t-arc

33 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

If, despite his private life, you pay attention to what Breen wrote, why would you avoid RWB's (often highly informative) posts?

Because of past run ins and other peoples experience.  It just is not worth it.   And calling Breen “Wally" is his idea and his alone.  (Thats why I refer to him as Birdie) Tells you a lot about his acerbic personality.  

10 hours ago, BillJones said:

Sorry to mention it, he's back ATS, much to the credit of ATS. As RWS said, Breen was good in his time, which is an opinion I endorsed. Time and research moves on, which is what we have seen.

Oh well, after this experience I will attempt to avoid him like the plague both here and ATS.  Thanks much for the heads up!!

19 minutes ago, LINCOLNMAN said:

This may be a good final word on this subject. My take-away is that one should approach Breen's work after absorbing current information rather than the reverse.

Would never pay a farthing for anything written by RWB.  We miss him so ATS.

I am ought of here!!

The rest should get back to the topic at hand, discussing Walter Breen’s legacy which was the original intention of the thread.  

Further, following experiments in 1927 with chromium plating dies, the Philadelphia Mint plated many collars for routine use. A few 1936-37 proof face dies were chromium plated, but nothing consistent was done until 1943 when chromium plated one-cent dies were used to reduce clogging from zinc dust.  Several countries had their production dies chromium plated for use at the Mint.

What in God’s name does this have to do with the current discussion?

15 hours ago, RWB said:

As to a poster's 1917 nickel material; no source evidence is presented by Breen or anyone else. But consider this paraphrased comment by Charles Barber in 1913. He said that the design had so many irregularities, that although the first few coin off a new die were excellent, the buildup of steel particles soon abraded the dies and they had to be replaced frequently if good quality was to be maintained. Soon, he allowed the mints to use dies longer, because his department could not maintain the pace of making replacement dies. Although a new pair of hubs was introduced for 1916, the problem remained to a lesser extent throughout the issue's life. [Barber's letters are quoted and referenced to their source in Renaissance of American Coinage 1909-1915. All documents are in public archives and available to all.]

To some extent it is understandable that Breen, and others, would confuse coins off new dies with some kind of special pieces. A new die has a satin-like appearance due to the final cleanup and acid dip then in use to remove oxidation products. The first few toggle press coins would have had satin-like surfaces and sharp details - they would be exceptionally circulation pieces. However, even with a satin-like surface they would lack all the physical characteristics of a medal press proof coin. Sadly, Breen never understood how any of this worked, and his faithful acolytes continue the confusion. (Buffalo nickel proofs 1913-1916 were always matte finish, which came from sandblasting the dies before final hardening and tempering. 1936 satin proofs were made from normal fresh dies used in a medal press.)

All of the above verbiage by RWB cannot explain away the sharp squared brilliant rims with no beveling whatsoever that this coin possess, and is so noted on the slab insert. 

I rest my case. 

Never would have found or looked for the above 1917 nickel had it not been for Breen’s Encyclopedia of U S Coins and his Proof Coin Encyclopedia.

note comments on slab say “mirror rims/wire edge” and “crack rim “L” LIB field”   (If you do not have a copy  of Breen's encyclopedia you can get a copy on eBay for a

reasonable price.)

Here are pictures of the SEGS slab for the above coin 

1 hour ago, coinman_23885 said:

The 1917 looks like it has a trivial finned rim and may be from a slightly misaligned die.  I have never seen this on a proof coin.  It looks like a business strike to me.

But in the slab you cannot see the   brilliant squared non-beveled rim.  Thats one bad thing about it being in a slab.  It hides one of its best attributes.  I will post pictures of the slab here soon.  Really do not want to get into a

a shouting match about 1917 specimen coinage.  Been there before.  Not enjoyable.  

9 hours ago, WoodenJefferson said:

There, I fixed that for ya...I think Roger was the one disagreeing. Oh and here's the accompanying letter to the so-called 'specimen'

WALTER BREEN
Box 352, Berkley CA 94701
August 12, 1989
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
This certifies that I have examined the accompanying coin and that I unhesitatingly declare it genuine and as described below.
It is a 1935 buffalo nickel described as a "specimen striking". It has extraordinary sharpness, obviously and visible from two blows from the dies. This extra impression has imparted not only extra design detail as on a proof, but extra sharpness on the inner and outer rims, again as on proofs. Surfaces are satiny, though unlike the 1916, 1917, 1927 or 1936 type one proofs; it is uncertain if any special treatment was don to the surfaces as normally with proofs. This is the first such piece I have seen.

