"Kevin reports back a couple of weeks later and says he is declaring Charmy's coin as a "new 1909 die MPL discovery". In the article I sent to PCGS I thought she should get credit for the discovery but through editing it got removed? Kevin will note her though in his second edition of his book. Once I had Kevins written diagnostics of Charmy's coin I then went back to the Heritage Auction archives and could match two bold reverse diagnostics that were common between Charmy's and Soty's coin that made me feel fairly confident that the Heritage auction coin was most likely anoter example of this new die."
As you can see clearly brian was comparing charmys coin to MY coin and noticed they had some matching markers, my coin was blown off and no mention of me and my findings or anything. Although clearly my coin was first >>
Soty, like I said it was unfortunate that two oppurtunities were missed to get you coin authicated by Kevin. The first was you had the coin in hand almost a month before the Baltimore show and I told you to send it to him because he would have more credibilty than me in authenication new dies for MPL's. You say you attempted and I will believe you but still the coin didn't get to Kevinb. The second chance was at the Baltimore show when Charmy's coin was show in person to Kevin who you saw at the show but this time you didn't have the coin with you.
Brian Wagner Rare Coins, Specializing in PCGS graded, Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels varieties.
Back into the mix of this thread with a change in direction.
I just pulled out my 1909 Lincoln cent and looked at it very closely under good lighting and with a 10x loupe. I compared it to the picture posted in this thread in the OP. I also read all of the replies to this thread including the reply about a discussion 18 months ago of a 1909 Matte Proof Lincoln having a diagonal mark inside of the "C" in "Cent" on the reverse.
Well, well, well,..................... my coin has the diagonal mark inside of the "C" in "Cent".
I may have hit the jackpot with this coin and stumbled upon a Matte Proof 1909 VDB Lincoln Cent without the standard diagnostics for this date. Made from this "other" die.
I have to get someone to take a high quality photo of this coin and/or have people in the know look at it.
Ever since I acquired this coin a few years back I have always thought that it looked much, much better than all of the other MS early Lincolns I own and have looked at.
"Kevin reports back a couple of weeks later and says he is declaring Charmy's coin as a "new 1909 die MPL discovery". In the article I sent to PCGS I thought she should get credit for the discovery but through editing it got removed? Kevin will note her though in his second edition of his book. Once I had Kevins written diagnostics of Charmy's coin I then went back to the Heritage Auction archives and could match two bold reverse diagnostics that were common between Charmy's and Soty's coin that made me feel fairly confident that the Heritage auction coin was most likely anoter example of this new die."
As you can see clearly brian was comparing charmys coin to MY coin and noticed they had some matching markers, my coin was blown off and no mention of me and my findings or anything. Although clearly my coin was first >>
Soty, like I said it was unfortunate that two oppurtunities were missed to get you coin authicated by Kevin. The first was you had the coin in hand almost a month before the Baltimore show and I told you to send it to him because he would have more credibilty than me in authenication new dies for MPL's. You say you attempted and I will believe you but still the coin didn't get to Kevinb. The second chance was at the Baltimore show when Charmy's coin was show in person to Kevin who you saw at the show but this time you didn't have the coin with you. >>
<< <i>Brian states that the charmy example is the discovery coin and is going to be labled as such in the new kevin flynn book. >>
Chris/Soty
I think this should be taken up with Kevin Flynn, since it's not my book but his and his decision. I Kevin thinks your coin should be noted that is fine with me and I will not lobby anyone on this subject.
Brian Wagner Rare Coins, Specializing in PCGS graded, Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels varieties.
<< <i>Back into the mix of this thread with a change in direction.
I just pulled out my 1909 Lincoln cent and looked at it very closely under good lighting and with a 10x loupe. I compared it to the picture posted in this thread in the OP. I also read all of the replies to this thread including the reply about a discussion 18 months ago of a 1909 Matte Proof Lincoln having a diagonal mark inside of the "C" in "Cent" on the reverse.
Well, well, well,..................... my coin has the diagonal mark inside of the "C" in "Cent".
I may have hit the jackpot with this coin and stumbled upon a Matte Proof 1909 VDB Lincoln Cent without the standard diagnostics for this date. Made from this "other" die.
I have to get someone to take a high quality photo of this coin and/or have people in the know look at it.
Ever since I acquired this coin a few years back I have always thought that it looked much, much better than all of the other MS early Lincolns I own and have looked at. >>
I might be wrong, but I don't think this die combination was used on the VDB.
"Kevin reports back a couple of weeks later and says he is declaring Charmy's coin as a "new 1909 die MPL discovery". In the article I sent to PCGS I thought she should get credit for the discovery but through editing it got removed? Kevin will note her though in his second edition of his book. Once I had Kevins written diagnostics of Charmy's coin I then went back to the Heritage Auction archives and could match two bold reverse diagnostics that were common between Charmy's and Soty's coin that made me feel fairly confident that the Heritage auction coin was most likely anoter example of this new die."
As you can see clearly brian was comparing charmys coin to MY coin and noticed they had some matching markers, my coin was blown off and no mention of me and my findings or anything. Although clearly my coin was first >>
I will say this again that after Kevin made his decision about charmy's coin and wrote the diagnostics for this coin, I then went back to the Heritage achives and could see two distinct reverse markers that mathed Charmy's diagnostics. All I know about the obverse of Soty's coin is it doesn't have the 'dielines like most other 1909 MPL cents have. Perhaps Kevin will have a chance to see his coin in hand sometime and tell us it there is a total match to Charmy's coin.
I will say this again, alot of the article I sent to PCGS was edited and content also removed. Our PM about the coin was wrote in my article but didn't show up when put online and a few other things.
Brian Wagner Rare Coins, Specializing in PCGS graded, Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels varieties.
My mind and/or eyes are not working right tonight.
My coin is not a 1909. It is a 1909 V.D.B., with a diagonal mark inside of the "C" in "Cent".
Is it possible that a 1909 V.D.B. MPL could have been struck with an obverse die without the standard diagnostics and a reverse die with the diagonal mark inside of the "C"?
"Kevin reports back a couple of weeks later and says he is declaring Charmy's coin as a "new 1909 die MPL discovery". In the article I sent to PCGS I thought she should get credit for the discovery but through editing it got removed? Kevin will note her though in his second edition of his book. Once I had Kevins written diagnostics of Charmy's coin I then went back to the Heritage Auction archives and could match two bold reverse diagnostics that were common between Charmy's and Soty's coin that made me feel fairly confident that the Heritage auction coin was most likely anoter example of this new die."
As you can see clearly brian was comparing charmys coin to MY coin and noticed they had some matching markers, my coin was blown off and no mention of me and my findings or anything. Although clearly my coin was first >>
I see what you mean (although I can also see how the first coin to land in Kevin's hand would be labeled the discovery coin), but where did you get that quote?
Thanks...Mike
p.s. Thanks, Brian, for responding to my question. I hope you are well.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
That's kind of where I was coming from, the first coin in Kevin's hand would be the discovery coin. If Kevin comes to a different conclusion that is fine with me. It was unfortunate that both oppurtunities for Kevin to see Soty's coin were missed. I feel that Soty's reverse matches Charmy's from the Heritage images but I have no idea if the obverses pair up. When I viewed the coin in the auction preview I thought it was rather strange as I could not find the dielines common on the 1909 PR and VDB proofs obverses.
