@rmpsrpms said:
Is there a good online analysis showing edge diagnostics comparing business strikes vs the 09-16 proofs? Most of the photos I've seen show only the obverse and reverse, which can be deceiving as we can see from this classic thread. But what about the edges? Can the edges be used to authenticate with any certainty? How sharp is the transition from rim to edge? Are the edges of these early proofs mirrored, while business strikes are not?
Check out my Lincoln cent matte proof book, I did a complete analysis for each year, including side by side edge analysis, lots of photos.
Some years, the BS can be found with stronger edges than MP
Small denomination/coin, less pressure to fully strike.....
Thanks, I just ordered one from Wizard Herndon...Ray
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@rmpsrpms said:
Is there a good online analysis showing edge diagnostics comparing business strikes vs the 09-16 proofs? Most of the photos I've seen show only the obverse and reverse, which can be deceiving as we can see from this classic thread. But what about the edges? Can the edges be used to authenticate with any certainty? How sharp is the transition from rim to edge? Are the edges of these early proofs mirrored, while business strikes are not?
If you ever get a chance, go to the ANS in NY, the have the 09-16 proofs, all raw, the 09VDB is marked from
Brenner, more than likely one of the first struck. Was able to compare edges, rims and such there with my scope
absolutely right and it's not a phantom I have one and it is absolutely a matte proof 100% there's no denying it the surface the grainy surface but yet no flaws, striking is beautiful and it has a wire edge . Perfectly executed and struck
I saw the coin Breen had attested to as being a proof and its squared rims were the result of being in an encasement. The edge was buckled inward slightly due to the post-strike compression.
@RogerB said:
The final proof coins for sale to collectors (until 1936) were made in 1916.
"1917 proofs" are fictional bologna.
I don’t happen to believe there are any Proof 1917 Lincoln cents either. However, as you well know, just because coins weren’t officially made for collectors, doesn’t necessarily mean they weren’t made.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Is the ANACS E-6930-A cert of Breen's coin that was seen by Stewart and Rick?
@STEWARTBLAYNUMIS said on June 25, 2012:
I have personally examined Walter Breens supposed 1917 Matte Proof Lincoln and determined it had a tooled edge or rim and I actually saw the tooled marks.
@EagleEye said on August 17, 2019:
I saw the coin Breen had attested to as being a proof and its squared rims were the result of being in an encasement. The edge was buckled inward slightly due to the post-strike compression.
Of note, the caption for the J.T. Stanton photos in the OP mentions the ANACS cert dated 11/2/77 which is the date of ANACS E-6930-A. I've added both here for comparison. In 2014, "ThosArch" ATS posted the same J.T. Stanton photos and indicated that this coin resided in Hawaii at that time.
@WaterSport said:
Wow - hard to believe anyone who looked at that coin thought it was a MPL.
I wonder who certified it at ANACS? How many graders did ANACS have look at each coin back then?
That should be easy to find out by ANA employment records. A coin as this gets seen by everyone important Plus usually some outside consultants. Just a wild guess...John Hunter, Ed Fleishman and some consultants. The Breen letter would be a plus.
I have not seen the coin so I cannot comment on the edge; however, I see no evidence of being in a "lucky charm" on the rim of the coin that is imaged. Without the coin in hand, my comment means nothing.
Here's an excerpt of the caption associated with the Stanton photos indicating the date of the Breen COA. Has anyone seen this? Is there an image of this COA available?
the owner has a W. Breen May 1976 "First Coinvestor's" COA, the Juy 24th 1988 COA does not now accompany the coin.
@Zoins said:
Here's an excerpt of the caption associated with the Stanton photos indicating the date of the Breen COA. Has anyone seen this? Is there an image of this COA available?
the owner has a W. Breen May 1976 "First Coinvestor's" COA, the Juy 24th 1988 COA does not now accompany the coin.
Does it matter? Breen believed in 1917 proofs. Few others believe in them anymore.
In his day, Breen was considered a very reliable "expert." The poor guy had no peace at a coin show as he was constantly hounded for opinions by everyone on anything. It has been shown he made mistakes in his opinions.
Today, in our day, the major TPGS are considered to be very reliable "experts" on all things numismatic that they slab.
GET MY POINT! I don't know any professional authenticator who has not made a mistake or six! That's why they work in a group and stuff still gets missed. Six is still too many!!
