural blue color out on most copper cents. I'll trust the old timers at Anacs and breen before this opinion.
Experts disagree with each other and can be wrong. While I think Rick is wrong on his MS70 argument, I find him to be credible. I do not think Rick has ulterior motives, and I believe he genuinely believes what he says. Breen is a different story. For the right amount of money, prestige, drugs, etc., I think Breen would say anything. I would be interested in knowing who the ANACS graders were and their reasoning. Specifically, I am curious if Breen played a role in their decision making especially given his reputation as an authority at the time. I also wish we had better photos.
You have my info as to who the Authenticators were that called it a Proof. It was not graded because ANACS did not offer grading in 1977.
I didn't see that; sorry. How much weight do you think they gave to Breen's opinion on 1917 MPL?
Next time I am in the Springs I could look at the old log book and see if there are any notes about if it went to a consultant. However, I suspect that such notes were made on the original submission form, which were filed after the coin was returned and may no longer exist.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Bruce Vogel / seymourwampum.com.... ****had copies of all the Mint documentation he personally located at NARA Pennsylvania and College Park Maryland RG104 pertaining to this subject, on his website.
****I just now looked at the website, and it appears he is rebuilding and upgrading it again, to further add information.
Synopsis of events documented:
from memory...
*October 1916 proof coinage to cease.
*Early November 1916, DM requested that any further special strikings, be reported directly to the DM and not reported
on the coiners records, referred to as the " Special Lot ".
*Hermon A MacNeil requested and paid for 2 complete sets in correspondence, and request fulfilled by the Mint.
*Somewhere in this timeline the DM requested an unused press be moved to the Assayers office, not sure why.
I have spoken with Bruce Vogel several times, over the past several years on this controversial subject.
He told me to look at 1909 and not 1916 concerning my coin, which I was not, just 1916.
Maybe a better moniker for this coin would be a “specimen strike” rather than a proof since it was within the boundary of 1917 - 1935 -- the clandestine years -- when proof were supposedly not authorized. The rims on my 1917 buffalo nickel shown above were sharp and squared with the “third side” of the coin fully brilliant, just as you would expect on a proof.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I would be interested in knowing who the ANACS graders were and their reasoning. Specifically, I am curious if Breen played a role in their decision making especially given his reputation as an authority at the time.
Since Anacs gave their opinion in 1977 and Breen in 1988, it might be the other way around.
I would be interested in knowing who the ANACS graders were and their reasoning. Specifically, I am curious if Breen played a role in their decision making especially given his reputation as an authority at the time.
Since Anacs gave their opinion in 1977 and Breen in 1988, it might be the other way around.
Does anyone have a copy of his 1977 book lying around? What does it say about the putative 1917 MPL coinage?
Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins New York: Doubleday, 1988. Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins, 1722- 1977 New York: Arco Pub./F.C.I. Press, 1977
Why all the secrecy about which ANACS authenticators called the coin a proof? I stand behind EVERY OPINION I pass out (you can read about one of my early mistakes in the guess the date/mint of the $20 Liberty). Always have and always will!
@Insider2 said:
Why all the secrecy about which ANACS authenticators called the coin a proof? I stand behind EVERY OPINION I pass out (you can read about one of my early mistakes in the guess the date/mint of the $20 Liberty). Always have and always will!
What secrecy? I posted their names.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@Insider2 said:
Why all the secrecy about which ANACS authenticators called the coin a proof? I stand behind EVERY OPINION I pass out (you can read about one of my early mistakes in the guess the date/mint of the $20 Liberty). Always have and always will!
What secrecy? I posted their names.
Sorry, I still cannot find it in the thread and figured you told him in a PM.
The only thing I will add about 1917 proofs is the only people I have ever met who really believed in them are the people who started out really wanting to believe in them. Not objective in the least but they stand on the “you can’t prove they aren’t out there”
The same effect happens with aliens, ghosts, religion or Ménage à trois. I concede it is more fun to believe but their accounts rarely pass scrutiny and evidence is almost none existent.
