I believe that in recent years many of his opinions have been found to be inaccurate. If I remember correctly some of the "matte proof" 1917 cents were determined not to be that at all. Though I'm no expert on these things, I believe I would discount any 1917 proof coins that were certified to be such by Mr Breen. I would send such coins, with said documentation, to any (or all) of the top four certification companies.
The problem here is that the coin is not available for examination. I'd bet there are dozens of folks on this forum (myself included) who could tell if the coin were a MP within 5 minutes of examination.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@koynekwest said:
I believe that in recent years many of his opinions have been found to be inaccurate. If I remember correctly some of the "matte proof" 1917 cents were determined not to be that at all. Though I'm no expert on these things, I believe I would discount any 1917 proof coins that were certified to be such by Mr Breen. I would send such coins, with said documentation, to any (or all) of the top four certification companies.
That is the point I'm making. Nevertheless, back then he WAS one of the go-to numismatists.
@koynekwest said:
I believe that in recent years many of his opinions have been found to be inaccurate. If I remember correctly some of the "matte proof" 1917 cents were determined not to be that at all. Though I'm no expert on these things, I believe I would discount any 1917 proof coins that were certified to be such by Mr Breen. I would send such coins, with said documentation, to any (or all) of the top four certification companies.
Wasn't it Breen who wrote that there were 1956-D to 1964-D Type B quarters? As far as I'm aware, that was completely made up - there were no purported specimens, to begin with. Seems like he was a very unsavory character, all around.
@Crypto said:
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.
With the way the US government acted when the Langboard family sent 10 1933 DE to the mint for authentication, you wouldn't have any apprehension parading a 1964 Peace dollar or 1974 aluminum cent around?
@Crypto said:
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.
With the way the US government acted when the Langboard family sent 10 1933 DE to the mint for authentication, you wouldn't have any apprehension parading a 1964 Peace dollar or 1974 aluminum cent around?
The US government really hasn't treated the 1933 DEs differently since the 1940s. They also haven't changed their stance on the 1964 Peace dollar since at least 1973 when the following was posted. Image courtesy of @dcarr .
Note if a 1917 matte proof nickel exists it might look like this coin that has the die break or crack near the L in LIBERTY
down towards the rim. This coin supposedly has thick squared edges which are brilliant with no beveling. No business
strikes ( or circulated specimens for that matter ) have ever turned up.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I think it would be useless to send any so-called 1917 proof or specimen coins to our host or the guys across the road. It will never happen despite how nice or convincing the said coin looks. Imagine the chaos injected into say the matte proof Lincoln or Buffalo Nickel registry sets. The registry sets will keep this from ever happening. Imagine some collector with a top matte proof registry set waking up one morning and finding out that his top-of-the-line registry set is now incomplete! (These the same comments apply to anacs and icg by the way and that makes for the four different grading services)
@koynekwest said:
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.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@koynekwest said:
I believe that in recent years many of his opinions have been found to be inaccurate. If I remember correctly some of the "matte proof" 1917 cents were determined not to be that at all. Though I'm no expert on these things, I believe I would discount any 1917 proof coins that were certified to be such by Mr Breen. I would send such coins, with said documentation, to any (or all) of the top four certification companies.
Wasn't it Breen who wrote that there were 1956-D to 1964-D Type B quarters? As far as I'm aware, that was completely made up - there were no purported specimens, to begin with. Seems like he was a very unsavory character, all around.
Unsavory for sure. What have you done for the hobby?
@BUFFNIXX posted: "Note if a 1917 matte proof nickel exists it might look like this coin that has the die break or crack near the L in LIBERTY down towards the rim. This coin supposedly has thick squared edges which are brilliant with no beveling. No business strikes ( or circulated specimens for that matter ) have ever turned up."
That image matches the Breen description. It also matches the one we certified as a proof in the late 1970's at INSAB in DC. Our coin had flat rims with 70% wires s on both sides. The coin was seen by folks at Treasury, Department of the Mint, Office of Technology. Several years ago I tried to contact them about an error nickel. The lady I spoke with (employed for 20 yrs at Treasury) told me *there was no such place in existence.** She never heard of Dr. Hunter, or the Office of Technology. Funny, we used them to confirm any unusual coin errors, and they confirmed our opinion of both "Omega's" and the 1857 $3 C/F when every dealer claimed we were nuts!
Does a 1917 Proof cent exist. Probably. All sorts of stuff goes on. TPGS have found "Modern Specimens" since the 70's.
