Options
A Coinguy1 rant: I long for the good old days when, among other things....
coinguy1
Posts: 13,484 ✭✭✭
I long for the good old days when, among other things, each year of Matte Proof gold coinage had its own unique look/character.....
Matte Proof gold coins of denominations $2.50, $5, $10 and $20 were produced from 1911 through 1915. In the good old days, before so many coins were altered/doctored/messed with, each year of these proof gold coins displayed its own unique color/texture/character.
Briefly, here is what Walter Breen had to say about each year of Matte Proof gold coinage:
1911: "Matte finish, dull and darker than unc, nearest to 1908 but differing minutely in texture of grain."
1912: "Fine sandblast finish. Different from all previous matte coins; under a microscope the surfaces show millions of minute shiny facets."
1913: "As in 1912, same finish." Based on my ancient recollections, original examples of the years 1912 and 1913 are slightly different in color and texture.
1914: "Coarse sandblast finish, darker than the 1913. Under a microscope the facets appear larger than on 1913."
1915: "Identical finish to 1914." Like with the 1912 and 1913 issues, I think there are minor, yet noticeable differences between original 1914's and 1915's.
There were also exquisite "Roman Finish" examples dated 1909 and 1910 for each denomination mentioned above, as well as a few experimental pieces manufactured in 1908, among other years.
Way back when, I think it was possible to distinguish the various issues of Matte Proof gold coinage (certainly for some years, if not all of them) just by looking at the reverses of the coins, without having the benefit of seeing the dates on the obverses. Some years are darker (or lighter) than others, some display more granular (or smoother) textures, still others exhibit the "facets" mentioned by Breen, etc.
Sadly, now days, so many of these beautiful coins have been altered/doctored/messed with, that it is increasingly rare/unusual to locate original examples which display the unique characteristics for each year of production. As a result, many newer collectors and dealers are probably unaware that the various dates/issues of these coins used to look different from one another.
It is a joy to find that increasingly rare, totally original piece of Matte or Roman Proof gold coinage.
I welcome any comments, complaints, corrections or personal experiences regarding these coins.
Matte Proof gold coins of denominations $2.50, $5, $10 and $20 were produced from 1911 through 1915. In the good old days, before so many coins were altered/doctored/messed with, each year of these proof gold coins displayed its own unique color/texture/character.
Briefly, here is what Walter Breen had to say about each year of Matte Proof gold coinage:
1911: "Matte finish, dull and darker than unc, nearest to 1908 but differing minutely in texture of grain."
1912: "Fine sandblast finish. Different from all previous matte coins; under a microscope the surfaces show millions of minute shiny facets."
1913: "As in 1912, same finish." Based on my ancient recollections, original examples of the years 1912 and 1913 are slightly different in color and texture.
1914: "Coarse sandblast finish, darker than the 1913. Under a microscope the facets appear larger than on 1913."
1915: "Identical finish to 1914." Like with the 1912 and 1913 issues, I think there are minor, yet noticeable differences between original 1914's and 1915's.
There were also exquisite "Roman Finish" examples dated 1909 and 1910 for each denomination mentioned above, as well as a few experimental pieces manufactured in 1908, among other years.
Way back when, I think it was possible to distinguish the various issues of Matte Proof gold coinage (certainly for some years, if not all of them) just by looking at the reverses of the coins, without having the benefit of seeing the dates on the obverses. Some years are darker (or lighter) than others, some display more granular (or smoother) textures, still others exhibit the "facets" mentioned by Breen, etc.
Sadly, now days, so many of these beautiful coins have been altered/doctored/messed with, that it is increasingly rare/unusual to locate original examples which display the unique characteristics for each year of production. As a result, many newer collectors and dealers are probably unaware that the various dates/issues of these coins used to look different from one another.
It is a joy to find that increasingly rare, totally original piece of Matte or Roman Proof gold coinage.
I welcome any comments, complaints, corrections or personal experiences regarding these coins.
0
Comments
I dont see any descriptions of 1908-1910. 1908's are similar to 1911's according to Breen with 1909-1910 having the semi matte like Roman finish.
1914 is my personal favorite date, due to the fact that a 1914 matte proof quarter eagle is what started me down the road to dealing.
It looked exactly as breen described it, dark and crystally. The strike was amazing. That is one of the reasons that I love matte proof gold. I enjoy how the lack of luster draws your eyes to the details of the coin, and intracacies that you might not notice if you were entranced with the mirrors or cartwheel fields.
