Henri Charriere

You do bear an uncanny resemblance.

FWIW... I distinctly remember purchasing a 1952 proof set for $60. and a 1954 for $30. which, believe it or not, were no bargains at that time. I have no idea what such sets would go for today, but I imagine collectors reading this are shaking their heads.

Would it be correct to say that the first few strikes of a virgin die will produce a sharper relief and as brilliant and pristine a surface as can possibly be achieved which will degrade imperceptibly with further strikes over time? What enquiring minds want to know is whether the condition, "proof-like," (admittedly subjective) is the zenith-like manifestation, the epitome, of "original mint luster" attainable? Are there any official (or anecdotal) figures available to indicate how many of the pieces, like that of the OP's are known to exist? It would have to be a very finite universe----we are talking some 140 years here, now.

The unorthodox spelling you've used is in fact the correct, formal spelling of the original island nation. (I take it the penciled notation at the bottom of the memorandum----in a display of "bureaucratese"----indicates a collect telephone call had been placed to facilitate communication.)

You've inadvertently cleared up an old mystery. My brother (deceased) and I, born 1950 and 1951, respectively, were unable to buy proof sets for our birth years at the height of our collecting years in the early to mid-1960's and now I see why. These earliest "sets" were novelties which were snapped up and held. That explains e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g.

The context of this comment is unimportant. Standing alone, it is worth the price of admission as a member! I am going to forfeit a few weeks and move my renewal up early to January 1, 2023. Man, I love this place! Pigeonman, recognizing you come from a long line of illustrious pigeonmen, you made my day!

This is one beautiful coin! This begs the question, Why didn't this commemorative make the Top Ten list on a member's recent poll of commemorative half-dollars? A prospector panning for gold is a No-Show? Me thinks some members got some splainin' to do...

My dear Mr. Burdette: I regret that I cannot be of assistance to you in this regard. Irrespective of what Forum users may believe my age to be, my institutional memory does not go back far enough to embrace 1889 as a young adult. I remain, as always, your humble and obedient servant,

Unfortunately, there are 6,850 posts to comb through on the subject of No VDB Lincoln Head cents. Not to sound morbid, but I don't believe I have the time.

Re: the presence of V.D.B. on Lincoln's bust in 1918, and thereafter... I asked the same of a member recently of his 1958-D Lincoln posted on the "For the love of copper" thread, but did not receive a response. If memory serves, another member on another thread pointed out that VDB did not always appear on Lincoln's bust in the years following 1918, but I do not recall why.

Submitted wiith the OP's indulgence... [🐓: My, my, my, our humble Hog's turning into a regular erudite scholar! Q.A.: Pare-WHAT? I believe Hog's gettin' mighty big for his breeches!]

"Proof... might be a circulated... might just be a whizzed"??? Huh? "Is it a proof?" Isn't it a bit too late to ask? Re: Ol'hoop. Nothing personal. It's not just you. It's an entire Forum. (And it's all my fault.)

This would probably extend to Alaska as well, , but while I have seen examples of coinage from Hawaii (as well as the Philippines and Puerto Rico) I don't recall seeing any, pre-statehood (1959) from Alaska. No matter. The OP states he acquired this coin which had been certified and authenticated as an MS-64 PL. It's a lovely coin, no doubt about it. What I would like to know is what basis the TPGS relied upon to make their determination. How would this coin differ from a "blast-white" B.U? I would have thought the matter of what constitutes a PL would have been well-settled by now.

@VKurtB: [According to the latest on-line CoinWorld, the Board of Governors' meeting was teleconferenced on October 20th at which time their fiscal 2023 budget was approved for $6.5 million. (The article gives a breakdown of monies to be committed to particular intiatives.)]

Mind if I sneak the thingamajig in?

