What is a “Roman Finish” and how did it get that name?

MrEureka · July 16, 2021 6:41AM

I’ve certainly seen coins described that way. I just don’t quite get it.

MFeld · July 16, 2021 6:48AM

Perhaps this explains it? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/this-1600-year-old-goblet-shows-that-the-romans-were-nanotechnology-pioneers-787224/

panexpoguy · July 16, 2021 7:19AM

A Roman Finish is when you take a short sword and plunge it vertically down between the neck and shoulder of a kneeling gladiator so as to kill him quickly…..also known as a Roman Performance Evaluation.

TurtleCat · July 16, 2021 7:23AM

@panexpoguy said:
A Roman Finish is when you take a short sword and plunge it vertically down between the neck and shoulder of a kneeling gladiator so as to kill him quickly…..also known as a Roman Performance Evaluation.

The matches were watched by the Coliseum Action Committee (CAC) which provided viewers with instant reactions to the quality of the Roman Finish. The stamp of approval was always placed upon the slab of the gladiator.

Hydrant · July 16, 2021 7:27AM

An Italian in Helsinki. The origin of the term is self explanatory.

CaptHenway · July 16, 2021 7:34AM

You might try looking through The Numismatist for 1909-1910 to see if there is any sort of announcement from the Mint about the Proof gold.

ricko · July 16, 2021 7:58AM

I found this.... Cheers, RickO
The Roman Finish combines a brilliant proof surface with a matte finish surface and are considered by some collectors as the most beautiful proof coins struck by the United States.

WAYNEAS · July 16, 2021 8:07AM

@MFeld said:
Perhaps this explains it? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/this-1600-year-old-goblet-shows-that-the-romans-were-nanotechnology-pioneers-787224/

A very interesting article.
Thanks for sharing.
Wayne

TwoKopeiki · July 16, 2021 8:10AM

@ricko said:
I found this.... Cheers, RickO
The Roman Finish combines a brilliant proof surface with a matte finish surface and are considered by some collectors as the most beautiful proof coins struck by the United States.

https://coinweek.com/us-coins/first-display-in-nearly-a-decade-of-rare-1921-roman-finish-proof-saint-gaudens-20/

Roman Finish Proof coins, also known as Satin Finish Proof, were struck at the Philadelphia Mint in 1909 and 1910, although some examples are known from later years, such as the relatively recent discoveries of the 1921 Roman Finish Proof double eagles. The Roman Finish combines a Brilliant Proof surface with a Matte Finish surface and is considered by some collectors as the most beautiful Proof coin struck by the United States.

Here's a 1908 that was considered to be the first of the "Roman Gold" finish double eagles:

https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-saint-gaudens-double-eagles/1908-20-roman-finish-pr64-pcgs-both-1907-and-1908-issues-of-double-eagles-saw-variants-in-both-design-and-finishes-the-1/a/392-6557.s

...These pieces characteristically are found with deep khaki-green coloration and pronounced matte surfaces. However, of the 101 proofs struck, at least one "Roman Gold" proof is known. One would think that this piece was struck late in the year as a prototype for the "Roman Gold" finish used in 1909 and 1910. However, research done by the staff at Sotheby's in 1997 indicates that this piece was actually presented to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts by William Sturgis Bigelow on June 11, 1908. The museum's catalog card for the coin states: "One of the first coins struck after this legend was restored." This information was supplied to the museum by Frank Leach, Mint Director at the time of the coin's striking. This piece has a finish that is distinctively different from other proofs from 1908. The surfaces are bright, orange-gold with a semi-reflective sheen in the fields; in short, a "Roman Gold" proof.

TwoKopeiki · July 16, 2021 8:11AM

The Robert Loewinger reference, Proof Gold Coinage of the United States, offers this:

“The [matte proof] process originally started in Belgium and was popularized in the Paris Mint. The finish was applied after striking and was made by sandblasting the coins at different forces and speeds with different sizes of grains of sand. Also pickling the coins in a weak acid was another technique that was used on these coins after striking.”