The 1927 nickels and the 1964 SMS strikes quickly come to mind.
One day, a 1917 may turn up. If not an actual Proof you can bet it will look like something special. That may all that these coins turn out to be. Take a brand new die, strike a thicker planchet than usual on a press adjusted too close that breaks the die and you'll produce some unusual looking coins before the die fails completely. They may look like Proofs! Anything can happen at the Mint's factory.
@Insider2 said: @BUFFNIXX posted: "Note if a 1917 matte proof nickel exists it might look like this coin that has the die break or crack near the L in LIBERTY down towards the rim. This coin supposedly has thick squared edges which are brilliant with no beveling. No business strikes ( or circulated specimens for that matter ) have ever turned up."
That image matches the Breen description. It also matches the one we certified as a proof in the late 1970's at INSAB in DC. Our coin had flat rims with 70% wires s on both sides. The coin was seen by folks at Treasury, Department of the Mint, Office of Technology. Several years ago I tried to contact them about an error nickel. The lady I spoke with (employed for 20 yrs at Treasury) told me *there was no such place in existence.** She never heard of Dr. Hunter, or the Office of Technology. Funny, we used them to confirm any unusual coin errors, and they confirmed our opinion of both "Omega's" and the 1857 $3 C/F when every dealer claimed we were nuts!
Does a 1917 Proof cent exist. Probably. All sorts of stuff goes on. TPGS have found "Modern Specimens" since the 70's.
The 1927 nickels and the 1964 SMS strikes quickly come to mind.
One day, a 1917 may turn up. If not an actual Proof you can bet it will look like something special. That may all that these coins turn out to be. Take a brand new die, strike a thicker planchet than usual on a press adjusted too close that breaks the die and you'll produce some unusual looking coins before the die fails completely. They may look like Proofs! Anything can happen at the Mint's factory.
@BUFFNIXX said:
I think it would be useless to send any so-called 1917 proof or specimen coins to our host or the guys across the road. It will never happen despite how nice or convincing the said coin looks. Imagine the chaos injected into say the matte proof Lincoln or Buffalo Nickel registry sets. The registry sets will keep this from ever happening. Imagine some collector with a top matte proof registry set waking up one morning and finding out that his top-of-the-line registry set is now incomplete! (These the same comments apply to anacs and icg by the way and that makes for the four different grading services)
@koynekwest said:
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.
It's perhaps sad to say but that coin will never be accepted as a matte proof unless one or both of the "big boys" give it their blessing.
@koynekwest said:
It's perhaps sad to say but that coin will never be accepted as a matte proof unless one or both of the "big boys" give it their blessing.
And as we know, the big boys are never, ever, ever wrong.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
I do. Every numismatist benefits from those who came before us and I'll guarantee many were rogues, rascals, crooks, and worse. Although I've been guilty of disparaging a former "Ex-Pert" authenticator on occasion, I still get angry when folks point out errors in such a huge body of work by any dead numismatist. I don't think a book has been written without errors.
The problem is that any person under 65 was not around when hardly anyone (dealer/collector) knew ANYTHING!!!! Today, a few books, a computer, the TPGS's, and some study can make ANY T,D, or H posting here feel like a numismatic genius if compared to all the old dead guys! LUCKY US!
@koynekwest said:
Rim is somewhat suggestive but the strike is deficient for a matte proof.
This is the kind of strike nearly all matte proofs display.
Just my opinion.
That strike certainly looks good, but is that indeed a matte proof? The rim and edge appear a bit rounded, like the rim is not sharp and square with the edge as it should be.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@koynekwest asked: "Any idea where that INSAB coin may be today?"
I wish I could say I owned it but I have no idea where it is. Eventually, it will turn up. Hoskins kept all the INSAB Negatives. I keep the diagnostic sheet with my files. I lost track of his daughter over twenty-five years ago. She sold his library and coins before I found out he had died.
@koynekwest said:
It's perhaps sad to say but that coin will never be accepted as a matte proof unless one or both of the "big boys" give it their blessing.
And as we know, the big boys are never, ever, ever wrong.
Right or wrong; like it or not: They make/change the rules and run the game. That's probably a good thing as the game was not very good for the average guy before they came along.
@Insider2 said:
Right or wrong; like it or not: They make/change the rules and run the game. That's probably a good thing as the game was not very good for the average guy before they came along.
And that's fine as long as there are no politics involved, but politics create conflicts of interest, which lead to incorrect behavior. In the end who knows how it would go, no matter what the truth is?
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@koynekwest said:
It's perhaps sad to say but that coin will never be accepted as a matte proof unless one or both of the "big boys" give it their blessing.
And as we know, the big boys are never, ever, ever wrong.
Perhaps I should have said "market acceptable." The upside of this is that no bottom feeder slabbers (there have been many and a few may still be around) can call these things by any moniker they choose and will automatically be believed. Were I to pay any significant premium for a "1917 matte proof" coin of any denomination I would demand one (or better two or more) attribution(s) from a top or possibly 2nd tier slabber. If I was the owner of a purported matte proof such as any 1917 coin I would at least try to get it into a top tier slab. I would at least try very hard to get a written opinion from a known expert or two in the field of this type of thing at a bare minimum.
@koynekwest said:
Perhaps I should have said "market acceptable." The upside of this is that no bottom feeder slabbers (there have been many and a few may still be around) can call these things by any moniker they choose and automatically be believed. Were I to pay any significant premium for a "matte proof" I would demand one or better yet more attribution(s) from a top or possibly 2nd tier slabber. If I was the owner of a purported matte proof such as any 1917 coin I would at least try to get it into a top tier slab. Or at least a written opinion from a known expert or two in the field of this type of thing.
Agreed, especially given the high level of controversy. I'd expect any TPG to bring in expert consultants and even the mint (as Insider2 has said was probably done with it at old ANACS) to give a high level of confidence in the result.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
In the RedBook up until 2013 there was mention of matte proof coinage for the Lincoln cent and buffalo nickel
in that in the Lincoln cent section it stated “matte proof coins were struck for collectors from 1913 to 1917”
and in the buffalo nickel section it said exactly the same thing. But the powers that be had “1917” changed to “1916”
in that year (2013) in both the Lincoln cent section and the buffalo nickel section. But specimen coinage had also
been alluded to for the type one 1917 Standing Liberty quarter but they forgot to take it in out and it is there to this day.
I once saw a slabbed 1917 type one standing liberty quarter slabbed as “matte proof 63 - cleaned” that was slabbed
by someone OTHER than pcgs / ngc and this spectacular piece, IMO, stood on its own merits. It was really
something very special.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
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.
Anyone have access to the referenced Auction 90:1012 where the ANACS cert is mentioned?
.
.
.
.
"Anyone have access to the referenced Auction 90:1012 where the ANACS cert is mentioned?"
.
.
.
To answer that, the full Apostrophe auctions from 1979 to 1990 are now available on the Newman Numismatic Portal under Stacks-Bowers in their respective years (Stack's had a session in each).
.
.
Here are catalog links for Auction '90 on the Newman Numismatic Portal and the zoomable version on archive.org that NNP links to with the "Toggle fullscreen" button.
.
.
. https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/auctionlots?AucCoId=3&AuctionId=516651
.
.
.
Link to the page where the 1917 ANACS 1c shows up. It was reported as bringing $3,960 in the prices realized (which don't look like they are included in the online photos). Back then that could mean a buyback or a sale with no way to tell the difference.
.
. https://archive.org/details/auction90featuri1990stac/page/326/mode/2up
.
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
@koynekwest said:
I believe that in recent years many of his opinions have been found to be inaccurate. If I remember correctly some of the "matte proof" 1917 cents were determined not to be that at all. Though I'm no expert on these things, I believe I would discount any 1917 proof coins that were certified to be such by Mr Breen. I would send such coins, with said documentation, to any (or all) of the top four certification companies.
That is the point I'm making. Nevertheless, back then he WAS one of the go-to numismatists.
There is a reason for that, and it isn't just because he is dead.
Let's just put the whole issue to rest. As I have been taught by the CU forums repeatedly, if it didn't sticker then it does't count or really matter any way.
@cameonut2011 said:
Let's just put the whole issue to rest. As I have been taught by the CU forums repeatedly, if it didn't sticker then it does't count or really matter any way.
The whole issue will never be put to rest!!! "A modern rarity in the Lincoln series and not one to to pass up if you are
building a COMPLETE set these” to quote from the above auction Auction 90 catalogue.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
The only way it would be put to rest is if the coin in question comes out of hiding and is carefully examined and either proven or disproven based on physical evidence.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
While we are talking about 1917 proof pennies, take a look at this 1917 ms68 buffalo nickel on eBay. One of 4 supposedly
It makes my mouth water, but hey I do not have 50 grand for one at the moment
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I'm not fond of the scratch across the cheek and jaw. I know it's probably some sort of toning line but boy oh boy how did that get an MS68 with such a glaring problem?
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@rmpsrpms said:
I'm not fond of the scratch across the cheek and jaw. I know it's probably some sort of toning line but boy oh boy how did that get an MS68 with such a glaring problem?
A truly amazing coin! I believe it is just a planchet flaw on the face that did not strike out. It probably spotted after it was graded.
I'm personally not all that fond of late die state coins, either. It's unfortunate that most high-grade coins are late die state, but since they exhibit the type of luster that the TPGs (and many buyers) seem to prefer, the market has spoken.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@rmpsrpms said:
I'm personally not all that fond of late die state coins, either. It's unfortunate that most high-grade coins are late die state, but since they exhibit the type of luster that the TPGs (and many buyers) seem to prefer, the market has spoken.
I completely agree, especially for Buffalo Nickels. I much prefer them without the clash marks under the chin and through EPU on the reverse, also the mushy look that they get. Abraded die varieties are a different story, obviously.
The nick on the chin kept this nice example within my price range, a modest MS65. I prefer this look over that mid to late die state, although not clashed, MS68 example, and for only 1% of the cost.
Hopefully linking pictures from set registry works...
@rmpsrpms said:
The only way it would be put to rest is if the coin in question comes out of hiding and is carefully examined and either proven or disproven based on physical evidence.
Bump. Lol
Just got "Lincoln Cent Matte Proofs" -Kevin Flynn. Amazing Book I'd definitely recommended it.
Crazy, I purchased his book
before I got this 1909 which I believe is an MPL. Yes, right? Someone Confirm lol
Man I'm so new to this. I thought I would post this. Here they are. I can post more if legit thanks guys
@Crypto said:
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.
With the way the US government acted when the Langboard family sent 10 1933 DE to the mint for authentication, you wouldn't have any apprehension parading a 1964 Peace dollar or 1974 aluminum cent around?
It still amazes me that the Langboard family would entrust any government entity with their coin-especially all of them when there are many other reputable authentication venues out there. International branches of major grading services such as PCGS would seem to be a much better choice imo.
@ColdSummer310 said:
Bump. Lol
Just got "Lincoln Cent Matte Proofs" -Kevin Flynn. Amazing Book I'd definitely recommended it.
Crazy, I purchased his book
before I got this 1909 which I believe is an MPL. Yes, right? Someone Confirm lol
Man I'm so new to this. I thought I would post this. Here they are. I can post more if legit thanks guys
Comments
I believe that in recent years many of his opinions have been found to be inaccurate. If I remember correctly some of the "matte proof" 1917 cents were determined not to be that at all. Though I'm no expert on these things, I believe I would discount any 1917 proof coins that were certified to be such by Mr Breen. I would send such coins, with said documentation, to any (or all) of the top four certification companies.
The problem here is that the coin is not available for examination. I'd bet there are dozens of folks on this forum (myself included) who could tell if the coin were a MP within 5 minutes of examination.
http://macrocoins.com
There must be at least a couple of people here on the boards that are well versed in matte proof coinage.
That is the point I'm making. Nevertheless, back then he WAS one of the go-to numismatists.
Wasn't it Breen who wrote that there were 1956-D to 1964-D Type B quarters? As far as I'm aware, that was completely made up - there were no purported specimens, to begin with. Seems like he was a very unsavory character, all around.
Anyone know the Hawaii collector that owns this?
I think buffnixx has corresponded with him.
With the way the US government acted when the Langboard family sent 10 1933 DE to the mint for authentication, you wouldn't have any apprehension parading a 1964 Peace dollar or 1974 aluminum cent around?
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
The US government really hasn't treated the 1933 DEs differently since the 1940s. They also haven't changed their stance on the 1964 Peace dollar since at least 1973 when the following was posted. Image courtesy of @dcarr .
http://www.dc-coin.com/1grabenercoinpressmedallionsaleprice-1.aspx
Note if a 1917 matte proof nickel exists it might look like this coin that has the die break or crack near the L in LIBERTY
down towards the rim. This coin supposedly has thick squared edges which are brilliant with no beveling. No business
strikes ( or circulated specimens for that matter ) have ever turned up.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Rim is somewhat suggestive but the strike is deficient for a matte proof.
This is the kind of strike nearly all matte proofs display.
Just my opinion.
