FlyingAl

Which are inherently inferior to those struck from frosted and new dies. They have weaker detail. The lack of contrast makes it harder to see the design in full. Regardless of what you argue, no one sided cameo will ever match up to a two sided one, no matter what the label says.

Very few collectors will choose a mirrored proof over an Ultra Cameo if they are offered at the same price. They are simply not as attractive, rare, detailed, desirable, or better.

Yes, and it is indicative of a high quality die being put with a low quality die. Maybe lower pops, but inferior coins.

Roger, were dies ever wiped/covered or perhaps packed with some substance containing strings like a cloth before use? I ask because I came across a 1942 proof quarter recently that appears to have been struck by new dies. The coin shows multiple strike throughs that appear to have come from threads, which would confirm the coin was among the first struck by the die pair if the above was true.

The information out there is minimal. From what I can gather, it appears that regular circulation dies were taken after a quick deburring with a lap by the die sinker and given a polish with a very fine abrasive with another lap. This was done by taking the die and affixing it to a rotating spindle and attaching the lap to the non rotating spindle. The lap would be pressed into the die until contact was made and the die was rotated until the desired amount of polishing was done. This extra step of using a fine abrasive would produce a fine mirror surface, and though it is possible that some proof dies were polished by hand, but this would be extremely time consuming and therefore unlikely. @RWB, feel free to add more or correct me if I missed something here. I know there's some fine details I've left out, but I wanted to give just a general overview.

I recently picked up this raw 1942 cent, and I was super pleased with it when I got it in hand. It has some very noticeable obverse and reverse contrast, likely enough to warrant a CAM designation. Coins like this don't pop up much, and they rarely appear raw. The left obverse hit is unfortunate, and will likely drop the grade a point or two., but it has some really nice original color that I'm a fan of. It's an overall pleasing coin! CAM proofs like this one were struck from two new dies. Both dies must not have been polished to the point of removing the satin frost layer that is natural from die production. This was a delicate operation, and the die technicians often failed at it in the 36-42 era. There were multiple instances of brand new dies having to be condemned before they struck a single coin because they were polished way too much, degrading the detail to the point where the die was useless. 1942 was the best year as the techs got really good at polishing, but very few dual sided contrasted coins remain. The coin:

Was this corrected as time went on like the other basined dies? If so you'd think a PL or two example would exist.

Of course. How much do you think collectors repeatedly asking the Mint when proofs would be available influenced the decision?

While it does - the mint decided to ignore the designers and listen to the people who actually bought the coins - the collectors. This was essentially a business for the mint, and it wanted to make money from it. You don't make money by ignoring the needs and wants who buy your products. The collectors wanted mirrors, so mirrors it was!

Proof dies could last anywhere from around 300 coins to over 7,000 1936-42. I'd say average was around 2,500 for those years, but that's off memory.

One question I've been thinking about recently: 1938 proof nickels are visibly different from the other nickel dates of the era in several ways, but none more pronounced than the wide obverse rims. This all but disappears to a thin rim in 1939, due to what I presume was caused by a changed master die. Am I correct in my assumption, or is there something else that caused the wide rims?

You do realize that’s not even a real coin, right? It’s a computer generated image.

It almost seems as though he used his position on the Assay Commission to do some personal favors from some friends. Of course, that's all speculation.

1. Yes, the only difference is the polish. 2. No, proofs always used a strike strike on a medal press. This has a completely different striking process and causes metal to flow differently, which causes exaggerated wear on dies.

Thanks! I mentioned that comment because it was the simplest way to say what I needed to get across to the readers without confusion. Of course, 300 coins could cause die failure quite easily. However, since we had the same die pair paired up later and the reverse showed significantly less die wear, I could conclude that it had to have been used at some other point individually from the #45 reverse. If this hadn't happened, then the dies would have shown a very similar degree of wear, which does not appear to be the case.

