Makes me curious also. I helped certify one 1917 Matte Proof Lincoln and on 1917 Matte Proof nickel at various times at various TPGS. I don't know where they are today. Furthermore, if in hand today, there is a slim possibility I might change my opinion on the cent based on what I have read here; however, I will never change my opinion on the 1917 Proof nickel.
@BUFFNIXX said:
"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.
That was MY statement. Go back and read what I said!
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.
What I don't understand is getting one's pride in the way. Love many of the things that Roger has done and contributed, however as a scientist just can not align myself with some of his logic on this issue.
That a record does not exist obviously is not evidence that a coin or coins may not exist.
That he has not seen a particular coin does not mean it may not exist.
That other experts have declared one or another as NOT being a particular coin, does not mean some other coin does not per se exist, nor even that the coin so declared may itself not be legitimately disputed.
So in fact it may be that there are no 1917 proofs, but an open mind is helpful in at least considering possibilities that they may exist. If he were to say he does not accept those specimens he has seen would be fine, just expressing an opinion.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
@BUFFNIXX said:
"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.
@BUFFNIXX said:
"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.
The burden of proof is on the person attempting to legitimize the coin and cause it to gain widespread acceptance. No modern certification service has legitimated it (old ANACS is dead).
Other than Walter Breen's opinions (which are sketchy) which may or may not have influenced the graders at ANACS during an era before many of his sketchiest claims came to light, what other evidence do you have? How do you explain the evidence of tooling? Also as pointed out, 1917 Philadelphia issues often come with hammered strikes.
Before I accept even the claims of tooling, I want photomicrographs and with a coin such as this even SEM which will show any raised or recessed areas as well as even the individual characteristics of each apparent defect.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
@BUFFNIXX said:
"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.
The burden of proof is on the person attempting to legitimize the coin and cause it to gain widespread acceptance. No modern certification service has legitimated it (old ANACS is dead).
Other than Walter Breen's opinions (which are sketchy) which may or may not have influenced the graders at ANACS during an era before many of his sketchiest claims came to light, what other evidence do you have? How do you explain the evidence of tooling? Also as pointed out, 1917 Philadelphia issues often come with hammered strikes.
I was not trying to legitimize this coin, just to point out to collectors that at least on this one occasion ANACS did certify a 1917 Lincoln cent as a matte proof. I just thought the letter together with the cert were interesting. And again I do not own the coin. In fact I do not know the owner, who approached me thru eBay with this information. He shared the photos with me and asked me to start a thread here on eBay for him, which I did
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Whether one likes it or not this coin could be listed on eBay for a price in excess of $2500 since it has anacs certification.
Only ANACS, ICG, PCGS, NGC can do this. ABACS certification can be either a photo cert or a slabbed coin.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I'm going back to Tom's original comment: @CaptHenway said: "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."
At one time, shortly after ANACS was established and until shortly before it was moved to CO, I worked as an authenticator there. I had nothing to do with this particular opinion. However, as I've posted, I have certified two 1917 coins as Proofs.
I'll add this:
One of the major reasons that the ANA picked DC as the location for ANACS was its proximity to the Mint's Department of Technology, the National Coin Collection, and the ANS. IMO, an unfortunate political decision was made to move the location. Without access to the Mint Lab to back up their decision...
I have no comments to make about the ability of the CO staff in 1977. I will say (IMO) that the group of authenticators at ANACS reached their zenith right before Rick left for PCGS. The best folks for the job NEVER saw the coin.
Five weeks to authenticate some coins is nothing. The important consideration was to get it right so that the opinion could not be refuted. Even in the DC location, some coins were held for much longer. Things were much different back then. We were not forced to spit coins out based on our experience as a successful coin dealer eyeballing coins at 10X or less. We also dumped a bunch of consultants as we found their opinion was often not reliable.
Finally, much has been learned in the ensuing 40+ years. I've seen "hammered" 1919 and 1920 Lincoln cents that I would swear were carefully made (word of the decade: Specimen). So does a true 1917 cent exist that would pass scrutiny by on of the modern TPGS? One day we may find out. For now, IMO, there is a lot of "crap" out there with "papers."
Roger can obviously defend himself, but if you look at what is provable today, in 101 years,
-There is no paper trail evidence of their manufacture.
-The top experts, given tech in 1977, rendered an opinion that one coin was at proof (after 5 weeks when they couldn't agree that it was a proof)
-Neither PCGS or NGC has certified one (c'mon, you know if would be worth more in their holders)
-No one has subjected said coin or any other coin to today's technology and proven there is a proof.
I would love for someone to come forward with one to send to PCGS for testing. I'm not saying they are coin gods, but they have access to the equipment needed to better assess the coin.
As an aside, I have a coin right now that has been subjected to testing and proven to be copper-nickel by PCGS themselves, but they won't recognize it as such or put it in a special category other than standard issue.
@DMWJR said: "The top experts, given tech in 1977, rendered an opinion that one coin was at proof (after 5 weeks when they couldn't agree that it was a proof).
This part of you post demonstrates that you have no idea of what took place at an authentication service PRIOR TO 1986 when VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING WAS CHANGED by the professional coin dealers who got into the authentication business! In the old days:
The fact that a coin was held for a certain period of time is not relevant. It signifies nothing EXCEPT the service was not ready to make a decision. At first sight, both of the authenticators may have been 100% sure the coin was a proof yet they were not ready to issue a cert without additional study. Sometimes, coins are held for several weeks to study without seeking the opinion of anyone, Example: State-of-the-Art 1857 $3 counterfeit that major dealers were buying/selling as genuine and refuted our opinion that they were fakes!