They are subtle coins in many ways that must be looped or even placed under a microscope to fully appreciate the surfaces.
Another coin that I wish I still had!!
John
siliconvalleycoins.com
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
For me, I was born much too late to enjoy those days
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
Regardless, it's always a shame when a coin loses some of its character by being messed with.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
It's a numismatic version of "dumbing down."
In a hot market with a new inflow of collectors, these coins probably move faster.
But, to some of the "old guard" ---and I've read it time and time again in threads by people I respect like Coinguy1, Sunnywood, TDN, etc.--- it's a cryin' shame.
Clankeye
Edited for spelling
<< <i>One problem Coinguy1, if you were around in those days you would be ancient history now. Better be happy with the new mint sets.
And probably dead too. And you would have missed the state quarter program.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>why do so many gold pieces get "conserved" at all? >>
Certainly not just gold coins, but I was having a "conversation" with someone today regarding Matte Proof gold so I singled them out in this thread.
Often a light film, haze, discoloration, light stain, etc. is removed and the coin brightened or lightened a bit in order to make it look more "desirable" and hopefully give it a bump in grade.
For the record, (and to avoid any confusion) I was around when these coins were more likely to be found in an original, not-yet-conserved state, NOT when they were first minted.
siliconvalleycoins.com
42/92
<< <i>Braddick/Pat, believe me, I tried, but couldn't fit everything into the title. >>
Really?!
It worked for me.
<<Really?!
It worked for me.>>
Yes, Pat, really. You are certainly free not to believe me, though.
Your substituted/abbreviated thread title obviously fits, but I didn't want to lump all Matte Proof gold together (by saying "Matte gold", for example) and disregard the uniqueness of each date's appearance. That would have gone at least partly against the very point I was trying to make.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Mark - As a fellow dinosaur, I also remember those days and share your sentiments. However, I think it's misleading to imply that the uniform appearance of today's population of matte proof gold has anything to do with "conservation". >>
Andy, I did ask for complaints and corrections, so I appreciate your having spoken up. Please elaborate? Thanks.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Andy, I did ask for complaints and corrections, so I appreciate your having spoken up. Please elaborate?
Sure. The act of conservation only removes surface contaminants. It doesn't change the color or granularity of the underlying coin. BTW, don't forget that we're talking about gold coins that do NOT tone. The color of these coins derives from the matting process at the Mint.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The first 1936 Satin Finish nickel that I handed had been "improved" by polishing the fields under the buffalo, which was intented to make it more saleable.
Well, that would be true except that it's not pure gold!
True to some extent, so I'll clarify. There's no way that all 1908's would tone one color, all 1911's would tone a different color, and all 1915's would tone yet another color. Which brings us back to my point: the distinctive colors seen in each year derive from the method of manufacture.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
At first thought, I disagree. If in one year there were trace elements not present in the same quantities the next year, then that one year would tend to exhibit consistent toning associated with those specific impurities. So if each year had it's own combination of impurities in the planchet [and remember it's only the 10% of alloy metal and impurities that tones], then each year would indeed tend to tone in a distinctive manner.
Edited to add: On further thought, I agree that not every coin from each year would tone exactly the same, but I do believe that if they were exposed to the same general environment, then they would tend to tone in similar looks. So there would be enough similarity [although certainly exceptions] that one would tend to comment on the 'look' of each date.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Now, to find a niche that hasn't been bid up to the stratosphere in the last few years...
"It is possible to keep a mind so open that it is perpetually empty."
--Peter Huber, "Galileo's Revenge"
take a look see
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=396213 1913 matte gem proof lincoln
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
That said, the proof process does alter the metals' cubic crystaline surface structure which then, due to variation of surface area the chemical surfur compounds vapor reactions, will result in different colors depending on the manufacture of each coin.
So TDN AND the manufacture theorys are both right--but the non gold chemistry and crystal structure cause (allow) the toning given the introduction of dominently sulfur bearing vapors to react in the first place.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Everyone MISSED THE POINT!!!!!!!! When a coin is conserved, dipped long, or doctored, the crystaline surfaces are altered microscopically. I think you can see a electronon microscope photo in the book by Travers, S.A., 2000, page 210 (fig.12-2), which shows the alteration by removal of trace oxidation and crystaline surface change. AND I suggest notion that the doctors and dippers are just removing toning is an old wives tale --- there is a removal of trace elements/alloys and so surface reflectivity changes too.