@Zoins said:
Here's an excerpt of the caption associated with the Stanton photos indicating the date of the Breen COA. Has anyone seen this? Is there an image of this COA available?
the owner has a W. Breen May 1976 "First Coinvestor's" COA, the Juy 24th 1988 COA does not now accompany the coin.
Does it matter? Breen believed in 1917 proofs. Few others believe in them anymore.
It’s nice to have from a historical documentation perspective.
@Insider2 said:
In his day, Breen was considered a very reliable "expert." The poor guy had no peace at a coin show as he was constantly hounded for opinions by everyone on anything. It has been shown he made mistakes in his opinions.
Today, in our day, the major TPGS are considered to be very reliable "experts" on all things numismatic that they slab.
GET MY POINT! I don't know any professional authenticator who has not made a mistake or six! That's why they work in a group and stuff still gets missed. Six is still too many!!
Well I guess it is put to rest. ANACS has certified one 1917 matte proof Lincoln penny. So one exists!
Nice photo certificate too!
(Wish Burdie Birdette was still here to respond to this post{
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@Zoins said:
Here's an excerpt of the caption associated with the Stanton photos indicating the date of the Breen COA. Has anyone seen this? Is there an image of this COA available?
the owner has a W. Breen May 1976 "First Coinvestor's" COA, the Juy 24th 1988 COA does not now accompany the coin.
Does it matter? Breen believed in 1917 proofs. Few others believe in them anymore.
Didn't you & I (kinda)believe in a 1917 quarter in (fairly)recent times?
buying Rhode Island Nationals please email, PM or call 401-295-3000
@Zoins said:
Here's an excerpt of the caption associated with the Stanton photos indicating the date of the Breen COA. Has anyone seen this? Is there an image of this COA available?
the owner has a W. Breen May 1976 "First Coinvestor's" COA, the Juy 24th 1988 COA does not now accompany the coin.
Does it matter? Breen believed in 1917 proofs. Few others believe in them anymore.
Didn't you & I (kinda)believe in a 1917 quarter in (fairly)recent times?
LOL. Well, I'm not sure I ever fully believed it was a "proof". I thought it could be a specimen strike of some kind.
@Insider2 said:
In his day, Breen was considered a very reliable "expert." The poor guy had no peace at a coin show as he was constantly hounded for opinions by everyone on anything. It has been shown he made mistakes in his opinions.
Today, in our day, the major TPGS are considered to be very reliable "experts" on all things numismatic that they slab.
So IMO, Breen was then considered an "expert" because IMO no one then challenged him.
IMO, if Roger, JD, or a few others were back then, we would have refuted Breen then, and perhaps
he would have been more careful.
I heard from several dealers that Breen "expert opinion" could be bought, going price was $300.
I once examined a 1917 that Stewart had with him that had a Breen cert stating it was a matte
proof. I scoped it and saw retooling marks on the inside of the rim..... Wasn't even close.
IMO grading is just an opinion, especially IMO as the most important characteristic of a coin
is how it looks, which can be subjective, for example some people like toning. IMO NGC will
grade toned coins higher.
As I am sure many others have seen over the years, 19th century proof coins certified as MS
and vice versa, especially for those years where there is a known markers and states that identify
a proof vs coin struck for circulation. How many times have people sent the same coin to the same
or a different grading service to attempt an upgrade as they believed it should be higher.
Not putting down the grading services, but it is just an opinion.
@BUFFNIXX said:
Well I guess it is put to rest. ANACS has certified one 1917 matte proof Lincoln penny. So one exists!
Nice photo certificate too!
(Wish Burdie Birdette was still here to respond to this post{
Tom,
Because it is certified as a 1917 matte proof, does not absolutely imply that it is such.
Do you believe everything you see on a slab?
Haven't you found coins in slabs that were not what they claimed on the slab?
Why are you ridiculing Roger?
Obtain some good photos of 1916 matte proofs, study the details and sharpness of the jacket and
hair. Now compare against these photos of the 1917 shown, not even close.
Besides the many reasons I listed in my book that these were not created in 1917
If a single specimen was created, do you not think it would have gone to someone or somewhere
special and could be traced, such as the Mint Collection.
You think they struck a perfect specimen, then dumped into circulation?