Nothing was "official" until the coin was certified and returned. Once the dead weight consultants were no longer used and the professional authenticators (using stereo microscopes, knowledgeable consultants, and comparison coins in order to prove the consultants were correct) rendered an opinion - that was the best you could get.
On just a very few occasions, an error was still made. Example: The first Buffalo nickel "embossed mintmark" alteration seen.
Bottom line: This Lincoln may not be a Proof, or it may be.
I don't need to demonstrate my lack knowledge in the grading room in 1977. I was 10, you old fart. I do know what is available now that wasn't back then technology wise. Were the TPG's and/or authenticators authenticating Morgan dollar "mirco O's" in 1977 through 1988? How many did you authenticate? I think even PCGS was authenticating them right up to 2005 even after vammers figured it out (yes, I was a vammer in late nineties and early aughts, lol)
I was merely pointing out that just because they spent five weeks with the coin, doesn't mean they were correct. People on this thread seem to imply that since they took five weeks to get it right, it must be right. I think that is an incorrect inference. I don't think you can draw any inference from the five weeks except for whatever reason there was not an agreement that the coin was legit, or maybe someone was just on a long vacation. I think your point is really the same as mine.
@DMWJR said:
I don't need to demonstrate my lack knowledge in the grading room in 1977. I was 10, you old fart. I do know what is available now that wasn't back then technology wise. Were the TPG's and/or authenticators authenticating Morgan dollar "mirco O's" in 1977 through 1988? How many did you authenticate? I think even PCGS was authenticating them right up to 2005 even after vammers figured it out (yes, I was a vammer in late nineties and early aughts, lol)
I was merely pointing out that just because they spent five weeks with the coin, doesn't mean they were correct. People on this thread seem to imply that since they took five weeks to get it right, it must be right. I think that is an incorrect inference. I don't think you can draw any inference from the five weeks except for whatever reason there was not an agreement that the coin was legit, or maybe someone was just on a long vacation. I think your point is really the same as mine.
Or maybe they sent it out to a consultant like Breen.
@7Jaguars said:
Before I accept even the claims of tooling, I want photomicrographs and with a coin such as this even SEM which will show any raised or recessed areas as well as even the individual characteristics of each apparent defect.
Who uses a scanning electron microscope on a coin? That is a bit far fetched. An examination with a normal stereo-microscope is sufficient.
@7Jaguars said:
Before I accept even the claims of tooling, I want photomicrographs and with a coin such as this even SEM which will show any raised or recessed areas as well as even the individual characteristics of each apparent defect.
Who uses a scanning electron microscope on a coin? That is a bit far fetched. An examination with a normal stereo-microscope is sufficient.
@DMWJR said:
I don't need to demonstrate my lack knowledge in the grading room in 1977. I was 10, you old fart. I do know what is available now that wasn't back then technology wise. Were the TPG's and/or authenticators authenticating Morgan dollar "mirco O's" in 1977 through 1988? How many did you authenticate? I think even PCGS was authenticating them right up to 2005 even after vammers figured it out (yes, I was a vammer in late nineties and early aughts, lol)
I was merely pointing out that just because they spent five weeks with the coin, doesn't mean they were correct. People on this thread seem to imply that since they took five weeks to get it right, it must be right. I think that is an incorrect inference. I don't think you can draw any inference from the five weeks except for whatever reason there was not an agreement that the coin was legit, or maybe someone was just on a long vacation. I think your point is really the same as mine.
I sure wish people would READ what I write.
I have previously said that, not having seen the coin myself, I am more inclined to believe what Rick Snow says than what the 1977 certificate says. This still stands, regardless of the fact that ANACS had the coin in process for five weeks.
At one point I said that I would try to access the log book entry to see if it said anything about who the coin might have been sent to as a consultant. When I obtained a scan of the log book entry, I reported that it did in fact say nothing about consultants. This was what I expected, but I was trying to be thorough.
I made note of the FACT that the owner's declared value was $500, which INDICATED that the coin was not submitted as a common business strike 1917 cent
I made a note of the FACT that the coin was received on Sept. 29 and its certificate was typed up on Nov. 2, which INDICATES that the coin received due deliberation before a decision was made. It does not prove that the decision was correct.
It has been mentioned in various places at various times that the Washington, D.C. incarnation of ANACS accidentally certified a 1959 wheat back cent (I have seen it independently of ANACS, and in my opinion it was altered) as genuine because it was submitted as a common coin and nobody at ANACS at the time made the connection between the date and the anachronistic reverse. Stuff happens.
Certification and/or grading services do receive common coins now and then because some submitters literally do not know what they are doing. Such coins are typically given a cursory examination and certified for what they are. I mentioned the five-week turn-around at a time when a one-week turn-around was normal as an INDICATION that the 1917 cent was not regarded lightly. The decision, right or wrong, was the considered opinion of experts in the field at the time, and remains a part of the history of the coin.
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.
@7Jaguars said:
Before I accept even the claims of tooling, I want photomicrographs and with a coin such as this even SEM which will show any raised or recessed areas as well as even the individual characteristics of each apparent defect.
Who uses a scanning electron microscope on a coin? That is a bit far fetched. An examination with a normal stereo-microscope is sufficient.
