Options
1909 MPL new die listing (updated)
kevinj
Posts: 972 ✭✭✭
I was able to examine Charmy and Chris’s coin side by side, below is what I found.
They are both from the same obverse and reverse working dies.
The obverse matches Albrecht #3, the reverse is not listed in Albrecht.
The below listed diagnostics were found on both coins using a 10x loupe.
Besides the die scratches listed below, I found many minute die scratches on the obverse in the field in front of the head. Some of these were on one coin, but not the other, and could have been used for die state definition. But as they were only visible using 60x, and not 10x, I chose not to list as the average collector would not be able to identify the differences.
Albrecht Reverse #B most likely is paired with Albrecht Obverse #2. Albrecht lists Obverse #3, but no Reverse #C. For Obverse #3, Albrecht lists the die scratches in front of the nose.
I still believe that this Obverse #2/Reverse #2 die pair was only used for a small percentage of the 1909P matte proofs as this is the first two examined after examining many different 1909P matte proofs.
I believe that after 852 1909Ps were struck on August 17th, and 810 on August 26th, that the first obverse and reverse die was retired. We know no Lincoln cent matte proofs were struck in September through the end of November. Then in December we have 500 struck on December 8th and 180 struck on December 24th. These were most likely struck to fill holiday orders and collectors who waited till the end of the year to order. Albrecht #2 obverse has a very visible die crack from the rim to the bust, and would have most likely been pulled early when noticed. The total 1909P Lincoln cent matte proofs struck was 2,342. If you assume Obverse #1/Reverse #1 was used for August, that would be 1662 coins or 70% of the total. If you assume Obverse #2/Reverse #2 was used for the December production, that would be 680 coins or 30% of the total. Given the relative rarity of Obverse #2/Reverse #2, the above conclusions are within reason.
I would like to thank Charmy and Chris for sending me there coins to study and to be able to bring everyone this analysis.
When I get the photos back, I will update this with them.
Kevin
1909 Obverse #2: Paired with 1909 Reverse #2
Cross Reference: Albrecht Obverse 3
Diagonal die scratch from the field above the G to the left side of the O of GOD.
Small vertical die scratch from the top of O of GOD down into the O.
Die die scratch from left side of the horizontal bar of the T of LIBERTY through the R.
Long die scratch from the bust up through the 19 of the date into the field in front of the chin.
Die scratch from the top of the 1 up through the field in front of the chin.
Small die scratch from the bottom of the nose.
Approximately 20 vertical die scratches to the far right of the nose. Located on the horizontal plane
between the tip of the nose and eyebrow and on the vertical plane below the ST of TRUST.
1909 Reverse #2: Paired with 1909 Obverse #2
Cross Reference: None
Die scratch from M of UNUM left into the field above E of ONE.
Horizontal die scratch in field to the right of the C of CENT.
Die scratch from the center of E to the N of CENT.
Die scratch through the middle of UN of UNITED.
Small over large TE of UNITED, ST of STATES, F of AMERICA, and and ME of AMERICA.
Die scratch through the lower TAT of STATES.
Die chip next to the rim at 3'oclock.
They are both from the same obverse and reverse working dies.
The obverse matches Albrecht #3, the reverse is not listed in Albrecht.
The below listed diagnostics were found on both coins using a 10x loupe.
Besides the die scratches listed below, I found many minute die scratches on the obverse in the field in front of the head. Some of these were on one coin, but not the other, and could have been used for die state definition. But as they were only visible using 60x, and not 10x, I chose not to list as the average collector would not be able to identify the differences.
Albrecht Reverse #B most likely is paired with Albrecht Obverse #2. Albrecht lists Obverse #3, but no Reverse #C. For Obverse #3, Albrecht lists the die scratches in front of the nose.
I still believe that this Obverse #2/Reverse #2 die pair was only used for a small percentage of the 1909P matte proofs as this is the first two examined after examining many different 1909P matte proofs.