Also, the one cent is a small coin, do you know how many Lincoln cent coins struck for circulation
that I examined, especially on 1909 VDB, 1911, and 1916, that were sometimes better than
matte proofs of the same year? With a small planchet it is much easier to fully strike, and get full
rims, especially if new dies.
@BUFFNIXX said:
Well I guess it is put to rest. ANACS has certified one 1917 matte proof Lincoln penny. So one exists!
Nice photo certificate too!
(Wish Burdie Birdette was still here to respond to this post{
Tom,
Because it is certified as a 1917 matte proof, does not absolutely imply that it is such.
Do you believe everything you see on a slab?
Haven't you found coins in slabs that were not what they claimed on the slab?
Why are you ridiculing Roger?
Kevin
I ridiculed Roger because for example he calls Walter Breen “Wally Breen” Only he does that and he does that to ridicule him. . As you sew, so shall you reap in my opinion. And so I call him “Birdie Burdette” in honor or Walter Breen.
Tom
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@BUFFNIXX said:
Well I guess it is put to rest. ANACS has certified one 1917 matte proof Lincoln penny. So one exists!
Nice photo certificate too!
(Wish Burdie Birdette was still here to respond to this post{
Tom,
Because it is certified as a 1917 matte proof, does not absolutely imply that it is such.
1) Do you believe everything you see on a slab?
2) Haven't you found coins in slabs that were not what they claimed on the slab?
3) Why are you ridiculing Roger?
Kevin
Kevin
to answer your questions posed above my answers are 1) no, 2) yes, 3) see my above post on the subject.
tom
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@WaterSport said:
Wow - hard to believe anyone who looked at that coin thought it was a MPL.
I wonder who certified it at ANACS? How many graders did ANACS have look at each coin back then?
The Authenticators (not Graders) at ANACS in November of 1977 were John Hunter and Ed Fleischmenn.
Typically such a coin might have been sent to one of more Consultants. Records of who and coin was sent to and the Consultant(s) opinions were written on (or attached to) the original Request for Certification form. The forms were filed in numerical order for future reference.
When ANACS was sold in 1989 the new owners did not want the old paper records. They remained with the ANA, which did not need them and they were transferred to long-term storage off-site. Over the decades that long-term storage site was moved at least once. In recent years I have asked if those Request for Certification forms are still in storage and if I could access them regarding certain other coins. The answer has always been that nobody knows where they are or if they still exist.
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.
I don’t not care what you call it but this coin looks like something very special to me.
Actually this looks like two different very special coins to me!!
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Fairytales bring out the worst in coin guys. They want to believe more than they care about the truth which is disheartening in a hobby based on history, order preservation.
There are no 1917 proofs, no proof of any proofs and no examples even remotely convincing under any legit scientific process. They called PL coins one sided proofs and proofs a few generations ago and these current myths and fallacies will die off too with their proponents. Let them have their dreams
Fairytales bring out the worst in coin guys. They want to believe more than they care about the truth which is disheartening in a hobby based on history, order preservation.
There are no 1917 proofs, no proof of any proofs and no examples even remotely convincing under any legit scientific process. They called PL coins one sided proofs and proofs a few generations ago and these current myths and fallacies will die off too with their proponents. Let them have their dreams
you are correct in that there are no 1917 proof coins of any denomination slabbed by ngc or pcgs.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I find it odd that the 1917 Proof Cent certified by ANACS is being panned by folks who do not have it available for examination. Old ANACS was as credible as any other service and I don't believe they would put such a designation on the coin if it were not very well-founded. So I call BS on folks stating otherwise unless they have personally examined the coin and can point to diagnostics which show that it is just a nice business strike, which indeed would be a simple matter with the coin in hand.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
Look at the date on the certification. That's a lot of years to get that coin into a top-tier slab, which would make that coin MUCH more marketable. People has been looking for a 1917 MPL--that would be a valuable coin, the key to the series (rather than the 1909VDB MPL now). See p.40 of Kevin Flynn's book, entitled L'incoln Cent Matte Proofs,' for a discussion.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
I have Kevin's book and have read the page, but there is no information which debunks this coin, since no one has to my knowledge examined it. Could be sitting in a drawer somewhere for the last 43 years.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
I worked at ANACS while it was in DC. If this coin would have been submitted to us, its PROOF Status would have been CONFIRMED by us and the US Mint!
No other opinions would have been considered.
I don't know who was working at ANACS in CO during 1977 and I don't know who saw the coin. I'm 99% certain it was not seen by the folks who make the coins.