It use to be but...I wish I had access to one.
During my time at ANACS in Colorado Springs we did have access to a Scanning Electron Microscope over at the Colorado College, but we had to pay to use it (I think the fee was $100 but I am not sure) and we generally only used it for elemental analysis (one example was the bogus Yoachum dollars, which turned out to be almost perfect sterling silver with negligable trace elements).
Not having the original submission form, I do not know if it was used on the 1917 cent, but I highly doubt it. I am familiar with Ed Fleischmann's microscope setup, and he had adapters that could give him 60X magnification. You can see damn near everything at that power. Had the coin been tooled, Ed would have caught 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.
@DMWJR said: "I don't need to demonstrate my lack knowledge in the grading room in 1977. I was 10, you old fart."
Guilty as charged! I stand by my disagreement with one part of your post that I highlighted.
"I do know what is available now that wasn't back then technology wise."
Technology wise? And what exactly would that be. Please let us know what technological tool you believe was not around in 1977 that would be of any use for today's authenticators?
"Were the TPG's and/or authenticators authenticating Morgan dollar "mirco O's" in 1977 through 1988? How many did you authenticate?"
First of all you have your dates all wrong. Micro "O" dollars were known at the turn of the century and were STILL BEING AUTHENTICATED BY THE THREE MAJOR TPGS's OVER A DECADE AFTER 1988.
Second of all, I began authenticating coins professionally in 1972; however, I NEVER SAW one of those particular fakes UNTIL around 1992 or 1993 while authenticating coins at PCI in TN. Furthermore, I condemned that coin (AU+ condition) immediately as a COUNTERFEIT! Under my microscope it looked like a POS that was only a slightly better POS than the 1896-P counterfeit published in the Numismatist Magazine years before! Both coins were microscopically granular and looked nothing like a genuine coin. IMHO, the only reason no authenticator at a major service had detected these fakes previously is because most were low grade. That's because they had circulated for over half a century! Unfortunately, the PCI office manager sent the coin to one of the Morgan dollar "Experts" for a second opinion. He declared the coin 100% genuine. LOL! My opinion was ignored.
BTW, when I was hired by NGC, they stopped slabbing these fakes. That was at least 3-4 years before the other TPGS's followed our lead. Many more die combinations have been discovered. It is an interesting chapter in numismatics. Thanks for bring them up in the thread.
I think even PCGS was authenticating them right up to 2005 even after vammers figured it out (yes, I was a vammer in late nineties and early aughts, lol)
Oops, I guess you did get one of the dates correct after all. My apologies. PS. what's the name of the Vammer who "discovered" these fakes several years after I did? I'd like to compare notes. I got my reward decades afterward when everyone finally got on the bandwagon. The PCI grader I worked with back in 1990 called to tell me he always believed my opinion had been correct.
I was merely pointing out that just because they spent five weeks with the coin, doesn't mean they were correct.
People on this thread seem to imply that since they took five weeks to get it right, it must be right. I think that is an incorrect inference. I don't think you can draw any inference from the five weeks except for whatever reason there was not an agreement that the coin was legit, or maybe someone was just on a long vacation. I think your point is really the same as mine.
Then we can agree: The time spent authenticating a coin means nothing.
@CaptHenway said:
I sure wish people would READ what I write.
I'm sorry. It was partially my fault. Sometimes I'll open a thread in a new tab and forget about it, so once it is reopened it is no longer the first post when I reopen the thread.
Thank you for all of your research and help in this matter.
TD, I do read what you write and I agree with you. I highly respect Rick, also Stewart and Kevin, when it comes to this sort of thing, and give it the most weight of anything on this thread.
On another note there have been many contemporary counterfeits revealed in the last decade. There is no question we have gotten better as a group over the last 40 years identifying them.
Wow! I thought this thread would have died by now.
Since it hasn't, I figured I could come out of hibernation and post a couple of pics.
Before the pics, a few comments:
I own this Buffalo.
I acquired it housed in the NGC holder shown in the pic.
It came with the lot tag and auction listing from Superior Galleries, July 1986.
I am not qualified to determine whether or not this Buffalo is a matte proof.
I enjoy the discussions on the topic of 1917 matte proofs.
I enjoy owning a coin that is a subject of such lively discussion.
I made the comment about SEMs because I am not sure that the marks supposedly ascertained by previous posters as PMD are really such - that would be a slam dunk method of confirmation or refutation. As this coin is one with much speculation about it, I was stating an obvious diagnostic machine.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
@7Jaguars said: "I made the comment about SEMs because I am not sure that the marks supposedly ascertained by previous posters as PMD are really such - that would be a slam dunk method of confirmation or refutation. As this coin is one with much speculation about it, I was stating an obvious diagnostic machine."
IMHO, any knowledgeable numismatist with good light and a 10X - 16X could ID the marks the other members spoke of with 100% certainty. Meanwhile, any knowledgeable numismatist familiar with what coins look like using a stereomicroscope set at 7X could do the same thing in less than eight seconds.
In my limited experience over the years, it has only been necessary on one occasion to authenticate a coin using a SEM. The other dozen or so times one was used was to view a surface.
In the 1980's I told my students that "the days of the hand lens for coin authentication are over!" IMO, in another decade or two MAX, the days of the stereomicroscope for coin authentication will also be over. The surfaces of many state-of-the-art die-struck counterfeits are already too good!