Does anyone have a copy of his 1977 book lying around? What does it say about the putative 1917 MPL coinage
SET. Ex Ira Reed in 1930's, to a collector in Philadelphia who stopped in 1942, and whose holdings were sold in early 1976 to Joel Rettew. The set has been broken up. No duplicate reported.
prior to that he has a write-up about each denomination describing what he has either seen himself or been told others have seen.
one Cent.
two Nickels.
no Dime verified to date.
two T1 Quarters.
two Half-Dollars seen.
Since this 1917 Lincoln cent has an anacs certificate then as per ebay policy it can be listed on eBay in excess value of
$2500, just like NGC and PCGS and ICG and ANACS(slabs).
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
robec2 said above “ 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.” Yes, and there are no mint records of any 1913 liberty head nickels being produced either!!
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Tech and analysis is so much better today, if someone would, come forward with one of these for analysis. Kevin Flynn and Stewart Blay state the one they saw under 60x showed tooling. These two know as much about Lincolns and the properties of copper as anyone. If the same coin, then I need to know nothing else. If there is another one, I need to see clear photographic images or better - the coin in hand.
Interesting to reconnect with this thread. I think it significant to know what was happening at the Mint in 1916. At that time the employees probably did not know that production of proofs would be discontinued. And special proof dies had already been produced for 1917. But in 1917 proof production ceased and rather than wasting the special dies for proofs, they were used on production coins but without special planchetts.
I think the differentiating aspect would be the matte proof finish versus the finish for the business strikes. If the 1917 coins do not have a matte proof finish, they are not to be considered genuine proof coins from that era. Perhaps someone who has seen the proposed coins in hand can comment on the finish in the fields of the coin.
@OldIndianNutKase said:
Interesting to reconnect with this thread. I think it significant to know what was happening at the Mint in 1916. At that time the employees probably did not know that production of proofs would be discontinued. And special proof dies had already been produced for 1917. But in 1917 proof production ceased and rather than wasting the special dies for proofs, they were used on production coins but without special planchetts.
I think the differentiating aspect would be the matte proof finish versus the finish for the business strikes. If the 1917 coins do not have a matte proof finish, they are not to be considered genuine proof coins from that era. Perhaps someone who has seen the proposed coins in hand can comment on the finish in the fields of the coin.
OINK
I will comment on my coin pictured above, on this page.
If you happen to have Kevin Flynn's Matte proof book, my coin looks very close to the 1912 and 1914 pictured.
It is a delicate frosty brown, I'm going to call it satin, to me it looks like the face of the rims are sandblasted also.,,
Hand sandblasted after.... a sandblasted die striking ???
Fine die polish lines, flat fields to rim.
I don't have any good glamour shots of the coin, that do it justice. let me see if I can do better.
Here's some older shots.
@OldIndianNutKase said:
Interesting to reconnect with this thread. I think it significant to know what was happening at the Mint in 1916. At that time the employees probably did not know that production of proofs would be discontinued. And special proof dies had already been produced for 1917. But in 1917 proof production ceased and rather than wasting the special dies for proofs, they were used on production coins but without special planchetts.
I think the differentiating aspect would be the matte proof finish versus the finish for the business strikes. If the 1917 coins do not have a matte proof finish, they are not to be considered genuine proof coins from that era. Perhaps someone who has seen the proposed coins in hand can comment on the finish in the fields of the coin.
OINK
If I owned the coin, I'd check the reverse dies of certified 1916 Proof cents. There are cases where reverse dies (w/o a date) are carried over to the following year. If a match were found, that would really fire up opinions.
@OldIndianNutKase said:
Interesting to reconnect with this thread. I think it significant to know what was happening at the Mint in 1916. At that time the employees probably did not know that production of proofs would be discontinued. And special proof dies had already been produced for 1917. But in 1917 proof production ceased and rather than wasting the special dies for proofs, they were used on production coins but without special planchetts.
I think the differentiating aspect would be the matte proof finish versus the finish for the business strikes. If the 1917 coins do not have a matte proof finish, they are not to be considered genuine proof coins from that era. Perhaps someone who has seen the proposed coins in hand can comment on the finish in the fields of the coin.