Brian Wagner Rare Coins, Specializing in PCGS graded, Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels varieties.
p.s. I found the post that Soty quoted here. -- it was in the Registry forum. Sorry for my confusion -- what Soty was saying makes a bit more sense now, although I tend to believe the first coin that lands in the hand of the authoritative author is the discovery coin, yet it seems to me that there is a bit more middle ground for all concerned and given the circumstances (or at least my understanding of them).
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
Has charmy's coin been certified by pcgs yet? Has pcgs ever body bagged it or called it a business strike?
Soty- Congrats on a nice coin. Hindsight is always 20/20 but i wonder how all this would have turned out if BWRC had decided to buy this ( your 1909 mpl) at auction.
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
p.s. I found the post that Soty quoted here. -- it was in the Registry forum. Sorry for my confusion -- what Soty was saying makes a bit more sense now, although I tend to believe the first coin that lands in the hand of the authoritative author is the discovery coin, yet it seems to me that there is a bit more middle ground for all concerned and given the circumstances (or at least my understanding of them). >>
My comment given there. TD
Edited to copy said comments here:
FWIW, Leonard Albrecht was working for me at ANACS when he did his matte proof die study. I cannot remember all of the coins that he used for the study, but Leonard was a very good numismatist and a very meticulous person, and if he said that something existed, I would accept that statement as correct over Kevin Flynn's statement that it did not exist.
MOO
Tom DeLorey
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Just saw this thread after commenting on the Set Registry forum.
In my opinion, the REAL problem here is Kevin Flynn has caused confussion in the hobby by stating in his 2009 book on Matte Proof Lincoln cents that Leonard Albrecht's diagnostics for the second and third obverse dies of the 1909 MPL were "not verified". Since many of the MPL collectors here have treated everything that Kevin said in his book as "gospel" we now have a situation where some collectors and dealers in MPL's "believe" there WAS only one obverse 1909 MPL diagnostic used for BOTH the 1909VDB MPL and the 1909 (plain) MPL. Albrecht, back in 1982 published and provided PICTURES for THREE different 1909 MPL's. One of those three obverses was also used on the 1909VDB MPL. Kevin, in his book, dismisses Albrecht's pictures and states there was only ONE obverse 1909 MPL die used, the same die used for all the 1909VDB MPL's with the same 2 key obverse diagnostics.
This thread is about a supposed NEW discovery coin. I do not know if this coin shows different diagnostics and pictures than the diagnostics and pictures shown by Albrecht in 1982. Chris (soty27) says something about this earlier. BUT, I think we all need to be very careful before we dismiss Leonard Albrecht's diagnostics and before we all accept EVERYTHING Kevin Flynn says and writes as being the last word on MPL's. Kevin has done much for the hobby with his research and his writing, but in MANY cases it is just HIS opinion and not necessarily supported with hard evidence. JMHO.
I would suggest we take this thread to the Set Registry forum if anyone wants to continue it because it will probably get "lost" in the Coin Forum as the day goes along. Steve
All I can say is good grief, a fight over who was first over what is supposed to be called a discovery coin. I don't get it, two grading companies already called it a matte proof. So I guess its a discovery coin because no one had written a well publicized article about it. I would imagine that the TPG's had some reason to call it a proof as they had no article to refer to, what did they do guess correctly? Someone obviously knew it was a proof a long time ago. I guess I can understand some disappointment but throwing around blame on a message board and taking a shot a dealer for this so called discovery is in my opinion way over the top. This goes on my list of things called " I just don't get."
<< <i>You are failing to see the dollar signs that are attached to a discovery coin, IrishMike.
Even if money were not a factor, giving proper credit certainly helps the integrity of the hobby. >>
+ 1
Dealers are in business to make money so getting your name in the headlines can actually equate to additional name recognition with consumers.....plus a discovery coin will typically sell for more money so I can see why the OP is a little ticked at how things went down.
<< <i>You are failing to see the dollar signs that are attached to a discovery coin, IrishMike.
Even if money were not a factor, giving proper credit certainly helps the integrity of the hobby. >>
I dont see the discovery coin being worth a big premium here. If there are only few of these coins and Chris's is the highest graded that is what will matter. I have not seen Charmys coin. I do know in other series the discovery coins tend to get trumped by finest known examples. I would think this thread is more about recognition.
So, what's the verdict? Is it one of the KNOWN Albrecht varieties, or not? TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>All I can say is good grief, a fight over who was first over what is supposed to be called a discovery coin. I don't get it, two grading companies already called it a matte proof. So I guess its a discovery coin because no one had written a well publicized article about it. I would imagine that the TPG's had some reason to call it a proof as they had no article to refer to, what did they do guess correctly? Someone obviously knew it was a proof a long time ago. I guess I can understand some disappointment but throwing around blame on a message board and taking a shot a dealer for this so called discovery is in my opinion way over the top. This goes on my list of things called " I just don't get." >>
Ahhhh, it's just what coin dealers do........to everyone!!
Brian then told me that he had previously saw the coin during lot viewing and determined that there were no die diagnostics.
evidentally your coin should possibly have gotten some consideration but why you?? from reading the post it seems that others were already aware of something.
"Kevin reports back a couple of weeks later and says he is declaring Charmy's coin as a "new 1909 die MPL discovery". In the article I sent to PCGS I thought she should get credit for the discovery but through editing it got removed? Kevin will note her though in his second edition of his book. Once I had Kevins written diagnostics of Charmy's coin I then went back to the Heritage Auction archives and could match two bold reverse diagnostics that were common between Charmy's and Soty's coin that made me feel fairly confident that the Heritage auction coin was most likely anoter example of this new die."
As you can see clearly brian was comparing charmys coin to MY coin and noticed they had some matching markers, my coin was blown off and no mention of me and my findings or anything. Although clearly my coin was first >>
Soty, settle down. It's clear from the replies in this thread as well as from the PCGS article itself that Brian Wagner diagnosed your coin in hand at the Long Beach Show as being from the "new die" a month before Kevin Flynn diagnosed Charmy Harker's coin in hand at the Baltimore Show as being from the "new die." If I were you, I'd refrain from continuing to make a spectacle of myself, and simply pick up the phone, give Kevin Flynn a call, and request that he note those facts in his upcoming edition of his book, for the sake of accuracy. I don't think this guy wants to be selling the public fairytales, and I'll just bet you a shiny new dime he'll accommodate your request, and work those facts in, somehow...
Can somebody please answer the following question?
Do the two 1909 cents in questions have:
A.: NO die characteristics B.: The SAME die characteristic as Albrecht Variety 2 or 3, or C.: Die characteristics DIFFERENT than Albrecht 1, 2 or 3?
Please enlighten us all.
Tom DeLorey
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
"Kevin reports back a couple of weeks later and says he is declaring Charmy's coin as a "new 1909 die MPL discovery". In the article I sent to PCGS I thought she should get credit for the discovery but through editing it got removed? Kevin will note her though in his second edition of his book. Once I had Kevins written diagnostics of Charmy's coin I then went back to the Heritage Auction archives and could match two bold reverse diagnostics that were common between Charmy's and Soty's coin that made me feel fairly confident that the Heritage auction coin was most likely anoter example of this new die."
As you can see clearly brian was comparing charmys coin to MY coin and noticed they had some matching markers, my coin was blown off and no mention of me and my findings or anything. Although clearly my coin was first >>
Soty, settle down. It's clear from the replies in this thread as well as from the PCGS article itself that Brian Wagner diagnosed your coin in hand at the Long Beach Show as being from the "new die" a month before Kevin Flynn diagnosed Charmy Harker's coin in hand at the Baltimore Show as being from the "new die." If I were you, I'd refrain from continuing to make a spectacle of myself, and simply pick up the phone, give Kevin Flynn a call, and request that he note those facts in his upcoming edition of his book, for the sake of accuracy. I don't think this guy wants to be selling the public fairytales, and I'll just bet you a shiny new dime he'll accommodate your request, and work those facts in, somehow... >>
Just to clarify, brian did not diagnose my coin as anything in lot viewing, he simply told me that he did not see the known diagnostics on the coin after I contacted him upon recieving the coin in hand. Then while at baltimore Biran and I were at my table discussing my coin and the possibility of it being from another die, at this time brian had not seen charmys coin so brian and I both walked up to charmys table to compare coins and try to come to a conclusion. Brian did ntohing to verify my coin nor did he ever come to any conclusion about my coin, the only thing brian stated was that there were none of the known diagnostics and that pcgs would back up there gaurentee. I am not seeking credit for a discovery, I simply wanted the facts to be known that I contacted brian long before charmys coin was ever in the picture and that my coin was discovered long before charmys coin, there are some other things that I feel should have also been stated and known but like I previously said in this thread I GIVE UP, I am done with this issue as I have came to my own conclusions about my coin without the help of brian or kevin.
My conclusion about my coin is shown over in the registry forum. I will not comment anymore on my thoughts regarding the other coin.
actually, it seems that PCGS should get credit along with whoever submitted the OP's coin since they knew it was a Proof, but i digress. -----could someone please answer the good Captain's question before he has a hernia??!!!!!??
<< <i>actually, it seems that PCGS should get credit along with whoever submitted the OP's coin since they knew it was a Proof, but i digress. -----could someone please answer the good Captain's question before he has a hernia??!!!!!?? >>
I believe Paul (commoncents05) mentioned that this coin was an NGC PR65RB prior to being upgraded to a PCGS PR66RB. So I suppose they should get credit as well.
<< <i>Just saw this thread after commenting on the Set Registry forum. In my opinion, the REAL problem here is Kevin Flynn has caused confussion in the hobby by stating in his 2009 book on Matte Proof Lincoln cents that Leonard Albrecht's diagnostics for the second and third obverse dies of the 1909 MPL were "not verified". Since many of the MPL collectors here have treated everything that Kevin said in his book as "gospel" we now have a situation where some collectors and dealers in MPL's "believe" there WAS only one obverse 1909 MPL diagnostic used for BOTH the 1909VDB MPL and the 1909 (plain) MPL. Albrecht, back in 1982 published and provided PICTURES for THREE different 1909 MPL's. One of those three obverses was also used on the 1909VDB MPL. Kevin, in his book, dismisses Albrecht's pictures and states there was only ONE obverse 1909 MPL die used, the same die used for all the 1909VDB MPL's with the same 2 key obverse diagnostics. This thread is about a supposed NEW discovery coin. I do not know if this coin shows different diagnostics and pictures than the diagnostics and pictures shown by Albrecht in 1982. Chris (soty27) says something about this earlier. BUT, I think we all need to be very careful before we dismiss Leonard Albrecht's diagnostics and before we all accept EVERYTHING Kevin Flynn says and writes as being the last word on MPL's. Kevin has done much for the hobby with his research and his writing, but in MANY cases it is just HIS opinion and not necessarily supported with hard evidence. JMHO. I would suggest we take this thread to the Set Registry forum if anyone wants to continue it because it will probably get "lost" in the Coin Forum as the day goes along. Steve >>
Steve,
I have to give you credit, you gave me a good laugh when I read this. I never claimed to be a gospel or absolute truth. If someone proofs information to be inaccurate or finds something new, then they should publish it and help us all. I am the first to say this should not be the last word.
I listed several die varieties, including one I had earlier seen in an auction as a matte proof, as I did not find a verifying specimen. The coins I listed are ones I verified with supporting specimens. I will do everything in my power to make my book as accurate as possible, and will do everything in my power not to include that which I have not verified. I am also clear as to what is my opinion and what I am claiming to be fact.
I wish you would stop generalizing, if you believe something is wrong, please state specifics, do not generalize, support your arguments. What in my matte proof book on the diagnostics is not supported by evidence?
If you believe you can do better Steve, I would suggest spending the time to write a book.
Charmy's coin had diagnostics which are not listed in Albrecht, there are no die scratches in front of the nose as in Obverse #1 and #3 and no die crack from the bust to the rim as in #2.
It turns out from the images on Chris's coin, it is Albrecht #3, the die scratches appear to be at the angle which match #3, and different from Albrecht #1.
In my next addition of the book I will list Charmy as the submitter for this new matte proof, I do not like or use the term discoverer in my book. Charmy permitted me to photograph her coin.
I believe there was some confusion here, Chris sent me emails, but I never received, the problem Chris believes was in his software.
Does anyone have photos of Charmy's coin?? I know she sends a lot of coins to Todd for imaging, so I figure someone may have a pic? Would be cool to see what we're talking about here
<< <i>Does anyone have photos of Charmy's coin?? I know she sends a lot of coins to Todd for imaging, so I figure someone may have a pic? Would be cool to see what we're talking about here >>
I have not seen it. Charmy is away at a show and her laptop broke broke in Santa Clara so we wont hear from her for a few days....
<< <i>Just to clarify, brian did not diagnose my coin as anything in lot viewing, he simply told me that he did not see the known diagnostics on the coin after I contacted him upon recieving the coin in hand. Then while at baltimore Biran and I were at my table discussing my coin and the possibility of it being from another die, at this time brian had not seen charmys coin so brian and I both walked up to charmys table to compare coins and try to come to a conclusion. Brian did ntohing to verify my coin nor did he ever come to any conclusion about my coin, the only thing brian stated was that there were none of the known diagnostics and that pcgs would back up there gaurentee. I am not seeking credit for a discovery, I simply wanted the facts to be known that I contacted brian long before charmys coin was ever in the picture and that my coin was discovered long before charmys coin, there are some other things that I feel should have also been stated and known but like I previously said in this thread I GIVE UP, I am done with this issue as I have came to my own conclusions about my coin without the help of brian or kevin.
My conclusion about my coin is shown over in the registry forum. I will not comment anymore on my thoughts regarding the other coin. >>
Soty, just on the chance you might still be tracking this thread you started, take a look at Kevin Flynn's second post on this page. Your MPL, based on those pics he saw, is an A3 obverse. Kevin writes "the book" on these, not Brian Wagner. We, in turn, rely on that information, and, as such, the last thing Kevin's likely to even consider doing is giving us false or misleading information or information he's only marginally sure of. Think about that. Give it a real good going over.
PS: I really love your MPL, BTW. Hell, for what matter, who doesn't? Take care.
This has been a most interesting thread. My humble apologies regarding the lack of clarity of the OP photo, the newly posted ones make up for that in droves and point out that I was in error.
Mr. Flynn......What do you think about the reverse diagnostic, the diagonal line within the C? Does this paired with the OP's obverse indicate a different die pairing? Could it possibly tell us a replacement reverse die was used at some point...a business strike die that was given a sandblasting and popped into the press, and used for a very limited number of coins?
