The "PLANCHETS" were carefully selected for these Matte Proofs, "POLISHED", and put into a medal press which struck the coins at "SLOW SPEED" so as to bring up all details of the design. The COLLARS of the Matte Proofs were POLISHED, giving the Matte Proofs a mirror surface when viewed edge-on. The polishing of the planchets before striking may have been a factor in producing this effect as well. (source Q. David Bowers)
Even if you had a Lincoln cent 1909-1916 that was produced using a Matte Proof die but intended for circulation this coin would have been produced with a "CIRCULATION STIKE PLANCHET" and easily identified as such.
Brian Wagner Rare Coins, Specializing in PCGS graded, Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels varieties.
You guys are aware that for an extra charge, PCGS will true-view the edge of any coin. Maybe we should all send our Mattes again for that level of service. I know I'm thinking about doing just that for my beautiful 1910.
Duane - I got your message. I've been following the thread, and will be getting some coins out of the bank tomorrow so I will inspect them. Hopefully, I can take some photos to show.
Please do take the time to read this long note – it is worth it… I could not figure out how to highlight or underline in this medium, but you will get the point.....
Basically, one CANNOT authenticate a MPL on rims and planchet quality alone (see David Lange analysis nelow on the most relevant diagnostic (david did give me permisission to use). I think it is very practical, and fills in a lot of blanks....
Ironically, last night, Steve Cohen and I were going back and forth in the PM mode, and Steve suggested that I write to you specifically about my theory, as you own some of the finest red coins in existence, and he was thinking that it would be interesting to see if some of the diagnostic marks were on your coins, which would be exemplary. It looks like you beat me to the punch……
I had written to Steve:
“Right now, pretty much everyone thinks I'm crazy (except David Lange), who is a very open minded fellow. He is willing to allow that I may actually be on to something that has perhaps been overlooked…..everyone keep’s chanting "Albrecht, Albrecht, Albrecht....." I have nothing but respect for Albrecht, but his work was the just the beginning of the matte proof diagnostic efforts, and to think that no new legitimate observations have been recognized since 1983 is not believable to me. Even Albrecht himself states: "However, other genuine Matte Proof coins also could exist, the products of different dies or die states. Authentication of any coin requires consideration of all diagnostics, not just a single characteristic." (Page 2051).
For one simple example to support that statement from my own observation, I have noticed, diagnostically, that all 1910 MPLs, without a single exception, and quite different from circulation strikes, possess an odd "indentation" on the coin surface around the second "1" in the date 1910. The recessed "1' area appears to me in that it appears 'sunken' or 'recessed' in relation to the rest of the coin's surface. The observation seems to be the easiest example to see regarding the described diagnostic on every MPL 1910. David Lange wrote back to me: “Last evening I examined my own 1910 proof cent, and I see the depression you're describing. I suspect that this was a remnant of the process by which the 1909 date on the master hub was revised to read 1910. This would have required grinding down the final two numerals, sinking a new master die and then engraving 10 into the blank area. Perhaps the removal of the 09 was performed a little too vigorously, leaving a slight depression in that area. This is visible only on the proofs, as these were struck fully enough for such subtleties to become evident. Also, the proof dies were likely prepared first, and the problem may have been corrected subsequently by gently polishing the master die in that area. Since a depression in the coins would be slightly raised in the die, it would have been a simple matter to correct this. I had not noticed this oddity before, but then it isn't anything out of keeping with the normal die-sinking process, so I wouldn't have felt it necessary to comment in print. Still, it's a fun thing to spot.” This diagnostic, in my opinion, is easy enough to spot for any numismatist who actually looks, but not in the Albrecht pamphlet or any work by Wexler/Flynn. So in 25 years, no one has written about an obvious MPL diagnostic. But there it is. Look for yourself! I have not advertised it, but although a 1910 MPL is easy enough to diagnose, here is a new marker.... the problem comes when we start talking about closer calls (like a 1909 and the VDB).
At least 50-75% of the MPLs I have looked at that were minted between 1910 - 1916 have the "reverse C" diagnostic clearly shown, but VERY, VERY FEW of the 1909s proofs do! In fact, none, that are certified and that I have seen have the diagnostic. Only the so-called "mint state" 1909s have this feature. But out of all the MS 1909s that have this feature, many are “proof-like” in other ways. The MS 1909s are so un-characteristically MS in nature (surfaces, rims, die lines) that I wonder IF they were created as, and intended to be, proofs (this thinking matters, as you will see in the last paragraph). But they were a little 'off' and defective as proofs, but perfectly good as circulation strikes, so the mint let them go into circulation. No great earth-shaking theory, but the mint circulated a 'hybrid' coin, not thinking it would ever really matter to anyone. After all, it was difficult enough to distinguish a MPL from a circulation strike to begin with. Who would notice? Well, 100 years later, we notice! I do NOT know how to interpret this observation discussed above, yet, but I will.
Anyway, this project will certainly be fun and if I can convince others using real evidence and logical conclusions that all real MPLs were minted on July 30, 1909, and totaled 1,503, and they were all from the same die set, that will be great. If the evidence shows us something different, then I think we should follow the evidence. But we agree on one thing for sure: the evidence is the key.