I believe that after 852 1909Ps were struck on August 17th, and 810 on August 26th, that the first obverse and reverse die was retired. We know no Lincoln cent matte proofs were struck in September through the end of November. Then in December we have 500 struck on December 8th and 180 struck on December 24th. These were most likely struck to fill holiday orders and collectors who waited till the end of the year to order. Albrecht #2 obverse has a very visible die crack from the rim to the bust, and would have most likely been pulled early when noticed. The total 1909P Lincoln cent matte proofs struck was 2,342. If you assume Obverse #1/Reverse #1 was used for August, that would be 1662 coins or 70% of the total. If you assume Obverse #2/Reverse #2 was used for the December production, that would be 680 coins or 30% of the total. Given the relative rarity of Obverse #2/Reverse #2, the above conclusions are within reason.
I would like to thank Charmy and Chris for sending me there coins to study and to be able to bring everyone this analysis.
When I get the photos back, I will update this with them.
Kevin
1909 Obverse #2: Paired with 1909 Reverse #2
Cross Reference: Albrecht Obverse 3
Diagonal die scratch from the field above the G to the left side of the O of GOD.
Small vertical die scratch from the top of O of GOD down into the O.
Die die scratch from left side of the horizontal bar of the T of LIBERTY through the R.
Long die scratch from the bust up through the 19 of the date into the field in front of the chin.
Die scratch from the top of the 1 up through the field in front of the chin.
Small die scratch from the bottom of the nose.
Approximately 20 vertical die scratches to the far right of the nose. Located on the horizontal plane
between the tip of the nose and eyebrow and on the vertical plane below the ST of TRUST.
1909 Reverse #2: Paired with 1909 Obverse #2
Cross Reference: None
Die scratch from M of UNUM left into the field above E of ONE.
Horizontal die scratch in field to the right of the C of CENT.
Die scratch from the center of E to the N of CENT.
Die scratch through the middle of UN of UNITED.
Small over large TE of UNITED, ST of STATES, F of AMERICA, and and ME of AMERICA.
Die scratch through the lower TAT of STATES.
Die chip next to the rim at 3'oclock.
Kevin J Flynn
0
Comments
<< <i> If you assume Obverse #1/Reverse #1 was used for August, that would be 1662 coins or 70% of the total. If you assume Obverse #2/Reverse #2 was used for the December production, that would be 680 coins or 30% of the total. Given the relative rarity of Obverse #2/Reverse #2, the above conclusions are within reason. >>
What are your figures for the total number struck using obverse #3 and the reverse not listed in Albrecht?
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
<< <i>
<< <i> If you assume Obverse #1/Reverse #1 was used for August, that would be 1662 coins or 70% of the total. If you assume Obverse #2/Reverse #2 was used for the December production, that would be 680 coins or 30% of the total. Given the relative rarity of Obverse #2/Reverse #2, the above conclusions are within reason. >>
What are your figures for the total number struck using obverse #3 and the reverse not listed in Albrecht? >>
For my Obverse #2/Reverse #2, I estimate that 680 were struck. Of course, if Albrecht #2 Obverse/Reberse B was used in December,
it would compose a small percentage of them, all depends when the die crack developed and was noticed. Given that Albrecht
Obverse #2/Reverse B have not been brought forward with collectors looking through their collections a little closer, I would estimate
that probably 100 or so specimens were probably struck, thereby reducing my Obverse #2/Reverse #2 to 580 struck.
These are all just best conclusions based on the relative rarity of specimens. Of course, there could be other factors, lets say the 180
were struck on December 24th, but most were not sold and melted at the end of the year.
As we gain more information for collectors, we are able to provide a better analysis.
Kevin
https://thepennylady.com/
<< <i>Kevin, thank you so much for taking the time to do all this research - you are a gem in our coin world, and I'm grateful for your hard work and dedication to our hobby. >>
Charmy,
Thanks again for loaning me your coin, without dedicated people like you searching and finding new stuff,
researchers like myself would have a difficult time.
Kevin
<< <i>I was able to examine Charmy and Chris’s coin side by side, below is what I found.
They are both from the same obverse and reverse working dies.