<< <i>Just to clarify, brian did not diagnose my coin as anything in lot viewing, he simply told me that he did not see the known diagnostics on the coin after I contacted him upon recieving the coin in hand. Then while at baltimore Biran and I were at my table discussing my coin and the possibility of it being from another die, at this time brian had not seen charmys coin so brian and I both walked up to charmys table to compare coins and try to come to a conclusion. Brian did ntohing to verify my coin nor did he ever come to any conclusion about my coin, the only thing brian stated was that there were none of the known diagnostics and that pcgs would back up there gaurentee. I am not seeking credit for a discovery, I simply wanted the facts to be known that I contacted brian long before charmys coin was ever in the picture and that my coin was discovered long before charmys coin, there are some other things that I feel should have also been stated and known but like I previously said in this thread I GIVE UP, I am done with this issue as I have came to my own conclusions about my coin without the help of brian or kevin.
My conclusion about my coin is shown over in the registry forum. I will not comment anymore on my thoughts regarding the other coin. >>
Soty, just on the chance you might still be tracking this thread you started, take a look at Kevin Flynn's second post on this page. Your MPL, based on those pics he saw, is an A3 obverse. Kevin writes "the book" on these, not Brian Wagner. We, in turn, rely on that information, and, as such, the last thing Kevin's likely to even consider doing is giving us false or misleading information or information he's only marginally sure of. Think about that. Give it a real good going over.
PS: I really love your MPL, BTW. Hell, for what matter, who doesn't? Take care. >>
I actually have been following the thread in the registry forum and I pointed out that my coin was the A3 obverse and showed pictures on the registy to confirm it kevin was jsut relaying that information here.
<< <i>This has been a most interesting thread. My humble apologies regarding the lack of clarity of the OP photo, the newly posted ones make up for that in droves and point out that I was in error. Mr. Flynn......What do you think about the reverse diagnostic, the diagonal line within the C? Does this paired with the OP's obverse indicate a different die pairing? Could it possibly tell us a replacement reverse die was used at some point...a business strike die that was given a sandblasting and popped into the press, and used for a very limited number of coins? >>
Good point, Chris's reverse photo and the the photo I took of Charmy's reverse show the same diagonal die scratch in the C of CENT.
Would need to see close ups on Chris's coins on the TED of UNITED as Charmy's coin shows almost large over small letters. There are several other diagnostics on Charmy's coin which we need to see the same area on Chris's coin.
If the diagnostics are the same, obviously it is the same reverse.
If the small over large TED is not on Chris's coin, then as this would have been from the hub, it could not be different die states, but one of two possibilities, 1. That the same die scratch occurred on two different reverse dies in the same location 2. That the die scratch was on the master die and was hubbed into the hub and working dies.
<< <i>This has been a most interesting thread. My humble apologies regarding the lack of clarity of the OP photo, the newly posted ones make up for that in droves and point out that I was in error. Mr. Flynn......What do you think about the reverse diagnostic, the diagonal line within the C? Does this paired with the OP's obverse indicate a different die pairing? Could it possibly tell us a replacement reverse die was used at some point...a business strike die that was given a sandblasting and popped into the press, and used for a very limited number of coins? >>
Good point, Chris's reverse photo and the the photo I took of Charmy's reverse show the same diagonal die scratch in the C of CENT.
Would need to see close ups on Chris's coins on the TED of UNITED as Charmy's coin shows almost large over small letters. There are several other diagnostics on Charmy's coin which we need to see the same area on Chris's coin.
If the diagnostics are the same, obviously it is the same reverse.
If the small over large TED is not on Chris's coin, then as this would have been from the hub, it could not be different die states, but one of two possibilities, 1. That the same die scratch occurred on two different reverse dies in the same location 2. That the die scratch was on the master die and was hubbed into the hub and working dies.
Kevin >>
I will post reverse images on the registry forum, My coin is the same reverse as charmys or at least appears to be the same but I also believe it to be one listed by albrecht
I hate it when people do that. You make us feel so old.
PS: Those gray highlights in my hair, BTW, I'd just like to clarify, I color it that way. Before that, ya see, I'd find I'd never get any respect from anybody. I'd just talk, and talk, and talk, and it was like nobody was paying any attention to me. That used to really piss me off. Now, however, they take one look at that gray, and it's like I can hear them thinking, "He must know sumpthin', he's been around for soooo long!"
Has charmy's coin be certified by pcgs?? If it has, what was the grade. Sorry if this was already posted but i must have missed it between commercial breaks.
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
Mr Flynn check through your photo bank and you will note the diagonal mark begins at some point in 1909 and then exists on all reverses proof and BS for decades. Clearly on the main hub. As Brian says, he has only seen that marker on the two 09 proof mentioned in this thread. BTW Did I miss something happening since the Penny Lady seems to be absent
<< <i>Mr Flynn check through your photo bank and you will note the diagonal mark begins at some point in 1909 and then exists on all reverses proof and BS for decades. Clearly on the main hub. As Brian says, he has only seen that marker on the two 09 proof mentioned in this thread. BTW Did I miss something happening since the Penny Lady seems to be absent >>
Todd said her laptop was broke and she was traveling...MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>This has been a most interesting thread. My humble apologies regarding the lack of clarity of the OP photo, the newly posted ones make up for that in droves and point out that I was in error. Mr. Flynn......What do you think about the reverse diagnostic, the diagonal line within the C? Does this paired with the OP's obverse indicate a different die pairing? Could it possibly tell us a replacement reverse die was used at some point...a business strike die that was given a sandblasting and popped into the press, and used for a very limited number of coins? >>
Good point, Chris's reverse photo and the the photo I took of Charmy's reverse show the same diagonal die scratch in the C of CENT.
Would need to see close ups on Chris's coins on the TED of UNITED as Charmy's coin shows almost large over small letters. There are several other diagnostics on Charmy's coin which we need to see the same area on Chris's coin.
If the diagnostics are the same, obviously it is the same reverse.
If the small over large TED is not on Chris's coin, then as this would have been from the hub, it could not be different die states, but one of two possibilities, 1. That the same die scratch occurred on two different reverse dies in the same location 2. That the die scratch was on the master die and was hubbed into the hub and working dies.
Kevin >>
Kevin,
When you declared Charmy's coin a MP and came out with the complete diagnostics of both the obverse and reverse of her coin, this triggered me to go back to the HRCA archives and look at Chris's coin image. What I saw was definately the slanted dieline within the "C" of CENT and also the small/large letters in the TE of united. I thought that since I have never seen a 1909 plain or VDB with this slanted dieline, I could now assume that the reverses match on Charmy and Chris's coin. I believe that when Chris puts up one of his detailed images of his coins reverse, we will be able to agree that both coins have same reverse but not a match of the obverses.
Since you have stated that Charmy's coin has no trace of any dielines in front or out from the nose, I believe that Charmy's/Chris's coin have the same reverses but different obverses?? Both coins have to be scarce though because they are the first 1909's that have the slanted dieline and sm/lg TE of united that I have seen after viewing probably around 100 1909 Matte Proof cents either VDB or none.
edited for sp:
Brian Wagner Rare Coins, Specializing in PCGS graded, Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels varieties.
