FlyingAl

On 11/28/2022 at 7:17 AM, RWB said:

"Proof" dies were ordinary ones that were polished. Some lasted longer than others in the hydraulic press and were repolished more times. The average strikes between polishing was about 800 -- but with wide variation. The polishing was done by Adam Pietz and there are a couple of comments in the die book (Sept 28, 1937 - below) about him ruining a die by excess polishing. There are other comments about weak design details. It appears that all proof coins have inferior detail compared to the best normal circulation coins. This is most evident on the dime and half because they have more detail than the quarter and Jeff nickel.

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. 

On 11/27/2022 at 7:15 PM, Hoghead515 said:

Does the reverse dies usually wear out faster than the obverse? I noticed they are still using the obverse and not the reverse they started with on the coins above. Or does it just depend on which die is harder that last the longest? Youd think the die that does the hammering would wear out faster. Which die do they usually fix on the hammering end? Sorry if these questions are aggravating. I need to read about it again. I read a little in FMTM this evening. Skipped to where they are engraving the dies but have not made it to where they set the dies in the press yet. Its been well over a year since I last read about it. Ive forgotten alot since then. Im sorry I done blew the thread way off topic. Maybe this will help others get a better understanding of why so many die pairs were used. And start getting back on topic.  Very cool you were able to trace down the die pairs of those coins. Once I get a better understanding Id enjoy further researching into doing that. Ive still got alot to learn first though. 

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!

On 11/27/2022 at 5:50 PM, Hoghead515 said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

How often did they have to polish those proof dies? You can see not only the monogram is weaker but some detail also. For example the detail in the log and other places. There may be no way to know for certain but how many times do you think those dies were polished between the first coin and the second? Just an estimate? I find it very interesting and Ive been wanting to learn more about polishing and the frequency. Ive always wondered how much of the surface gets removed each time.  I guess it probably has to do with how much damage and how much is needed. But I figured they probably didnt strike as many proofs between polishings. Figured they took better care of those. Thats just my opinions only and very interested in learing any thing more that I can. Did they keep records for every time they had to polish them or did they just do it and continue on? Sorry if these questions are uninteresting. Im find things like that very interesting. 

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! 

On 11/27/2022 at 1:48 PM, RWB said:

I devote an unusual amount of time to talking with and listening to collectors - they are the owners of most of these things. Nearly all are very private about their collections. Many articles, and almost all my books have protected files containing confidential information and publication approvals. Therefore and book might include a comment such as the one FlyingAl mentioned, but no details. That is intentional to respect the wishes of individuals/dealers and integrity of confidential research sources. (Anyone who as allowed me to mention their coins or photograph them, knows that I go through an information verification and publication process for each detail that might appear in print. This includes attribution in footnotes/bibliography, photo captions, and other information that could suggest an owner or where they live.)

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!

On 11/26/2022 at 4:33 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Having read through Roger's Saints Double Eagles book with 650 pages and LOTS of footnotes....I am WELL aware of his attention to detail. 

I find that you can learn alot about things he just touches on -- like small denomination gold coin circulation here and overseas -- just by focusing on the FN's.  And I have to re-read the book again, like you, because there is SO MUCH information I couldn't absorb it all the first time.

How many pages is the Proof Book ?

328 pages. No small detail goes unnoticed!

On 11/26/2022 at 4:34 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Beautiful coins....now THESE are proofs I can have grow on me, as opposed to the ones decades earlier.  Not the modern mirror-like proofs I am used to but you can see the artistic beauty come through with the clean fields.  

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.

On 11/26/2022 at 3:55 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

FlyingAl, why don't you tell us a few things you learned from the book that maybe you didn't know ?  Any "shockers" or things that you found REALLY interesting ?

Let's jumpstart this thread.  I may have to check out the book, sounds interesting ! 

 

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?

On 11/25/2022 at 9:41 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

To me growing up, proofs were shiny and reflective.  So the 1936-42 Cameos -- though nice -- are different.  If someone wants to post one of them that is top-of-the-line to gauge, please do so. 