*********To leave you with one great bit of advice from David Lange: "The bottom line, however, is that the determination of proof status will be made more by the coin's appearance and the graders' determination of the "coiner's intent"......Determination of proof status is based on the experience of the grader or numismatist and relies heavily on assessing the "intent of the coiner" when producing any piece in question. In short, if it looks like a proof to the experienced eye then it is a proof." So it really is that subjective! As I interpret Dave's reply, the 'intent of the coiner' is vitally important. And any factors that help the collector "determine the intent of what the coiner" had in mind (was the coin minted to be a proof or circulation strike) is the definitive factor. I thought that was an extremely insightful comment from David. Duane”
*******************************************
So how do we figure out the "intent of the coiner" [i.e. Mint]? It goes back to all the 'hybrid' coins we were talking about. **What did the mint intend those coins to be??? THAT is the bottom line***
After that bit of wisdom, I sat down last night and read some materials that Kevin Flynn had sent me from Roger Burdette. Not all the conventional wisdom holds true..... Specifically, I read some interesting information now from Roger Burdette's "Renaissance of American Coinage 1909-1915". On pages 77 and 78 (under "proof coins" two very interesting entries support the thesis I've been supporting; Page 77: "....Therefore, Barber resorted to having the coining department make collector’s proofs by striking the pieces on a meal press with dies that has been lightly sandblasted before being hardened. These are called "Matte Proof" by modern collectors. This was no more time consuming then making brilliant proofs, but the resulting specimens closely resembled ordinary circulation coins rather then a specifically produced item for collectors. Rather then highlighting detail of design, sandblasting the dies was just as likely to remove fine detail resulting in an unconvincingly special specimen. The edges of matte proof Lincoln cents have a brilliant mirror-like surface which is different than that on circulating coins. If the dies were used too long, the special surface degraded, leaving ordinary-looking coins." Then, following on page 78: "The [1909 V.D.B.] proofs were mostly purchased by mint employees who sent them to their friends, so that this variety of proof is very scarce" [footnote]. Coins that were either rejected due to defects, or unsold, were placed in circulation after the close of the calendar year, or when the demand slackened."......."From a high of over 6,000 one-cent proof pieces in 1909, production shrunk to ten percent of that quantity by 1916 when only sis hundred one-cent proofs were made."
So, if we listen to Roger, there were "resulting [proof] specimens closely resembled ordinary circulation coins" and "[1909] Coins that were either rejected due to defects, or unsold, [and] were placed in circulation" as I have been arguing all along.
Roger Burdette also notes that the all the non-current dies, hubs and partial hubs were destroyed in 1910, as Brian Wagner has noted. Text
Thanks for your contributions to this groups ongoing discussion about MPL cents.
I note your comment from David Lange and will paste it below and then comment on it.
*******To leave you with one great bit of advice from David Lange: "The bottom line, however, is that the determination of proof status will be made more by the coin's appearance and the graders' determination of the "coiner's intent"......Determination of proof status is based on the experience of the grader or numismatist and relies heavily on assessing the "intent of the coiner" when producing any piece in question. In short, if it looks like a proof to the experienced eye then it is a proof." So it really is that subjective! As I interpret Dave's reply, the 'intent of the coiner' is vitally important. And any factors that help the collector "determine the intent of what the coiner" had in mind (was the coin minted to be a proof or circulation strike) is the definitive factor. I thought that was an extremely insightful comment from David. Duane”*******
I agree with this statement and would like to add this. Matte Proof cents were made with specially prepared planchets, this would show the "coiners" intent was to produce a MPL cent. I believe these planchet characteristics are different enough to indentify them from a circulation strike planchets of the same era. I would dismiss any cent from 1909-1916 that was not produced with one of these planchets as a Matte Proof.
I also agree with Duane in that there are MPL cents out there with additional diagnostics other than Leonard Albrecht has identified or any other writer since his work. Its a good idea to start with Albrecht plus others but no possible MPL cent should be dismissed because its die characteristic don't match up with previous studies. Of course, many other details of a suspected MPL cents come into play when authenicating but the planchet, the dies, the speed of striking, polished squared rims creating a knife like edge, squared lettering of obverse and reverse, detailed grainy surfaces that can vary in texture, when everything comes together you are most likely handling a Matte Proof cent. JMO, as I am not the final authority but let me state this below:
The final authority to me is the major grading services, I you cannot get your suspected Matte Proof "in one of their holders" your coins value will be worth a fraction of what it would fetch if authenicated and graded by one of these services.
Brian Wagner Rare Coins, Specializing in PCGS graded, Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels varieties.
I also agree with Duane in that there are MPL cents out there with additional diagnostics other than Leonard Albrecht has identified or any other writer since his work. Its a good idea to start with Albrecht plus others but no possible MPL cent should be dismissed because its die characteristic don't match up with previous studies. Of course, many other details of a suspected MPL cents come into play when authenicating but the planchet, the dies, the speed of striking, polished squared rims creating a knife like edge, squared lettering of obverse and reverse, detailed grainy surfaces that can vary in texture, when everything comes together you are most likely handling a Matte Proof cent. JMO, as I am not the final authority but let me state this below:
The final authority to me is the major grading services, I you cannot get your suspected Matte Proof "in one of their holders" your coins value will be worth a fraction of what it would fetch if authenicated and graded by one of these services. >>
Brian, Have you or any of the other posters here seen a 1909VDB MPL in hand that has been certified by PCGS or NGC that does NOT have the three diagnostics that Albrecht describes? Thanks. Steve
I also agree with Duane in that there are MPL cents out there with additional diagnostics other than Leonard Albrecht has identified or any other writer since his work. Its a good idea to start with Albrecht plus others but no possible MPL cent should be dismissed because its die characteristic don't match up with previous studies. Of course, many other details of a suspected MPL cents come into play when authenicating but the planchet, the dies, the speed of striking, polished squared rims creating a knife like edge, squared lettering of obverse and reverse, detailed grainy surfaces that can vary in texture, when everything comes together you are most likely handling a Matte Proof cent. JMO, as I am not the final authority but let me state this below:
The final authority to me is the major grading services, I you cannot get your suspected Matte Proof "in one of their holders" your coins value will be worth a fraction of what it would fetch if authenicated and graded by one of these services. >>
Brian, Have you or any of the other posters here seen a 1909VDB MPL in hand that has been certified by PCGS or NGC that does NOT have the three diagnostics that Albrecht describes? Thanks. Steve >>
Hi Steve,
So far I have not.