I think it would be useless to send any so-called 1917 proof or specimen coins to our host or the guys across the road. It will never happen despite how nice or convincing the said coin looks. Imagine the chaos injected into say the matte proof Lincoln or Buffalo Nickel registry sets. The registry sets will keep this from ever happening. Imagine some collector with a top matte proof registry set waking up one morning and finding out that his top-of-the-line registry set is now incomplete! (These the same comments apply to anacs and icg by the way and that makes for the four different grading services)
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Unsavory for sure. What have you done for the hobby?
@BUFFNIXX posted: "Note if a 1917 matte proof nickel exists it might look like this coin that has the die break or crack near the L in LIBERTY down towards the rim. This coin supposedly has thick squared edges which are brilliant with no beveling. No business strikes ( or circulated specimens for that matter ) have ever turned up."
That image matches the Breen description. It also matches the one we certified as a proof in the late 1970's at INSAB in DC. Our coin had flat rims with 70% wires s on both sides. The coin was seen by folks at Treasury, Department of the Mint, Office of Technology. Several years ago I tried to contact them about an error nickel. The lady I spoke with (employed for 20 yrs at Treasury) told me *there was no such place in existence.** She never heard of Dr. Hunter, or the Office of Technology. Funny, we used them to confirm any unusual coin errors, and they confirmed our opinion of both "Omega's" and the 1857 $3 C/F when every dealer claimed we were nuts!
Does a 1917 Proof cent exist. Probably. All sorts of stuff goes on. TPGS have found "Modern Specimens" since the 70's.
The 1927 nickels and the 1964 SMS strikes quickly come to mind.
One day, a 1917 may turn up. If not an actual Proof you can bet it will look like something special. That may all that these coins turn out to be. Take a brand new die, strike a thicker planchet than usual on a press adjusted too close that breaks the die and you'll produce some unusual looking coins before the die fails completely. They may look like Proofs! Anything can happen at the Mint's factory.
LOL - you tell me!
@Insider2
What have I done? You brought it up - you must have something in mind!
Any idea where that INSAB coin may be today?
It's perhaps sad to say but that coin will never be accepted as a matte proof unless one or both of the "big boys" give it their blessing.
And as we know, the big boys are never, ever, ever wrong.
http://macrocoins.com
I do. Every numismatist benefits from those who came before us and I'll guarantee many were rogues, rascals, crooks, and worse. Although I've been guilty of disparaging a former "Ex-Pert" authenticator on occasion, I still get angry when folks point out errors in such a huge body of work by any dead numismatist. I don't think a book has been written without errors.
The problem is that any person under 65 was not around when hardly anyone (dealer/collector) knew ANYTHING!!!! Today, a few books, a computer, the TPGS's, and some study can make ANY T,D, or H posting here feel like a numismatic genius if compared to all the old dead guys! LUCKY US!
That strike certainly looks good, but is that indeed a matte proof? The rim and edge appear a bit rounded, like the rim is not sharp and square with the edge as it should be.
http://macrocoins.com
@koynekwest asked: "Any idea where that INSAB coin may be today?"
I wish I could say I owned it but I have no idea where it is. Eventually, it will turn up. Hoskins kept all the INSAB Negatives. I keep the diagnostic sheet with my files. I lost track of his daughter over twenty-five years ago. She sold his library and coins before I found out he had died.
Right or wrong; like it or not: They make/change the rules and run the game. That's probably a good thing as the game was not very good for the average guy before they came along.
And that's fine as long as there are no politics involved, but politics create conflicts of interest, which lead to incorrect behavior. In the end who knows how it would go, no matter what the truth is?
http://macrocoins.com
Perhaps I should have said "market acceptable." The upside of this is that no bottom feeder slabbers (there have been many and a few may still be around) can call these things by any moniker they choose and will automatically be believed. Were I to pay any significant premium for a "1917 matte proof" coin of any denomination I would demand one (or better two or more) attribution(s) from a top or possibly 2nd tier slabber. If I was the owner of a purported matte proof such as any 1917 coin I would at least try to get it into a top tier slab. I would at least try very hard to get a written opinion from a known expert or two in the field of this type of thing at a bare minimum.