OINK
If I owned the coin, I'd check the reverse dies of certified 1916 Proof cents. There are cases where reverse dies (w/o a date) are carried over to the following year. If a match were found, that would really fire up opinions.
That is an excellent suggestion!
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
@OldIndianNutKase said:
Interesting to reconnect with this thread. I think it significant to know what was happening at the Mint in 1916. At that time the employees probably did not know that production of proofs would be discontinued. And special proof dies had already been produced for 1917. But in 1917 proof production ceased and rather than wasting the special dies for proofs, they were used on production coins but without special planchetts.
I think the differentiating aspect would be the matte proof finish versus the finish for the business strikes. If the 1917 coins do not have a matte proof finish, they are not to be considered genuine proof coins from that era. Perhaps someone who has seen the proposed coins in hand can comment on the finish in the fields of the coin.
OINK
If I owned the coin, I'd check the reverse dies of certified 1916 Proof cents. There are cases where reverse dies (w/o a date) are carried over to the following year. If a match were found, that would really fire up opinions.
An excellent suggestion!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
Next time I am in the Springs I could look at the old log book and see if there are any notes about if it went to a consultant. However, I suspect that such notes were made on the original submission form, which were filed after the coin was returned and may no longer exist.
Doug Mudd was kind enough to send me a scan of the log book. Unfortunately, as I expected, it did not say much. The log book was basically just a record of what was received and when, the number(s) assigned to it/them, the name of the submitter, the declared value and the amount of fee paid, and, when it was sent back, a check mark to show that it had indeed been sent back.
The useful notes on what the findings were and what consultants it went to would have been noted on the submission form. Those were filed in numerical order, and are either in dead storage or long gone. When referring back to a coin that you did not know the number of, it was easier to skim through the log book to get the number rather than to look through the submission forms one after the other.
That said, the owner's declared value of $500 shows that the submitter did not send it in as a common 1917 cent.
The date received of Sept. 29, 1977 is significant when you compare it to the date that the certificate was typed up, Nov. 2nd. When I started at ANACS in November of 1978 the common submissions (1909-SVDB cents, 1916-D dimes) were being turned around in about one week. The fact that this coin was in process for five weeks shows that the coin was given special consideration. It was not certified as a Proof without them taking the time to think about it.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
RE: "The fact that this coin was in process for five weeks shows that the coin was given special consideration. It was not certified as a Proof without them taking the time to think about it."
Yep. Forty years ago and huge amounts of knowledge accumulated since. Even the most basic information, such as the date in 1916 when proofs were discontinued on recommendation of the Superintendent, were unknown in 1977.
There were, and remain, no 1917 "proof" coins of any denomination.
@RogerB said:
RE: "The fact that this coin was in process for five weeks shows that the coin was given special consideration. It was not certified as a Proof without them taking the time to think about it."
Yep. Forty years ago and huge amounts of knowledge accumulated since. Even the most basic information, such as the date in 1916 when proofs were discontinued on recommendation of the Superintendent, were unknown in 1977.
There were, and remain, no 1917 "proof" coins of any denomination.
Sorry Rodger, for example I saw a 1917 matte proof type one standing liberty quarter at a coin show here in Ohio many years ago, in a SEGS proof-63 holder. This monster carried its own credentials. It was a matte proof no doubt and no matter what you think or say.. You can howl and scowl all you want but that does not change the fact that there are some 1917 proof coins!! You can bray and bleat to the full moon all night but these coins are real!! True there will never be any in NGC or PCGS holders but they exist. Deal with it!!
PS. Rodger, as "Dirty Harry” (Lt Calahan aka Clint Eastwood) said to his Police commissioner in one of the Dirty Harry movies when the commissioner said to Callahan “Do you know who I am!!” Callahan replied “Yes Your a legend in your own mind”. This applies to you.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@RogerB said:
The OP hs mentioned this same nonsense multiple times on multiple forums. One time it's a cent, then a nickel or a SL quarter....but - happily - no silver dollars, yet!
No documents, no contemporary letters or notes, not modern authentication --- nothing but Breen's bologna and salmonella.
