Options
THE RED BOOK AND MPL MINTAGES-THEY CHANGED THEM AGAIN!
Steve
Posts: 3,312 ✭✭✭
This is a subject that admitingly most Lincoln cent collectors could care less about. But it is something that bothers me because I have always thought that the Whitman Red Book (A Guide Book of United States Coins) was the hobby's true reference about United States Coins, their values, their mintages and their history. This issue is specifically about the reported mintages of Matte Proof Lincoln cents issued by the US Mint from 1909 thru 1916. There are only nine coins involved and there are only nine mintages involved. For 50 years, from the first Red Book thru 1997, each of these coins were reported with CONSISTENT mintages. The rare 1909VDB MPL (Matte Proof Lincoln) was reported with a mintage of 420. In his book in 1996, researcher Kevin Flynn discovered new data about Matte Proof Lincoln cents in the US Archieves and as a result the Red Book changed the mintages of four of the coins in their 1998 edition. Then, in 2005, Roger W. Burdette did further research in the US Archieves and the reported mintage numbers were changed again. There are reasons for these changes which I will not bore you with. The real problem I have is that for the last several years starting in 2005, the Red Book has shown different numbers for various dates. I now see that in the new 2012 edition of the Red Book, the mintage reported for the 1916 coin is once again 1,050. Last year it was reported as 600, a number representing information supported by documentation gathered from the archives by both Flynn and Burdette. The number of 1,050 is the historically reported number used by the Red Book thru 2008. Then, in the 2009 thru 2011 Red Book the number 600 was used. There is ample evidence that NOBODY today really knows the true mintages of these coins. This is also true about the other denominations that the US Mint coined during the period. But the Red Book insisted on changing just the Lincoln cent reported mintages. Purhaps the Whitman publisher, Dennis Tucker (DENTUCK) might want to comment on the reason for the change of reported mintage on the 1916 Matte Proof Lincoln cent. Steve
0
Comments
I’ve reviewed Roger W. Burdette’s 17-page Examination and Report on Proof One-Cent Coins Minted 1909-1916, a document prepared for Whitman Publishing. His main sources (primary, secondary, and tertiary) include Medal and Proof Coin Book (1 and 2; Clark); Daily Coinage January 1, 1911 to June 30, 1915; Central Files, Office of the Director of the Mint; Statistical Tables for the Annual Report, 1915-1924; Coin World Comprehensive Catalog & Encyclopedia of United States Coins; Annual Report of the Director of the Mint, 1903; annual reports of the director of the Mint, 1908-1917; The Complete Guide to Lincoln Cents; The Comprehensive Catalog and Encyclopedia of United States Coins; “United States Proof Coins” (The Coin Collector’s Journal); The Authoritative Reference on Lincoln Cents; One Cent and Five Cent Proof Coin Mintages (1909 thru 1912) (Cohen); and PCGS and NGC population reports.
After commenting on his primary and secondary sources, Burdette makes a comparison of nine different secondary-source Matte Proof quantities; discusses the accuracy of U.S. Mint documentation; examines and compares the data reported in three primary sources; discusses which reported quantities to use; orders the reported or published Proof mintages in relation to the reliability of their sources, date by date; makes a set of preliminary recommendations; comments on his preliminary recommendations versus “traditional” quantities; comments on grading-service population reports; shows the relationship of the population reports to various sources; and makes a final recommendation on mintage quantities.
RWB’s detailed research and analysis have been carefully considered by Whitman’s expert numismatists, including Red Book senior editor Kenneth Bressett, research editor Q. David Bowers, and valuations editor Jeff Garrett. I’m confident that the mintage reported for the 1916 Proof Lincoln cent is as precise and accurate as possible.
I hope this helps.
Best wishes to you, Steve.
-- Dentuck