We are unsure how widespread the “pickling” was, but the sandblasting was a well-known, widespread Mint technique that produced a granular (sometimes fine, sometimes coarser), usually dark, subdued finish to the product, a function of the lack of normally reflective surfaces. The matte proof coins of 1908 are usually dark, brownish-gold to olive-brown, and they were extremely unpopular with collectors accustomed to a more brilliant finish.

The Mint in 1909 reverted to a lighter Roman or satin finish for proof gold. The updated Akers Handbook offers these thoughts:

“The proof 1909 introduced the Roman Gold proofing method in the Indian Half Eagle series, although at least one specimen was prepared using the dark matte finish of 1908. Despite having brighter, flashier surfaces than the proof 1908, the proof 1909 still failed to gain wide acceptance among the contemporary public The Mint melted many examples at year’s end. Interestingly, even though most survivors present as overall smooth, the issue has the lowest average grade in the entire proof Indian Half Eagle series.”

TwoKopeiki · July 16, 2021 8:19AM

Here's some info from these forum from a few year back: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/916079/omg-eye-candy-matte-proofs

"There were two versions of gold proofs made for collectors from 1908-1916: sandblast and satin. There is no such thing as a "Roman" proof except in the imagination of Wally Breen who invented the term because he did not do the research to learn what the mint really did. Unfortunately, this error is perpetuated by copycat work in the "CoinWeek" column quoted extensively.

Satin proof – made on a medal press using new dies. Defect-free planchets, no special pre- or post-strike treatment. Satin surface is that of the new dies.

Sandblast proof – made on a medal press using new dies. Defect-free planchets, no special pre-strike treatment. Coin was sandblasted individually after striking. (NOT while it was still warm – temperature of the coin made no difference.)

Sandblasted surface was very delicate and every slight post-sandblasting mark was obvious. There are minor differences from year to year and within years because this was a manual process. Also, the surfaces of new dies changed subtly as they were used.

For details, so to Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908."

TwoKopeiki · July 16, 2021 8:23AM

Same info from RWB in 2008:

@RWB said:
Gold proofs made for collectors in 1909-1910 were produced by striking the coin on a planchet using a hydraulic medal press. The resulting surface was satin in texture since it represented the surface of a new die before stress induced metal flow produced luster. These are now called “satin proofs” because that best describes their appearance. The obsolete term “Roman proof” is meaningless. Note that there was no post-striking alteration or special process.

If a satin proof was sandblasted at the mint, it became a “sandblast proof” (called “matte proof” in many post-WW-II auctions, but always called sandblast during their own time and through the 1930s). The sandblasting was done by hand so every proof is slightly different. This was the only post-striking process ever applied to proof coins.

1921 and 1922 Peace dollars also come in sandblast and satin proof versions. These were made in exactly the same way as the earlier gold pieces.

For additional information read Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908 distributed by Wizard Coin Supply, or Guidebook for Peace Dollars 1921-1964 available from Whitman in November.

MrEureka · July 16, 2021 10:59AM

@TwoKopeiki said:
Same info from RWB in 2008:

@RWB said:
Gold proofs made for collectors in 1909-1910 were produced by striking the coin on a planchet using a hydraulic medal press. The resulting surface was satin in texture since it represented the surface of a new die before stress induced metal flow produced luster. These are now called “satin proofs” because that best describes their appearance. The obsolete term “Roman proof” is meaningless. Note that there was no post-striking alteration or special process.

RWB's research calls the term "obsolete", but what is the prior usage? Sure, maybe Walter Breen was the first to apply the term "Roman" to these particular coins, but where did he get it from? And if he didn't actually get it somewhere but instead just made it up, what could he possibly have been thinking?

CaptHenway · July 16, 2021 2:09PM

I did a search through The Numismatist from 1909 thru 1919 for the word "Roman," with over 240 hits, and not once was the word followed by the word "Finish."

IkesT · July 16, 2021 2:35PM

Would it be accurate to say that the term "specimen" overlaps with the RWB definition of satin proof?

Coinosaurus · July 16, 2021 2:36PM

Kosoff used the term when describing a Saint in 1942:

https://archive.org/details/1942americannumi00koso/page/38/mode/2up?q="roman+finish" (lot 173G).

That should disqualify Breen as the inventor. Elder used the term in 1917, but in reference to jewelry, not coins.

MFeld · July 16, 2021 5:47PM

@IkesT said:
Would it be accurate to say that the term "specimen" overlaps with the RWB definition of satin proof?

The word “specimen” is often used, simply to make reference to a specific coin. For example: “This particular specimen is graded MS65”.

“Specimen” is also used to signify a specially made coin, that doesn’t qualify as a “Proof”. Some “Specimens” are made for presentation purposes.

But a Satin Proof is typically considered just as much a Proof as a brilliant one is. So it would be somewhat of a contradiction to to describe a Satin Proof as a “Specimen”.

coinlieutenant · July 16, 2021 5:49PM

It's complicated. Tell me, do you like gladiator movies?

PerryHall · July 16, 2021 5:56PM

@coinlieutenant said:
It's complicated. Tell me, do you like gladiator movies?

I imagine that Breen did.

MrEureka · July 16, 2021 6:13PM

@IkesT said:
Would it be accurate to say that the term "specimen" overlaps with the RWB definition of satin proof?

You could argue that a "specimen" is sort of like a satin proof, but not struck on a medal press. Then again, you could also argue that a poodle is like a coyote, but cuter.

IkesT · July 16, 2021 8:01PM

@MrEureka said:

@IkesT said:
Would it be accurate to say that the term "specimen" overlaps with the RWB definition of satin proof?

You could argue that a "specimen" is sort of like a satin proof, but not struck on a medal press. Then again, you could also argue that a poodle is like a coyote, but cuter.

Thank you - that makes sense. Thank you, @Mfeld , as well. It also seems that the given designation depends partly on how much is known about the production of the coin and how far the attributor is willing to go.

I'm thinking of the 1927 specimen strike nickels, as an example. These are frequently likened to satin proofs. Breen describes the surfaces as "satin finished" and "like those of 'Roman finish' 1909-10 gold Proofs" - in other words, he appears to equate the two, which gets back to Andy's original question.

From the excerpt below, it appears that John Albanese would have called them proof based on the appearance of the coins, but did not due to the lack of documentation to back it up. In this case, "specimen" is apparently used as a more general term to designate a specially struck coin, without making a specific determination on how it was struck. In that sense, a "specimen" striking could mean many things, including a satin proof.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/buffalo-nickels/nickels/1927-5c-sp65-ngc-cac-pcgs-3987-/a/1166-3097.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

1927 Specimen Striking Buffalo Nickel, SP65
One of Only Six Pieces Known
Reverse Struck From the Matte Proof Die

1927 5C SP65 NGC. CAC. At the FUN show in January 1989, Jim Halperin purchased three unusual 1927 nickels. The special nature of these coins was unknown and unsuspected to the numismatic community. When I saw them, my initial reaction was one of puzzlement. Why would the Mint produce specimen nickels in 1927? Examination showed that there was definitely something different about them. But what exactly? Over the next few months numismatic heavyweights rendered opinions, and ultimately each coin was sold to dealers who understood the special nature of the pieces.

John Albanese, president of NGC, issued this statement to Coin World:

"I could have sworn they were Proof." Each coin has a wire rim, but "it's terribly hard to call them a Proof without any backup." ... We couldn't call them Uncirculated or a Proof. They are definitely something special. We felt classifying them as Specimen was the proper thing to do."

Jim Halperin had acquired the three original coins from an unspecified source and submitted them to NGC. (Three other coins entered the market a few months later.) His opinion was, "It [two of the coins] reminded me of the Satin Finish Proofs minted in 1936, but to see texture like that on a 1927 mintage was unbelievable! It didn't seem possible."

The first clue about a possible explanation of the texture of the coins' surfaces came from Atlanta dealer, Jeff Notrica. He noticed the reverse die that was used was the same one used to strike the reverses on matte proof nickels from 1913 to 1916. That was the conclusion Walter Breen came to as well, noting, "Surfaces are satin finished and untampered. ... All features point to at least two perfectly aligned blows from the dies, as normal in Proofs but not business strikes. Surfaces are like those of 'Roman finish' 1909-10 gold Proofs, and certain Proof commemoratives."