A poster over at PCGS asked me if I could track down the striking date of a cameo 1940 proof nickel he had, I'm happy to say I could. Here are my findings: Your coin was struck September 11th, 1940. There were three new obverse dies that were paired with new reverse dies (requirement for a CAM coin for the era) for the year with the Rev. of 40, at least two produced cameo coins. Your coin was struck from the die that did not have major recutting of the queue. Your coin: I wish to point out two areas of die markers here: Here is a different coin from the same die pair (note the same markers) that was used for quite some time. It was then put back into service with the same obverse reverse die combo: Die combo 73/45 was first used Sep. 11th, and it was the only die that was used in combo with a same obverse to gain noticeable die wear. Combo 72/42 (second new die pair) only struck 300 coins, and was never paired together again. Combo 436/46 (third new die pair) struck 320 coins and was never paired together again. However, the Sep. 11th die pair (73/45) was used for 950 coins together. These dates were Sep. 11th (350 coins), Nov. 16th (500 coins), and Dec. 3rd (100 coins). During that time (Oct 24), only the obverse was paired with a different reverse die (#44) for 840 coins which explains why the obverse shows more die wear than the reverse. I do not believe that 300 coins would show the wear we see on the obverse die. The die pair had to be the same over a period of time long enough to show visible die fatigue, and I believe upwards of 1190 coins would cause that. The September 11th die pair is the only logical explanation in my eyes.

I did not find an example that showed the die chip on a circulation strike coin.

I made this pretty cool (to me) discovery in a bit of research I was doing on the 1942 and 1942-P proof nickels. Using CoinFacts and Roger Burdette's die tables and book United States Proof Coins 1936-1942 for these two coins, I noticed a die variety that Roger pointed out carries on into the later half of 1942 proof nickel production and is used for CU-AG-MN coins. A bit of background - 1942-P copper-silver manganese nickels were a major burden for the medal department. Only 47.6 percent of the coins struck by the dies ever made it past quality control. This is a major reduction from the 88% the CU-NI nickels had earlier in the year.The alloy of CU-NI-MN was brittle and prone to cracking. The high pressure strike of the medal press likely caused the alloy to crack more and caused more failed coins. Half the success usually meant extra dies. Dies were expensive, so if there were dies to be used, the mint would use them. The mint did just that in 1942 - it used Type One obverse dies to strike Type Two coins. I started with what I knew. There was a proof Type One nickel obverse die with a die chip that was easily visible, circled here: A Type Two example has the same die chip here: I wanted to figure out what day the coins with the chip were struck on. I had little to go off of but this: In October, the mint began striking the Type 2 nickels in proof. They used three old obverse dies from the Type One proofs, die numbers 122, 124, and 456. I'll break down what number of coins each die struck: 122- 6,385 CU-NI, 1,500 CU-AG-MN (First Used Oct 10 for silver alloy coins) 124- 5,190 CU-NI, 1,000 CU-AG-MN (First Used Oct 20 for silver alloy coins) 456- 3,300 CU-NI, 3,900 CU-AG-MN (First Used Oct 23 for silver alloy coins) One of these dies had to be the one with the die chip. I compared how many coins of of each type one and type two proofs had the die crack. I came up with about 9 percent Type Two coins and roughly 28% Type One coins. By doing some math with the amount of coins struck with obverse dies and the percent we get: T1 with chip - .28 * 25,895 total coins struck by an obverse die = 7250 coins with chip struck T2 with chip - .093 * 19,550 total coins struck by an obverse die = 1818 coins with chip struck Well, we now know a ballpark estimate of what we should be looking for. From this, we can rule out Die Number 456 as it doesn't even get close to out estimate. The other two dies are too close to call. Now we get to the real detective work. Dies 122 and 124 are nearly identical. I believe I found examples of both dies in the Type One format, and the only difference is the die chip. They both seem to pop up at about the same rate and look very similar. Here is where I'll throw in the comparison of Dies #122 and #124 (In my experience and opinion on #124 based on what I've seen - I could almost prove it but don't feel the need.) I will prove die #122 has the chip later on. Die #122 (Obverse) Die #124 (Obverse) I couldn't match anything based on reverse die usage. Both obverse dies were paired with the same reverse dies (one exception, but I had no luck finding a coin from that exception) for the Type One format. I had to turn to the dies in the Type Two format. I knew that they were paired with the new reverse dies 387 and 388, respectively. The 122/387 combo would prove to be the saving grace needed to identify the striking date. Both dies were condemned after one day of usage, so those two reverse dies are the only two that need to be focused on. Die 387 is noted later as condemned for being "Worn out", while die number 388 (paired with obverse 124) is condemned as "Cracked". We immediately notice some lettering weakness on the die chip 1942 Type Two Proofs, shown here - this is suggestive of reverse die #387 and it will prove to be reverse die #387: It's not bad, but remember - this die is brand new. Any weakness of this caliber on a brand new die is to be noted. We also know that at the time die #387 was condemned, it was paired with an obverse die that was also condemned for "Worn Out - Pig Tail." This "Pig Tail" refers to Jefferson's queue. The obverse it was paired with was used solely on CU-AG-MN coins for those wondering. I was able to find an example of that pairing (457 obverse/387 reverse pre condemnation): You'll immediately notice the weakness is in the same areas circled above, but worse after multiple repolishes. We know definitively that the reverse die that the die chipped die (obverse) was paired with is number 387. That die is #122. Mystery solved! To offer further proof, we know that reverse die #387 struck 5,300 coins (most of any reverse die for T2). By doing some math, I concluded that roughly 35% of the CoinFacts coins were struck by die #387. This comes out to roughly 7,000 or so coins, which corroborates what I was saying (known populations won't exactly mirror what the data should say, but it should still fit). Secondly, if you think or scroll back to the picture I posted of die #124, you'll probably notice the similarities here to it, paired with a reverse die for a T2 nickel without any letter weakness: I do believe the die was repolished before use as a T2 obverse, which accounts for slight detail change. However, we know that die #388 was condemned for cracking rather than weak lettering, so the sight of a coin with a strong reverse is further support. You can also see what appears to be a die chip in the upper left obverse field, as well as some seemingly minor micro-cracks in the upper reverse field. This would indicate the reason reverse die #388 was condemned - cracking. With this information, if you have a die chipped 1942 Proof Type Two Nickel, you know it was struck on October 10th, 1942.