The obverse matches Albrecht #3, the reverse is not listed in Albrecht.
The below listed diagnostics were found on both coins using a 10x loupe.
Besides the die scratches listed below, I found many minute die scratches on the obverse in the field in front of the head. Some of these were on one coin, but not the other, and could have been used for die state definition. But as they were only visible using 60x, and not 10x, I chose not to list as the average collector would not be able to identify the differences.
Albrecht Reverse #B most likely is paired with Albrecht Obverse #2. Albrecht lists Obverse #3, but no Reverse #C. For Obverse #3, Albrecht lists the die scratches in front of the nose.
I still believe that this Obverse #2/Reverse #2 die pair was only used for a small percentage of the 1909P matte proofs as this is the first two examined after examining many different 1909P matte proofs.
I believe that after 852 1909Ps were struck on August 17th, and 810 on August 26th, that the first obverse and reverse die was retired. We know no Lincoln cent matte proofs were struck in September through the end of November. Then in December we have 500 struck on December 8th and 180 struck on December 24th. These were most likely struck to fill holiday orders and collectors who waited till the end of the year to order. Albrecht #2 obverse has a very visible die crack from the rim to the bust, and would have most likely been pulled early when noticed. The total 1909P Lincoln cent matte proofs struck was 2,342. If you assume Obverse #1/Reverse #1 was used for August, that would be 1662 coins or 70% of the total. If you assume Obverse #2/Reverse #2 was used for the December production, that would be 680 coins or 30% of the total. Given the relative rarity of Obverse #2/Reverse #2, the above conclusions are within reason.
I would like to thank Charmy and Chris for sending me there coins to study and to be able to bring everyone this analysis.
When I get the photos back, I will update this with them.
Kevin
1909 Obverse #2: Paired with 1909 Reverse #2
Cross Reference: Albrecht Obverse 3
Diagonal die scratch from the field above the G to the left side of the O of GOD.
Small vertical die scratch from the top of O of GOD down into the O.
Die die scratch from left side of the horizontal bar of the T of LIBERTY through the R.
Long die scratch from the bust up through the 19 of the date into the field in front of the chin.
Die scratch from the top of the 1 up through the field in front of the chin.
Small die scratch from the bottom of the nose.
Approximately 20 vertical die scratches to the far right of the nose. Located on the horizontal plane
between the tip of the nose and eyebrow and on the vertical plane below the ST of TRUST.
1909 Reverse #2: Paired with 1909 Obverse #2
Cross Reference: None
Die scratch from M of UNUM left into the field above E of ONE.
Horizontal die scratch in field to the right of the C of CENT.
Die scratch from the center of E to the N of CENT.
Die scratch through the middle of UN of UNITED.
Small over large TE of UNITED, ST of STATES, F of AMERICA, and and ME of AMERICA.
Die scratch through the lower TAT of STATES.
Die chip next to the rim at 3'oclock. >>
Kevin,
Well detailed. Thank you.
However, I am confused by your numbering. Are you saying that Albrecht-3 is Flynn-2?
If so, this will confuse others down the line. Why not just call it Flynn-3, and make the previously suggested comment that Variety-2 has been attributed by the ANA but remains unverified by yourself?
Tom DeLorey
Well detailed. Thank you.
However, I am confused by your numbering. Are you saying that Albrecht-3 is Flynn-2?
If so, this will confuse others down the line. Why not just call it Flynn-3, and make the previously suggested comment that Variety-2 has been attributed by the ANA but remains unverified by yourself?
Tom DeLorey >>
Tom,
Yes, Albrecht Obverse #3 is Flynn Obverse #2.
I understand they both use a similar system which could be confusing if not prefixed.
I hate when a name is used as part of the actual reference system, to me it is self glorifying. Therefore, I would not use Flynn as
part of the actual reference numbers here.
I find that most people who use a reference from a book, state the book and the reference number.
In addition, I find a system such as this where the particular obverse and reverse are identified is better suited
in this instance for the matte proofs than a system which identifies die pairs such as was used for the VAMs.