Kevin, When you declared Charmy's coin a MP and came out with the complete diagnostics of both the obverse and reverse of her coin, this triggered me to go back to the HRCA archives and look at Chris's coin image. What I saw was definately the slanted dieline within the "C" of CENT and also the small/large letters in the TE of united. I thought that since I have never seen a 1909 plain or VDB with this slanted dieline, I could now assume that the reverses match on Charmy and Chris's coin. I believe that when Chris puts up one of his detailed images of his coins reverse, we will be able to agree that both coins have same reverse but not a match of the obverses. Since you have stated that Charmy's coin has no trace of any dielines in front or out from the nose, I believe that Charmy's/Chrisis coin have the same reverses but different obverses?? Both coins have to be scare though because they are the first 1909's that the slanted dieline and sm/lg TE of united that I have seen after viewing probably around 100 1909 Matte Proof cents either VDB or none. edited for sp: >>
Brian, Chris is sending me the coin so I will be able to make an absolute determination if the reverses were the same Kevin
Comments
<< <i>Here is where he states it
"Kevin reports back a couple of weeks later and says he is declaring Charmy's coin as a "new 1909 die MPL discovery". In the article I sent to PCGS I thought she should get credit for the discovery but through editing it got removed? Kevin will note her though in his second edition of his book. Once I had Kevins written diagnostics of Charmy's coin I then went back to the Heritage Auction archives and could match two bold reverse diagnostics that were common between Charmy's and Soty's coin that made me feel fairly confident that the Heritage auction coin was most likely anoter example of this new die."
As you can see clearly brian was comparing charmys coin to MY coin and noticed they had some matching markers, my coin was blown off and no mention of me and my findings or anything. Although clearly my coin was first >>
Soty, like I said it was unfortunate that two oppurtunities were missed to get you coin authicated by Kevin. The first was you had the coin in hand almost a month before the Baltimore show and I told you to send it to him because he would have more credibilty than me in authenication new dies for MPL's. You say you attempted and I will believe you but still the coin didn't get to Kevinb. The second chance was at the Baltimore show when Charmy's coin was show in person to Kevin who you saw at the show but this time you didn't have the coin with you.
I just pulled out my 1909 Lincoln cent and looked at it very closely under good lighting and with a 10x loupe. I compared it to the picture posted in this thread in the OP. I also read all of the replies to this thread including the reply about a discussion 18 months ago of a 1909 Matte Proof Lincoln having a diagonal mark inside of the "C" in "Cent" on the reverse.
Well, well, well,..................... my coin has the diagonal mark inside of the "C" in "Cent".
I may have hit the jackpot with this coin and stumbled upon a Matte Proof 1909 VDB Lincoln Cent without the standard diagnostics for this date. Made from this "other" die.
I have to get someone to take a high quality photo of this coin and/or have people in the know look at it.
Ever since I acquired this coin a few years back I have always thought that it looked much, much better than all of the other MS early Lincolns I own and have looked at.
<< <i>
<< <i>Here is where he states it
"Kevin reports back a couple of weeks later and says he is declaring Charmy's coin as a "new 1909 die MPL discovery". In the article I sent to PCGS I thought she should get credit for the discovery but through editing it got removed? Kevin will note her though in his second edition of his book. Once I had Kevins written diagnostics of Charmy's coin I then went back to the Heritage Auction archives and could match two bold reverse diagnostics that were common between Charmy's and Soty's coin that made me feel fairly confident that the Heritage auction coin was most likely anoter example of this new die."
As you can see clearly brian was comparing charmys coin to MY coin and noticed they had some matching markers, my coin was blown off and no mention of me and my findings or anything. Although clearly my coin was first >>
Soty, like I said it was unfortunate that two oppurtunities were missed to get you coin authicated by Kevin. The first was you had the coin in hand almost a month before the Baltimore show and I told you to send it to him because he would have more credibilty than me in authenication new dies for MPL's. You say you attempted and I will believe you but still the coin didn't get to Kevinb. The second chance was at the Baltimore show when Charmy's coin was show in person to Kevin who you saw at the show but this time you didn't have the coin with you. >>
I give up, whatever.
<< <i>Brian states that the charmy example is the discovery coin and is going to be labled as such in the new kevin flynn book. >>
Chris/Soty
I think this should be taken up with Kevin Flynn, since it's not my book but his and his decision. I Kevin thinks your coin should be noted that is fine with me and I will not lobby anyone on this subject.
<< <i>Back into the mix of this thread with a change in direction.
I just pulled out my 1909 Lincoln cent and looked at it very closely under good lighting and with a 10x loupe. I compared it to the picture posted in this thread in the OP. I also read all of the replies to this thread including the reply about a discussion 18 months ago of a 1909 Matte Proof Lincoln having a diagonal mark inside of the "C" in "Cent" on the reverse.
Well, well, well,..................... my coin has the diagonal mark inside of the "C" in "Cent".
I may have hit the jackpot with this coin and stumbled upon a Matte Proof 1909 VDB Lincoln Cent without the standard diagnostics for this date. Made from this "other" die.
I have to get someone to take a high quality photo of this coin and/or have people in the know look at it.
Ever since I acquired this coin a few years back I have always thought that it looked much, much better than all of the other MS early Lincolns I own and have looked at.
I might be wrong, but I don't think this die combination was used on the VDB.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
<< <i>Here is where he states it
"Kevin reports back a couple of weeks later and says he is declaring Charmy's coin as a "new 1909 die MPL discovery". In the article I sent to PCGS I thought she should get credit for the discovery but through editing it got removed? Kevin will note her though in his second edition of his book. Once I had Kevins written diagnostics of Charmy's coin I then went back to the Heritage Auction archives and could match two bold reverse diagnostics that were common between Charmy's and Soty's coin that made me feel fairly confident that the Heritage auction coin was most likely anoter example of this new die."
As you can see clearly brian was comparing charmys coin to MY coin and noticed they had some matching markers, my coin was blown off and no mention of me and my findings or anything. Although clearly my coin was first >>
I will say this again that after Kevin made his decision about charmy's coin and wrote the diagnostics for this coin, I then went back to the Heritage achives and could see two distinct reverse markers that mathed Charmy's diagnostics. All I know about the obverse of Soty's coin is it doesn't have the 'dielines like most other 1909 MPL cents have. Perhaps Kevin will have a chance to see his coin in hand sometime and tell us it there is a total match to Charmy's coin.
I will say this again, alot of the article I sent to PCGS was edited and content also removed. Our PM about the coin was wrote in my article but didn't show up when put online and a few other things.
My coin is not a 1909. It is a 1909 V.D.B., with a diagonal mark inside of the "C" in "Cent".
Is it possible that a 1909 V.D.B. MPL could have been struck with an obverse die without the standard diagnostics and a reverse die with the diagonal mark inside of the "C"?
<< <i>Here is where he states it
"Kevin reports back a couple of weeks later and says he is declaring Charmy's coin as a "new 1909 die MPL discovery". In the article I sent to PCGS I thought she should get credit for the discovery but through editing it got removed? Kevin will note her though in his second edition of his book. Once I had Kevins written diagnostics of Charmy's coin I then went back to the Heritage Auction archives and could match two bold reverse diagnostics that were common between Charmy's and Soty's coin that made me feel fairly confident that the Heritage auction coin was most likely anoter example of this new die."
As you can see clearly brian was comparing charmys coin to MY coin and noticed they had some matching markers, my coin was blown off and no mention of me and my findings or anything. Although clearly my coin was first >>
I see what you mean (although I can also see how the first coin to land in Kevin's hand would be labeled the discovery coin), but where did you get that quote?
Thanks...Mike
p.s. Thanks, Brian, for responding to my question. I hope you are well.
Thanks Mike,
I hope you are doing ok yourself.
That's kind of where I was coming from, the first coin in Kevin's hand would be the discovery coin. If Kevin comes to a different conclusion that is fine with me. It was unfortunate that both oppurtunities for Kevin to see Soty's coin were missed. I feel that Soty's reverse matches Charmy's from the Heritage images but I have no idea if the obverses pair up. When I viewed the coin in the auction preview I thought it was rather strange as I could not find the dielines common on the 1909 PR and VDB proofs obverses.
Take care...Mike
p.s. I found the post that Soty quoted here. -- it was in the Registry forum. Sorry for my confusion -- what Soty was saying makes a bit more sense now, although I tend to believe the first coin that lands in the hand of the authoritative author is the discovery coin, yet it seems to me that there is a bit more middle ground for all concerned and given the circumstances (or at least my understanding of them).
Soty- Congrats on a nice coin. Hindsight is always 20/20 but i wonder how all this would have turned out if BWRC had decided to buy this ( your 1909 mpl) at auction.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>Thanks Brian, I am.
Take care...Mike
p.s. I found the post that Soty quoted here. -- it was in the Registry forum. Sorry for my confusion -- what Soty was saying makes a bit more sense now, although I tend to believe the first coin that lands in the hand of the authoritative author is the discovery coin, yet it seems to me that there is a bit more middle ground for all concerned and given the circumstances (or at least my understanding of them). >>
My comment given there.
TD
Edited to copy said comments here:
FWIW, Leonard Albrecht was working for me at ANACS when he did his matte proof die study. I cannot remember all of the coins that he used for the study, but Leonard was a very good numismatist and a very meticulous person, and if he said that something existed, I would accept that statement as correct over Kevin Flynn's statement that it did not exist.
MOO
Tom DeLorey
In my opinion, the REAL problem here is Kevin Flynn has caused confussion in the hobby by stating in his 2009 book on Matte Proof Lincoln cents that Leonard Albrecht's diagnostics for the second and third obverse dies of the 1909 MPL were "not verified". Since many of the MPL collectors here have treated everything that Kevin said in his book as "gospel" we now have a situation where some collectors and dealers in MPL's "believe" there WAS only one obverse 1909 MPL diagnostic used for BOTH the 1909VDB MPL and the 1909 (plain) MPL. Albrecht, back in 1982 published and provided PICTURES for THREE different 1909 MPL's. One of those three obverses was also used on the 1909VDB MPL. Kevin, in his book, dismisses Albrecht's pictures and states there was only ONE obverse 1909 MPL die used, the same die used for all the 1909VDB MPL's with the same 2 key obverse diagnostics.
This thread is about a supposed NEW discovery coin. I do not know if this coin shows different diagnostics and pictures than the diagnostics and pictures shown by Albrecht in 1982. Chris (soty27) says something about this earlier. BUT, I think we all need to be very careful before we dismiss Leonard Albrecht's diagnostics and before we all accept EVERYTHING Kevin Flynn says and writes as being the last word on MPL's. Kevin has done much for the hobby with his research and his writing, but in MANY cases it is just HIS opinion and not necessarily supported with hard evidence. JMHO.
I would suggest we take this thread to the Set Registry forum if anyone wants to continue it because it will probably get "lost" in the Coin Forum as the day goes along.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Even if money were not a factor, giving proper credit certainly helps the integrity of the hobby.
<< <i>You are failing to see the dollar signs that are attached to a discovery coin, IrishMike.
Even if money were not a factor, giving proper credit certainly helps the integrity of the hobby. >>
+ 1
Dealers are in business to make money so getting your name in the headlines can actually equate to additional name recognition with consumers.....plus a discovery coin will typically sell for more money so I can see why the OP is a little ticked at how things went down.
<< <i>You are failing to see the dollar signs that are attached to a discovery coin, IrishMike.
Even if money were not a factor, giving proper credit certainly helps the integrity of the hobby. >>
I dont see the discovery coin being worth a big premium here. If there are only few of these coins and Chris's is the highest graded that is what will matter. I have not seen Charmys coin. I do know in other series the discovery coins tend to get trumped by finest known examples. I would think this thread is more about recognition.
Is it one of the KNOWN Albrecht varieties, or not?
TD
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>All I can say is good grief, a fight over who was first over what is supposed to be called a discovery coin. I don't get it, two grading companies already called it a matte proof. So I guess its a discovery coin because no one had written a well publicized article about it. I would imagine that the TPG's had some reason to call it a proof as they had no article to refer to, what did they do guess correctly? Someone obviously knew it was a proof a long time ago. I guess I can understand some disappointment but throwing around blame on a message board and taking a shot a dealer for this so called discovery is in my opinion way over the top. This goes on my list of things called " I just don't get." >>
Ahhhh, it's just what coin dealers do........to everyone!!
evidentally your coin should possibly have gotten some consideration but why you?? from reading the post it seems that others were already aware of something.
<< <i>Here is where he states it
"Kevin reports back a couple of weeks later and says he is declaring Charmy's coin as a "new 1909 die MPL discovery". In the article I sent to PCGS I thought she should get credit for the discovery but through editing it got removed? Kevin will note her though in his second edition of his book. Once I had Kevins written diagnostics of Charmy's coin I then went back to the Heritage Auction archives and could match two bold reverse diagnostics that were common between Charmy's and Soty's coin that made me feel fairly confident that the Heritage auction coin was most likely anoter example of this new die."
As you can see clearly brian was comparing charmys coin to MY coin and noticed they had some matching markers, my coin was blown off and no mention of me and my findings or anything. Although clearly my coin was first >>
Soty, settle down. It's clear from the replies in this thread as well as from the PCGS article itself that Brian Wagner diagnosed your coin in hand at the Long Beach Show as being from the "new die" a month before Kevin Flynn diagnosed Charmy Harker's coin in hand at the Baltimore Show as being from the "new die." If I were you, I'd refrain from continuing to make a spectacle of myself, and simply pick up the phone, give Kevin Flynn a call, and request that he note those facts in his upcoming edition of his book, for the sake of accuracy. I don't think this guy wants to be selling the public fairytales, and I'll just bet you a shiny new dime he'll accommodate your request, and work those facts in, somehow...
Do the two 1909 cents in questions have:
A.: NO die characteristics
B.: The SAME die characteristic as Albrecht Variety 2 or 3, or
C.: Die characteristics DIFFERENT than Albrecht 1, 2 or 3?
Please enlighten us all.
Tom DeLorey
<< <i>
<< <i>Here is where he states it
"Kevin reports back a couple of weeks later and says he is declaring Charmy's coin as a "new 1909 die MPL discovery". In the article I sent to PCGS I thought she should get credit for the discovery but through editing it got removed? Kevin will note her though in his second edition of his book. Once I had Kevins written diagnostics of Charmy's coin I then went back to the Heritage Auction archives and could match two bold reverse diagnostics that were common between Charmy's and Soty's coin that made me feel fairly confident that the Heritage auction coin was most likely anoter example of this new die."