Just goes to show you... I wasn't even aware "sets" were on Registry "Sets." I am still trying to figure out a good approach to addressing the OP's quandary. I, too, would like to locate an interesting "variety" known to exist (but unofficially acknowledged by all but members on chat boards) which is an interesting anomaly in the Rooster series: the switch in edge mottos between the originals and restrikes. But I would have to resort to what the OP has done, and take a calculated risk. I do not know what 1942 proof pattern cents go for but we'd be talking roughly $350. in my area of concentration. It's either that, or waiting an interminable interval for one to show up----and paying the handsome price it would no doubt command, particularly if it were among the compositions not previously found to exist.

But, but,... the Red Book gave the onset of "sets" as beginning in 1936. Yes, there are "sets" going back into the 19th century, but I thought I distinctly recall a member addressing this matter. Please do not tell me the 1940 set one member crowed about proudly on this Forum was an amalgam. What was the exact date of the very First Proof Set?

I am tempted to ask if you are speaking ex cathedra for attribution but regardless, those of us who pay particular attention to your pronouncements are left with the impression you do not engage in idle talk and reckless speculation. Enquiring minds who have thus far chimed in, as well as the OP, are curious as to the basis for your impression. What is it about the photo of this coin that suggests it is not proof-like, or do you simply dislike the term, either for the time-period, or any other reason. I have no opinion.

Very lovely! [The dates of birth of Mr. & Mrs. Q, respectively]

@FlyingAl: Looks to me like you took a shot at it being what you reasonably expected it might be. Perfectly understandable. I have purchased coins basically sight unseen solely on the strength of the grade accorded it by a TPGS, so I am certainly not going to be the one to cast the first stone. @VKurtB: This may seem highly irregular, but should you cross paths with the gentleman who boasts a collection of orphaned proofs (from split-up sets in violation of Q.A.'s inviolate Rule #3) please see to it the OP's quandary is brought to his attention. 😉

It was your "hope" it may be a zinc-coated steel pattern, but what exactly was it advertised as being on eBay? And was that price in line with what you believe such a coin should command? Is the zinc-coated steel one of the known patterns of the many kinds that exist? 🤔

For the benefit of those curious as to the reception they may receive when it comes time to sell, I provide, as a public service, the following snippet of dialog regarding a wrist-watch between Louis Winthorpe III (Dan Ackroyd) and a pawnshop owner (Bo Diddley) from the 1983 movie, Trading Places... LW III: "Fifty bucks? No, no no! This is a Rochefoucauld! The thinnest water-resistant watch in the world. Singularly unique, sculptured in design, hand-crafted in Switzerland and water-resistant to three atmospheres. This is *the* sports watch of the '80's. Six thousand nine hundred fifty-five ($6,955.) dollars, retail. It tells time in Monte Carlo, Beverly Hills, London, Paris, Rome and Gstaad." Pawnbroker: "In Philadelphia, it's worth 50 bucks." Note: To appreciate the gist of my analogy, simply substitute "50 bucks" for "melt." As always, your experience may differ.

I know nothing about this series but disagree with the grade. Unfortunately, my opinion does not count. If it makes economic sense to have it re-submitted, by all means do so.

Because the low-ballers will have the additional needed increments to compile a collection of low-ball coins.

It being the holiday season, I would urge you to standby... at least until after New Years'. I never thought it would be necessary to acquire something that presently does not exist, but, no offense intended, I am going to have to carve out an exception for you, because buoyed by a budget, the path you take, without the necessary knowledge to do so, will be the one with the least amount of resistance and fraught with peril. You do not yet have the qualifications, the prerequisites----the "license," to be a buyer. There is no crash course in coin collecting. A Red Book is a fundamental, indispensable tool. All the necessary resources are at your fingertips. If you do not do any reading, if you do not browse through the extensive archival material generated and posted here and on other sites, if you don't familiarize yourself with the subject matter at hand, if you don't ask questions, you will wind up squandering your money. First order of business... returning those coins. If they have a return policy, ideally indicated on the sales receipt, return all three coins which I suspect ran you more than a hundred dollars. We have all made mistakes at one time or another. Some are acts of commission (buying coins we should not have for a host of reasons); others are acts of omission (not buying coins at the right time). If you state your general location, a member may be able to refer you to a reputable brick-and-mortar with a good track record. You have a great deal of research and exploring to do. Good luck!