Brian Wagner Rare Coins, Specializing in PCGS graded, Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels varieties.
Brian, Have you or any of the other posters here seen a 1909VDB MPL in hand that has been certified by PCGS or NGC that does NOT have the three diagnostics that Albrecht describes? Thanks. Steve >>
Hi Steve,
So far I have not. >>
Thanks Brian. There is always the possibility of new discovery and maybe the major grading services currently ONLY use Albrecht for authentication, but I think the key to Duane's project is for him or one of us to actually find a 1909VDB which we "think"/"believe" is a proof coin AND DOES NOT HAVE ALBRECHTS DIAGNOSTICS and then convince PCGS and or NGC that it is in fact a MPL. Just as I have said I will believe a 1917 MPL exists when the grading services slab one, the same criteria exists to me to accept second and third dies on the 1909VDB MPL. Many may argue that the grading services don't always get it right either. But I think the two major services have a key role in the market and in the hobby. They can't allow themselves to get it wrong. Their business depends on their accuracy. And as more and more collectors tend to rely on their grading and their authentication, so too will they ultimately determine whether our new discoveries are accepted by the hobby. JMHO. Steve
Hi Guys- Just back from my doctor's appointment. I'll chime in and then go be knocked out by the medicine..... : ) To be [somewhat] brief, that is why my story about, and great advice from, David Lange, is so significant. If I (a regular coin collector) can come up with a new diagnostic for a 1910 and coin expert David Lange says "Last evening I examined my own 1910 proof cent, and I see the depression you're describing. I suspect that this was a remnant of the process......"
Well, my point is that David Lange had NOT seen that diagnostic remnant before (and he is a highest-level numismatist and consultant at grading service NGC - the professionals at NGC go to David when they get stuck; that tells you how knowledgeable David is!). He IS an expert, as is Brian Wagner.
My point is simple: I'm convinced that there are diagnostics out there that ALL of us have yet to find. So if a newly-recognized diagnostic is possible for a 1910, as it just proved to be, why is a new diagnostic NOT POSSIBLE for a 1909 (or 1909VDB)?? It's the same point!
Hey, I've never been to China, so I’ve not actually seen it, but I believe it exists! So I do agree with Brian - we should start with the classic diagnostics; BUT, THEN, we should move forward from there. That is just a starting point on these complex coins.
I looked at a Tru-View of a PCGS graded 1909VDB right on our Registry no more than a week ago and told Brian, at 200x magnification, that I could not see ANY of the classic Albrecht diagnostics. None. Brian told me it was a bad photo, and the diagnostics were there, and I believe him. So I hope that a better photo will be taken where the Albrecht diagnostics will be seen (if they are there and relevant). But even so, if they are not seen, maybe there are other diagnostics in the coin that authenticate it.
I have yet to have anyone, expert or novice, explain to me why the "Reverse "C" Die Line" diagnostic I found is located on many proofs from 1910-1916, but NOT on the 1909s. Is it a true diagnostic, or is not?
I have, with my own eyes, seen one classic Albrecht diagnostic on a coin, but not other classic Albrecht diagnostics on the same coin. What does that mean? I tend to agree with David Lange: What did the coiner (mint) really intend the coin to be? And as I look through the literature, I can read clear instances in which coins were minted as proofs, but not sold, and then put into circulation. It is not a secret..... Because they were not sold as proofs make them less of a proof?
So here I have a 1909VDB Lincoln Cent in my hand that has fairly square and mirrorish rims (not perfect, but not bad), the "reverse#2" die state diagnostics of Wexler/Flynn are mostly all fulfilled, the surfaces heavily matte on one side, and satin on the other, some weird "C" die line that I see on every MPL from 1910-1916, and on this 1909VDB, and a general non-MS look about the coin, as a whole (and it was sold to my own father, years ago, and billed by the dealer as a "matte proof". That’s a lot of evidence pointing a certain way for me to look at a 25 year old book and conclude, “Well, because it does not have lines under the nose, it is clearly not a proof”. I would be pretty closed minded to not consider that perhaps the mint created the coin as a proof, but it was "defective" (maybe the rims were not 'square' enough, or a million other reasons for all I know, and at years end, it was sold to an opportunistic dealer, or even released into circulation). The evidence weighs more likely then not that the coin was created as a proof, if we want to look at it along a continuum.
Maybe it really is a circulation strike; it was intended to be so, and that is what is. But maybe, like the 1910 date indentation, the coin was created from a different die (call it the anti-Albrecht die, and so I am in fact holding a proof coin. Only one way to find out - David Lange suggested that I send it in, so I will. If it dies turn out to be proof, that is great for me, but more important to me personally, it will open up a new door to MPL collectors and a way of looking at the field that is open in its approach, more flexible and less static, in my opinion, and THAT is my point. And if this coin is a proof, you can bet that it’s not the only one. Maybe this is the REAL sticking point. The MPL world getting turned upside down is not an easy concept to accept. “What do you mean that 1916s are less common than 1909VDBs?” (Given as an example, only).
I'll leave it at this: Kevin Flynn sent me a reference from Matthew Boulton, where the author writes about the "Proofing process". On Page 17, he writes: "Regrettably, the story here is not yet complete. At least five different variations on the matte and sandblast proof technique were experimentally used on regular proofs between 1909 and 1915. At the moment it is hardly possible to give verbal descriptions, or to tell exactly how they were made (the relevant records have not been released to the National Archives)........