As you can see clearly brian was comparing charmys coin to MY coin and noticed they had some matching markers, my coin was blown off and no mention of me and my findings or anything. Although clearly my coin was first >>
Soty, settle down. It's clear from the replies in this thread as well as from the PCGS article itself that Brian Wagner diagnosed your coin in hand at the Long Beach Show as being from the "new die" a month before Kevin Flynn diagnosed Charmy Harker's coin in hand at the Baltimore Show as being from the "new die." If I were you, I'd refrain from continuing to make a spectacle of myself, and simply pick up the phone, give Kevin Flynn a call, and request that he note those facts in his upcoming edition of his book, for the sake of accuracy. I don't think this guy wants to be selling the public fairytales, and I'll just bet you a shiny new dime he'll accommodate your request, and work those facts in, somehow... >>
Just to clarify, brian did not diagnose my coin as anything in lot viewing, he simply told me that he did not see the known diagnostics on the coin after I contacted him upon recieving the coin in hand. Then while at baltimore Biran and I were at my table discussing my coin and the possibility of it being from another die, at this time brian had not seen charmys coin so brian and I both walked up to charmys table to compare coins and try to come to a conclusion. Brian did ntohing to verify my coin nor did he ever come to any conclusion about my coin, the only thing brian stated was that there were none of the known diagnostics and that pcgs would back up there gaurentee. I am not seeking credit for a discovery, I simply wanted the facts to be known that I contacted brian long before charmys coin was ever in the picture and that my coin was discovered long before charmys coin, there are some other things that I feel should have also been stated and known but like I previously said in this thread I GIVE UP, I am done with this issue as I have came to my own conclusions about my coin without the help of brian or kevin.
My conclusion about my coin is shown over in the registry forum. I will not comment anymore on my thoughts regarding the other coin.
-----could someone please answer the good Captain's question before he has a hernia??!!!!!??
<< <i>actually, it seems that PCGS should get credit along with whoever submitted the OP's coin since they knew it was a Proof, but i digress.
-----could someone please answer the good Captain's question before he has a hernia??!!!!!?? >>
I believe Paul (commoncents05) mentioned that this coin was an NGC PR65RB prior to being upgraded to a PCGS PR66RB. So I suppose they should get credit as well.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
<< <i>So I suppose they should get credit as well. >>
I just finished reading this whole thread. Can I get some credit, too?
<< <i>Can somebody please answer the following question?
Do the two 1909 cents in questions have:
A.: NO die characteristics
B.: The SAME die characteristic as Albrecht Variety 2 or 3, or
C.: Die characteristics DIFFERENT than Albrecht 1, 2 or 3?
Please enlighten us all.
Tom DeLorey >>
Tom, Kevin responded (c) over in the Registry forum for Charmy's coin, and the answer for Soty's coin appears to be (b). Go take a look....Mike
<< <i>Just saw this thread after commenting on the Set Registry forum.
In my opinion, the REAL problem here is Kevin Flynn has caused confussion in the hobby by stating in his 2009 book on Matte Proof Lincoln cents that Leonard Albrecht's diagnostics for the second and third obverse dies of the 1909 MPL were "not verified". Since many of the MPL collectors here have treated everything that Kevin said in his book as "gospel" we now have a situation where some collectors and dealers in MPL's "believe" there WAS only one obverse 1909 MPL diagnostic used for BOTH the 1909VDB MPL and the 1909 (plain) MPL. Albrecht, back in 1982 published and provided PICTURES for THREE different 1909 MPL's. One of those three obverses was also used on the 1909VDB MPL. Kevin, in his book, dismisses Albrecht's pictures and states there was only ONE obverse 1909 MPL die used, the same die used for all the 1909VDB MPL's with the same 2 key obverse diagnostics.
This thread is about a supposed NEW discovery coin. I do not know if this coin shows different diagnostics and pictures than the diagnostics and pictures shown by Albrecht in 1982. Chris (soty27) says something about this earlier. BUT, I think we all need to be very careful before we dismiss Leonard Albrecht's diagnostics and before we all accept EVERYTHING Kevin Flynn says and writes as being the last word on MPL's. Kevin has done much for the hobby with his research and his writing, but in MANY cases it is just HIS opinion and not necessarily supported with hard evidence. JMHO.
I would suggest we take this thread to the Set Registry forum if anyone wants to continue it because it will probably get "lost" in the Coin Forum as the day goes along.
Steve
Steve,
I have to give you credit, you gave me a good laugh when I read this.
I never claimed to be a gospel or absolute truth. If someone proofs information to be inaccurate or finds something new,
then they should publish it and help us all. I am the first to say this should not be the last word.
I listed several die varieties, including one I had earlier seen in an auction as a matte proof, as I did not find a verifying specimen.
The coins I listed are ones I verified with supporting specimens. I will do everything in my power to make my book as accurate
as possible, and will do everything in my power not to include that which I have not verified. I am also clear as to what is my
opinion and what I am claiming to be fact.
I wish you would stop generalizing, if you believe something is wrong, please state specifics, do not generalize, support your
arguments. What in my matte proof book on the diagnostics is not supported by evidence?
If you believe you can do better Steve, I would suggest spending the time to write a book.
Kevin
front of the nose as in Obverse #1 and #3 and no die crack from the bust to the rim as in #2.
It turns out from the images on Chris's coin, it is Albrecht #3, the die scratches appear to be at
the angle which match #3, and different from Albrecht #1.
In my next addition of the book I will list Charmy as the submitter for this new matte proof,
I do not like or use the term discoverer in my book. Charmy permitted me to photograph her coin.
I believe there was some confusion here, Chris sent me emails, but I never received, the problem Chris
believes was in his software.
Kevin
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>Does anyone have photos of Charmy's coin?? I know she sends a lot of coins to Todd for imaging, so I figure someone may have a pic? Would be cool to see what we're talking about here
I have not seen it. Charmy is away at a show and her laptop broke broke in Santa Clara so we wont hear from her for a few days....
<< <i>Just to clarify, brian did not diagnose my coin as anything in lot viewing, he simply told me that he did not see the known diagnostics on the coin after I contacted him upon recieving the coin in hand. Then while at baltimore Biran and I were at my table discussing my coin and the possibility of it being from another die, at this time brian had not seen charmys coin so brian and I both walked up to charmys table to compare coins and try to come to a conclusion. Brian did ntohing to verify my coin nor did he ever come to any conclusion about my coin, the only thing brian stated was that there were none of the known diagnostics and that pcgs would back up there gaurentee. I am not seeking credit for a discovery, I simply wanted the facts to be known that I contacted brian long before charmys coin was ever in the picture and that my coin was discovered long before charmys coin, there are some other things that I feel should have also been stated and known but like I previously said in this thread I GIVE UP, I am done with this issue as I have came to my own conclusions about my coin without the help of brian or kevin.
My conclusion about my coin is shown over in the registry forum. I will not comment anymore on my thoughts regarding the other coin. >>
Soty, just on the chance you might still be tracking this thread you started, take a look at Kevin Flynn's second post on this page. Your MPL, based on those pics he saw, is an A3 obverse. Kevin writes "the book" on these, not Brian Wagner. We, in turn, rely on that information, and, as such, the last thing Kevin's likely to even consider doing is giving us false or misleading information or information he's only marginally sure of. Think about that. Give it a real good going over.
PS: I really love your MPL, BTW. Hell, for what matter, who doesn't? Take care.
Mr. Flynn......What do you think about the reverse diagnostic, the diagonal line within the C? Does this paired with the OP's obverse indicate a different die pairing? Could it possibly tell us a replacement reverse die was used at some point...a business strike die that was given a sandblasting and popped into the press, and used for a very limited number of coins?
<< <i>
<< <i>Just to clarify, brian did not diagnose my coin as anything in lot viewing, he simply told me that he did not see the known diagnostics on the coin after I contacted him upon recieving the coin in hand. Then while at baltimore Biran and I were at my table discussing my coin and the possibility of it being from another die, at this time brian had not seen charmys coin so brian and I both walked up to charmys table to compare coins and try to come to a conclusion. Brian did ntohing to verify my coin nor did he ever come to any conclusion about my coin, the only thing brian stated was that there were none of the known diagnostics and that pcgs would back up there gaurentee. I am not seeking credit for a discovery, I simply wanted the facts to be known that I contacted brian long before charmys coin was ever in the picture and that my coin was discovered long before charmys coin, there are some other things that I feel should have also been stated and known but like I previously said in this thread I GIVE UP, I am done with this issue as I have came to my own conclusions about my coin without the help of brian or kevin.