Furthermore, IMHO, statements that "no Proofs, specimens, or out-of-the-ordinary special strikes were done in 1917 are pretentious. That's the nicest way I can post it.
I'll remind members that there is a U.S. Mint acknowledged 1917 Proof Buffalo nickel somewhere out there. There may be more than one from that same die as Breen claims to have seen one or two. I don't know if any of them have ever been submitted to a "modern" top TPGS. Nevertheless, IMHO, their opinion of its status would not matter because it seems that any coin that "looks different" is called a "Specimen" these days. ROTFL!
@WaterSport said:
Wow - hard to believe anyone who looked at that coin thought it was a MPL.
I wonder who certified it at ANACS? How many graders did ANACS have look at each coin back then?
The Authenticators (not Graders) at ANACS in November of 1977 were John Hunter and Ed Fleischmenn.
Typically such a coin might have been sent to one of more Consultants. Records of who and coin was sent to and the Consultant(s) opinions were written on (or attached to) the original Request for Certification form. The forms were filed in numerical order for future reference.
When ANACS was sold in 1989 the new owners did not want the old paper records. They remained with the ANA, which did not need them and they were transferred to long-term storage off-site. Over the decades that long-term storage site was moved at least once. In recent years I have asked if those Request for Certification forms are still in storage and if I could access them regarding certain other coins. The answer has always been that nobody knows where they are or if they still exist.
TD
Repeated for the benefit of those who missed it above.
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.
"The Authenticators (not Graders) at ANACS in November of 1977 were John Hunter and Ed Fleischmenn."
From my personal experience working with him in DC, at least one of these "authenticators" was not qualified to render an opinion on that coin. Therefore, I can say with 100% certainty that the coin was certified as a Proof by outside consultants. That does not disqualify the opinion of one or several consultants who saw the coin.
I will repeat what I have written many times in the past...within several months of joining the staff of ANACS in DC and comparing the opinions of our outside consultants with a hands-on comparison (using a stereo microscope) to genuine specimens locked away in museum collections in order to verify their opinion - we stopped using 60% of the folks that were formerly relied upon and ONLY several of the remaining consults proved to be 100% reliable all the time. Many of these were unknown advanced collectors rather than coin dealers! I'm leaving very many top-notch expert numismatist- consultants from back then unrecognized with these examples of consultants who's opinion always proved to be correct:
Henry Grunthal and Richard Picker (professionals) and Leo Cancio (collector). My sincere apologies to all the others I've left out (some still alive and still very important to me and all of us).
In 1978 I saw the unique 1935 satin finish proof buffalo nickel that was in the possession of New England Rare Coin Galleries. I actually had it in my possession at that time for a few days. In my opinion there was no doubt whatsoever in my mind that it was a satin finish proof identical to what the mint produced and released in early 1936. So what happened to it? It may well be sitting in someones drawer unknown and unloved at the moment. Maybe some day it will surface. What a stir that would cause.!! So in addition to searching for an unattributed 1927 satin finish "specimen" nickel I always check 1935 buffs offered for sale as this coin may well turn up some day. And it may have siblings out there to boot!!
Oh yes, and I also check all “uncirculated” 1917 philadelphia mint pennies. No luck on that to date.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
These are like UFO and bigfoot. Everyone has seen one or heard of one yet they can never produce evidence. How many old coin guys claim to know of a 64d peace.
When only the fans are the ones to claim to have seen them, one must consider the source.
Maybe so, but ANACS certified one back in '77. That's good enough for me to say that at least one exists, or at least did back in '77. Sure would like to see it surface so the controversy would be over.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
It seems that this same discussion comes around every couple of years. I once had a 1917 Buff that I, at the time was sure of a matte proof status (I no longer believe that to be the case.)
If I owned a 1917 coin that I thought was a matte proof I would, without delay, make inquiries as to who the top two or three most knowledgeable individuals in the country in matte proof coinage might be and I would ask these individuals for their opinion. If any concurred that the coin is a matte proof then I would ask for documentation and send the coin and the documentation to our host or any of the top four certification companies for attribution as such.
Imagine how much value enhancement such a circumstance would cause. It would be much better received than a 35 year old opinion even tho that is from a reputable such as ANACS. It would be easily worth the time and expense of doing this. And I would have irrefutable proof.