Respectfully submitted, Walter Breen
 

I am confused here is Roger “birdie” Burdette “Numisport" or “RWB"?

Here are reverse pics of the coin.

in Walter Breens Proof Encyclopedia, issued in 1991, under the section on buffalo nickels, he mentions that a number of matte proof 1917 nickels that he had seen had a die break on the obverse near (to the left) of the L in LIBERTY. past it and down into the field --and so I began my quest to find a 1917 buffalo nickel with this die crack or break.  I reasoned that if this die was used to strike business strikes then I should see one now and then, and maybe even in a lower circulated grade.  None turned up and I became discouraged.  After looking at I do not know how many hundreds or thousands of 1917 buffs one finally turned up in an eBay auction in the summer or 2016.  It looked like a proof, walked like a proof, and talked like a proof!  And when i got it  (payed all of $176) the real clincher was the brilliant rims which were sharp and squared with no beveling!  Looked exactly like a proof on the “third side” of the coin.  And then to top it off, on this piece there is massive evidence of double striking on the date and designer’s initial F.  The surfaces were what I would have expected on a matte proof.  I sent the coin to SEGS and it is now in a SEGS slab graded matte proof-63.  Some pictures of the raw coin follow -- I will photograph the slab and post it later.  But it is the real deal.   As the late Walter Breen used to say “It carries it own creds.”.

pics of the obverse of the coin follow.......

1917 matte proof buffalo nickel, SEGS PR-58, from website www.seymourwampum.com

(This coin is in a SEGS PR-58 holder )

NUMISPORT said ....

"1935 “specimen” nickel. Bologna. Only thing that might make a “specimen” 1935 nickel is if it were dropped in the little cup during a visit to the Doctor’s office"

just shows his ignorance, what does this contribute to the thread?

rub no i meant rwb.

8 hours ago, numisport said:

Roger your commentary is always factual and to the point. Earlier comments that current day collectors don't know how good they have it obviously refers to your writings of late. Your recent book on '36 to '42 proofs blows me away every time I open the cover. Anybody that doesn't have the Renaissance volumes should make that purchase immediately in order to be informed on these subjects.

I would never own anything written by rub

In my above post I misspelled coinman_23885 as conman_23885.  My apologies for the misspelling!

On 6/7/2017 at 10:04 PM, coinman_23885 said:

Breen's Liberty Cap "specimen" cent
1935 Specimen Buffalo Nickel
1917 Matte Proof Wheat Cent
1917 Matte Proof Buffalo Nickel
1917 Matte Proof or Specimen Walking Liberty Half Dollar
1906-D Proof Barber Head Dime

None of these have been legitimated or recognized by either PCGS or NGC, and coins of this rarity and caliber certainly would if there was any evidence to support the existence of the piece.  Breen made these attributions several decades ago and still nothing. The putative 1917 matte proof Lincoln had a good strike going for it, but not much else.  It didn't have any of the diagnostics you would expect to see on matte proof coins.  Business strike coins of the era often come with exceptional strike and detail and somewhere during that period the dies were reworked to strengthen the details.  The 1906-D dime was putatively double struck which Breen stated was characteristic of Philadelphia proofs.  Proof coins of the era were struck only once on a medal press with high pressure, not twice as with modern coins.
 

1)  I presently own the 1935 specimen buffalo nickel mentioned here by conman_23885.

2)  In 1978 I had on approval from New England Rare Coin Galleries a unique specimen of a 1935 satin finish proof buffalo nickel.  It was in my opinion a no question satin finish proof.  Not to be confused with #1 above.

3)  About 15 years ago I saw a SEGS 1917 type one standing liberty quarter at a show.  It had been cleaned but to my eye was a no questions matte proof.  Details was beyond fantastic and  completely blew away any

     other 1917 type one quarter I had ever seen.   Beautiful fine grained matte surfaces.  

(The 1935 satin finish proof buffalo carried an asking price of $3000 back in the day (1978) and I have always wondered what happened to it.)

