1917 Matte Proof Lincoln

Merc · June 25, 2003 2:47PM

I was at my coin meeting tonight and one new dealer showed up with several books of coins in 2x2s. I took a look at his Lincoln cents. Most were circulated. All of the holders looked and felt very old. One was a 1917 labled as a matte proof. He had $300 on it. I thought it was strange. I thought the matte proofs ended in 1916. It had high thin rims and extra details in Lincoln. I have not seen enough of these to tell if it were really a proof or not. Then another club member started asking me questions. I got distracted and didn't make it back to look at the coin before the end of the meeting. When I got home, I looked it up in Breen's book. It seems some 1917 proofs may have been made but no mintage was given.

Does anyone have any info on the 1917 proof Lincoln? Also how can you tell the proof from a well struck business strike? I've seen some of the early years that have a matte like luster but were not proofs.

Cam40 · June 25, 2003 2:59PM

No help here.
Those few early matte proof Lincolns I,ve seen always left me confused.
Maybe they really were early Lincoln matte proofs but I couldnt see the big diff.
Guess I,ve only seen the culls?

Would they have a similar finish and appearance as say a `98 SMS JFK ?
You know ,that finish.

clackamas · June 25, 2003 3:03PM

They did end in 1916. His 1917, like many of the early Lincoln Circ strikes may have looked matte, and may have had a superb strike, thus the thought that it must have been a proof.

JohnZ · June 25, 2003 3:05PM

Ask him if you can slab it. (No harm in asking.) If the "powers that be" say it's a matte proof, buy it. If he's got a problem with slabbing, end of story.

michael · June 25, 2003 3:12PM

a 20000 easy coin if genuine probably not a one in a million chance but i guess anything is possible in coins i have seen stranger happenings

but who knows??

for me it would have to be a matte proof if a genuine proof for me!! was it a no brainer matte finish?? if so

what color is it? are the edges totally squared off and 25% bigger than an ordinary well struck business strike lincoln??

if the edges are totally squared off and larger than a regular beleved edge for lack of a better description and a true matte surface i would buy it for 300!

maybe worth to take a flyer for 200 to 300?

KEEP ME INFORMED

again probsbly just an exquisite business strike sh1t now you got me hot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sincerely michael

Merc · June 25, 2003 3:36PM

Darn, I wished I had taken a closer look. A new coin collector started asking me questions and I stoped to answer. I put the coin back and didn't look at it again. It id have a matte proof look with deep details in Lincoln's beard and hair. The rim was very high and sharp. The coin was mostly brown with a red streak through part of it. Then I saw the date of 1917 and thought, it can't be real, proofs stopped in 1916. I looked it up in Breen's book and saw that 1917 proofs were real but not officially made.

I didn't think much more about the coin until now. I thought the coin was fake because of the date. I've been to every meeting in the past year and I have never seen this small time dealer before. He didn't identify himself as a visitor (we identify the visitors and give them a free coin from the club). Now I hope he comes back so I can take a look at it. Odds are it is a business strike, but sometimes nice things can be found. I read the 1870-S half dime was found in a junk box! There is always hope.

lincolnSence · June 25, 2003 4:36PM

conventional wisdom claims the coin does NOT exist.

richbeat · June 25, 2003 5:50PM

While strange things happen at the mint, I would have to agree with the consensus opinion here. With the obverse modification of 1916, 1917 cents are very well and sharply struck. A first strike from a new die would probably look very prooflike.

Gerry · June 25, 2003 10:04PM

We have had threads on this topic before. Net of it is that the 1917 Lincoln proof is, and will probably always remain, one of the intriguing mysteries of the series.

In The Complete Guide To Lincoln Cents, David Lange pretty much sums up the general position of Lincoln experts today when he writes: “Though a few examples dated 1917 have traded hands as proof or specimen strikings, these coins remain in a shadowy netherworld...The grading services have declined to certify any 1917 cents as proofs, just as they have for all alleged 1917 proofs of various denominations...”

But, if you can get a copy, see The Standard Guide To The Lincoln Cent, by Sol Taylor, who claims that mint records show that 939 pieces were struck and describes the sale of a couple of coins purported to be 1917 proofs in the 1980s and early 1990s.

For $300 it would be an interesting conversation piece, but as far as a grading service ever certifying and slabbing it, it is highly unlikely!

Steve · June 26, 2003 12:14AM

Gerry, it is interesting how comments made in books are misinturpreted. Sol Taylor does say 939 cents and nickel proofs were listed by the US Mint. When you refer to Wexler and Flynn Authoritative Reference on Lincoln Cents, page 356, you see that the Mint produced 939 of these pieces between July 1, 1916 and June 30th, 1917. Of course, ALL of the legitimate ones were made in 1916 IMHO. I know my collection will never include a real 1917 Matte Proof Lincoln. I just have to be satisfied with my 1909VDB Matte Proof. Steve

MrEureka · June 26, 2003 1:05AM

I handled a so-called proof many years ago. (I think it had ANACS or INS papers.) I remember the coin as being sharply struck and with a lot of die polish lines. In retrospect, I doubt that it was really a proof.