@koynekwest said: "If I owned a 1917 coin that I thought was a matte proof I would, without delay, make inquiries as to who the top two or three most knowledgeable individuals in the country in matte proof coinage might be and I would ask these individuals for their opinion.
I'll remind members here that at one time, a certain Mr. Breen would be consulted. perhaps he saw the ANA's Cent.
Comments
Thanks, I just ordered one from Wizard Herndon...Ray
http://macrocoins.com
If you ever get a chance, go to the ANS in NY, the have the 09-16 proofs, all raw, the 09VDB is marked from
Brenner, more than likely one of the first struck. Was able to compare edges, rims and such there with my scope
absolutely right and it's not a phantom I have one and it is absolutely a matte proof 100% there's no denying it the surface the grainy surface but yet no flaws, striking is beautiful and it has a wire edge . Perfectly executed and struck
Detailed pictures would then be a must!
Well, just Love coins, period.
Yeah-let's see a high quality picture.
We should show more respect to trolls. The fact that they only show up on weekends proves that they are otherwise gainfully employed!
I bet he does have a 1917 MPL, after all, Nate's Lucky!
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Me too. I keep mine with my class I 1804 dollar, J-1776 $20 pattern, and 1849 double eagle that I purchased from Alibaba for a steal.
The final proof coins for sale to collectors (until 1936) were made in 1916.
"1917 proofs" are fictional bologna.
I saw the coin Breen had attested to as being a proof and its squared rims were the result of being in an encasement. The edge was buckled inward slightly due to the post-strike compression.
I don’t happen to believe there are any Proof 1917 Lincoln cents either. However, as you well know, just because coins weren’t officially made for collectors, doesn’t necessarily mean they weren’t made.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Proof they exist
,
Lol, not with those rims.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
Thanks for posting the ANACS cert @BUFFNIXX !
Is the ANACS E-6930-A cert of Breen's coin that was seen by Stewart and Rick?
Of note, the caption for the J.T. Stanton photos in the OP mentions the ANACS cert dated 11/2/77 which is the date of ANACS E-6930-A. I've added both here for comparison. In 2014, "ThosArch" ATS posted the same J.T. Stanton photos and indicated that this coin resided in Hawaii at that time.
https://www.ngccoin.com/boards/topic/349337-1917-lincoln/
Anyone have access to the referenced Auction 90:1012 where the ANACS cert is mentioned?
\
Not really proof of anything - no pun intended.
This happens all the time with 1917 coins as well as "branch mint proofs". Finding a horse with a protruding bone is not proof that unicorns exist.
Wow - hard to believe anyone who looked at that coin thought it was a MPL.
WS
I wonder who certified it at ANACS? How many graders did ANACS have look at each coin back then?
That should be easy to find out by ANA employment records. A coin as this gets seen by everyone important Plus usually some outside consultants. Just a wild guess...John Hunter, Ed Fleishman and some consultants. The Breen letter would be a plus.
I have not seen the coin so I cannot comment on the edge; however, I see no evidence of being in a "lucky charm" on the rim of the coin that is imaged. Without the coin in hand, my comment means nothing.
Here's an excerpt of the caption associated with the Stanton photos indicating the date of the Breen COA. Has anyone seen this? Is there an image of this COA available?
Does it matter? Breen believed in 1917 proofs. Few others believe in them anymore.
In his day, Breen was considered a very reliable "expert." The poor guy had no peace at a coin show as he was constantly hounded for opinions by everyone on anything. It has been shown he made mistakes in his opinions.
Today, in our day, the major TPGS are considered to be very reliable "experts" on all things numismatic that they slab.
GET MY POINT! I don't know any professional authenticator who has not made a mistake or six! That's why they work in a group and stuff still gets missed. Six is still too many!!
It’s nice to have from a historical documentation perspective.
I'm not criticizing. Just pointing out a fact.
@jmlanzaf said: "I'm not criticizing. Just pointing out a fact."
I'm on your side and agree. The letter is just a historical document in magenta ink.
Well I guess it is put to rest. ANACS has certified one 1917 matte proof Lincoln penny. So one exists!
Nice photo certificate too!
(Wish Burdie Birdette was still here to respond to this post{
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Didn't you & I (kinda)believe in a 1917 quarter in (fairly)recent times?
LOL. Well, I'm not sure I ever fully believed it was a "proof". I thought it could be a specimen strike of some kind.