Using Obverse and Reverse in the reference system is self descriptive and best suited for easy identification.
I agree, for an article purpose, it would be clearer to state Flynn Obverse #2 rather than Obverse #2, especially given
that both books are referenced in the same article.
kevin
<< <i>Thanks for the hard work! Out of curiosity, what did Charmys coin grade? >>
Chris,
Thanks again for sending your coin.
Kevin
Tom, Yes, Albrecht Obverse #3 is Flynn Obverse #2. I understand they both use a similar system which could be confusing if not prefixed.
I hate when a name is used as part of the actual reference system, to me it is self glorifying. Therefore, I would not use Flynn as part of the actual reference numbers here.
I find that most people who use a reference from a book, state the book and the reference number. In addition, I find a system such as this where the particular obverse and reverse are identified is better suited in this instance for the matte proofs than a system which identifies die pairs such as was used for the VAMs.
Using Obverse and Reverse in the reference system is self descriptive and best suited for easy identification.
I agree, for an article purpose, it would be clearer to state Flynn Obverse #2 rather than Obverse #2, especially given
that both books are referenced in the same article.
kevin
As someone who is reasonably well acquainted with numbering systems I am of the opinion
that the Albrecht schedule of numbers should be maintained. These numbers have been used
for a long time and the introduction of a rival numbering system creates needless confusion.
Even in standard references by the same author, where the numbering system undergoes change,
collectors are often confused by which edition the numbering is derived from.
I happen to like the work done by Kevin Flynn but this time I am forced to disagree.
Denga
I agree with you that Albrecht schedule of numbers should be maintained.
Carl
TD
However, I'm not close enough to the series to understand if there was a compelling reason for the renumbering. Perhaps Kevin or others might address this point, as it seems to me that sometimes renumbering a series is the right thing to do if the prior system had shortcomings.
<< <i>kevinj April 23, 2010
Tom, Yes, Albrecht Obverse #3 is Flynn Obverse #2. I understand they both use a similar system which could be confusing if not prefixed.
I hate when a name is used as part of the actual reference system, to me it is self glorifying. Therefore, I would not use Flynn as part of the actual reference numbers here.
I find that most people who use a reference from a book, state the book and the reference number. In addition, I find a system such as this where the particular obverse and reverse are identified is better suited in this instance for the matte proofs than a system which identifies die pairs such as was used for the VAMs.
Using Obverse and Reverse in the reference system is self descriptive and best suited for easy identification.
I agree, for an article purpose, it would be clearer to state Flynn Obverse #2 rather than Obverse #2, especially given
that both books are referenced in the same article.
kevin
As someone who is reasonably well acquainted with numbering systems I am of the opinion
that the Albrecht schedule of numbers should be maintained. These numbers have been used
for a long time and the introduction of a rival numbering system creates needless confusion.
Even in standard references by the same author, where the numbering system undergoes change,
collectors are often confused by which edition the numbering is derived from.
I happen to like the work done by Kevin Flynn but this time I am forced to disagree.
Denga >>
I agree with all points Denga. I still have some reservation about a "new reverse" that is different than any of the Albrecht coins
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>I think the hobby must evolve overtime. The Albrecht diagnostics for Matte Proof Lincoln cents has been with us for 28 years now. Kevin Flynn has done much research on this subject in the last two decades and that MAY prove to be more accurate overtime. I certainly don't think we should NOW ignore Albrecht and accept Flynn. I think it would be best if Kevin, in his future articles and books on MPL's continues to reference what Albrecht said and continues to EXPLAIN why he believes what he says about certain diagnostics if they are different. Then, overtime, the hobby will either adapt Kevin's diagnostics or continue to use Leonard Albrecht's as the definitive diagnostic reference to Matte Proof Lincoln cents. JMHO. Steve
Kevin has done an excellent job of expanding upon Leonard's work. The die characteristics for the reverse of Albrecht-3 are most useful.
All I am asking is that he respect Albrecht's work and acknowledge that Albrecht catalogued a variety 2 by referring to the pieces recently examined as variety 3.
TD
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry