RWB

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.)

coinman_23885

Sorry, I misunderstood the context of your question. To strike a coin multiple times in a 1930s-era electric toggle, and maintain exact registration would have been extremely difficult, possibly impossible even if the motor and clutch were disconnected and the toggle arm operated manually. There was simply too much mechanical "play" and wiggle in the mechanism for multiple strikes to work. (Why were all but the lowest relief souvenir medals struck on medal presses and not much faster and cheaper toggle presses?)

A medal press developed higher striking pressure over a longer impact time. This allowed better metal flow into the dies and produced a coin will full details (if the die had full details). There was no need for multiple medal press blows since the design was brought up with one strike.

RE: "Knife rim." This is called a "fin" by numismatists and is not a part of a die. It is caused by a slight mismatch between collar and the face dies. It does not, as Breen implied, have anything to do with "pressure" or "detail" or the price of "specimen cups for specimen nickels." 

RE: So here is an interesting question... When coins are struck multiple times, particularly in the 1930s and before, what is the likelihood that the overlap will be 100% and undetectable using extremely high magnification?  

Very few coins were deliberately struck more than once. If a deeper, more precise impression were desired, the Mint used a medal press as they did for proof coins. (Proofs were struck once up to the mid-20th century when Schuler produced presses capable of making more than one strike while keeping the planchet and dies in precise alignment. All of the 5-oz silver "coasters" are struck twice. I've watched the work being done at Philadelphia and the press is amazing -- and needs constant attention, too.)

[It might be helpful to review the information in From Mine to Mint, where there are illustrations and descriptions of the technology used at US Mints into the 1930s. Also Issue #1 of the journal of Numismatic Research has extensive information about 1890s toggle press patents and the Janvier French patent.]

The entire burden of proof lies on those who claim such special items exist. If they are real and not imaginary, as "t-arc" seems to claim, then present the original documents related to each item.

Of course, that kind of hard evidence cannot be presented because it does not exist, not do any contemporary references or inferences exist. "Wishful thinking" and faulty logic are powerful human crutches for the perpetuation of ignorance, and repetition only sustains the failure.  It's unfortunate that some cling to ignorance when modern researchers have long since buried so many numismyths.

Sorry to interrupt the fantasies with facts, but collectors should be dealing with the truth, not inventions and Breen’s illusions.

1.      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.

2.      1935 “satin proof.” The idea for restarting proofs was that of Louis McHenry Howe, close friend of President Roosevelt. The first sample proof coin – a quarter – was shown to Howe in April 1936.

3.      No proof coins of any denomination were made in 1917 or any later year until 1936. The first few pieces off a new die pair will often have exceptional sharpness and detail, but they do not have the necessary mechanical artifacts to show they were made on a medal press – as were ALL proof coins at the time. [1921 & 1922 Peace dollars and sandblast proof commemorative halves were made for internal engineering and production approval – not as items for outside use.]

4.      Correct. Not because of some nefarious condition, but because they don’t exist.

All of this and much more has been documented and is available in references published over the past 15 years. Overall, Breen’s authentications and attributions are largely fictitious. The sad fellow did not even know the basics of how proof coins were made in the teens....and did not do the basic research to find out!

2 hours ago, t-arc said:

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

  Thanks! Never had a nickname before; although a good nickname is a diminutive of the person's real name, not to be confused with and epithet.

But, yes, you are correct that Walter Breen should not be referred to as "Walt," "Wally," or even "Wall-E....." Maybe we should take a line from Homer and refer to him as " "Walter 'the nymph with lovely braids' Breen?"  (Sorry, Calypso and Circe , that's unfair to goddesses.)

We should not make fun at him -- pity, might be more appropriate -- or maybe forget about him as one would any other perverse, misguided personality who accomplished much good work. Keep the good and discard the rest.

A serious question: Breen's independent biography says he had a graduate degree in sociology from USC Berkeley. Did his work for John Ford, Jr. suppress what Breen should have learned of research integrity?