Guess I am still pist abut this comment from Rodger. Only an ignoramus would do this to someone else’s thread.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
"The fact that this coin was in process for five weeks shows that the coin was given special consideration.” This comment from RodgerB is complete balderdash. No way Rodger can make this claim, he was not there.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Comments
Funny, I guess you were not around in the old days when the opinions of respected numismatists (no matter what their shortcomings were actually mattered. I wonder what would happen if everyone in the room EXCEPT CAC, PCGS, and NGC agreed it was a Proof. Would it be a Proof? Many would say no. Then Roger discovers a letter from the Director of the Mint stating that several PROOFS of various denominations were struck in 1917 and their distribution. Would it be a Proof then or would the three I mentioned hold out to save "face."
In the end, absent proof, the coin will stand on its own merits.
There is a reason that period is referred to as the "old days." Those days are dead. The coin should stand on its own merits, but we all know it is all a game of plastic and sticker these days.
People sometimes overlook the obvious and believe they see what they want to see. Look at this 1917 business strike's surfaces and rims, and you see how a non-expert might think it an MPL and how an expert can be fooled at a glance with just a little tooling or sharpening. 1917 MS coins are one of my all time favorite dates in the series for the quality of the coins.
NGC, PCGS and now CAC do in fact hold that much power. the others "in the room" can persuade them to change their opinion on certain things but those three really go a long way towards legitimizing or authenticating most spurious Numismatic items. that works both ways, saying something is what it was thought not to be, saying something isn't what it was thought to be. that is how it should be if you pay attention to who is on the staff at a company like PCGS, their board of experts. I also presume that they know who is who and have some sort of working relationship with EVERYONE who might be considered, consultants if you will.
so yes, Cameonut would seem to be correct here because NGC, PCGS and now CAC tend to comprise the best Numismatic minds available.
--- true story: I came into ownership or an HK-2 US Semi-Centennial medal maybe around 2003-4. it had the date obliterated and appeared to have had something done to the rim. I sent it to NGC for authentication and they returned it with "unable to establish authenticity" written on the tag. sometimes even the experts can't sort things out and I thought it was decent of NGC to state that. it would have been easy to say "Not Genuine" but they weren't sure and admitted as much.
In the areas I collect, I strongly disagree with major TPG's on (not just our host)
So no, the TPG's aren't 100% reliable or consistent when it comes to OPINIONS, which is what we have going on with the 1917. I haven't heard any reliable source (taken in full context) that would lead me to believe any 1917 MPL was ever produced.
As long as opinions have names attached I wouldn't need a buy back guarantee
?
I can see this exchange now:
EXPERT DEALER: We believe this to be one of the rare, fabled 1917 matte proof Lincoln cents... It has all of the diagnostics of a proof...
COLLECTOR: Great. How much would you offer for it?
-- Crickets --
COLLECTOR: You would be interested in owning such rare numismatic item?
EXPERT DEALER: It's not for us.
I see your point but that just means this expert dealer really cannot stand behind his opinion then right ? Even though this particular coin is damaged it is still going to be a wanted item especially if original 1977 holder is included.
I don't think offering an opinion morally binds someone to buy it. Plenty of experts and dealers are routinely asked for opinions, but that doesn't mean that they want the item. I also wouldn't expect them to do so. That's why having it in top TPGS plastic (and preferably with a sticker) matters in terms of liquidity and authentication alone.
You have my info as to who the Authenticators were that called it a Proof. It was not graded because ANACS did not offer grading in 1977.
I didn't see that; sorry. How much weight do you think they gave to Breen's opinion on 1917 MPL?
Next time I am in the Springs I could look at the old log book and see if there are any notes about if it went to a consultant. However, I suspect that such notes were made on the original submission form, which were filed after the coin was returned and may no longer exist.
Bruce Vogel / seymourwampum.com.... ****had copies of all the Mint documentation he personally located at NARA Pennsylvania and College Park Maryland RG104 pertaining to this subject, on his website.
****I just now looked at the website, and it appears he is rebuilding and upgrading it again, to further add information.
Synopsis of events documented:
from memory...
*October 1916 proof coinage to cease.
*Early November 1916, DM requested that any further special strikings, be reported directly to the DM and not reported
on the coiners records, referred to as the " Special Lot ".
*Hermon A MacNeil requested and paid for 2 complete sets in correspondence, and request fulfilled by the Mint.
*Somewhere in this timeline the DM requested an unused press be moved to the Assayers office, not sure why.
I have spoken with Bruce Vogel several times, over the past several years on this controversial subject.
He told me to look at 1909 and not 1916 concerning my coin, which I was not, just 1916.
R.I.P Son 1986>2020
The 1917 cent shown above is quite interesting. Guess I would at least call in an “MPL” or Matte Proof-Like!
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Maybe a better moniker for this coin would be a “specimen strike” rather than a proof since it was within the boundary of 1917 - 1935 -- the clandestine years -- when proof were supposedly not authorized. The rims on my 1917 buffalo nickel shown above were sharp and squared with the “third side” of the coin fully brilliant, just as you would expect on a proof.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I can't decide. I personally think that whoever is the best of the best concerning proof coinage or status should render an opinion.
This is something that should be done. It will eliminate all the debris flying around in here.
Pete
I would be interested in knowing who the ANACS graders were and their reasoning. Specifically, I am curious if Breen played a role in their decision making especially given his reputation as an authority at the time.
Since Anacs gave their opinion in 1977 and Breen in 1988, it might be the other way around.
If it looks like a proof, walks like a proof, and quacks like a proof it may well be a proof.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Maybe one of Walter’s other endeavors
This is from California
(a circulated matte proof for sure!)
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Does anyone have a copy of his 1977 book lying around? What does it say about the putative 1917 MPL coinage?
Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins New York: Doubleday, 1988.
Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins, 1722- 1977 New York: Arco Pub./F.C.I. Press, 1977
Why all the secrecy about which ANACS authenticators called the coin a proof? I stand behind EVERY OPINION I pass out (you can read about one of my early mistakes in the guess the date/mint of the $20 Liberty). Always have and always will!
What secrecy? I posted their names.
We have other experts opining that it doesn't "walk" or "quack" like a proof.
Sorry, I still cannot find it in the thread and figured you told him in a PM.
The only thing I will add about 1917 proofs is the only people I have ever met who really believed in them are the people who started out really wanting to believe in them. Not objective in the least but they stand on the “you can’t prove they aren’t out there”
The same effect happens with aliens, ghosts, religion or Ménage à trois. I concede it is more fun to believe but their accounts rarely pass scrutiny and evidence is almost none existent.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
On the first page Tom said the John Hunter and Ed Fleischmann issued the certificare
Does anyone have a copy of his 1977 book lying around? What does it say about the putative 1917 MPL coinage
SET. Ex Ira Reed in 1930's, to a collector in Philadelphia who stopped in 1942, and whose holdings were sold in early 1976 to Joel Rettew. The set has been broken up. No duplicate reported.
prior to that he has a write-up about each denomination describing what he has either seen himself or been told others have seen.
one Cent.
two Nickels.
no Dime verified to date.
two T1 Quarters.
two Half-Dollars seen.
remember its all salmonella and bologna, this 1917 proof stuff it is, it is!!
(see RodgerB’s two posts on page one)
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Since this 1917 Lincoln cent has an anacs certificate then as per ebay policy it can be listed on eBay in excess value of
$2500, just like NGC and PCGS and ICG and ANACS(slabs).
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
This kind of reminds me of the 1910 VDB.
But, I would like to see some good pics of an alleged 1917 MPL.
Weren't the dies in 1916 all new? Could a 1916 die be used on 1917 year coins? Early dies would possibly make the 1917 just a very nice MS coin?
robec2 said above “ 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.” Yes, and there are no mint records of any 1913 liberty head nickels being produced either!!
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Relying slavishly on mint records is a mistake.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Tech and analysis is so much better today, if someone would, come forward with one of these for analysis. Kevin Flynn and Stewart Blay state the one they saw under 60x showed tooling. These two know as much about Lincolns and the properties of copper as anyone. If the same coin, then I need to know nothing else. If there is another one, I need to see clear photographic images or better - the coin in hand.
