Home U.S. Coin Forum

Proof Coins From 1936-42

24

Comments

  • ashelandasheland Posts: 22,612 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cmerlo1 said:
    I've posted this coin on the forums before. It is hands-down the nicest proof Lincoln from that era that I've seen. Unfortunately, the reverse isn't as nice, and holds the grade to a PR63. The mirrors are deep and there is palpable cameo contrast on the obverse. It also has great detail- I'm thinking it's an early strike off a new set of dies, hence the cameo effect and the fact that a lot of the detail hasn't been polished out yet.


    Indeed, a nice obverse!

  • RogerBRogerB Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭

    RE: " I have been told they came down in value as the original matched sets were broken up and the nice coins switched out."

    Proofs were never sold in 'matched sets' or any other fixed grouping. Any matching was done by collectors after receiving their coins. An examination of production and delivery dates will show this.

  • Aspie_RoccoAspie_Rocco Posts: 3,259 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Lots of re engraved details on various years, not just the 38 nickel.
    Also 39,40 nickels, 39 quarters, and I think there are at least 2 Lincoln’s touched up in 39 based on images viewed.

    With so many touch ups, I wonder when the ones on dimes and halves will be discovered.

  • shorecollshorecoll Posts: 5,445 ✭✭✭✭✭

    OK, it may be market perception that a 1936 set that was pieced together in 1936 is better than what's in the market now. That's what I was referring to as a matched set. If you look in the Numismatic Scrapbook, Numismatist, etc. ads from the 1950's, early proofs were often advertised in sets.

    ANA-LM, NBS, EAC
  • RogerBRogerB Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭

    shorecoll - Yep. Understood. We naturally think of "one coin of each denomination" as a set and it is very easy to presume that something advertised as a "1936 proof set" was packaged and released by the Philadelphia Mint as a single unit. After striking, coins were just in cellophane envelopes sitting in rows with wooden dividers. Employees picked the pieces that matched each order without regard to whether they constituted one of each denomination, or 5 of the same denomination. :)

    We don't really get into Mint-packaged sets until 1955 flat backs.

  • SkyManSkyMan Posts: 9,493 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 15, 2019 3:53PM

    @batumi said:

    @SkyMan said:
    @Justacommeman ought to be posting to this thread. He has some killers.

    My only proof from this era...


    Yours is a kuller in itself, Skyman. Nice contrast! Possible cameo?

    As mentioned by @cameonut2011 the coin is an NGC PR66CAM, and potentially has claims for a star or a technical upgrade. It is pictured in Roger's book.

    You'll notice in the image that the sun is frosted. That is the main hurdle for nicely contrasted Walkers to get a Cameo designation. As of this point in time, after 30+ years of grading (of which maybe 20ish or so there was a cameo designation) there are only 18 Walking Liberties graded cameo in total for the years 1936 - 1942 by both PCGS and NGC (8 PCGS, 10 NGC).

    From what I can remember, the PCGS population has gone down rather substantially percentage wise, maybe (?) 4 pieces or so. I assume someone tried multiple times to upgrade their coin, and eventually sent back in the labels. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of the NGC coin numbers are actually repeat gradings also, as I remember some years back the population numbers jumped, maybe (?) two pieces, in a short period of time.

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,060 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @SkyMan said:

    @batumi said:

    @SkyMan said:
    @Justacommeman ought to be posting to this thread. He has some killers.

    My only proof from this era...


    Yours is a kuller in itself, Skyman. Nice contrast! Possible cameo?

    As mentioned by @cameonut2011 the coin is an NGC PR66CAM, and potentially has claims for a star or a technical upgrade. It is pictured in Roger's book.

    You'll notice in the image that the sun is frosted. That is the main hurdle for nicely contrasted Walkers to get a Cameo designation. As of this point in time, after 30+ years of grading (of which maybe 20ish or so there was a cameo designation) there are only 18 Walking Liberties graded cameo in total for the years 1936 - 1942 by both PCGS and NGC (8 PCGS, 10 NGC).

    From what I can remember, the PCGS population has gone down rather substantially percentage wise, maybe (?) 4 pieces or so. I assume someone tried multiple times to upgrade their coin, and eventually sent back in the labels. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of the NGC coin numbers are actually repeat gradings also, as I remember some years back the population numbers jumped, maybe (?) two pieces, in a short period of time.

    Interesting. When did you notice a change in PCGS population? I have been tracking WLH (and 1936-1942) cameo coinage since 2010-2011, and my recollection is that the PCGS population has increased by 1 (the addition of a 1942 PCGS PF66 CAM a couple of years ago - around the time of the Legend sale) while NGC added 1-2 (1942 cameos) in the same period.

  • SkyManSkyMan Posts: 9,493 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 15, 2019 5:27PM

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @SkyMan said:

    @batumi said:

    @SkyMan said:
    @Justacommeman ought to be posting to this thread. He has some killers.

    My only proof from this era...


    Yours is a kuller in itself, Skyman. Nice contrast! Possible cameo?

    As mentioned by @cameonut2011 the coin is an NGC PR66CAM, and potentially has claims for a star or a technical upgrade. It is pictured in Roger's book.

    You'll notice in the image that the sun is frosted. That is the main hurdle for nicely contrasted Walkers to get a Cameo designation. As of this point in time, after 30+ years of grading (of which maybe 20ish or so there was a cameo designation) there are only 18 Walking Liberties graded cameo in total for the years 1936 - 1942 by both PCGS and NGC (8 PCGS, 10 NGC).

    From what I can remember, the PCGS population has gone down rather substantially percentage wise, maybe (?) 4 pieces or so. I assume someone tried multiple times to upgrade their coin, and eventually sent back in the labels. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of the NGC coin numbers are actually repeat gradings also, as I remember some years back the population numbers jumped, maybe (?) two pieces, in a short period of time.

    Interesting. When did you notice a change in PCGS population? I have been tracking WLH (and 1936-1942) cameo coinage since 2010-2011, and my recollection is that the PCGS population has increased by 1 (the addition of a 1942 PCGS PF66 CAM a couple of years ago - around the time of the Legend sale) while NGC added 1-2 (1942 cameos) in the same period.

    I JUST checked the population before writing the above post. It had been a LONG time before I had last done that. I seem to remember that at one point in time the total population of both PCGS and NGC cameo Walkers was somewhere in the low 20's with PCGS having a population in the lower double digits. Of course, this could just be short/long term memory loss...

  • ilikemonstersilikemonsters Posts: 767 ✭✭✭✭

    @NorCalJack said:
    Here is my 1938 Proof

    .

    Here is my 1940


    There is a "like" button. Where is the "WOW!" button?

  • RogerBRogerB Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭

    NorCalJack - Really nice 1938 quarter !

  • leothelyonleothelyon Posts: 8,349 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Wow! I like what's being posted.

    Leo

    The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

    My Jefferson Nickel Collection

  • KudbegudKudbegud Posts: 4,735 ✭✭✭✭✭

    These are all spectacular. Thanks for posting this. I had to do a quick search and found this company
    https://mintproducts.com/1936-1942-proof-sets/


  • batumibatumi Posts: 796 ✭✭✭✭

    If buying coins in this 'miniseries, one has a big advantage if he or a trusted friend\dealer whom they have dealt with a lot can see and/or bid on these. Most do not photograph well, and while they may be graded properly, are not all that attractive

  • ike126ike126 Posts: 802 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Really nice pieces here everyone!!! Making me drool a little and thinking about doing a 40 and 41 set also in the future!!

  • batumibatumi Posts: 796 ✭✭✭✭

    @ike126 said:
    Really nice pieces here everyone!!! Making me drool a little and thinking about doing a 40 and 41 set also in the future!!

    Be selective as the pop reports along with recent sales prices might appear these are easy coins. Really nice, attractive ones of these 'late' dates are extremely difficult to locate. I am still searching for a '41 and '42 half to complete my Walker proof set. I had to pay up for the '36 through '40, but was able to fortunately come on to them when I had the cash. At the almost giveaway prices some of these issues have been bringing as of late, I tend to believe that most if not all the really nice ones are in strong hand or in hiding.

  • batumibatumi Posts: 796 ✭✭✭✭

    @Kudbegud said:
    After seeing this thread last night I went on the hunt for these great proofs. Got a whole 6 piece set, all CAC. So thanks for opening my eyes.

    Kudbegud: Congrats on your purchase of a nice '42 set.

  • batumibatumi Posts: 796 ✭✭✭✭

    @SanctionII said:

    SanctionII: Really eye appealing original piece. Just hoping the holder pictured didn't come with it!

  • batumibatumi Posts: 796 ✭✭✭✭

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @batumi said:

    @SkyMan said:
    @Justacommeman ought to be posting to this thread. He has some killers.

    My only proof from this era...


    Yours is a kuller in itself, Skyman. Nice contrast! Possible cameo?

    Skyman's coin is in a NGC PF66 CAMEO holder, and it was one of the first cameo walking proof half dollars certified by either service. It is also one of the stronger ones I have seen. If he ever bothered to resubmit it, I would not be surprised if it came back with a star in addition to the cameo designation.

    cameonut: While aware that cameos of any of the '36 through 42 proofs of all the denominations are genuinely scarce, I just looked up that '38 Walker on CoinFacts. That is a RARE coin and beautiful piece!. A killer not kuller as in my previous post. Just viewing the photo, I knew it was something special. I really love this entire miniseries of proof coins!

  • SanctionIISanctionII Posts: 11,660 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I have had the pleasure of seeing Skyman's 1938 Cameo proof half in hand with my own eyes. Multiple times.

    The coin is amazing and in hand looks better than the photos of same.

  • batumibatumi Posts: 796 ✭✭✭✭

    SanctionII: By the photos alone, it must be a hard coin to put down! Beatiful piece!

  • ike126ike126 Posts: 802 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @batumi said:

    @ike126 said:
    Really nice pieces here everyone!!! Making me drool a little and thinking about doing a 40 and 41 set also in the future!!

    Be selective as the pop reports along with recent sales prices might appear these are easy coins. Really nice, attractive ones of these 'late' dates are extremely difficult to locate. I am still searching for a '41 and '42 half to complete my Walker proof set. I had to pay up for the '36 through '40, but was able to fortunately come on to them when I had the cash. At the almost giveaway prices some of these issues have been bringing as of late, I tend to believe that most if not all the really nice ones are in strong hand or in hiding.

    I believe that!! It would make me more then happy to just have them in 65 with no major spots or haze

  • jomjom Posts: 3,385 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @RogerB said:
    RE: "...the method of packaging. since they came as single coins it's hard to imagine what they used."

    The book includes clear photos and descriptions of coin packaging and shipping materials. One must remember that this was all done within the established Medal Department. Much of the handling and packaging used the same materials and followed similar procedures.

    Hey Roger

    When you were first considering writing this book I think you had a discussion ATS about it. I remember asking you about the lack of Cameo coins from this era. Does your book discuss this at all? Just curious....

    jom

  • RogerBRogerB Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Jom - Yes. There's discussion and data.

    A cameo proof of this era can only occur when a new pair of polished dies are introduced. The "frosting" is the natural surface of a working die which was untouched when the field was polished. This frosting lasts only a dozen or so strikes before the die surface deforms to match polished planchets.

    The die tables show when new dies were introduced and that permits estimates of the maximum number of cameo proofs of each year. These data only set maximum, not a minimum.

  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 33,427 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Roger,

    Did the complaints about the dullness of the first 1936 Proof coins prompt the mint to make an extra effort to polish the dies thus resulting in no Cameo coins at all?