On the other hand, I've seen a 100% convincing proof 1917 nickel, so I would not be surprised if a true proof 1917 cent exists. If well preserved, it would be a six-figure item.

ldhair · June 26, 2003 8:57AM

I always thought it funny that the RED BOOK still list the coin.

Cam40 · June 26, 2003 9:33AM

I see it is,,just now looked,, but no value is listed. Not even an * with footnote about it?

Thats odd.

ldhair · June 26, 2003 10:18AM

I was thinking one sold many years ago for big bucks. (If it was one).
Can't remember. Too many years back. Anyone remember this?

Merc · June 26, 2003 10:55AM

I just looked at the Red book again. There is 1 line about the 1917. "Matte proof coins were made for collectors from 1909 through 1916, and an exceptional specimen dated 1917 is also reported to exist. Breen's encyclopedia also shows it exists. If this dealer shows up again, I'm going to buy it, unless I can see it is only a business strike.

ldhair · June 26, 2003 11:05AM

Wouldn't it to be great to have the real thing.

Another cool coin would be a 10 VDB.

Cam40 · June 26, 2003 11:19AM

Loupe that rim and check for the squared-off edge.

edited to add; you may not even need a loupe to determine that.

DMWJR · June 26, 2003 12:03PM

If you buy it, be sure you are viewing this as a "flyer." Don't spend any hard earned money on it, or you will be sore later.

michael · June 26, 2003 4:12PM

i am still hot for this coin

but if you do look at it and it is techniacally superb and has all the charactistics of a proof and looks exceptionally eye appealing

lets play devils advocate here even if not a proof if it is again technically superb and monster eye appealling with many matte proof charactistics who is to say waht it is??

but a great conversation piece

and after all is said and done it has to be at least worth 300 dollars!! and an added bonus as a study piece to havre fun with and show it to david lange if you ever get it to a show or other lincoln fanatics

sweet

saweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet

sincerely michael

glassman · June 26, 2003 11:23PM

<< <i> If this dealer shows up again, I'm going to buy it, unless I can see it is only a business strike. >>

With this much curiosity envolved, I would make an effort to find out who else at your meeting talked to this dealer and I would make an effort to get touch with him.

He who snoozes, often looses. dave

Merc · June 27, 2003 1:33AM

Well, I know others talked to this dealer and looked at his stuff. The 1917 I found was in another box of coin folders he had on the floor. People were going through the ones he had on top of the table so I went through one he had in the box. I have a friend who is starting in Lincoln cents and saw he had some of the older dates in EF. That's why I was looking through the Lincoln book. I like the old proofs so this one caught my eye. I'll have to ask around at the club to see if anyone knows him.

I'll take a much better look at it next time. If I really don't think it is proof I won't buy it. I'm not a big gambler so $300 is a lot to throw away at a coin. The best would be for me to take a picture and post it here but i don't think he would let me do that

. I'll just tell the guy, let me have it for a week or two to show it to lots of people first. Then I'll let you know if I want it.

I know I have to figure it out for myself.

Mercfan · March 30, 2006 2:50PM

Hello, all!

Earlier this afternoon as I was plowing through my daily dose of the Syracuse Wheat Cent Hoard, I came across a marvelous brown 1917 with astounding detail of strike and with fields (both obverse and reverse) that are 100% matte-like (based on descriptions of matte surfaces that I've read). I admired the coin for several minutes, popped it into a 2x2, and grabbed my Redbook to confirm my belief that the matte proofs ended in 1916. My Redbook (which happens to be a 1973 edition--revealing what kind of collector I am) lists no parenthetical proof mintage numbers beyond 1916. I'm sure that's no surprise to all you experts.

I recalled having seen a discussion about 1917 matte proof Lincolns on this board, so I just searched for it and re-read the entire thread. This is a VERY intriguing thread, given what I found today.

Fortunately, the Syracuse Hoard was loaded with uncirculated late-teens of many colors, so I have no shortage of other breathtakingly well-struck 1917s on hand to compare my matte-like 1917 to. As far as I know, I'd never seen a matte-proof prior to today, but I can report the following:

1) The fields of my "matte" specimen are unlike any fields I've ever seen on a Lincoln cent. They're clearly intended to be slightly grainy/fuzzy and unreflective, and their appearance is in stark contrast to the reflective fields of the red 1917s that I've also pulled out of the Hoard.

2) The rims of my "matte" specimen are considerably wider than those of my other choice uncirculated 1917s, and they exhibit the lovely squared border to the fields that others on this thread have mentioned.