Interesting to reconnect with this thread. I think it significant to know what was happening at the Mint in 1916. At that time the employees probably did not know that production of proofs would be discontinued. And special proof dies had already been produced for 1917. But in 1917 proof production ceased and rather than wasting the special dies for proofs, they were used on production coins but without special planchetts.
I think the differentiating aspect would be the matte proof finish versus the finish for the business strikes. If the 1917 coins do not have a matte proof finish, they are not to be considered genuine proof coins from that era. Perhaps someone who has seen the proposed coins in hand can comment on the finish in the fields of the coin.
OINK
I heard said. It’s the intent of the coiner that denotes a proof status or not, regardless of the coins quality or attributes.
For me, this is the best thread of the weekend. Lots to learn here. Thanks everyone.
I will comment on my coin pictured above, on this page.
If you happen to have Kevin Flynn's Matte proof book, my coin looks very close to the 1912 and 1914 pictured.
It is a delicate frosty brown, I'm going to call it satin, to me it looks like the face of the rims are sandblasted also.,,
Hand sandblasted after.... a sandblasted die striking ???
Fine die polish lines, flat fields to rim.
I don't have any good glamour shots of the coin, that do it justice. let me see if I can do better.
Here's some older shots.
R.I.P Son 1986>2020
rosco -- is your coin pictured above the one in the ANACS certificate I used to start this thread??
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
To my knowledge, no sir.
I sure would like to see some LARGER pictures
of the OP coin though....
R.I.P Son 1986>2020
If I owned the coin, I'd check the reverse dies of certified 1916 Proof cents. There are cases where reverse dies (w/o a date) are carried over to the following year. If a match were found, that would really fire up opinions.
That is an excellent suggestion!
Pete
An excellent suggestion!
Doug Mudd was kind enough to send me a scan of the log book. Unfortunately, as I expected, it did not say much. The log book was basically just a record of what was received and when, the number(s) assigned to it/them, the name of the submitter, the declared value and the amount of fee paid, and, when it was sent back, a check mark to show that it had indeed been sent back.
The useful notes on what the findings were and what consultants it went to would have been noted on the submission form. Those were filed in numerical order, and are either in dead storage or long gone. When referring back to a coin that you did not know the number of, it was easier to skim through the log book to get the number rather than to look through the submission forms one after the other.
That said, the owner's declared value of $500 shows that the submitter did not send it in as a common 1917 cent.
The date received of Sept. 29, 1977 is significant when you compare it to the date that the certificate was typed up, Nov. 2nd. When I started at ANACS in November of 1978 the common submissions (1909-SVDB cents, 1916-D dimes) were being turned around in about one week. The fact that this coin was in process for five weeks shows that the coin was given special consideration. It was not certified as a Proof without them taking the time to think about it.
TD
RE: "The fact that this coin was in process for five weeks shows that the coin was given special consideration. It was not certified as a Proof without them taking the time to think about it."
Yep. Forty years ago and huge amounts of knowledge accumulated since. Even the most basic information, such as the date in 1916 when proofs were discontinued on recommendation of the Superintendent, were unknown in 1977.
There were, and remain, no 1917 "proof" coins of any denomination.
Sorry Rodger, for example I saw a 1917 matte proof type one standing liberty quarter at a coin show here in Ohio many years ago, in a SEGS proof-63 holder. This monster carried its own credentials. It was a matte proof no doubt and no matter what you think or say.. You can howl and scowl all you want but that does not change the fact that there are some 1917 proof coins!! You can bray and bleat to the full moon all night but these coins are real!! True there will never be any in NGC or PCGS holders but they exist. Deal with it!!
PS. Rodger, as "Dirty Harry” (Lt Calahan aka Clint Eastwood) said to his Police commissioner in one of the Dirty Harry movies when the commissioner said to Callahan “Do you know who I am!!” Callahan replied “Yes Your a legend in your own mind”. This applies to you.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Oh yes, Rodger, and one more thing.........
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Guess I am still pist abut this comment from Rodger. Only an ignoramus would do this to someone else’s thread.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
"The fact that this coin was in process for five weeks shows that the coin was given special consideration.” This comment from RodgerB is complete balderdash. No way Rodger can make this claim, he was not there.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"