The author proceeds for paragraph after paragraph, but eventually concludes: "In any event, matte proofs are often simulated by uncirculated coins, and sometimes diagnosis is exceedingly difficult...... (Even then, [the numismatist] is likely to develop ulcers making honest decisions on 1916 and 1909VDB proof cents.) No verbal criteria exist for unequivocally identifying matte proofs, nor will photographs help, the language lacks words for the subtle distinctions involved."
That sounds close to correct, from my limited experience with these coins. I think that we have a long way to go and a lot to learn before get to the bottom of the secrets of the MPLs.
the "roman finish" dates back...oversea's in origin but not limited to that note
the proof department was actively getting their feet wet in what 1906'?
it's debut as a new finish was used on gold proof's
i would imagine as before projected that the term "roman-finish" was the term as imported but probably after sometime the us mint wanted it to be under their premise and coined a new term was sought.
all in all they are "roman-finish" and maybe with that said is why tpg co.'s ceased including "matte proof" on labels as there is trace to "roman-finish" roots
i really wish they would bring back "matte proof" on labels as trivial as it sounds.
36 lincolns are typ 1 & 2 in proof finish.today we see "satin finish" or the 98 kennedy's have "specimen/sms" which in fact are of the same nature.
the 09-16 lincolns were a special proof process and somewhere in time tpg co.'s opted out but under what premise?
roman-matte ramblings?
maybe someone knows this at pcgs...why was "matte" removed
everything in life is but merely on loan to us by our appreciation....lose your appreciation and see
Sort of back to the core question, does anyone have a MS VDB without the C scratch?
If there is ONE, then there are at least 144,000 of them. Thats what the average reverse die life was in 1909. So if we have one reverse die doing proofs, another reverse die was also made up for them without the VDB, and without the C scratch. Were any dies like this also used for the MS? or are there no MS without the scratch in the C. I guess what Im saying is that they made the no vdb die fresh, and that strike exists in proof but were any MS coins made without scratch.
Sorry for joining this matte head discussion so late, but for the record, here is what I found on my coins.
MPL's - Only the 1910 and 1916 has the "C" line
BS
1909 VDB MS 66 Yes 1909 VDB DDO type 1 MS 64 Yes 1909 VDb DDO Type 2 MS 64 No 1909 MS 65 Yes 1909 S VDB MS 63 No 1909 S MS 63 No 1909 S/Hor S MS 64 Yes 1910 MS 65 Yes 1910 S MS 64 Yes and No on my 1911PDS or 1912 PDS
Looking at those MPL's close up I found all kinds of things, but most interesting was a thread mark through the T in UNITED on the 1913 MPL
Proud recipient of the coveted PCGS Forum "You Suck" Award Thursday July 19, 2007 11:33 PM and December 30th, 2011 at 8:50 PM.
matty's are usually found with no metal flow striations...i'm definately in the no matte crowd on that 1910...but your 1911 was sweet and i had hoped you would of imaged it in hand as that had to be one heck of a "woody-matte styles"
yet another note on those matty rims.i strongly believe when i find someone in a machine shop with an optical comparator i will report but i'm very confident the die diameter is a sizeable difference.
of note too is how sharp that inner edge is...i wouldn't think the mint would of allowed such die intended for circulation use due to fear of it cutting fingers.for the longest of times machine shops "deburr" edges of products just for that reason.matty inner rims are "deburred--chamferred or radiussed" as they never were meant to be held.those wide rims are not merely 1000ths for reason's
i'm just not sure how soon i'll have access but count on that report.
everything in life is but merely on loan to us by our appreciation....lose your appreciation and see
<< <i> but I looked at the MPL's tonight (man, I love them!) and it's on 1910-1916, and not on the 1909 or 1909vdb.
>>
Doug, THAT statement by you tells me that Duane's discovery of the "reverse C" diagnostic has wings. I only saw it on my 1913 which is red. My other MPL's are all rb and I figure that may effect visability. Anyway, in a selfish sort of way, I'm glad it wasn't on your 1909VDB. I cling to the one die, all made on July 30, 1909 theory. Of course they did strike 1,503 and only 1,000 were accepted and 1,194 were delivered to the coiner so maybe some of those 503 or 309 that didn't make it out of the proof room as true proofs WERE in fact made with a second or third die. Steve
<< but I looked at the MPL's tonight (man, I love them!) and it's on 1910-1916, and not on the 1909 or 1909vdb.
>>
Doug, THAT statement by you tells me that Duane's discovery of the "reverse C" diagnostic has wings. I only saw it on my 1913 which is red. My other MPL's are all rb and I figure that may effect visability. Anyway, in a selfish sort of way, I'm glad it wasn't on your 1909VDB. I cling to the one die, all made on July 30, 1909 theory. Of course they did strike 1,503 and only 1,000 were accepted and 1,194 were delivered to the coiner so maybe some of those 503 or 309 that didn't make it out of the proof room as true proofs WERE in fact made with a second or third die. Steve ****************************
It does seem consistant. But I'm simply going to take the advice of both Brian and David and send it in to NGC, with comments, and let them sort it out. If it is a MPL, we have a new practicing theory.
On another matter, Doug, if you look at the reverse rim of your red 1915, do you see die lines at 2:00PM to 3:30PM on the flat rim surface itself? I do not have a photo (if anyone does, would be appreciated). Best to view the possible reverse diagnostic by holding the coin upright, with "ONE CENT" at normal position, then rotating coin 25% clockwise, and then tilting the top side of the coin away from you. Do you see anything? I've got very clear multiple striations on my '15, have confirmation from 2 others on RB '15s, but the '15 BNs do not seem to be showing, as it is being reported to me. The reds seem to have the best viewing of this possible diagnostic. If we do establish, it will be the first documented reverse diagnostic for a 1915MPL (unless someone has another).
Admittedly, I did not read the entire thread. If this hairline by the C is a diagnostic for the 1909 VDB MPL, then what is the explanation for the hairline on business strikes? Proof dies used?
I think the obverse of this one clearly has the diagnostic that is mentioned:
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage. ANA Member R-3147111
This is but one thread of the many discussions involving MPL's that were written on this forum during 2007, 2008, and 2009. Those of you who are interested can find much valuable information by search back to those threads. Steve
Comments
Guys and gals,
We need to keep this in mind,
The "PLANCHETS" were carefully selected for these Matte Proofs, "POLISHED", and put into a medal press which struck the coins at "SLOW SPEED" so as to bring up all details of the design. The COLLARS of the Matte Proofs were POLISHED, giving the Matte Proofs a mirror surface when viewed edge-on. The polishing of the planchets before striking may have been a factor in producing this effect as well. (source Q. David Bowers)
Even if you had a Lincoln cent 1909-1916 that was produced using a Matte Proof die but intended for circulation this coin would have been produced with a "CIRCULATION STIKE PLANCHET" and easily identified as such.
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
Please do take the time to read this long note – it is worth it… I could not figure out how to highlight or underline in this medium, but you will get the point.....
Basically, one CANNOT authenticate a MPL on rims and planchet quality alone (see David Lange analysis nelow on the most relevant diagnostic (david did give me permisission to use). I think it is very practical, and fills in a lot of blanks....
Ironically, last night, Steve Cohen and I were going back and forth in the PM mode, and Steve suggested that I write to you specifically about my theory, as you own some of the finest red coins in existence, and he was thinking that it would be interesting to see if some of the diagnostic marks were on your coins, which would be exemplary. It looks like you beat me to the punch……
I had written to Steve:
“Right now, pretty much everyone thinks I'm crazy (except David Lange), who is a very open minded fellow. He is willing to allow that I may actually be on to something that has perhaps been overlooked…..everyone keep’s chanting "Albrecht, Albrecht, Albrecht....." I have nothing but respect for Albrecht, but his work was the just the beginning of the matte proof diagnostic efforts, and to think that no new legitimate observations have been recognized since 1983 is not believable to me. Even Albrecht himself states: "However, other genuine Matte Proof coins also could exist, the products of different dies or die states. Authentication of any coin requires consideration of all diagnostics, not just a single characteristic." (Page 2051).
For one simple example to support that statement from my own observation, I have noticed, diagnostically, that all 1910 MPLs, without a single exception, and quite different from circulation strikes, possess an odd "indentation" on the coin surface around the second "1" in the date 1910. The recessed "1' area appears to me in that it appears 'sunken' or 'recessed' in relation to the rest of the coin's surface. The observation seems to be the easiest example to see regarding the described diagnostic on every MPL 1910. David Lange wrote back to me: “Last evening I examined my own 1910 proof cent, and I see the depression you're describing. I suspect that this was a remnant of the process by which the 1909 date on the master hub was revised to read 1910. This would have required grinding down the final two numerals, sinking a new master die and then engraving 10 into the blank area. Perhaps the removal of the 09 was performed a little too vigorously, leaving a slight depression in that area. This is visible only on the proofs, as these were struck fully enough for such subtleties to become evident. Also, the proof dies were likely prepared first, and the problem may have been corrected subsequently by gently polishing the master die in that area. Since a depression in the coins would be slightly raised in the die, it would have been a simple matter to correct this. I had not noticed this oddity before, but then it isn't anything out of keeping with the normal die-sinking process, so I wouldn't have felt it necessary to comment in print. Still, it's a fun thing to spot.” This diagnostic, in my opinion, is easy enough to spot for any numismatist who actually looks, but not in the Albrecht pamphlet or any work by Wexler/Flynn. So in 25 years, no one has written about an obvious MPL diagnostic. But there it is. Look for yourself! I have not advertised it, but although a 1910 MPL is easy enough to diagnose, here is a new marker.... the problem comes when we start talking about closer calls (like a 1909 and the VDB).
At least 50-75% of the MPLs I have looked at that were minted between 1910 - 1916 have the "reverse C" diagnostic clearly shown, but VERY, VERY FEW of the 1909s proofs do! In fact, none, that are certified and that I have seen have the diagnostic. Only the so-called "mint state" 1909s have this feature. But out of all the MS 1909s that have this feature, many are “proof-like” in other ways. The MS 1909s are so un-characteristically MS in nature (surfaces, rims, die lines) that I wonder IF they were created as, and intended to be, proofs (this thinking matters, as you will see in the last paragraph). But they were a little 'off' and defective as proofs, but perfectly good as circulation strikes, so the mint let them go into circulation. No great earth-shaking theory, but the mint circulated a 'hybrid' coin, not thinking it would ever really matter to anyone. After all, it was difficult enough to distinguish a MPL from a circulation strike to begin with. Who would notice? Well, 100 years later, we notice! I do NOT know how to interpret this observation discussed above, yet, but I will.
Anyway, this project will certainly be fun and if I can convince others using real evidence and logical conclusions that all real MPLs were minted on July 30, 1909, and totaled 1,503, and they were all from the same die set, that will be great. If the evidence shows us something different, then I think we should follow the evidence. But we agree on one thing for sure: the evidence is the key.