3) The detail in the hair and beard is even more striking in my "matte" specimen than in my other really nice 1917s.

I'm about as far from an expert on matte proofs as anyone can be, but I think I have the real thing here. If it doesn't walk like a duck, or look like a duck, or sound like a duck, it's probably not a duck. This coin is NOT just another well-struck 1917 Lincoln. Whether or not it's a swan will be interesting to find out.

I still haven't solved the mystery of how to get a properly focused tight shot of a coin with my Kodak EasyShare Z760 camera, so I have no means of providing photos. (I also haven't a clue as to how to create a photo file that's small enough to attach to these messages.)

But there's a Lincoln matte-proof collector who lives about thirty miles north of me, and I'll try to get him to take a look at it within the next few weeks.

If I had to bet anything valuable on whether they struck any 1917 matte-proofs, I'd have to bet that they did. This just isn't like all the other 1917s (and I just happen to be swimming in nice 1917s).

Whatever this is, it's a pretty special coin! Into the safe-deposit box at the bank first thing tomorrow morning!

MikeInFL · March 30, 2006 4:25PM

While I will stop short of Michael's "getting hot", I will respectfully request that you keep us posted. That would be a simply amazing find...>Mike

richbeat · March 30, 2006 4:34PM

This is getting interesting. Definitely keep us posted.

Mercfan · March 30, 2006 9:10PM

Will do. I'm going to ask a photography student I know if he can to take some good digital photos of the coin later today. I may also find the time to show it to a local dealer this afternoon.

Merc · March 31, 2006 2:54AM

Wow, Mercfan, you found my old post.

I have gone on to collect some certified matte proof Lincolns but I have never seen another 1917 like that one again. The guy who had it for sale never came back to the coin club. Now that I have some matte and satin/matte proof Lincolns, I am sure I could identify them.

The business strike 1917 Lincolns can be sharp and well struck. Then if the die wears some, the fields will have an orange peel surface that looks a bit like a matte surface. A coin like this will get your hopes up in finding a matte proof.

I did see a 1917 possible proof Walker at the Baltimore show about a year ago. It was in an ANACS holder with a MS65 Specimen label. I checked it and it did have many characteristics of a proof strike.

TomB · March 31, 2006 11:36AM

You likely have an EDS 1917 business strike as there were no matte proof Lincolns struck in 1917. At one time Walter Breen wrote that he had authenticated four, I believe, 1917 matte proof Lincolns until it was found that they were all counterfeit and Breen had to retract his statements on the issue. In truth, if the Red Book still lists the coin then I think that that is irresponsible of them.

Steve · March 31, 2006 12:17PM

mercfan,
Your story is interesting, but just like the 1959 Lincoln wheat ear reverse cent, it really doesn't matter what the story is. If you have a legitimate 1917 Matte Proof Lincoln cent it is worth thousands if not over a hundred thousand dollars to collectors. The ONLY way you can convince the hobby that you have the real thing is to have the coin graded by PCGS, NGC or ANACS. IF one of those services grades your coin as a Matte Proof, then and only then can you know you have a coin which the hobby will accept as being "the real thing". I mentioned the 1959 wheat ear reverse above because no major third party grading service would authenticate it as real. Don't waste your time having pictures taken of it. If you are interested in the money the coin might be worth, you must act on it to get it certified. Otherwise, just have fun with your coins. Steve

BlindedByEgo · May 21, 2006 8:50AM

Any updates?

michael · May 21, 2006 12:38PM

yea it is still NOT a matte proof

Steve · May 21, 2006 11:32PM

The "stories" are always a dime a dozen. No one who tells the "stories" ever has the desire to make the effort to get the special coin authenticated by a major grading service. I always wonder why.
Steve

messydesk · May 22, 2006 12:03AM

<< <i>yea it is still NOT a matte proof >>

Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead

a039 · May 22, 2006 3:31AM

mercfan, If you send both of the 1917 wheats to Russ we can ask him to image the coins and post them here so we can all learn from his expert photography amd I will compensate him...

RWB · September 3, 2006 3:52AM

Was there any follow-up to this?

mdwoods · September 3, 2006 3:57AM

Interesting thread.

RichieURich · September 3, 2006 5:24AM

<< <i>Wouldn't it to be great to have the real thing.

Another cool coin would be a 10 VDB. >>

I have a 1910 matte proof Lincoln cent that appears to have a partial VDB on the reverse. It was sold in a major auction as a 1910 with VDB reverse.

ldhair · September 3, 2006 5:50AM

Wow . A 3 year old thread is back to life.

drwstr123 · September 3, 2006 6:42AM

And let's not forget the 1910 S VDB.

RWB · September 3, 2006 6:50AM

I'd love to see good photos of the "1910-VDB" cents and more info on the 1917 "matte proof" pieces....email me or PM if you have either.

accurateye@aol.com

Steve · September 3, 2006 7:03AM

I've checked mercfan threads for later comment to his last comment on this thread and I found this response he made to me.