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

On 11/24/2022 at 9:28 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

You don't like the nice-dark look of modern, mirror-like gold proofs ?

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. 

On 11/23/2022 at 4:17 PM, VKurtB said:

For many years now I’ve decided that I agree with the artists and sculptors and disagree with the bulk of collectors. It’s why I still buy most modern uncirc coins but very few proofs. They’re too “cartoonish” to me. 

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. 

On 11/23/2022 at 1:36 PM, olympicsos said:

I wanted to chime in and say that its a shame that with the renaissance designs they didn't stick with the satin finish. If anything the satin finish is closer to the artists original intent than the traditional mirror finish. If anything I remember reading in @RWB's books that one of the classic coin artists actually objected to the mirror finish. 

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. 

On 11/23/2022 at 7:54 AM, RWB said:

Not sure I understand....

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?

On 11/19/2022 at 5:58 PM, pigeonman333rd said:

Who has a coin worth submitting for testing he just said it's a circulation strike and I believe my coin is within tolerance was that comment for flyingal or for me because I would gladly send my coin in its a dark spot among red unc coins in my collection. I did however get the coin on ebay through a reputable dealer of coins macendiverstein rare coins who has 100% positive feedback. I don't have any 1942 unc coins but I have a few 1945S and 1944d unc coins from searching a box of unc wheat cents from a dealer that called themselves us mint. I didn't save the seller but I wish I had they were awesome I paid 1000 dollars free shipping and I got alot of errors cracked skull die errors filled 9 errors bie marked errors and alot of fun stuff nothing of great value but all unc. Oh I was wrong I see 3 1942 unc's and one 1942 d unc my mistake. 

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.. 

On 11/19/2022 at 2:45 PM, Sandon said:

@pigeonman333rd--All Lincoln cents dated 1918 and thereafter are supposed to have the designer's initials "V.D.B." under Lincoln's bust!  It's in the "Redbook", which I've encouraged you to read. I can't tell from your dark and distant photos whether your coin is a proof or a polished, plated, or buffed circulation strike, which would be worth a few cents at most.  However, it's most unlikely that anyone would sell you a genuine proof for $4.95, as even a lower-end MS63RB lists $40, and a much nicer 65 RD lists $150 at current Coin World retail prices. "There is no Santa Claus in numismatics."

@FlyingAl--I've noticed quite a few occasions in the several months I've been active on the forums when members have formed a belief that they have an "off-metal" or other error coin or pattern based on readings on a digital scale that are outside the legal weight tolerance. I question the accuracy of these scales.  The scale should usually weigh unworn bronze or brass small cents (1864-1982) at exactly or very close to their 3.11 gram official weight. If it doesn't, I would suspect it's faulty. (Do you have a certified weight with which you could test it?)  If the scale proves accurate, you might have a coin that's worth submitting for testing by professionals.

   

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. 

On 11/18/2022 at 8:36 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

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?

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.

On 11/18/2022 at 6:59 PM, VKurtB said:

Yeah, when I first saw this coin, my thought was a 1942 proof. The color does not bother me. 1936-42 proof cents are in a wide variety of colors, including blues and purples, along with more expected colors. I am told that was due to the tissue paper they arrived in. Now the specific gravity? I can’t speak to that. The rims look awfully “proofy” to me. 

It is a proof.

On 11/18/2022 at 4:33 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

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?  🤔 

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! 

On 11/14/2022 at 7:03 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

Al - I absolutely love super-in-depth research of a particular topic well beyond anything available in the mainstream. This is exactly the sort of thing I support to further the study of numismatics. 

I assume that your research has used Roger Burdette and Rick Tomaska as jumping off points? Both wrote groundbreaking books on the subject (in very different eras of numismatic study). 

 

 

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 

On 11/13/2022 at 4:46 PM, EagleRJO said:

Don't the TPGs guarantee the labels in the event of a mistake like that?

PCGS yes, NGC no.