I'll be dead in a few years so I'll leave you all with this suggestion. One of the top two services better put a fellow on an SEM FULL TIME examining the surfaces of genuine and counterfeit coins. Otherwise, you are going to be in heap big trouble and I'll be laughing in my grave!
Hard for me to believe that a Matte Proof Buffalo with such a small mintage ( what is 2 or 3 suspected) would have a die crack. Maybe the other MPB’s also have them. I’ve just not see any.
There are anecdotal reports of a die cracking before it struck its first coin.
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.
@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.
If you can stomach your way thru my photos...
Here is 3 or 4 of each area, of my reverse.
@EagleEye said:
I was shown it at a show about 8 years ago. I confirmed that it was the same coin in the certificate. It also had a slightly smaller diameter than a normal cent. This is due to the post-strike compression of the rim.
So do you think this was done to "simulate" a proof?
@robec said: "If Walter Breen says so it must be true."
I get sick when "Johnny-come-lately" collectors, dealers, and assorted coin "ex-perts" blast Breen. He is of a different time. We stand on his shoulders and those of all researchers who came before us. Most of the knowledge of many famous numismatists has been eclipsed as their work has been expanded and corrected. That is the way of science.
Yay, after almost 60 years of collecting I finally made the "Johnny-come-lately" club. I love how you assign labels to those that don't share or agree with your opinion......nice touch.
@BlackDiamond said:
Wow! I thought this thread would have died by now.
Since it hasn't, I figured I could come out of hibernation and post a couple of pics.
Before the pics, a few comments:
I own this Buffalo.
I acquired it housed in the NGC holder shown in the pic.
It came with the lot tag and auction listing from Superior Galleries, July 1986.
I am not qualified to determine whether or not this Buffalo is a matte proof.
I enjoy the discussions on the topic of 1917 matte proofs.
I enjoy owning a coin that is a subject of such lively discussion.
Ok. Here are my pics.
This is EXACTLT what I would expect when a raw 1917 buffalo nickel is submitted to NGC (or PCGS) for certification.
Under no circumstances will it ever be called anything other than a normal business strike!!
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Just think if you were the proud owner of a complete set of proof buffalo nickels from 1913 to 1937 and you woke up one morning to find out that PCGS or NGC has actually certified a 1917 buffalo nickel as proof! Then your set is incomplete!! He/she might loose interest in the set. How about the other collectors who were working on complete sets?
They may well abandon their pursuit of a complete proof set. What would PCGS/NGC get from slabbing a coin like this? A few tens of dollars for the slabbing fee and endless controversies.?? I could see a bunch of other threads like this about that coin and most would probably be negative. NGC vs. PCGS and infinitum. For these reasons it will never happen!!
In a similar way I bet a few collectors abandoned the idea of forming a complete set of Barber dimes because they could not afford let alone find an available specimen of the 1894s or which only 24 were struck.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Rosco thank you for the last set of photos of the 1917. From the photos, I don't see anything compelling me to believe it is a 1917 proof cent vs. a 1917 production example. Please send it in for authentication with either TPG. BS coins were really well made that year. Compare with the one below. Click it to blow it up
@DMWJR said:
Rosco thank you for the last set of photos of the 1917. From the photos, I don't see anything compelling me to believe it is a 1917 proof cent vs. a 1917 production example. Please send it in for authentication with either TPG. BS coins were really well made that year. Compare with the one below. Click it to blow it up
I agree. There is nothing about Rosco's coin that would make me think it is a Proof.
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.
I also agree with BUFFNIXX on the Auction '87 coin.
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.
@DMWJR said:
Rosco thank you for the last set of photos of the 1917. From the photos, I don't see anything compelling me to believe it is a 1917 proof cent vs. a 1917 production example. Please send it in for authentication with either TPG. BS coins were really well made that year. Compare with the one below. Click it to blow it up
I agree. There is nothing about Rosco's coin that would make me think it is a Proof.
Your welcome...
And thank you...
I was trying to use / interpret correctly, Flynn and Albrecht diagnostic(s) verbiage and pictures, for scratches and die anomalies.
Robec posted a "Gorgeous" 1916 PF/PR on the Registry side ( bottom of page 4 ) , " Post your toned Lincolns"
that I was looking very closely at, along with yours posted above, and internet searches of other coins.
Again...trying to interpret correct die markers, and what would be Master die / Hub anomalies
@EagleEye said:
I was shown it at a show about 8 years ago. I confirmed that it was the same coin in the certificate. It also had a slightly smaller diameter than a normal cent. This is due to the post-strike compression of the rim.
So do you think this was done to "simulate" a proof?
My conclusion was that the coin was removed from a "Keep me and never go broke" type encasement. The act of stamping the coin into the encasement made the rim squared and made the edge sharper. The field was slightly buckled. It was super sharp and you could see why it was thought to be special.
Curious why no close up images are being presented, since the coin is not hidden.
RE: " '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."
The quote was from TD's post based on his reading of ANACS logs, the OP would know that if he had read TD's comments.
As for the coin being in ANACS possession longer than normal, it might be due to special consideration, or other, inconsequential delay - we'll never know. But, it does not matter. Proof coinage was discontinued in October, 1916. Here is an excerpt from RAC 1916-21:
Collector complaints and the additional burden of proof coin production pointed to the demise of collectors’ coins. On October 17, Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Adam Joyce effectively drove the last nail in the coffin of proof coins when he wrote to the director:
The issue of the silver coins of the new designs will complete the series of changes in the coin designs. The ground of all these designs is uneven, which makes it impossible to produce proof coins which are distinctive from the regular coins made on the coining presses from new dies, the only difference between the proofs and the regular coins being the sharper edge and design.