4)  There will never be any 1917 proof coinage slabbed by pcgs and/or ngc as this would completley upset the registry set applecart.  Think about that!  One proud registry set owner wakes up one morning to find out that

his record setting number one registry set is now incomplete as the first 1917 matte proof cent, nickel quarter, or half dollar,  has been slabbed!!  never gonna happen!

19 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

His name is his name, regardless of what he did or what you think of him.

Right on, and RWB is the one who tagged him with “Wally".  Thats why I refer to RWB as “Birddie”. ( We miss him ATS)

On 6/7/2017 at 2:47 PM, MarkFeld said:

You didn't ask me and I can't give you the specifics, but over the years, I have seen a number of such coins, in hand. They were alleged Proof examples of  1917 T-1 Standing Liberty Quarters, 1916 and/or 1917 Walking Liberty Half Dollars, and various classic Silver Commemoratives and Capped Bust pieces of different denominations. 

I am aware that, even today and even among experts,  there are disagreements regarding the Proof vs. business strike attributions of many Capped Bust coins. And to a lesser extent, some of the other types I mentioned.

Edited to add: To be fair, I have seen various coins in PCGS and/or NGC holders which were initially labeled business strikes, but subsequently attributed as Proofs. Likewise, Proofs that were later attributed as business strikes. So Breen's attributions weren't the only controversial ones.

Many years ago I say a 1917 type one standing liberty quarter in a matte proof-63 holder.  It had been cleaned but was a no doubt matte proof.  really incredible piece. 

On 6/4/2017 at 10:48 AM, RWB said:

In the minor bits of research I've done, the approach is to summarize existing material as a background, then start from the beginning in locating original sources plus previously unknown sources. This is not so much of a problem as it might seem since Breen, Taxay and others rarely present any useful sources, and quotations are commonly incomplete or sometimes contain transcription mistakes. Once the sources have told their story, I can go back and see what prior authors have written.

From my research perspective four categories of "issues" occur in Wally Breen's publications: 1) in-fill and extrapolation errors; 2) incomplete data when referenced sources contain much more material; 3) falsehoods and baseless assumptions; and 4) ignorance of Mint, Treasury and economic operations and technology.

The result is that for me, everything Breen wrote has to be "fact checked," much like the present cabal in Washington. Much of Breen's work is exemplary, but "you must know enough to know what to be skeptical of before you can know what he knew." Ya' know what I mean....?

 

I still think it is improper to refer to Walter Breen as “Wally Breen” which is a sad attempt to demean him.  RWB has been doing this for a long time.  And it should stop

now way, sorry to have to inform you of that,  rims not stong enough. 

I had a similar experience with a major coin dealer about 15 years ago.  On their website they  had a pcgs proof-65 1936 proof walking liberty half dollar for $495 when the price should have been $4950!  I bought the coin thinking that the error would be caught but low and behold there comes the coin along with a bill of sale for $495!  About a month later I get a call from one of their irate representatives demanding that I return the coin.  I said a deal is a deal and I have the invoice from them to me for $495!!    I could have stood my ground and told them I no longer have it (which was not true) or that I was going to keep it.   There was a lot of huffing and puffing from the sales rep about them sic-ing their lawyers on me but I knew I was right.  And since they had really been nice to me in the past I decided to return the coin for a refund but first, before I did that,  they send a check for $750 to my sister-lawyer.  Then I returned the coin and got my $495 back.  Hey, I could have just called them and told them of their database error but I chose not to.  The whole thing turned out like it would if I bought the coin for $4950 and then sold it to someone else for $4950 plus $750.  And I continue to do business with them to this day.   The point I am making here is........

...... the owner of the misattributed 1909 vdb “matte proof” lincoln penny owns the coin.  If pcgs gets aggressive and goes after him, he can tell them to “go pound sand”  he is keeping the coin like it is,  or he can tell them he lost it,  or he can tell them that upon consultation with his lawyer they can buy it back for, say $10,000!   He owns the coin with the pcgs plastic wrapped around it and I think pcgs is helpless to get it back if the owner wants to keep it.  I am sure he would be blacked-balled from doing business with them anymore, but the point

is he owns the coin and the plastic wrapped around it!!