RE: " 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."

Just being kind to Wally. There are a host of accurate terms that can be applied to Wally Breen that are far more expressive than "Wally." Maybe 't-arc-' could publish a loving memorial to Wally describing all his noble, humanitarian qualities and attributes? Then follow it up with praise of John Ford, Jr. and his metal-making minions?

Wally Breen was exactly what he was.

Performance is better. But layout and spacing is still mediocre and requires too much scrolling. Try to emulate the layout of the old version with improved graphics and functionality. Also, right side bar is  wasted space.

Sorry, regular circulation strike.

In retrospect, and with better information available today, most of the "old time" coin dealers were shady characters with limited positive ethical views. If they could make money, that was all that mattered.  Interesting, however, that Burdette G. Johnson was a notable exception. He appears to have been frustratingly honest to other dealers and collectors - I write "frustratingly" because he would not play the games the other major dealers did and he did not bias coin condition/rarity, etc. The notable Abe Kosoff destroyed all his business papers before his death, so that his many unethical deals could not be traced.

Some of the big-name collectors would happily steal from one another, or create false appraisals so they could buy check from Estates. With coin knowledge tightly held, it was a simple matter to take advantage of widows, non-collectors and "boobies" as Ford so commonly called collectors. The Norwebs were among the more prominent targets of dealer-crooks, as were Dupont, Lilly, and a host of others. Complicity went all the way to the Smithsonian curator Vladimir Clain-Stefanelli  who refused to fully investigate the fake "Western Bars" donated to SI.

29 minutes ago, WoodenJefferson said:

As a child, my Mother always told me, "If you have nothing good to say about anyone, then don't say anything."

She was wise in her ways.

Breen did a huge amount of good, largely original research, although his interactions with John Ford indicate an emotionally fragile person with low self–esteem  among other problems.  His personal problems don't seem to have affected the expanse of his body of work. A difficulty with his work - confusing from our present time period - is that he did not use the scholarly research techniques taught at Johns Hopkins in published material. I have not seen any of his manuscripts -- maybe the citations are present and some editor excised them.

This brief comment," A typical mechanism of a sociopath.  It's not like there was a single accuser with an ulterior motive, delusional or otherwise--but oh many times the sociopath likes to claim the accuser is mentally deficient...." brings to mind the fellow who helicopters over my house every few days to play golf or have coffee....       Sort of "one cuckoo flying over my nest."

Breen's encyclopedia remains useful, but it can no longer be considered "authoritative." Today's collectors should be focusing on more modern, properly cited research. After all, if a reader can find the source material they might also discover new and better insights!

Note the article in Coin World where the Mint says the handwritten numbers do not necessarily correspond to a particular mint of production.

The whole thing is a money grab by greedy promoters. The coins are identical.

Maybe the OP missed it: " Anyone can use a marker to write whatever they want on a box."

Only official seals and imprinted binding straps count toward identification of contents.

Anyone can use a marker to write whatever they want on a box.

Eagle. Please use sentences, punctuation, and try to organize your thoughts. Most of us old folks get lost in the stream-of-unconsciousness.....Would like to help, but just can't figure out what you are trying to say.

Uhhh...you lost me after the first sentence. What kind of feedback do you want? Is this a box of ASEs or just the labels or...?

I would buy a Red Book -- or the "Guide Book of United States Coins." Mao's

"Little Red Book" doesn't have current coin values, and the Blue Book is ... well...how do you say it in French?

"Not worth a Continental".

Funny! and a very good pun.

If collectors are comparing/competing for best sets, then I see no monetary aspect at all. The "competition" is for quality, completeness and visual appeal.

The system belongs to NGC. You have no option but to play by their rules; exactly the same at PCGS.

It seems very generous on NGC's part to permit entries through the end of the calendar year.

Anyone here still collect coins, medals and tokens?