Formerly the full set of proofs was made in January or February and orders filled when received, but since the manner of manufacturer and issuing the proofs has been changed so that some of the denominations may not be issued until late in the year (we are only allowed to make each denomination after the regular coins for circulation have been is-sued) great dissatisfaction has been shown by persons desiring these proofs and a seemingly unnecessary amount of correspondence entailed on this office, returning orders and answering complaints.
In order to distinguish gold proofs from the regular issue, it has been necessary to give them a sandblast finish, which changes the appearance of the coins to such an extent that it is almost impossible to put them in circulation. This is something I am not sure we have a right to do.
The extra charge for the silver and minor proof coins, 5¢, does not cover the cost of manufacture.
I would, therefore, suggest for your consideration the advisability of ceasing the manufacture of proof coins.
It didn’t take von Engelken long to make a decision – the mint was losing money on each proof coin made, collectors were complaining, and paperwork had become a nuisance. Rather than look for ways to correct problems, the director decided to eliminate all proof coins. His terse order of October 18 ended nearly sixty years of continuous issuance of proofs for purchase by ordinary collectors. Across the spectrum of coin collectors, from railroad magnate Robert Garrett’s almost unlimited budget, to hobbyist Giles R. Anderson’s modest annual expense of 25¢ for two minor proof sets, the collectors’ coins were no more.
I am in receipt of your letter of October 17th. Effective at once, you will please discontinue the manufacture of proof coins.
Von Engelken’s last letter to Henry Chapman was in reply to a complaint Chapman had sent President Wilson:
_Your letter of the 11th instant, addressed to the President, has been referred to this office.
Replying, you are advised that it has been determined to manufacture no more proof coins. It is hoped that this order will not work a hardship on collectors, as all denominations of coins executed in the Mints will be available for those who wish to add to their collections from year to year_.
To Rodger Burdette.
Sorry for my error as noted below which I acknowledge
(The quote was from TD's post based on his reading of ANACS logs, the OP would know that if he had read TD's comments.))
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
There are some extremely nice, well detailed 1917 coins in the Mitchelson collection (which I have examined) and elsewhere. But no proof coins of any denomination were made in 1917. Claims to the contrary rest on a 40-year old attribution for which there is no documentation, and the discredited attribution of Walter Breen. Neither the OP nor anyone else has offered facts to support their claims nor to refute the October 1916 order. All they rely on is puffery and an excess of hot air.
If new data is one day discovered, then the issue should be revisited using modern research methodology.
Comments
Makes me curious also. I helped certify one 1917 Matte Proof Lincoln and on 1917 Matte Proof nickel at various times at various TPGS. I don't know where they are today. Furthermore, if in hand today, there is a slim possibility I might change my opinion on the cent based on what I have read here; however, I will never change my opinion on the 1917 Proof nickel.
Indeed!
Tom DL
That was MY statement. Go back and read what I said!
What I don't understand is getting one's pride in the way. Love many of the things that Roger has done and contributed, however as a scientist just can not align myself with some of his logic on this issue.
That a record does not exist obviously is not evidence that a coin or coins may not exist.
That he has not seen a particular coin does not mean it may not exist.
That other experts have declared one or another as NOT being a particular coin, does not mean some other coin does not per se exist, nor even that the coin so declared may itself not be legitimately disputed.
So in fact it may be that there are no 1917 proofs, but an open mind is helpful in at least considering possibilities that they may exist. If he were to say he does not accept those specimens he has seen would be fine, just expressing an opinion.
Well, just Love coins, period.
...I want some of what your smoking please
The burden of proof is on the person attempting to legitimize the coin and cause it to gain widespread acceptance. No modern certification service has legitimated it (old ANACS is dead).
Other than Walter Breen's opinions (which are sketchy) which may or may not have influenced the graders at ANACS during an era before many of his sketchiest claims came to light, what other evidence do you have? How do you explain the evidence of tooling? Also as pointed out, 1917 Philadelphia issues often come with hammered strikes.
Before I accept even the claims of tooling, I want photomicrographs and with a coin such as this even SEM which will show any raised or recessed areas as well as even the individual characteristics of each apparent defect.
Well, just Love coins, period.
I was not trying to legitimize this coin, just to point out to collectors that at least on this one occasion ANACS did certify a 1917 Lincoln cent as a matte proof. I just thought the letter together with the cert were interesting. And again I do not own the coin. In fact I do not know the owner, who approached me thru eBay with this information. He shared the photos with me and asked me to start a thread here on eBay for him, which I did
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Whether one likes it or not this coin could be listed on eBay for a price in excess of $2500 since it has anacs certification.
Only ANACS, ICG, PCGS, NGC can do this. ABACS certification can be either a photo cert or a slabbed coin.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I'm going back to Tom's original comment: @CaptHenway said: "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."
At one time, shortly after ANACS was established and until shortly before it was moved to CO, I worked as an authenticator there. I had nothing to do with this particular opinion. However, as I've posted, I have certified two 1917 coins as Proofs.
I'll add this:
One of the major reasons that the ANA picked DC as the location for ANACS was its proximity to the Mint's Department of Technology, the National Coin Collection, and the ANS. IMO, an unfortunate political decision was made to move the location. Without access to the Mint Lab to back up their decision...