Rexford · July 16, 2021 9:01PM

@IkesT ”Specimen” in this context means specially struck but without official documentation / for an unknown purpose, rather than a method of striking. Coins designated “specimen” in this way are often proof or appear to be so.

ReadyFireAim · July 16, 2021 9:19PM

https://www.greysheet.com/news/story/first-display-in-nearly-a-decade-of-rare-1921-roman-finish-proof-saint-gaudens-20

MrEureka · July 16, 2021 10:31PM

@Rexford said:
@IkesT ”Specimen” in this context means specially struck but without official documentation / for an unknown purpose, rather than a method of striking. Coins designated “specimen” in this way are often proof or appear to be so.

An undocumented but otherwise unquestionable proof is still a proof, not a “specimen”. As for the 1927 nickels, they are hardly obvious proofs. They’re just obviously made differently and to a higher standard than normal business strikes.

Rexford · July 17, 2021 12:25AM

@MrEureka said:

@Rexford said:
@IkesT ”Specimen” in this context means specially struck but without official documentation / for an unknown purpose, rather than a method of striking. Coins designated “specimen” in this way are often proof or appear to be so.

An undocumented but otherwise unquestionable proof is still a proof, not a “specimen”. As for the 1927 nickels, they are hardly obvious proofs. They’re just obviously made differently and to a higher standard than normal business strikes.

I can’t speak to the 1927 nickels (although in the above quote they are described as mimicking satin proof finishes) but this is how PCGS treats certain coins in order to avoid definitively describing them as proof (as JA wrote about the nickels, “it's terribly hard to call them a Proof without any backup,” meaning they probably would be called proof if evidence of their production were to emerge). There are many foreign patterns and medals that are obvious proofs but PCGS calls “Specimen” to indicate a special issuance of some sort without addressing the method of striking. Of course, much of the usage of this designation is inconsistent and there are instances when it theoretically could be used but is not in favor of “Proof”, though usually in these cases the coins are more generally accepted as such.

ColonelJessup · July 17, 2021 5:33AM

The '27 nickels appeared in a Harmer-Rooke sale in "89. 5 or so dealers recognized them as special and colluded. The coins were bought cheap and Brian Hendelson bought out the group for full ownership. Everyone involved recognized the Type 2 reverse die and the look was "proof-ish". They were blatant proofs. No one seeing them with a knowledge base and an open mind could believe them to be anything else but proofs. Research later determined that they were the result of a test of a chroming technique with the dies. This was explained very well in a later Heritage sale.

BuffaloIronTail · July 17, 2021 9:06AM

@ColonelJessup said:
The '27 nickels appeared in a Harmer-Rooke sale in "89. 5 or so dealers recognized them as special and colluded. The coins were bought cheap and Brian Hendelson bought out the group for full ownership. Everyone involved recognized the Type 2 reverse die and the look was "proof-ish". They were blatant proofs. No one seeing them with a knowledge base and an open mind could believe them to be anything else but proofs. Research later determined that they were the result of a test of a chroming technique with the dies. This was explained very well in a later Heritage sale.

They were, I believe, found in John Sinnocks' estate. Mr. Sinnock, who was chief engraver when they were made, had a taste for unusual and "special" coins.

To say that they were the result of tests on Chrome Plated dies is most likely true, as the Mint started to plate dies with Chrome in 1928.

Pete

ColonelJessup · July 17, 2021 9:29AM

@BuffaloIronTail said:

@ColonelJessup said:
The '27 nickels appeared in a Harmer-Rooke sale in "89. 5 or so dealers recognized them as special and colluded. The coins were bought cheap and Brian Hendelson bought out the group for full ownership. Everyone involved recognized the Type 2 reverse die and the look was "proof-ish". They were blatant proofs. No one seeing them with a knowledge base and an open mind could believe them to be anything else but proofs. Research later determined that they were the result of a test of a chroming technique with the dies. This was explained very well in a later Heritage sale.

They were, I believe, found in John Sinnocks' estate. Mr. Sinnock, who was chief engraver when they were made, had a taste for unusual and "special" coins.

