1917 TY1 SLQ Matte Proof ???
deansmint
Posts: 177
Anyone have any photos, info or die characteristics for the Matte Proof 1917 Type one Standing Liberty Quarters? I can only find one auction reference that doesnt include any photos? Thanks.
0
Comments
if so can you post a pic
below is another members ms 1917 slq...mind you this is not a proof
<< <i>alot of 16 & 17 coins have that satiny look
below is another members ms 1917 slq...mind you this is not a proof
Nice coin. Like I said, Im not suggesting my coin to ever have been a proof. But did get me reading on the subject. So any info regarding the proofs?
Walter Breen's letters of authenticity aren't all up to snuff.
your 17 is awesome and you bet i'd study too
hopefully someone who does know chimes in
<< <i>Here you go, probably just processed. But the luster is very satiny and grainy and I assure you there are no hairlines or any signs of any cleaning. Not a proof, but I like it >>
No offense but this example looks like it was etched from exposure to a harsh chemical with high corrosive acidity
<< <i>
<< <i>Here you go, probably just processed. But the luster is very satiny and grainy and I assure you there are no hairlines or any signs of any cleaning. Not a proof, but I like it >>
No offense but this example looks like it was etched from exposure to a harsh chemical with high corrosive acidity
This is exactly what caused me to take a second look at the coin. I assure you the surfaces are natural, look at how crisp the detail is, everything is sharp and very bold. There is no blending or softness where the design meets the fields. Also, the coin has more detail than Ive ever seen on an eagle. I wish I could take better photos cause you would see feathers that dont even appear on most other examples of this coin. Now I know that most 1917's are well struck, but this coin is just so strong and crisp. Strangely the date is a little weak, go figure. I would think that any coin that had been tampered with would have a loss of detail, where as this coin is superb. Not saying its a proof, just strangely attractive. Anyways, no info on the circumstances regarding breen proofs? Ive read some of the letters he wrote regarding his reasoning, and I know his word is not what is used to be, but a 1917 TY1 sold at heritage a few years back accompanied by one of his letters and brought north of $10k, must be some reasoning behind this. I dont know, interesting is all.
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage.
ANA Member R-3147111
<< <i>Maybe a potassium cyanide treatment???? >>
Man, that's old school, but it works.
<< <i>Maybe a potassium cyanide treatment???? >>
This was toxic to dipper not the coin being dipped
I'm thinking more on the lines of Mercury but there's some chemist on board here that would have more on an insight to the unnatural surface reaction which occurred on this SLQ.
<< <i>
<< <i>Maybe a potassium cyanide treatment???? >>
Man, that's old school, but it works. >>
Would you dip it in this, or apply it? Because the rim surfaces dont look grainy and the edge reeding doesnt either.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Maybe a potassium cyanide treatment???? >>
Man, that's old school, but it works. >>
Would you dip it in this, or apply it? Because the rim surfaces dont look grainy and the edge reeding doesnt either. >>
Potassium cyanide would have been in a glass and the coins where dipped.
This was more of a commonly used practice in the late 19th century by ricko's ancestors to remove tarnish/patina from silver coins.
Some awful mirror proofs of the first 1916 patterns were made, and the other patterns are mostly satin proof or normal strikes from new dies (including the Hayes 1916 pattern w/scratched off leaf).
You can find about how the coins were designed and made, including the first issues for circulation, in the book Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921.
<< <i>Look at the photo of a sandblast 1921 proof on the PCGS price guide. Your coin is not a sandblast proof; frankly, it is not sharp enough to be a satin proof either.
Some awful mirror proofs of the first 1916 patterns were made, and the other patterns are mostly satin proof or normal strikes from new dies (including the Hayes 1916 pattern w/scratched off leaf).
You can find about how the coins were designed and made, including the first issues for circulation, in the book Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921. >>
Do you address the possibility of 1917 proofs in your book? Have you an opinion on the coins that have been sold with breen letters? You have a link to where I can purchase your book? Thanks.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
1917 “proofs” are not discussed in RAC 1916-1921 because there is no documentary or objective authentication evidence they exist – identical to speculating about 1918 “proofs,” etc. The phrase “possible proof” in an auction catalog is unsubstantiated speculation intended to help you deceive yourself, and bid more for the coin.
As far as I’m concerned, authentication letters by Walter Breen are of little value. Go to PCGS or NGC for authentication.
The distributor is Wizard Coin Supply (www.WizardCoinSupply.com). They can put you in touch with resellers.