I have no comments to make about the ability of the CO staff in 1977. I will say (IMO) that the group of authenticators at ANACS reached their zenith right before Rick left for PCGS. The best folks for the job NEVER saw the coin.
Five weeks to authenticate some coins is nothing. The important consideration was to get it right so that the opinion could not be refuted. Even in the DC location, some coins were held for much longer. Things were much different back then. We were not forced to spit coins out based on our experience as a successful coin dealer eyeballing coins at 10X or less. We also dumped a bunch of consultants as we found their opinion was often not reliable.
Finally, much has been learned in the ensuing 40+ years. I've seen "hammered" 1919 and 1920 Lincoln cents that I would swear were carefully made (word of the decade: Specimen). So does a true 1917 cent exist that would pass scrutiny by on of the modern TPGS? One day we may find out. For now, IMO, there is a lot of "crap" out there with "papers."
Roger can obviously defend himself, but if you look at what is provable today, in 101 years,
-There is no paper trail evidence of their manufacture.
-The top experts, given tech in 1977, rendered an opinion that one coin was at proof (after 5 weeks when they couldn't agree that it was a proof)
-Neither PCGS or NGC has certified one (c'mon, you know if would be worth more in their holders)
-No one has subjected said coin or any other coin to today's technology and proven there is a proof.
I would love for someone to come forward with one to send to PCGS for testing. I'm not saying they are coin gods, but they have access to the equipment needed to better assess the coin.
As an aside, I have a coin right now that has been subjected to testing and proven to be copper-nickel by PCGS themselves, but they won't recognize it as such or put it in a special category other than standard issue.
He shared the photos with me and asked me to start a thread here on eBay for him, which I did
I clearly took a wrong turn at Alburquerqe
Smitten with DBLCs.
@DMWJR said: "The top experts, given tech in 1977, rendered an opinion that one coin was at proof (after 5 weeks when they couldn't agree that it was a proof).
This part of you post demonstrates that you have no idea of what took place at an authentication service PRIOR TO 1986 when VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING WAS CHANGED by the professional coin dealers who got into the authentication business! In the old days:
The fact that a coin was held for a certain period of time is not relevant. It signifies nothing EXCEPT the service was not ready to make a decision. At first sight, both of the authenticators may have been 100% sure the coin was a proof yet they were not ready to issue a cert without additional study. Sometimes, coins are held for several weeks to study without seeking the opinion of anyone, Example: State-of-the-Art 1857 $3 counterfeit that major dealers were buying/selling as genuine and refuted our opinion that they were fakes!
Nothing was "official" until the coin was certified and returned. Once the dead weight consultants were no longer used and the professional authenticators (using stereo microscopes, knowledgeable consultants, and comparison coins in order to prove the consultants were correct) rendered an opinion - that was the best you could get.
On just a very few occasions, an error was still made. Example: The first Buffalo nickel "embossed mintmark" alteration seen.
Bottom line: This Lincoln may not be a Proof, or it may be.
I don't need to demonstrate my lack knowledge in the grading room in 1977. I was 10, you old fart. I do know what is available now that wasn't back then technology wise. Were the TPG's and/or authenticators authenticating Morgan dollar "mirco O's" in 1977 through 1988? How many did you authenticate? I think even PCGS was authenticating them right up to 2005 even after vammers figured it out (yes, I was a vammer in late nineties and early aughts, lol)
I was merely pointing out that just because they spent five weeks with the coin, doesn't mean they were correct. People on this thread seem to imply that since they took five weeks to get it right, it must be right. I think that is an incorrect inference. I don't think you can draw any inference from the five weeks except for whatever reason there was not an agreement that the coin was legit, or maybe someone was just on a long vacation. I think your point is really the same as mine.
Or maybe they sent it out to a consultant like Breen.
Who uses a scanning electron microscope on a coin? That is a bit far fetched. An examination with a normal stereo-microscope is sufficient.
It use to be but...I wish I had access to one.
I sure wish people would READ what I write.
I have previously said that, not having seen the coin myself, I am more inclined to believe what Rick Snow says than what the 1977 certificate says. This still stands, regardless of the fact that ANACS had the coin in process for five weeks.
At one point I said that I would try to access the log book entry to see if it said anything about who the coin might have been sent to as a consultant. When I obtained a scan of the log book entry, I reported that it did in fact say nothing about consultants. This was what I expected, but I was trying to be thorough.
I made note of the FACT that the owner's declared value was $500, which INDICATED that the coin was not submitted as a common business strike 1917 cent
I made a note of the FACT that the coin was received on Sept. 29 and its certificate was typed up on Nov. 2, which INDICATES that the coin received due deliberation before a decision was made. It does not prove that the decision was correct.
It has been mentioned in various places at various times that the Washington, D.C. incarnation of ANACS accidentally certified a 1959 wheat back cent (I have seen it independently of ANACS, and in my opinion it was altered) as genuine because it was submitted as a common coin and nobody at ANACS at the time made the connection between the date and the anachronistic reverse. Stuff happens.
Certification and/or grading services do receive common coins now and then because some submitters literally do not know what they are doing. Such coins are typically given a cursory examination and certified for what they are. I mentioned the five-week turn-around at a time when a one-week turn-around was normal as an INDICATION that the 1917 cent was not regarded lightly. The decision, right or wrong, was the considered opinion of experts in the field at the time, and remains a part of the history of the coin.