My conclusion about my coin is shown over in the registry forum. I will not comment anymore on my thoughts regarding the other coin. >>
Soty, just on the chance you might still be tracking this thread you started, take a look at Kevin Flynn's second post on this page. Your MPL, based on those pics he saw, is an A3 obverse. Kevin writes "the book" on these, not Brian Wagner. We, in turn, rely on that information, and, as such, the last thing Kevin's likely to even consider doing is giving us false or misleading information or information he's only marginally sure of. Think about that. Give it a real good going over.
PS: I really love your MPL, BTW. Hell, for what matter, who doesn't? Take care. >>
I actually have been following the thread in the registry forum and I pointed out that my coin was the A3 obverse and showed pictures on the registy to confirm it kevin was jsut relaying that information here.
I admit I did not read every word of this thread, but, I did find the above sentence very signifcant. Can some post the 1982 story please.
Wondercoin
P.S. I am looking forward to examining my PR65RB coin!
<< <i>This has been a most interesting thread. My humble apologies regarding the lack of clarity of the OP photo, the newly posted ones make up for that in droves and point out that I was in error.
Mr. Flynn......What do you think about the reverse diagnostic, the diagonal line within the C? Does this paired with the OP's obverse indicate a different die pairing? Could it possibly tell us a replacement reverse die was used at some point...a business strike die that was given a sandblasting and popped into the press, and used for a very limited number of coins? >>
Good point, Chris's reverse photo and the the photo I took of Charmy's reverse show the same
diagonal die scratch in the C of CENT.
Would need to see close ups on Chris's coins on the TED of UNITED as Charmy's coin shows almost large over
small letters. There are several other diagnostics on Charmy's coin which we need to see the same area on
Chris's coin.
If the diagnostics are the same, obviously it is the same reverse.
If the small over large TED is not on Chris's coin, then as this would have been from the hub, it could not be
different die states, but one of two possibilities,
1. That the same die scratch occurred on two different reverse dies in the same location
2. That the die scratch was on the master die and was hubbed into the hub and working dies.
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>This has been a most interesting thread. My humble apologies regarding the lack of clarity of the OP photo, the newly posted ones make up for that in droves and point out that I was in error.
Mr. Flynn......What do you think about the reverse diagnostic, the diagonal line within the C? Does this paired with the OP's obverse indicate a different die pairing? Could it possibly tell us a replacement reverse die was used at some point...a business strike die that was given a sandblasting and popped into the press, and used for a very limited number of coins? >>
Good point, Chris's reverse photo and the the photo I took of Charmy's reverse show the same
diagonal die scratch in the C of CENT.
Would need to see close ups on Chris's coins on the TED of UNITED as Charmy's coin shows almost large over
small letters. There are several other diagnostics on Charmy's coin which we need to see the same area on
Chris's coin.
If the diagnostics are the same, obviously it is the same reverse.
If the small over large TED is not on Chris's coin, then as this would have been from the hub, it could not be
different die states, but one of two possibilities,
1. That the same die scratch occurred on two different reverse dies in the same location
2. That the die scratch was on the master die and was hubbed into the hub and working dies.
Kevin >>
I will post reverse images on the registry forum, My coin is the same reverse as charmys or at least appears to be the same but I also believe it to be one listed by albrecht
<< <i>Mr. Flynn...... >>
I hate it when people do that. You make us feel so old.
PS: Those gray highlights in my hair, BTW, I'd just like to clarify, I color it that way. Before that, ya see, I'd find I'd never get any respect from anybody. I'd just talk, and talk, and talk, and it was like nobody was paying any attention to me. That used to really piss me off. Now, however, they take one look at that gray, and it's like I can hear them thinking, "He must know sumpthin', he's been around for soooo long!"
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>Mr Flynn check through your photo bank and you will note the diagonal mark begins at some point in 1909 and then exists on all reverses proof and BS for decades. Clearly on the main hub. As Brian says, he has only seen that marker on the two 09 proof mentioned in this thread. BTW Did I miss something happening since the Penny Lady seems to be absent >>
Todd said her laptop was broke and she was traveling...MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>
<< <i>This has been a most interesting thread. My humble apologies regarding the lack of clarity of the OP photo, the newly posted ones make up for that in droves and point out that I was in error.
Mr. Flynn......What do you think about the reverse diagnostic, the diagonal line within the C? Does this paired with the OP's obverse indicate a different die pairing? Could it possibly tell us a replacement reverse die was used at some point...a business strike die that was given a sandblasting and popped into the press, and used for a very limited number of coins? >>
Good point, Chris's reverse photo and the the photo I took of Charmy's reverse show the same
diagonal die scratch in the C of CENT.
Would need to see close ups on Chris's coins on the TED of UNITED as Charmy's coin shows almost large over
small letters. There are several other diagnostics on Charmy's coin which we need to see the same area on
Chris's coin.
If the diagnostics are the same, obviously it is the same reverse.
If the small over large TED is not on Chris's coin, then as this would have been from the hub, it could not be
different die states, but one of two possibilities,
1. That the same die scratch occurred on two different reverse dies in the same location
2. That the die scratch was on the master die and was hubbed into the hub and working dies.
Kevin >>
Kevin,
When you declared Charmy's coin a MP and came out with the complete diagnostics of both the obverse and reverse of her coin, this triggered me to go back to the HRCA archives and look at Chris's coin image. What I saw was definately the slanted dieline within the "C" of CENT and also the small/large
letters in the TE of united. I thought that since I have never seen a 1909 plain or VDB with this slanted dieline, I could now assume that the reverses match on Charmy and Chris's coin. I believe that when Chris puts up one of his detailed images of his coins reverse, we will be able to agree that both coins have same reverse but not a match of the obverses.
Since you have stated that Charmy's coin has no trace of any dielines in front or out from the nose, I believe that Charmy's/Chris's coin have the same reverses but different obverses?? Both coins have to be scarce though because they are the first 1909's that have the slanted dieline and sm/lg TE of united that I have seen after viewing probably around 100 1909 Matte Proof cents either VDB or none.
edited for sp:
When you declared Charmy's coin a MP and came out with the complete diagnostics of both the obverse and reverse of her coin, this triggered me to go back to the HRCA archives and look at Chris's coin image. What I saw was definately the slanted dieline within the "C" of CENT and also the small/large
letters in the TE of united. I thought that since I have never seen a 1909 plain or VDB with this slanted dieline, I could now assume that the reverses match on Charmy and Chris's coin. I believe that when Chris puts up one of his detailed images of his coins reverse, we will be able to agree that both coins have same reverse but not a match of the obverses.
Since you have stated that Charmy's coin has no trace of any dielines in front or out from the nose, I believe that Charmy's/Chrisis coin have the same reverses but different obverses?? Both coins have to be scare though because they are the first 1909's that the slanted dieline and sm/lg TE of united that I have seen after viewing probably around 100 1909 Matte Proof cents either VDB or none.
edited for sp: >>
Brian,
Chris is sending me the coin so I will be able to make an absolute determination if the reverses were the same
Kevin
Ok,
we will wait for your report
Tx