To say that they were the result of tests on Chrome Plated dies is most likely true, as the Mint started to plate dies with Chrome in 1928.

Pete

Maybe the ones Jimmy bought were from the Sinnock estate.
Maybe there's paperwork. Letters? Manila 2x2 coin pouches with authenticatable handwriting?
I don't know your sources. Happy to hear more.

I looked at the coins mentioned
in--hand,
was absolutely convinced they were "from-out-of-the-blue/un-provenance-able" un-documentable proofs
and personally colluded on IIRC two 3-pc lots.

Nothing else in the sale was remotely weird, esoteric or anomalous.

Perhaps a tricky provenance in this case. Un-Sinnock-y. But the Sinnock pedigree has been well-established as a fountainhead source and many unthought-of goodies have shown up.

Stuart · July 17, 2021 9:45AM

For whatever reason, I’ve always associated “Roman Finish” with the 1907 Roman Numeral High High Relief $20 Saint Gaudens Gold pieces. (Coin Image from CoinFacts)

IkesT · July 17, 2021 9:57AM

.> @ColonelJessup said:

@BuffaloIronTail said:

@ColonelJessup said:
The '27 nickels appeared in a Harmer-Rooke sale in "89. 5 or so dealers recognized them as special and colluded. The coins were bought cheap and Brian Hendelson bought out the group for full ownership. Everyone involved recognized the Type 2 reverse die and the look was "proof-ish". They were blatant proofs. No one seeing them with a knowledge base and an open mind could believe them to be anything else but proofs. Research later determined that they were the result of a test of a chroming technique with the dies. This was explained very well in a later Heritage sale.

They were, I believe, found in John Sinnocks' estate. Mr. Sinnock, who was chief engraver when they were made, had a taste for unusual and "special" coins.

To say that they were the result of tests on Chrome Plated dies is most likely true, as the Mint started to plate dies with Chrome in 1928.

Pete

Maybe the ones Jimmy bought were from the Sinnock estate.
Maybe there's paperwork. Letters? Manila 2x2 coin pouches with authenticatable handwriting?
I don't know your sources. Happy to hear more.

This was speculated, but not confirmed.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/buffalo-nickels/nickels/1927-special-strike-5c-sp65-pcgs-pcgs-3987-/a/1124-2168.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

Twenty years ago, I closely examined one of the most interesting discoveries that has ever crossed my desk. Three Specimen 1927 Buffalo nickels had just been certified by NGC after being sold to Jim Halperin at a coin show. The source of these pieces was unknown. However, after consulting with Walter Breen it seemed reasonable to conclude that these coins came from the estate of John Sinnock. Sinnock was a "quiet and unassuming" man, according to Neil Harris, former editor of The Numismatist, but he was "always trying new things." Sinnock's collection was consigned to the joint ANA-CNA auction conducted by Kelly and Charlton in Detroit in 1962. In that auction, lot 352 contained 10 Buffalo nickels. Three were dated 1927, three 1930, and four 1934. All were described as Uncirculated and the lot sold for $60 on a $75 estimate. Of course, no one knows today whether the three Specimen coins were the same three 1927 nickels in this lot from Sinnock's estate, but Walter Breen thought it was a reasonable conjecture.

ColonelJessup · July 17, 2021 10:12AM

@IkesT said:
.> @ColonelJessup said:

@BuffaloIronTail said:

@ColonelJessup said:
The '27 nickels appeared in a Harmer-Rooke sale in "89. 5 or so dealers recognized them as special and colluded. The coins were bought cheap and Brian Hendelson bought out the group for full ownership. Everyone involved recognized the Type 2 reverse die and the look was "proof-ish". They were blatant proofs. No one seeing them with a knowledge base and an open mind could believe them to be anything else but proofs. Research later determined that they were the result of a test of a chroming technique with the dies. This was explained very well in a later Heritage sale.

They were, I believe, found in John Sinnocks' estate. Mr. Sinnock, who was chief engraver when they were made, had a taste for unusual and "special" coins.

To say that they were the result of tests on Chrome Plated dies is most likely true, as the Mint started to plate dies with Chrome in 1928.

Pete

Maybe the ones Jimmy bought were from the Sinnock estate.
Maybe there's paperwork. Letters? Manila 2x2 coin pouches with authenticatable handwriting?
I don't know your sources. Happy to hear more.

This was speculated, but not confirmed.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/buffalo-nickels/nickels/1927-special-strike-5c-sp65-pcgs-pcgs-3987-/a/1124-2168.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

Twenty years ago, I closely examined one of the most interesting discoveries that has ever crossed my desk. Three Specimen 1927 Buffalo nickels had just been certified by NGC after being sold to Jim Halperin at a coin show. The source of these pieces was unknown. However, after consulting with Walter Breen it seemed reasonable to conclude that these coins came from the estate of John Sinnock. Sinnock was a "quiet and unassuming" man, according to Neil Harris, former editor of The Numismatist, but he was "always trying new things." Sinnock's collection was consigned to the joint ANA-CNA auction conducted by Kelly and Charlton in Detroit in 1962. In that auction, lot 352 contained 10 Buffalo nickels. Three were dated 1927, three 1930, and four 1934. All were described as Uncirculated and the lot sold for $60 on a $75 estimate. Of course, no one knows today whether the three Specimen coins were the same three 1927 nickels in this lot from Sinnock's estate, but Walter Breen thought it was a reasonable conjecture.

Thanks for the illuminating auction information. A very cool story!

Having burned a few with Walter in the earlier 80's, I can note from personal observation that Walter not-infrequently made sh!t up. He really did know more than anyone else, but he often made illogical/improbable jumps that were accepted because so much more of his data was viewed as uncontradictable. What he may have presented as facts were often surmises that turned out to be accurate. John Dannreuther has done work correcting and revising his work for decades But this one, especially if he (truly and deeply eidetic) remembered the document, seems not of that ilk. And even without knowledge of the contents of the estate, it would be the intuitive surmise of the very-well-informed.

A very cool story indeed!

ReadyFireAim · July 17, 2021 5:24PM

@Stuart said:
For whatever reason, I’ve always associated “Roman Finish” with the 1907 Roman Numeral High High Relief $20 >Saint Gaudens Gold pieces.

Matte is more like this... (Heavy Roman) Sandblasted

Satin is more like this...(Light Roman) Not sandblasted in 09-10... Dies not polished to mirror proof standards.
Multiple strikes, fresh dies & special handling make them different than standard 1909 saints.
Lack of die wear results in reduced luster.

Mirror proof...Dies polished to mirror proof standards

Check out Hansen's proof saints here....
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/20-gold-major-sets/st-gaudens-20-gold-basic-set-proof-1908-1915/publishedset/178008

Stuart · July 17, 2021 6:43PM

@MrEureka I thought it may be appropriate to post my Coin Luster Criteria as a follow-up to the previous @ReadyFireAim post… It’s in my forum profile for reference

Mint Luster Definition & Progressive Surface Reflectivity Descriptive Terms:

I define Luster as the result of how reflected light interacts, and is affected or scattered by, the texture or grain of the coin’s metallic surface.

Mint Luster specifically refers to the original luster state that a coin possesses when it leaves the mint, prior to metal wear, scratches and other post mint circulation phenomena.

Coin metallic surface texture is created and affected by a combination of the planchet preparation and the minting process wear state of the die surface, which is impacted by a combination of Initial New Die State, Die Wear via friction from metal flow through striking of thousands of coins, and Die Polishing or Lapping to enhance the Eye Appeal of struck coins as the dies begin to show signs of wear.

The dies may originally have Mirrored Highly Reflective Surfaces (Proof, DMPL or PL), or Frosty Surfaces as are typical on many Business Strike Coins.

They may also have Textures and Reflectivity Strength in between the above-mentioned End Members due to wear during the minting process.

I classify luster into the following nomenclatural categories from Left to Right as dies progressively wear via the minting process:

[Deeply Mirrored (Proof) => Deep Mirrored Prooflike (DMPL) => Prooflike (PL) => Semi-Prooflike => Glossy => Satiny => Frosty => Matte (Proof)]

What is a “Roman Finish” and how did it get that name?

Comments

Leave a Comment