TD
During my time at ANACS in Colorado Springs we did have access to a Scanning Electron Microscope over at the Colorado College, but we had to pay to use it (I think the fee was $100 but I am not sure) and we generally only used it for elemental analysis (one example was the bogus Yoachum dollars, which turned out to be almost perfect sterling silver with negligable trace elements).
Not having the original submission form, I do not know if it was used on the 1917 cent, but I highly doubt it. I am familiar with Ed Fleischmann's microscope setup, and he had adapters that could give him 60X magnification. You can see damn near everything at that power. Had the coin been tooled, Ed would have caught it.
TD
@DMWJR said: "I don't need to demonstrate my lack knowledge in the grading room in 1977. I was 10, you old fart."
Guilty as charged! I stand by my disagreement with one part of your post that I highlighted.
"I do know what is available now that wasn't back then technology wise."
Technology wise? And what exactly would that be. Please let us know what technological tool you believe was not around in 1977 that would be of any use for today's authenticators?
"Were the TPG's and/or authenticators authenticating Morgan dollar "mirco O's" in 1977 through 1988? How many did you authenticate?"
First of all you have your dates all wrong. Micro "O" dollars were known at the turn of the century and were STILL BEING AUTHENTICATED BY THE THREE MAJOR TPGS's OVER A DECADE AFTER 1988.
Second of all, I began authenticating coins professionally in 1972; however, I NEVER SAW one of those particular fakes UNTIL around 1992 or 1993 while authenticating coins at PCI in TN. Furthermore, I condemned that coin (AU+ condition) immediately as a COUNTERFEIT! Under my microscope it looked like a POS that was only a slightly better POS than the 1896-P counterfeit published in the Numismatist Magazine years before! Both coins were microscopically granular and looked nothing like a genuine coin. IMHO,
the only reason no authenticator at a major service had detected these fakes previously is because most were low grade. That's because they had circulated for over half a century! Unfortunately, the PCI office manager sent the coin to one of the Morgan dollar "Experts" for a second opinion. He declared the coin 100% genuine. LOL! My opinion was ignored.
BTW, when I was hired by NGC, they stopped slabbing these fakes. That was at least 3-4 years before the other TPGS's followed our lead. Many more die combinations have been discovered. It is an interesting chapter in numismatics. Thanks for bring them up in the thread.
I think even PCGS was authenticating them right up to 2005 even after vammers figured it out (yes, I was a vammer in late nineties and early aughts, lol)
Oops, I guess you did get one of the dates correct after all. My apologies. PS. what's the name of the Vammer who "discovered" these fakes several years after I did? I'd like to compare notes. I got my reward decades afterward when everyone finally got on the bandwagon. The PCI grader I worked with back in 1990 called to tell me he always believed my opinion had been correct.
I was merely pointing out that just because they spent five weeks with the coin, doesn't mean they were correct.
People on this thread seem to imply that since they took five weeks to get it right, it must be right. I think that is an incorrect inference. I don't think you can draw any inference from the five weeks except for whatever reason there was not an agreement that the coin was legit, or maybe someone was just on a long vacation. I think your point is really the same as mine.
Then we can agree: The time spent authenticating a coin means nothing.
I used to have a letter from Tom DeLorey. I wish I had saved that!!
I'm sorry. It was partially my fault. Sometimes I'll open a thread in a new tab and forget about it, so once it is reopened it is no longer the first post when I reopen the thread.
Thank you for all of your research and help in this matter.
I would like to own it as is. Is it for sale?
TD, I do read what you write and I agree with you. I highly respect Rick, also Stewart and Kevin, when it comes to this sort of thing, and give it the most weight of anything on this thread.
On another note there have been many contemporary counterfeits revealed in the last decade. There is no question we have gotten better as a group over the last 40 years identifying them.
Wow! I thought this thread would have died by now.
Since it hasn't, I figured I could come out of hibernation and post a couple of pics.
Before the pics, a few comments:
I own this Buffalo.
I acquired it housed in the NGC holder shown in the pic.
It came with the lot tag and auction listing from Superior Galleries, July 1986.
I am not qualified to determine whether or not this Buffalo is a matte proof.
I enjoy the discussions on the topic of 1917 matte proofs.
I enjoy owning a coin that is a subject of such lively discussion.
Ok. Here are my pics.
I made the comment about SEMs because I am not sure that the marks supposedly ascertained by previous posters as PMD are really such - that would be a slam dunk method of confirmation or refutation. As this coin is one with much speculation about it, I was stating an obvious diagnostic machine.
Well, just Love coins, period.
@BlackDiamond you made the most of your bi-monthly post! That is something else!
@7Jaguars said: "I made the comment about SEMs because I am not sure that the marks supposedly ascertained by previous posters as PMD are really such - that would be a slam dunk method of confirmation or refutation. As this coin is one with much speculation about it, I was stating an obvious diagnostic machine."
IMHO, any knowledgeable numismatist with good light and a 10X - 16X could ID the marks the other members spoke of with 100% certainty. Meanwhile, any knowledgeable numismatist familiar with what coins look like using a stereomicroscope set at 7X could do the same thing in less than eight seconds.
In my limited experience over the years, it has only been necessary on one occasion to authenticate a coin using a SEM. The other dozen or so times one was used was to view a surface.