I think this was the conclusion we reached - that while the coins may be much more attractive, and therefore desirable, they still have less detail than the circulation coins. As you said, it could be invisible to the naked eye.

I see, this makes much more sense now. Thanks for clarifying!

Roger, would you agree with me if I stated that some cameo proofs certainly had equal or better detail than their circulation counterparts? I've seen some very nice cameo proofs that blew me away. Of course, they aren't the norm. I notice that February 27th and August 13th show "tryout" dies with bases ground down. What was the mint doing with these dies - I don't think I've heard of the mint grinding down dies.

No, they generally wear at the same rate. In this case, the reverse die had been paired with a different obverse earlier (so it had already stuck over two thousand coins before being paired with the DDO obverse), and then was paired with the DDO obverse die after its' third use. It just so happened that this reverse die was paired with the die that struck the cameo coins, which led to its discovery and matching up its die number. Not aggravating at all! This is exactly why I started the thread!

At the time that second coin was struck, the reverse die had been used on four separate occasions. I can't be sure how many times it was repolished, but I'd expect at least once or twice. The mint recorded each use of each die, as well as the number of coins that it struck for each use. Records do not see to show each polish, but I could be mistaken. There are some exceptions, but they are infrequent. Hope this answers your questions!

Thanks Roger, this answers my question perfectly. I had never heard of an original state 1936 proof set being known, let alone 28 proofs in original mailing boxes! I think they must have been wonderful to behold!

328 pages. No small detail goes unnoticed! Exactly. Once you see a few nice coins from the era, they grow quickly on you. However, you've got to look and know what to look for to find them.