So IMO, Breen was then considered an "expert" because IMO no one then challenged him.
IMO, if Roger, JD, or a few others were back then, we would have refuted Breen then, and perhaps
he would have been more careful.
I heard from several dealers that Breen "expert opinion" could be bought, going price was $300.
I once examined a 1917 that Stewart had with him that had a Breen cert stating it was a matte
proof. I scoped it and saw retooling marks on the inside of the rim..... Wasn't even close.
IMO grading is just an opinion, especially IMO as the most important characteristic of a coin
is how it looks, which can be subjective, for example some people like toning. IMO NGC will
grade toned coins higher.
As I am sure many others have seen over the years, 19th century proof coins certified as MS
and vice versa, especially for those years where there is a known markers and states that identify
a proof vs coin struck for circulation. How many times have people sent the same coin to the same
or a different grading service to attempt an upgrade as they believed it should be higher.
Not putting down the grading services, but it is just an opinion.
Tom,
Because it is certified as a 1917 matte proof, does not absolutely imply that it is such.
Do you believe everything you see on a slab?
Haven't you found coins in slabs that were not what they claimed on the slab?
Why are you ridiculing Roger?
Kevin
Obtain some good photos of 1916 matte proofs, study the details and sharpness of the jacket and
hair. Now compare against these photos of the 1917 shown, not even close.
Besides the many reasons I listed in my book that these were not created in 1917
If a single specimen was created, do you not think it would have gone to someone or somewhere
special and could be traced, such as the Mint Collection.
You think they struck a perfect specimen, then dumped into circulation?
Also, the one cent is a small coin, do you know how many Lincoln cent coins struck for circulation
that I examined, especially on 1909 VDB, 1911, and 1916, that were sometimes better than
matte proofs of the same year? With a small planchet it is much easier to fully strike, and get full
rims, especially if new dies.
I ridiculed Roger because for example he calls Walter Breen “Wally Breen” Only he does that and he does that to ridicule him. . As you sew, so shall you reap in my opinion. And so I call him “Birdie Burdette” in honor or Walter Breen.
Tom
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Kevin
to answer your questions posed above my answers are 1) no, 2) yes, 3) see my above post on the subject.
tom
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
The Authenticators (not Graders) at ANACS in November of 1977 were John Hunter and Ed Fleischmenn.
Typically such a coin might have been sent to one of more Consultants. Records of who and coin was sent to and the Consultant(s) opinions were written on (or attached to) the original Request for Certification form. The forms were filed in numerical order for future reference.
When ANACS was sold in 1989 the new owners did not want the old paper records. They remained with the ANA, which did not need them and they were transferred to long-term storage off-site. Over the decades that long-term storage site was moved at least once. In recent years I have asked if those Request for Certification forms are still in storage and if I could access them regarding certain other coins. The answer has always been that nobody knows where they are or if they still exist.
TD
I don’t not care what you call it but this coin looks like something very special to me.
Actually this looks like two different very special coins to me!!
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Fairytales bring out the worst in coin guys. They want to believe more than they care about the truth which is disheartening in a hobby based on history, order preservation.
There are no 1917 proofs, no proof of any proofs and no examples even remotely convincing under any legit scientific process. They called PL coins one sided proofs and proofs a few generations ago and these current myths and fallacies will die off too with their proponents. Let them have their dreams
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Correct to a> @Crypto said:
you are correct in that there are no 1917 proof coins of any denomination slabbed by ngc or pcgs.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I find it odd that the 1917 Proof Cent certified by ANACS is being panned by folks who do not have it available for examination. Old ANACS was as credible as any other service and I don't believe they would put such a designation on the coin if it were not very well-founded. So I call BS on folks stating otherwise unless they have personally examined the coin and can point to diagnostics which show that it is just a nice business strike, which indeed would be a simple matter with the coin in hand.
http://macrocoins.com
Look at the date on the certification. That's a lot of years to get that coin into a top-tier slab, which would make that coin MUCH more marketable. People has been looking for a 1917 MPL--that would be a valuable coin, the key to the series (rather than the 1909VDB MPL now). See p.40 of Kevin Flynn's book, entitled L'incoln Cent Matte Proofs,' for a discussion.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
I have Kevin's book and have read the page, but there is no information which debunks this coin, since no one has to my knowledge examined it. Could be sitting in a drawer somewhere for the last 43 years.
http://macrocoins.com
I worked at ANACS while it was in DC. If this coin would have been submitted to us, its PROOF Status would have been CONFIRMED by us and the US Mint!