In the 1980's I told my students that "the days of the hand lens for coin authentication are over!" IMO, in another decade or two MAX, the days of the stereomicroscope for coin authentication will also be over. The surfaces of many state-of-the-art die-struck counterfeits are already too good!
I'll be dead
in a few years so I'll leave you all with this suggestion. One of the top two services better put a fellow on an SEM FULL TIME examining the surfaces of genuine and counterfeit coins. Otherwise, you are going to be in heap big trouble and I'll be laughing in my grave! 
Hard for me to believe that a Matte Proof Buffalo with such a small mintage ( what is 2 or 3 suspected) would have a die crack. Maybe the other MPB’s also have them. I’ve just not see any.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
There are anecdotal reports of a die cracking before it struck its first coin.
Did they use those dies or discard them when actual minting started.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
Rather be standing on his shoulders than kneel... Well, never mind.
If you can stomach your way thru my photos...
Here is 3 or 4 of each area, of my reverse.
R.I.P Son 1986>2020
Looks like a slight lam./delam. crack above the "E" of "ONE".
Adjustment areas inside of rim above PLURIBUS are raised here.
Well, just Love coins, period.
So do you think this was done to "simulate" a proof?
Robec is certainly not the "New Kid in Town"
This is EXACTLT what I would expect when a raw 1917 buffalo nickel is submitted to NGC (or PCGS) for certification.
Under no circumstances will it ever be called anything other than a normal business strike!!
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Just think if you were the proud owner of a complete set of proof buffalo nickels from 1913 to 1937 and you woke up one morning to find out that PCGS or NGC has actually certified a 1917 buffalo nickel as proof! Then your set is incomplete!! He/she might loose interest in the set. How about the other collectors who were working on complete sets?
They may well abandon their pursuit of a complete proof set. What would PCGS/NGC get from slabbing a coin like this? A few tens of dollars for the slabbing fee and endless controversies.?? I could see a bunch of other threads like this about that coin and most would probably be negative. NGC vs. PCGS and infinitum. For these reasons it will never happen!!
In a similar way I bet a few collectors abandoned the idea of forming a complete set of Barber dimes because they could not afford let alone find an available specimen of the 1894s or which only 24 were struck.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Rosco thank you for the last set of photos of the 1917. From the photos, I don't see anything compelling me to believe it is a 1917 proof cent vs. a 1917 production example. Please send it in for authentication with either TPG. BS coins were really well made that year. Compare with the one below. Click it to blow it up
http://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/34928723_66109188_max.jpg
I agree. There is nothing about Rosco's coin that would make me think it is a Proof.
I also agree with BUFFNIXX on the Auction '87 coin.
Those are not adjustment marks. Ah, I forgot, IMO.
@Rosco The coin you posted is not a PROOF.
Your welcome...
And thank you...
I was trying to use / interpret correctly, Flynn and Albrecht diagnostic(s) verbiage and pictures, for scratches and die anomalies.
Robec posted a "Gorgeous" 1916 PF/PR on the Registry side ( bottom of page 4 ) , " Post your toned Lincolns"
that I was looking very closely at, along with yours posted above, and internet searches of other coins.
Again...trying to interpret correct die markers, and what would be Master die / Hub anomalies
.
R.I.P Son 1986>2020
My conclusion was that the coin was removed from a "Keep me and never go broke" type encasement. The act of stamping the coin into the encasement made the rim squared and made the edge sharper. The field was slightly buckled. It was super sharp and you could see why it was thought to be special.
Curious why no close up images are being presented, since the coin is not hidden.
Thanks @BlackDiamond for showing the nickel.
RE: " '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."
The quote was from TD's post based on his reading of ANACS logs, the OP would know that if he had read TD's comments.
As for the coin being in ANACS possession longer than normal, it might be due to special consideration, or other, inconsequential delay - we'll never know. But, it does not matter. Proof coinage was discontinued in October, 1916. Here is an excerpt from RAC 1916-21:
Collector complaints and the additional burden of proof coin production pointed to the demise of collectors’ coins. On October 17, Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Adam Joyce effectively drove the last nail in the coffin of proof coins when he wrote to the director:
It didn’t take von Engelken long to make a decision – the mint was losing money on each proof coin made, collectors were complaining, and paperwork had become a nuisance. Rather than look for ways to correct problems, the director decided to eliminate all proof coins. His terse order of October 18 ended nearly sixty years of continuous issuance of proofs for purchase by ordinary collectors. Across the spectrum of coin collectors, from railroad magnate Robert Garrett’s almost unlimited budget, to hobbyist Giles R. Anderson’s modest annual expense of 25¢ for two minor proof sets, the collectors’ coins were no more.
Von Engelken’s last letter to Henry Chapman was in reply to a complaint Chapman had sent President Wilson:
To Rodger Burdette.
Sorry for my error as noted below which I acknowledge
(The quote was from TD's post based on his reading of ANACS logs, the OP would know that if he had read TD's comments.))
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
There are some extremely nice, well detailed 1917 coins in the Mitchelson collection (which I have examined) and elsewhere. But no proof coins of any denomination were made in 1917. Claims to the contrary rest on a 40-year old attribution for which there is no documentation, and the discredited attribution of Walter Breen. Neither the OP nor anyone else has offered facts to support their claims nor to refute the October 1916 order. All they rely on is puffery and an excess of hot air.
If new data is one day discovered, then the issue should be revisited using modern research methodology.
Finis.