*********To leave you with one great bit of advice from David Lange: "The bottom line, however, is that the determination of proof status will be made more by the coin's appearance and the graders' determination of the "coiner's intent"......Determination of proof status is based on the experience of the grader or numismatist and relies heavily on assessing the "intent of the coiner" when producing any piece in question. In short, if it looks like a proof to the experienced eye then it is a proof." So it really is that subjective! As I interpret Dave's reply, the 'intent of the coiner' is vitally important. And any factors that help the collector "determine the intent of what the coiner" had in mind (was the coin minted to be a proof or circulation strike) is the definitive factor. I thought that was an extremely insightful comment from David. Duane”
*******************************************
So how do we figure out the "intent of the coiner" [i.e. Mint]? It goes back to all the 'hybrid' coins we were talking about. **What did the mint intend those coins to be??? THAT is the bottom line***
After that bit of wisdom, I sat down last night and read some materials that Kevin Flynn had sent me from Roger Burdette. Not all the conventional wisdom holds true.....
Specifically, I read some interesting information now from Roger Burdette's "Renaissance of American Coinage 1909-1915". On pages 77 and 78 (under "proof coins" two very interesting entries support the thesis I've been supporting; Page 77: "....Therefore, Barber resorted to having the coining department make collector’s proofs by striking the pieces on a meal press with dies that has been lightly sandblasted before being hardened. These are called "Matte Proof" by modern collectors. This was no more time consuming then making brilliant proofs, but the resulting specimens closely resembled ordinary circulation coins rather then a specifically produced item for collectors. Rather then highlighting detail of design, sandblasting the dies was just as likely to remove fine detail resulting in an unconvincingly special specimen. The edges of matte proof Lincoln cents have a brilliant mirror-like surface which is different than that on circulating coins. If the dies were used too long, the special surface degraded, leaving ordinary-looking coins." Then, following on page 78: "The [1909 V.D.B.] proofs were mostly purchased by mint employees who sent them to their friends, so that this variety of proof is very scarce" [footnote]. Coins that were either rejected due to defects, or unsold, were placed in circulation after the close of the calendar year, or when the demand slackened."......."From a high of over 6,000 one-cent proof pieces in 1909, production shrunk to ten percent of that quantity by 1916 when only sis hundred one-cent proofs were made."
So, if we listen to Roger, there were "resulting [proof] specimens closely resembled ordinary circulation coins" and "[1909] Coins that were either rejected due to defects, or unsold, [and] were placed in circulation" as I have been arguing all along.
Roger Burdette also notes that the all the non-current dies, hubs and partial hubs were destroyed in 1910, as Brian Wagner has noted.
Text
Thanks for your contributions to this groups ongoing discussion about MPL cents.
I note your comment from David Lange and will paste it below and then comment on it.
*******To leave you with one great bit of advice from David Lange: "The bottom line, however, is that the determination of proof status will be made more by the coin's appearance and the graders' determination of the "coiner's intent"......Determination of proof status is based on the experience of the grader or numismatist and relies heavily on assessing the "intent of the coiner" when producing any piece in question. In short, if it looks like a proof to the experienced eye then it is a proof." So it really is that subjective! As I interpret Dave's reply, the 'intent of the coiner' is vitally important. And any factors that help the collector "determine the intent of what the coiner" had in mind (was the coin minted to be a proof or circulation strike) is the definitive factor. I thought that was an extremely insightful comment from David. Duane”*******
I agree with this statement and would like to add this. Matte Proof cents were made with specially prepared planchets, this would show the "coiners" intent was to produce a MPL cent. I believe these planchet characteristics are different enough to indentify them from a circulation strike planchets of the same era.
I would dismiss any cent from 1909-1916 that was not produced with one of these planchets as a Matte Proof.
I also agree with Duane in that there are MPL cents out there with additional diagnostics other than Leonard Albrecht has identified or any other writer since his work. Its a good idea to start with Albrecht plus others but no possible MPL cent should be dismissed because its die characteristic don't match up with previous studies. Of course, many other details of a suspected MPL cents come into play when authenicating but the planchet, the dies, the speed of striking,
polished squared rims creating a knife like edge, squared lettering of obverse and reverse, detailed grainy surfaces that can vary in texture, when everything comes together you are most likely handling a Matte Proof cent. JMO, as I am not the final authority but let me state this below:
The final authority to me is the major grading services, I you cannot get your suspected Matte Proof "in one of their holders" your coins value will be worth a fraction of what it would fetch if authenicated and graded by one of these services.
<< <i>
I also agree with Duane in that there are MPL cents out there with additional diagnostics other than Leonard Albrecht has identified or any other writer since his work. Its a good idea to start with Albrecht plus others but no possible MPL cent should be dismissed because its die characteristic don't match up with previous studies. Of course, many other details of a suspected MPL cents come into play when authenicating but the planchet, the dies, the speed of striking,
polished squared rims creating a knife like edge, squared lettering of obverse and reverse, detailed grainy surfaces that can vary in texture, when everything comes together you are most likely handling a Matte Proof cent. JMO, as I am not the final authority but let me state this below:
The final authority to me is the major grading services, I you cannot get your suspected Matte Proof "in one of their holders" your coins value will be worth a fraction of what it would fetch if authenicated and graded by one of these services. >>
Brian,
Have you or any of the other posters here seen a 1909VDB MPL in hand that has been certified by PCGS or NGC that does NOT have the three diagnostics that Albrecht describes? Thanks.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
<< <i>
I also agree with Duane in that there are MPL cents out there with additional diagnostics other than Leonard Albrecht has identified or any other writer since his work. Its a good idea to start with Albrecht plus others but no possible MPL cent should be dismissed because its die characteristic don't match up with previous studies. Of course, many other details of a suspected MPL cents come into play when authenicating but the planchet, the dies, the speed of striking,
polished squared rims creating a knife like edge, squared lettering of obverse and reverse, detailed grainy surfaces that can vary in texture, when everything comes together you are most likely handling a Matte Proof cent. JMO, as I am not the final authority but let me state this below:
The final authority to me is the major grading services, I you cannot get your suspected Matte Proof "in one of their holders" your coins value will be worth a fraction of what it would fetch if authenicated and graded by one of these services. >>
Brian,
Have you or any of the other posters here seen a 1909VDB MPL in hand that has been certified by PCGS or NGC that does NOT have the three diagnostics that Albrecht describes? Thanks.
Steve
Hi Steve,
So far I have not.
<< <i>
Brian,
Have you or any of the other posters here seen a 1909VDB MPL in hand that has been certified by PCGS or NGC that does NOT have the three diagnostics that Albrecht describes? Thanks.
Steve
Hi Steve,
So far I have not. >>
Thanks Brian.
There is always the possibility of new discovery and maybe the major grading services currently ONLY use Albrecht for authentication, but I think the key to Duane's project is for him or one of us to actually find a 1909VDB which we "think"/"believe" is a proof coin AND DOES NOT HAVE ALBRECHTS DIAGNOSTICS and then convince PCGS and or NGC that it is in fact a MPL. Just as I have said I will believe a 1917 MPL exists when the grading services slab one, the same criteria exists to me to accept second and third dies on the 1909VDB MPL. Many may argue that the grading services don't always get it right either. But I think the two major services have a key role in the market and in the hobby. They can't allow themselves to get it wrong. Their business depends on their accuracy. And as more and more collectors tend to rely on their grading and their authentication, so too will they ultimately determine whether our new discoveries are accepted by the hobby. JMHO. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Well, my point is that David Lange had NOT seen that diagnostic remnant before (and he is a highest-level numismatist and consultant at grading service NGC - the professionals at NGC go to David when they get stuck; that tells you how knowledgeable David is!). He IS an expert, as is Brian Wagner.
My point is simple: I'm convinced that there are diagnostics out there that ALL of us have yet to find. So if a newly-recognized diagnostic is possible for a 1910, as it just proved to be, why is a new diagnostic NOT POSSIBLE for a 1909 (or 1909VDB)?? It's the same point!
Hey, I've never been to China, so I’ve not actually seen it, but I believe it exists! So I do agree with Brian - we should start with the classic diagnostics; BUT, THEN, we should move forward from there. That is just a starting point on these complex coins.
I looked at a Tru-View of a PCGS graded 1909VDB right on our Registry no more than a week ago and told Brian, at 200x magnification, that I could not see ANY of the classic Albrecht diagnostics. None. Brian told me it was a bad photo, and the diagnostics were there, and I believe him. So I hope that a better photo will be taken where the Albrecht diagnostics will be seen (if they are there and relevant). But even so, if they are not seen, maybe there are other diagnostics in the coin that authenticate it.
I have yet to have anyone, expert or novice, explain to me why the "Reverse "C" Die Line" diagnostic I found is located on many proofs from 1910-1916, but NOT on the 1909s. Is it a true diagnostic, or is not?
I have, with my own eyes, seen one classic Albrecht diagnostic on a coin, but not other classic Albrecht diagnostics on the same coin. What does that mean? I tend to agree with David Lange: What did the coiner (mint) really intend the coin to be? And as I look through the literature, I can read clear instances in which coins were minted as proofs, but not sold, and then put into circulation. It is not a secret..... Because they were not sold as proofs make them less of a proof?
So here I have a 1909VDB Lincoln Cent in my hand that has fairly square and mirrorish rims (not perfect, but not bad), the "reverse#2" die state diagnostics of Wexler/Flynn are mostly all fulfilled, the surfaces heavily matte on one side, and satin on the other, some weird "C" die line that I see on every MPL from 1910-1916, and on this 1909VDB, and a general non-MS look about the coin, as a whole (and it was sold to my own father, years ago, and billed by the dealer as a "matte proof". That’s a lot of evidence pointing a certain way for me to look at a 25 year old book and conclude, “Well, because it does not have lines under the nose, it is clearly not a proof”. I would be pretty closed minded to not consider that perhaps the mint created the coin as a proof, but it was "defective" (maybe the rims were not 'square' enough, or a million other reasons for all I know, and at years end, it was sold to an opportunistic dealer, or even released into circulation). The evidence weighs more likely then not that the coin was created as a proof, if we want to look at it along a continuum.
Maybe it really is a circulation strike; it was intended to be so, and that is what is. But maybe, like the 1910 date indentation, the coin was created from a different die (call it the anti-Albrecht die, and so I am in fact holding a proof coin. Only one way to find out - David Lange suggested that I send it in, so I will. If it dies turn out to be proof, that is great for me, but more important to me personally, it will open up a new door to MPL collectors and a way of looking at the field that is open in its approach, more flexible and less static, in my opinion, and THAT is my point. And if this coin is a proof, you can bet that it’s not the only one. Maybe this is the REAL sticking point. The MPL world getting turned upside down is not an easy concept to accept. “What do you mean that 1916s are less common than 1909VDBs?” (Given as an example, only).
I'll leave it at this: Kevin Flynn sent me a reference from Matthew Boulton, where the author writes about the "Proofing process". On Page 17, he writes: "Regrettably, the story here is not yet complete. At least five different variations on the matte and sandblast proof technique were experimentally used on regular proofs between 1909 and 1915. At the moment it is hardly possible to give verbal descriptions, or to tell exactly how they were made (the relevant records have not been released to the National Archives)........