    As a collector I can remember back in the 1960s Cameo Proof coins were not that widely recognized. I remember a book by Frank Spidone (sp) "Oddities and Errors" or something like that. He defined a "Gem Proof" as the pieces that had cameo contrast. That was first time I recall seeing someone make a big deal out of cameo Proofs.

    It seems like a lot of 1952 Proof coins are very bright with some of the details missing because of excessive die polishing. Once again there were complaints about the some 1951 Proof coins and a lot 1950 Proofs because of dull Proof surfaces.

    Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
  • Aspie_RoccoAspie_Rocco Posts: 3,259 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 17, 2019 1:52PM

    @BillJones said:

    It seems like a lot of 1952 Proof coins are very bright with some of the details missing because of excessive die polishing. Once again there were complaints about the some 1951 Proof coins and a lot 1950 Proofs because of dull Proof surfaces.

    I like this comment, since this fact or theory helps explain why there are so many re engraved details in the early 1950s, also a possible reason for the touch ups in 1938,39,40. These added details seem to have the intent of strengthening lost details like ribbon, hair, or bust lines/details.

    For some reason I am stuck on the various re engraved varieties of the proof 38-54 era. Any additional insight to this area is always a point of interest for me.

  • sparky64sparky64 Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Fantastic coin @1tommy !
    I just picked up one of those today for my set.
    Mine is graded a couple of points lower and has no color but is very solid and I'm happy to have it.

    "If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"

    My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress

  • RogerBRogerB Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 17, 2019 3:58PM

    BillJones:

    RE: "Did the complaints about the dullness of the first 1936 Proof coins prompt the mint to make an extra effort to polish the dies thus resulting in no Cameo coins at all?"

    It does not appear that was the case. From everything I could find and the coins, the initial problem was that only the dies were polished. After all, the goal was to make a couple of "proof" coins to give to Louis Howe, FDR's long-time friend who was hospitalized. when Sec Morgenthau approved selling proof coins to the public the Mint was not ready.

    Their first attempts were to imitate the last proofs made - satin-like pieces for nickels and cents, and brilliant silver coins. But, no one had kept the data notebooks that showed how to do these things. The silver coin dies were polished but not planchets. Hence, the mirror quickly faded. After a short break, John Sinnock tried polishing both dies and planchets. This produced the later 1936 proofs. With practice, everything got better.

    (This is discussed better in the book - as is the entire subject.)

  • KudbegudKudbegud Posts: 4,735 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ldhair said:


    This Buffalo and Dime combo are jaw dropping

    @ldhair said:

    Wow !

    Who couldn't love these as the classics of U.S. Mint artistic achievement ? Hold my beer while I wipe the drool from my chin.

    Thank you both for posting these beauties.


  • georgiacop50georgiacop50 Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭✭

    I was surprised to see at Lakeland FL show this past weekend that a dealer had in his case 3 boxed/taped proof set boxes marked "1941". The boxes appeared to be just like 1950-1955 era boxes. I didn't ask about them because I assumed something was fishy, why waste my time...

  • CameonutCameonut Posts: 7,250 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @georgiacop50 said:
    I was surprised to see at Lakeland FL show this past weekend that a dealer had in his case 3 boxed/taped proof set boxes marked "1941". The boxes appeared to be just like 1950-1955 era boxes. I didn't ask about them because I assumed something was fishy, why waste my time...

    Did the boxes look anything like the photo below? I captured this as an example of a box from this era.

    “In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson

    My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!

  • ashelandasheland Posts: 22,612 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Great coins!

  • RogerBRogerB Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Shipping boxes were the same kinds used to package medals -- nothing special and no attempt to do anything unique to proof coins.

  • RogerBRogerB Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Excellent coins, SanctionII !

    (PS: Could you crop the photos some? The granite is nice but most of us prefer to see the coins up close....It would also help the thread load faster.)

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file