No other opinions would have been considered.
I don't know who was working at ANACS in CO during 1977 and I don't know who saw the coin. I'm 99% certain it was not seen by the folks who make the coins.
Furthermore, IMHO, statements that "no Proofs, specimens, or out-of-the-ordinary special strikes were done in 1917 are pretentious. That's the nicest way I can post it.
I'll remind members that there is a U.S. Mint acknowledged 1917 Proof Buffalo nickel somewhere out there. There may be more than one from that same die as Breen claims to have seen one or two. I don't know if any of them have ever been submitted to a "modern" top TPGS. Nevertheless, IMHO, their opinion of its status would not matter because it seems that any coin that "looks different" is called a "Specimen" these days. ROTFL!
Repeated for the benefit of those who missed it above.
TD
Thanks Tom.
"The Authenticators (not Graders) at ANACS in November of 1977 were John Hunter and Ed Fleischmenn."
From my personal experience working with him in DC, at least one of these "authenticators" was not qualified to render an opinion on that coin. Therefore, I can say with 100% certainty that the coin was certified as a Proof by outside consultants. That does not disqualify the opinion of one or several consultants who saw the coin.
I will repeat what I have written many times in the past...within several months of joining the staff of ANACS in DC and comparing the opinions of our outside consultants with a hands-on comparison (using a stereo microscope) to genuine specimens locked away in museum collections in order to verify their opinion - we stopped using 60% of the folks that were formerly relied upon and ONLY several of the remaining consults proved to be 100% reliable all the time. Many of these were unknown advanced collectors rather than coin dealers! I'm leaving very many top-notch expert numismatist- consultants from back then unrecognized with these examples of consultants who's opinion always proved to be correct:
to me and all of us).
Henry Grunthal and Richard Picker (professionals) and Leo Cancio (collector). My sincere apologies to all the others I've left out (some still alive and still very important
In 1978 I saw the unique 1935 satin finish proof buffalo nickel that was in the possession of New England Rare Coin Galleries. I actually had it in my possession at that time for a few days. In my opinion there was no doubt whatsoever in my mind that it was a satin finish proof identical to what the mint produced and released in early 1936. So what happened to it? It may well be sitting in someones drawer unknown and unloved at the moment. Maybe some day it will surface. What a stir that would cause.!! So in addition to searching for an unattributed 1927 satin finish "specimen" nickel I always check 1935 buffs offered for sale as this coin may well turn up some day. And it may have siblings out there to boot!!
Oh yes, and I also check all “uncirculated” 1917 philadelphia mint pennies. No luck on that to date.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I rarely say never. Under the curtain of security, things occurred in the mints that only reveal themselves over time. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
These are like UFO and bigfoot. Everyone has seen one or heard of one yet they can never produce evidence. How many old coin guys claim to know of a 64d peace.
When only the fans are the ones to claim to have seen them, one must consider the source.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Maybe so, but ANACS certified one back in '77. That's good enough for me to say that at least one exists, or at least did back in '77. Sure would like to see it surface so the controversy would be over.
http://macrocoins.com
It seems that this same discussion comes around every couple of years. I once had a 1917 Buff that I, at the time was sure of a matte proof status (I no longer believe that to be the case.)
If I owned a 1917 coin that I thought was a matte proof I would, without delay, make inquiries as to who the top two or three most knowledgeable individuals in the country in matte proof coinage might be and I would ask these individuals for their opinion. If any concurred that the coin is a matte proof then I would ask for documentation and send the coin and the documentation to our host or any of the top four certification companies for attribution as such.
Imagine how much value enhancement such a circumstance would cause. It would be much better received than a 35 year old opinion even tho that is from a reputable such as ANACS. It would be easily worth the time and expense of doing this. And I would have irrefutable proof.
INS certified a 1917 Proof nickel sometime around 1980.
@koynekwest said: "If I owned a 1917 coin that I thought was a matte proof I would, without delay, make inquiries as to who the top two or three most knowledgeable individuals in the country in matte proof coinage might be and I would ask these individuals for their opinion.
I'll remind members here that at one time, a certain Mr. Breen would be consulted.
perhaps he saw the ANA's Cent.