Sure, Steve!

I'm now referring to it as my "matte-like" 1917. I took it to a couple of local dealers, and both were pretty quick to conclude that it isn't a matte proof. Yes, it has matte-like fields; yes, the rims are wider and sharper than most circulation strikes; and yes, the detail in nice. However, (according to one dealer whose opinion I have a great deal of respect for), the corners of the rims aren't quite sharp enough and the detail on the beard and hair isn't quite sharp enough to lead him to judge it to be a proof strike. By the way, this dealer does believe that the mint struck some 1917 matte proof Lincolns, so he's not just looking for features of the coin to support his belief that none were ever struck.

I'll have the opportunity sometime soon to show it to cohodk, whom I take to be THE local expert on matte proof Lincolns. Also, it's the first coin that I'll have photographed by whomever I find to take some good shots of some of my favorite finds in the Hoard. Eventually I'll get its image onto this forum.

I love the coin one way or the other. If were a genuine 1917 proof, I'd have had to sell it. Now I can keep it and enjoy it.

Steve

291fifth · September 3, 2006 7:17AM

If he really believed it to be a proof he would have already had it slabbed. The fact that it is raw tells you all you need to know.

RWB · September 3, 2006 7:46AM

Interesting, the description is consistent with a very early strike from new dies for 1917.

Any info on the "1910-VDB" ?

BUFFNIXX · September 23, 2007 12:30PM

yes virginia there is a santa claus ....
and yes homerunhall there are 1917 matte proof bufalo nickels ....
you may not like the fact that they exist but they do ....
(1) 1917 matte proof 63 (cleaned) slabbed by segs (1998) and ....
(2) 1917 matte proof 58 slabbed by segs (2002) ....
also 1917 matte proof walking liberty half dollars exist ....
and 1917 matte proof standing liberty quarters exist ....
((no 1917 matte proof mercury dimes are known to exist .... ))
and 1 or perhaps 2 1917 matte proof lincoln cents exist ....
you may not like this but, it is a fact.
they do exist !!!
you can cleanse this post again but this does not change the facts
a 1917 matte proof walking liberty half dollar sold on ebay yesterday!
blessings to all
buffnixx

DMWJR · September 23, 2007 12:48PM

The one you are referring to looks funny to me. Yes, the surfaces are "matte like" but so are the other raw coins he is selling. Look how unnatural the Indian Cents he is selling look. I have seen that done by boiler room coin doctors, but I don't know the method they use to achieve that look.

Sorry, but the jury is still out on this one ... and they have asked to place supper orders so it may be a while.

DMWJR · September 23, 2007 1:00PM

What I find interesting about the myth of 1917 MPL's is the fact that Leonard Albrecht's pamphlet is entitled "Matte Proof Lincoln Cents 1909 - 1917" as opposed to ending the date run at 1916. When you read through the pamphlet however, the only mention of the elusive 1917 is the following:

"Though not an official proof issue, the 1917 was probably a special striking for presentation. Should have the basic diagnostics of matte proof cents."

He was definitely a student of the series. Show me some other credible presenters who claim PROOF of a 1917 MPL.

TomB · September 23, 2007 1:05PM

Those not familiar with BUFFNIXX should realize that talk is cheap.

Steve · September 24, 2007 12:32AM

Our hobby includes collectors who want to believe they own or have seen very rare and unusual coins. They certainly have their right to believe what they want. But if someone wants to convince a novice like me that a certain coin should be accepted by the hobby as genuine, they then MUST get the agreement of a number of experts in the field of authentication of coins to agree that it is. The way to do this in todays world is to submit such a coin to a major grading service such as PCGS, NGC, and/or ANACS. IF these grading services agree that the coin is genuine, THEN, I, as a novice, would tend to accept that determination. Without it, all the talk in the world about a coin like the 1917 Matte proof Lincoln cent is just talk to me. Steve

mozeppa · September 24, 2007 9:34AM

segs.....yeah right!
I held in my hand 2 ...not one but 2 doubled die #4 1972 lincoln cents ...graded by segs....and attributed by segs.

they were without a doubt die #8's.

so much for their accuracy!

p.s. there are NO 1917 matte proofs!

RBinTex · September 24, 2007 10:50AM

Same for me with PCI '72 Die #4's

sinin1 · January 12, 2008 3:06AM

why is it the good coins end up at SEGS?

Blackborder · January 12, 2008 3:41AM

Maybe the mint made 1917 Lincoln cent proof dies (and other denominations) in anticipation for 1917 proofs. When that was nixed, instead of wasting the dies, maybe they used them for regular production, accounting for the matte-like cents occasionally encountered.

1917 Matte Proof Lincoln

Comments

Leave a Comment