The author proceeds for paragraph after paragraph, but eventually concludes: "In any event, matte proofs are often simulated by uncirculated coins, and sometimes diagnosis is exceedingly difficult...... (Even then, [the numismatist] is likely to develop ulcers making honest decisions on 1916 and 1909VDB proof cents.) No verbal criteria exist for unequivocally identifying matte proofs, nor will photographs help, the language lacks words for the subtle distinctions involved."
That sounds close to correct, from my limited experience with these coins. I think that we have a long way to go and a lot to learn before get to the bottom of the secrets of the MPLs.
the "roman finish" dates back...oversea's in origin but not limited to that note
the proof department was actively getting their feet wet in what 1906'?
it's debut as a new finish was used on gold proof's
i would imagine as before projected that the term "roman-finish" was the term as imported but probably after sometime the us mint wanted it to be under their premise and coined a new term was sought.
all in all they are "roman-finish" and maybe with that said is why tpg co.'s ceased including "matte proof" on labels as there is trace to "roman-finish" roots
i really wish they would bring back "matte proof" on labels as trivial as it sounds.
36 lincolns are typ 1 & 2 in proof finish.today we see "satin finish" or the 98 kennedy's have "specimen/sms" which in fact are of the same nature.
the 09-16 lincolns were a special proof process and somewhere in time tpg co.'s opted out but under what premise?
roman-matte ramblings?
maybe someone knows this at pcgs...why was "matte" removed
Sort of back to the core question, does anyone have a MS VDB without the C scratch?
If there is ONE, then there are at least 144,000 of them. Thats what the average reverse die life was in 1909. So if we have one reverse die doing proofs, another reverse die was also made up for them without the VDB, and without the C scratch. Were any dies like this also used for the MS? or are there no MS without the scratch in the C. I guess what Im saying is that they made the no vdb die fresh, and that strike exists in proof but were any MS coins made without scratch.
Here is a raw 1910 ? that I have, it has none of the 1910 MPL Diagnostics, but does have the indent in the date and pretty strong rims, B/S or MPL ?
I have one MS VDB with the C-mark and one without. Both MS65RD
SUMORADA - Nice 1910, but the rims scream Business. Great photos!
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
MPL's - Only the 1910 and 1916 has the "C" line
BS
1909 VDB MS 66 Yes
1909 VDB DDO type 1 MS 64 Yes
1909 VDb DDO Type 2 MS 64 No
1909 MS 65 Yes
1909 S VDB MS 63 No
1909 S MS 63 No
1909 S/Hor S MS 64 Yes
1910 MS 65 Yes
1910 S MS 64 Yes
and No on my 1911PDS or 1912 PDS
Looking at those MPL's close up I found all kinds of things, but most interesting was a thread mark through the T in UNITED on the 1913 MPL
I'll look through the MS coins tomorrow.
matty's are usually found with no metal flow striations...i'm definately in the no matte crowd on that 1910...but your 1911 was sweet and i had hoped you would of imaged it in hand as that had to be one heck of a "woody-matte styles"
yet another note on those matty rims.i strongly believe when i find someone in a machine shop with an optical comparator i will report but i'm very confident the die diameter is a sizeable difference.
of note too is how sharp that inner edge is...i wouldn't think the mint would of allowed such die intended for circulation use due to fear of it cutting fingers.for the longest of times machine shops "deburr" edges of products just for that reason.matty inner rims are "deburred--chamferred or radiussed" as they never were meant to be held.those wide rims are not merely 1000ths for reason's
i'm just not sure how soon i'll have access but count on that report.
<< <i> but I looked at the MPL's tonight (man, I love them!) and it's on 1910-1916, and not on the 1909 or 1909vdb.
>>
Doug,
THAT statement by you tells me that Duane's discovery of the "reverse C" diagnostic has wings. I only saw it on my 1913 which is red. My other MPL's are all rb and I figure that may effect visability. Anyway, in a selfish sort of way, I'm glad it wasn't on your 1909VDB. I cling to the one die, all made on July 30, 1909 theory. Of course they did strike 1,503 and only 1,000 were accepted and 1,194 were delivered to the coiner so maybe some of those 503 or 309 that didn't make it out of the proof room as true proofs WERE in fact made with a second or third die. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
>>
Doug,
THAT statement by you tells me that Duane's discovery of the "reverse C" diagnostic has wings. I only saw it on my 1913 which is red. My other MPL's are all rb and I figure that may effect visability. Anyway, in a selfish sort of way, I'm glad it wasn't on your 1909VDB. I cling to the one die, all made on July 30, 1909 theory. Of course they did strike 1,503 and only 1,000 were accepted and 1,194 were delivered to the coiner so maybe some of those 503 or 309 that didn't make it out of the proof room as true proofs WERE in fact made with a second or third die. Steve
****************************
It does seem consistant. But I'm simply going to take the advice of both Brian and David and send it in to NGC, with comments, and let them sort it out. If it is a MPL, we have a new practicing theory.
On another matter, Doug, if you look at the reverse rim of your red 1915, do you see die lines at 2:00PM to 3:30PM on the flat rim surface itself? I do not have a photo (if anyone does, would be appreciated). Best to view the possible reverse diagnostic by holding the coin upright, with "ONE CENT" at normal position, then rotating coin 25% clockwise, and then tilting the top side of the coin away from you. Do you see anything? I've got very clear multiple striations on my '15, have confirmation from 2 others on RB '15s, but the '15 BNs do not seem to be showing, as it is being reported to me. The reds seem to have the best viewing of this possible diagnostic. If we do establish, it will be the first documented reverse diagnostic for a 1915MPL (unless someone has another).
Thanks, if you do have time to view.
Duane
I think the obverse of this one clearly has the diagnostic that is mentioned:
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage.
ANA Member R-3147111
The C scratch NOT being on an 09 proof is a diagnostic.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry