So is there a 1917 Lincoln proof or not????

DickyBetz · February 20, 2006 11:31AM

I've heard some people say yes and some no. Are there any? Does anyone have a picture of one? There is one in the Redbook, but it doesnt have any mintage or value.

michael · February 20, 2006 11:44AM

NO!!

mozeppa · February 20, 2006 11:44AM

no....just really good biz strikes, without an upset rim.

DickyBetz · February 20, 2006 11:53AM

<<

NO!! >>

Then why is it in the Redbook?

coinguy1 · February 20, 2006 11:54AM

No. People can speculate and make all of the claims that they care to, but I have yet to see any (pun intended) proof!

Steve · February 20, 2006 11:55AM

No accepted 1917 Lincoln cent proof coin has ever been certified. Same thing for the so called 1959 Lincoln Wheat cent reverse. Some people have claimed to see them, but unless and until the major dealers, graders, and leaders of this hobby accept the coin, it just doesn't count.
Steve

DickyBetz · February 20, 2006 11:56AM

DickyBetz · February 20, 2006 11:56AM

Ok, thanks for the verification.

DickyBetz · February 20, 2006 11:56AM

double post

messydesk · February 20, 2006 12:00PM

I can't find the picture, but probably about 10 years ago, JT Stanton sent me a picture of a/the 1917 cent that Breen called a proof. Fat chance of me finding the silly thing.

cupronik · February 20, 2006 12:13PM

I'm curious, were some circulation strike Buffalo 5c (1914-1917) and 1917-P WL 50c coins actually struck from proof dies?

I've seen such sharply detailed singles that beg this question.

larrynj · February 20, 2006 12:32PM

breen verified the 17 wl 50c as existing in proof, i even sent him one for verication, that came back as unc. they were matte proofs. don't recall anything about the cent.

Touchdown · February 20, 2006 12:44PM

<< Text >>

No accepted 1917 Lincoln cent proof coin has ever been certified. Same thing for the so called 1959 Lincoln Wheat cent reverse. Some people have claimed to see them, but unless and until the major dealers, graders, and leaders of this hobby accept the coin, it just doesn't count.

<< Text >>

The 1959 Wheat Cent reverse was confirmed to be a fake made outside the mint. The1917 Proof was never confirmed to be made or exist but just beleived to be out there.

BuffaloIronTail · February 20, 2006 1:38PM

It is entirely logical and not anywhere near out of the ordinary for questions to arise as to if there exists a 1917 proof Lincoln Cent.

Dies for the 1917 proofs would have been prepared well in advance of the Mint's decision not to coin any proofs in 1917.

After deciding not to produce any proofs in 1917, the Mint would have relegated these dies to normal production.

It would not be out of the ordinary to assume, but no one knows, that some coins were struck prior to the decision not to make any.

This would be standard practice to test the proofing process prior to production.

Don't forget that proof coins are struck twice to bring out all the details, and to be a proof, the specimen must show an unquestionably perfect strike, with complete squared rims inside and out. (edited from "wire")

It could have happened that trial strikes were produced before the Mint suspended proof production.

...........But that's for the "experts" to figure out..........

Not me.

Hope this helps.....

Pete

michael · February 20, 2006 2:37PM

DickyBetz
Expert Collector

Posts: 2652
Joined: May 2005
Monday February 20, 2006 7:53 PM (NEW!)

<<

NO!! >>

Then why is it in the Redbook?

i do not know why i am not the red book publishers they put it in there not me

i got an idea for you why dont you call them and ask them for yourself why this is in the red book?? then you get an answer right from the horses mouth so to speak they put it in and they will be the ones to give you a definative answer as such why they put it in there

DickyBetz · February 20, 2006 2:48PM

<< DickyBetz
Expert Collector

Posts: 2652
Joined: May 2005
Monday February 20, 2006 7:53 PM (NEW!)

<<

NO!! >>

Then why is it in the Redbook?

i do not know why i am not the red book publishers they put it in there not me

i got an idea for you why dont you call them and ask them for yourself why this is in the red book?? then you get an answer right from the horses mouth so to speak they put it in and they will be the ones to give you a definative answer as such why they put it in there >>

Actually, that is not a bad idea. I might do it.

kranky · February 20, 2006 7:20PM

<< Don't forget that proof coins are struck twice to bring out all the details, and to be a proof, the specimen must show an unquestionably perfect strike, with complete wire rims inside and out. >>

You meant square rims, right?

coinguy1 · February 20, 2006 10:36PM

<< Don't forget that proof coins are struck twice to bring out all the details, and to be a proof, the specimen must show an unquestionably perfect strike, with complete wire rims inside and out. >>

<<You meant square rims, right?>>

Kranky, I'm guessing he meant "wire rims" as stated (although many Proofs do not have them). In any event, with respect to the edges, I believe it would be "squared" edges.

BuffaloIronTail · February 20, 2006 10:55PM

yes...........

SQUARED RIMS.

Pete

kranky · February 20, 2006 11:03PM

Thanks for the clarification, guys.

MrEureka · February 21, 2006 2:25AM

No accepted 1917 Lincoln cent proof coin has ever been certified.

I had one maybe 20 years ago with ANACS or (believe it or not) INS papers. I remember the coin as being somewhat but not completely convincing. It clearly was not as convincing as the one 1917 definitely-proof Buffalo I've seen.

CaptHenway · February 21, 2006 9:07AM

It is a matter of opinion, and in my opinion there is no such thing.
Tom D.

MrEureka · February 21, 2006 9:16AM

It is a matter of opinion, and in my opinion there is no such thing.

Tom - That's conjecture on your part, not opinion. But I'd guess you're right.

So is there a 1917 Lincoln proof or not????

Comments

Leave a Comment