FlyingAl

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.

Well, I must say it's been a while since I read it the first time. What might have been shocking then is almost certainly not now, and what I took from the book I use almost every day searching for these proofs so it all blends together. I will say it is the most complete reference and covers everything and anything one wants to know about these proofs. It can't be more recommended from me (in other words you should definitely pick up a copy). Roger and I seem to take a similar stance on what makes a proof from this era exceptional, so I'll share a little about that and what I use to conduct my eBay or auction searches for these pieces, as well as an interesting discovery I had a few weeks ago. The first big thing about these coins is detail. If you pulled up a random registry set right now and looked at it, chances are that it has some coins that have sub-par detail when compared to a proof with full detail. The over polishing of the dies in this era was quite frankly catastrophic to a lot of the proofs, and it remains the reason that very few cameos were ever produced, along with a few other factors. Finding the proofs with good detail in a particular grade is very difficult, sometimes impossible if you want attributes like attractive color. Very few collectors get that and instead buy the number on the label, which is why I call very few of the top sets "exceptional" if you will. Secondly, the book does an excellent job of putting into print every die use for these coins that is known currently. This was initially a part of the book that I skipped over, but now I use it almost daily as my focus starts to shift from sets to cameo coins. It was exceptionally cool when I was able to pin-point the use dates of a particular die pair, which I'll share here: Roger had mentioned in his book that one die pair for 1942 proof halves had a doubled die obverse, and that we would likely never know which die it was. Challenge accepted! I was able to identify a cameo coin from that die pair, so I knew that it had to have been paired with a new obverse and reverse. A quick look at the die data showed more than a few dies that could meet this criteria. However, Roger hypothesized that it must have been a die that struck over 3000 coins, and I agreed based on the percentage of coins with that particular obverse. That narrowed it down to one die pair and obverse die. Die #65, first used on February 11th, was the doubled die obverse die. It was one of two die pairs that struck cameo proofs for the date/denomination. Die #65 was paired with a new reverse, and then paired with a reverse that had been used before, and which was then condemned for a weak monogram. Pictures of these coins are below. We can therefore track die #65 to a use date on February 11th and 24th, as well as March 10th and 23rd. It struck over 3,500 coins, and all cameos from this die were produced on February 11th. I found this discovery really cool. It is exceptionally rare when you can track the striking of a coin to a single day in history. The tracking of the second coin to confirm isn't really necessary, but it backs up the logic with proof. Cameo coin, Die #65 obverse and Reverse #108. Struck February 11th, 1942. Not the best image, but it's what Coinfacts had. Weak Monogram (AW on right lower corner under eagle) coin, Die #65 and Reverse #65. Struck February 24th.

I've had many conversations about these proofs with Roger over private messages, but his comment about being able to discuss with others (referring to @GoldFinger1969's thread) made me decide to bring my next question to the public forum. Roger, you state in your section on manufacturing the proofs that you viewed three groupings of 1936 proof sets (still in their mint mailing boxes). There were 28 coins in total. My questions are as follows - where did you find such a large grouping of these coins in their original state, and do you have photographs of the coins?

Here are two nice ones I own. The nickel is not designated CAM, but it should be. The cent is designated CAM.

No. Not in the slightest. Once you see the original, unintentional frost of the die creation process on a 36-42 CAM proof, there's no going back. The modern day laser frosted stuff is just horrid.

Modern proofs are indeed cartoony looking. Ever since the San Francisco mint took over proof production, everything just went down the drain IMO. However, there are some really nice 1936-42 brilliant proofs.

Yep, as @RWB states above. And pretty much every collector disagreed with the artists. The mint wasn't going to redo the whole Satin and Sandblast proof fiasco, so they went with the opinions of those who buy the coins - the collectors.

To me, based on the letters I've read to and from Director Linderman, he seemed to embrace the collector side of the hobby and didn't really care about creating rarities. It could just be me.

Huh. Kinda the opposite stance of Linderman, no?

Jeez QA. I'm young, but even I couldn't remember this thread. I will back up my post with this: it is often said that specialists in a series are that series' experts. I find this to be very true. Graders are specialists in many series, but even those that they know well can be diluted by the sheer number of series that they know. As such, the collectors who specialize on one series will know more than the graders. The CAMs awarded (or denied) on the 1936-1942 series of proofs is the most volatile of any proof (in my opinion). There are years where the TPGS would award CAMs on coins that had less frost than their 1950s counterparts, and years where they wanted more frost. The stance seems to change almost every year. If a collector can get one of those coins into a CAM holder, it rarely ever moves again (I've seen collectors crack a coin for a higher grade from a CAM slab, and they lose the CAM. It seems almost inevitable). Currently, the TPGS aren't giving out any grace on these coins. The coins don't change. The graders do. Those different opinions change the standards. This is why the standards that the new CAC service puts out will be very interesting to see, though I expect they'll change.

The comment was for me. Your coin appears to be a cleaned circulation strike example, but better pictures would be needed to know for sure..

Sandon, I don't have a verifiable weight, but I have tested the scale with a few hundred other coins. None of them ever showed anything out of tolerance, let alone this far off. This coin is being sent to a professional numismatist for more precise tests and verification. Until I receive those results, this coin will remain nothing but a slightly out of weight cent (and even then, my scale could be off as you state). Trust me, I've seen more than my share of posts like you are referencing. I will be taking the steps to make sure that everything is accurate and checked by knowledgeable numismatists.

That proof set was simply ordered by ordering one of each coin from the mint. Not a set. VKurt is correct, sets started in 1950, anything before is simply put together after the coins left the mint, and all sets are equal. A “ original set” from the pre 1950 era simply means one of each coin, kept together from when they were ordered.

It is a proof.

It was advertised as a normal proof cent and priced as such. Zinc-coated steel patterns do exist and are known today. @RWB - the coin has a higher than normal density, which would indicate that it is not actually all copper.

I recently purchased this 1942 cent on Ebay, albeit with some pretty bad pictures. I had originally purchased it with the hope it may be a zinc coated steel pattern. It arrived, and I can say that I doubt it is zinc coated steel. But I cannot rule out a pattern, right? The coin weighs 2.85 grams, which is 2x the legal tolerance underweight (minimum weight in legal standards is 2.98g, normal is 3.11g). My scale appears accurate, and weighs every other copper cent I tested within tolerance. The coin does not appear to have any visible reason as to why it is underweight, and appears to be a normal proof 1942 cent with some strange color to it. I would also think that a proof would be much less likely to be underweight. Bad photo of the scale. Here are pictures: Color comps: The tenth edition of the Judd book states that pattern 1942 cents were struck with regular dies in zinc, copper and zinc, zinc coated steel, aluminum, copperweld, antimony, white metal, and lead (among other metals). Only three of these compositions are currently known. This coin has a color that isn't anywhere close to any copper cent I currently have in my possession. I have to say that I'm stumped. I discussed it with @Eldorado9, and we both agreed that there may be something here, and that it was worth bringing up with the forums. Does anyone have any information that may aid me in figuring out what this is? I have three possibilities that I can think of: Normal coin Mint error underweight cent Pattern metal strike Update: Specific gravity of the coin is high at 10.17g/ml. A normal 1951 cent was 8.88 g/ml.

Lisa, Thank you!

I had an NGC submission shipped back to me today, but I can't seem to find the tracking number. Does anyone know where I can find it? Thanks!

Thank you! And yes to answer your question, though there isn't much Tomaska and Roger's book pretty much supplies die tables, everything else is brand new.

1. Texas Centennial 2. Pilgrim 3. Gettysburg

PCGS yes, NGC no.