Agreed, especially given the high level of controversy. I'd expect any TPG to bring in expert consultants and even the mint (as Insider2 has said was probably done with it at old ANACS) to give a high level of confidence in the result.
http://macrocoins.com
In the RedBook up until 2013 there was mention of matte proof coinage for the Lincoln cent and buffalo nickel
in that in the Lincoln cent section it stated “matte proof coins were struck for collectors from 1913 to 1917”
and in the buffalo nickel section it said exactly the same thing. But the powers that be had “1917” changed to “1916”
in that year (2013) in both the Lincoln cent section and the buffalo nickel section. But specimen coinage had also
been alluded to for the type one 1917 Standing Liberty quarter but they forgot to take it in out and it is there to this day.
I once saw a slabbed 1917 type one standing liberty quarter slabbed as “matte proof 63 - cleaned” that was slabbed
by someone OTHER than pcgs / ngc and this spectacular piece, IMO, stood on its own merits. It was really
something very special.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I think history has shown the the Mint is not always "Numismaticaly Correct" and has produced special coins on occasion........
OINK
.
.
.
.
"Anyone have access to the referenced Auction 90:1012 where the ANACS cert is mentioned?"
.
.
.
To answer that, the full Apostrophe auctions from 1979 to 1990 are now available on the Newman Numismatic Portal under Stacks-Bowers in their respective years (Stack's had a session in each).
.
.
Here are catalog links for Auction '90 on the Newman Numismatic Portal and the zoomable version on archive.org that NNP links to with the "Toggle fullscreen" button.
.
.
.
https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/auctionlots?AucCoId=3&AuctionId=516651
.
.
.
Link to the page where the 1917 ANACS 1c shows up. It was reported as bringing $3,960 in the prices realized (which don't look like they are included in the online photos). Back then that could mean a buyback or a sale with no way to tell the difference.
.
.
https://archive.org/details/auction90featuri1990stac/page/326/mode/2up
.
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
There is a reason for that, and it isn't just because he is dead.
Let's just put the whole issue to rest. As I have been taught by the CU forums repeatedly, if it didn't sticker then it does't count or really matter any way.
The whole issue will never be put to rest!!! "A modern rarity in the Lincoln series and not one to to pass up if you are
building a COMPLETE set these” to quote from the above auction Auction 90 catalogue.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
The only way it would be put to rest is if the coin in question comes out of hiding and is carefully examined and either proven or disproven based on physical evidence.
http://macrocoins.com
While we are talking about 1917 proof pennies, take a look at this 1917 ms68 buffalo nickel on eBay. One of 4 supposedly
It makes my mouth water, but hey I do not have 50 grand for one at the moment
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Beautiful MS68 @BUFFNIXX ! Here's the TrueView:
I'm not fond of the scratch across the cheek and jaw. I know it's probably some sort of toning line but boy oh boy how did that get an MS68 with such a glaring problem?
http://macrocoins.com
A truly amazing
coin! I believe it is just a planchet flaw on the face that did not strike out. It probably spotted after it was graded.
Maybe the other 3 don't have ugly scratch/flaws?
http://macrocoins.com
I am tracking that one.
Every bit as attractive as a proof IMO
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I'm personally not all that fond of late die state coins, either. It's unfortunate that most high-grade coins are late die state, but since they exhibit the type of luster that the TPGs (and many buyers) seem to prefer, the market has spoken.
http://macrocoins.com
I completely agree, especially for Buffalo Nickels. I much prefer them without the clash marks under the chin and through EPU on the reverse, also the mushy look that they get. Abraded die varieties are a different story, obviously.
The nick on the chin kept this nice example within my price range, a modest MS65. I prefer this look over that mid to late die state, although not clashed, MS68 example, and for only 1% of the cost.
Hopefully linking pictures from set registry works...
Collector, occasional seller
I think the MS68 is way overgraded for a couple reasons, but the LDS luster and overall nice toning seems to trump the technical problems.
http://macrocoins.com
There is a brief note(conjecture IMO, and no photos) about 1917 Matte Proofs on page 36 here.
https://www.money.org/uploads/Counterfeit Detection Vol.2.pdf
Collector, occasional seller
)
Maybe
Socal 310
Bump. Lol
Just got "Lincoln Cent Matte Proofs" -Kevin Flynn. Amazing Book I'd definitely recommended it.
Crazy, I purchased his book
before I got this 1909 which I believe is an MPL. Yes, right? Someone Confirm lol
Man I'm so new to this. I thought I would post this. Here they are. I can post more if legit thanks guys
Socal 310
It still amazes me that the Langboard family would entrust any government entity with their coin-especially all of them when there are many other reputable authentication venues out there. International branches of major grading services such as PCGS would seem to be a much better choice imo.
Nope. Rounded incomplete rims inside and out.