Are the Satin proofs of 1936 made by the same process as Matte proofs from 1909-

[karpman9-migration]

Are the Satin Proofs of 1936 made by the same process as Matte proofs from 1909-1916?

 

I have come to love and appreciate matte proof coinage, both on Lincoln cents and on Buffalos. As such, I have acquired a few MLPs and one MBP. I'm looking to add to my collection and I need some helpful information from the group.

 

Will someone please shed some light on whether the production processes are similar for the matte proofs of 1909-1916 and the satin(type I) proofs of 1936.

 

Are the Satin proofs of 1936 also considered matte proofs? Can the matte proofs of 1909-1916 be considered Satin proofs. You get my drift.

 

Thanks in advance. Best regards.

 

 

[TomB]

The satin proofs of 1936 have a much finer texture than the matte proofs of 1909-1916 and are also more reflective. Although I am not certain that anyone is absolutely sure how the 1909-1916 matte proof coinage was made, I am fairly positive that the process was changed for the 1936 satin proof coinage.

[physics-fan3.14]

I am not entirely sure, as this isn't really my area, but I think they are different.

[michael]

after 20 plus years of not making brillant mirrors proofs and the fiasco of the unpopular matte proofs the mint in 1936 decided to make the mirrored brilliant proofs

 

unfortunately the mint employees at the time had no idea how to get the mirror brilliant finish and especially so with copper and nickel as with the silver proofs it was really easy to highly polish the dies and planchets to get the mirrored affect

 

so ith the buff nicks the process was tried and with experimen tation they gotto where after the first few months or so they could get the 1936 buffs at first wirh a semi prooflike flashy brilliant finish and by the end of the year they finally through trial and error they got the buff nick proofs the extra brilliant deeply mirrored fields and this was of course the more popular finish

 

well by the 1950's these proofs were supposed to be the same but they where still different so you got the terms satin finish which is not quite deeply mirrored brilliant proof finish but yet somewhat flashy and semi prooflike mirrored

 

and again by the end of the yeaR the mint staff finally prefected their polishing of the dies and planchets to get the desired affect of the extra brilliant deeply mirrored finish

 

and of course there were many more brilliant finish coins then satin finish but the brilliant mirror finish brings more$$$ due to the look and mucho higher demand

 

 

[McKinley-migration]

[McKinley-migration]

Are the Satin Proofs of 1936 made by the same process as Matte proofs from 1909-1916?

no.

[chinook]

Not the same process, but you can find many MPLs that have a satiny look due to the dies becoming worn.

 

 

[karpman9-migration]

Hi guys,

 

Thanks for the responses. Michael, your response made a good deal of sense.

 

Best regards to all!

 

[karpman9-migration]

Chinook,

 

I have seen first hand certain MPLs showing little sign of the matte process and your reasoning too makes sense, worn dies. Such a difference in eye appeal!

 

All my best.

[RWB]

Karpman9:

 

Here’s a brief explanation. You can find details in the series of Renaissance of American Coinage books from 1905-1921, including comments and descriptions by mint officials of the time.

 

Minor proofs from 1909-1916 (cent) and 1913-1916 (nickel) were struck from dies that had been sandblasted before being hardened for use. The coins were produced with one blow from the medal press. These are commonly called “matte proofs.” They were made instead of brilliant proofs because the Lincoln and Buffalo designs did not have evenly curved fields, and it was extremely difficult to polish the field of the dies without damaging part of the design. (See the sloppy 1916 dime and quarter brilliant proof patterns for examples of excess polishing.)

 

When proof sets were again struck in 1936 (see the article in Coin World a month ago for the full story), engraver John Sinnock assumed all he had to do was produce dies with a consistent radius, then polish them, and this would produce brilliant proofs. However, his first efforts usually had a smooth satin-like surface more like coins struck straight from new dies. After some experimentation, he discovered (rediscovered?) how to make brilliant proofs with the quality improving from year to year.

 

Gold proofs from 1908, 1911-1915 were made by sandblasting the coin after striking. These are correctly called “sandblast proofs.” For 1909-1910 the gold proofs were simply struck on a medal press with new dies, and no post-strike alteration was made. These are properly called “satin proofs.”

 

Sandblast and satin proofs were also made of most of the 1921 and 1922 Peace dollar relief variations, and a few commemorative halves.

 

[MarkFeld]

(See the sloppy 1916 dime and quarter brilliant proof patterns for examples of excess polishing.)

Roger, I have never seen or even heard of brilliant Proof examples of such patterns. Can you point me toward images somewhere? Thanks.

[RWB]

Mark,

Examples of the dime and quarter of the first 1916 designs are in the Smithsonian. Check the images on the USpatterns.com web site. The dime dies were so badly polished that parts of the design are very weak or missing. The quarter (see the USpatterns.com article on them) is another sloppy polishing job. Apparently Barber or Morgan tried to hand polish the fields since the die radius was too irregular to polish in the normal manner. If you check RAC 1916-1921 you'll find correspondence and other documents mentioning the polishing and the artists' objections to mirror-finish coins.

 

Half dollars were also struck from polished dies of this first design, but I have not seen one.

 

[MarkFeld]

Thanks!

[karpman9-migration]

Hi Roger,

 

Thanks for explaining a bit more about the differences between the varied processes involved in minting proof coins from those two somewhat distinct eras.

 

Ironically enough, I sent in a check a few weeks ago for the purchase of all three volumes of Renaissance of American Coinage books from 1905-1921 for which I hope to receive quite soon. Esylum had an email which contained within a special offer to subscribers offering all three voumes for only $155.

 

Thanks again.

 

Best regards,

[karpman9-migration]

By the way, the minting process for the gold proofs of 1908 and 1911-1915 is way too cool! I would have loved to have seen the production of those proofs in action!

 

All my best!

[awb]

RWB, thanks for the great post.

 

Does anybody happen to have images of the different types of proofs? I've read "matte proof" and "satin proof" in the Red Book, but I'm not sure I've seen one. Then the explanation for "sandblast proof" makes me wonder how on earth they could sandblast a coin and not damage it.

[MarkFeld]

RWB, thanks for the great post.

 

Does anybody happen to have images of the different types of proofs? I've read "matte proof" and "satin proof" in the Red Book, but I'm not sure I've seen one. Then the explanation for "sandblast proof" makes me wonder how on earth they could sandblast a coin and not damage it.

Check the Heritage auction archives, among other resources. There will be plenty of images for you to view there.

[RWB]

The term "matte" proof has, in the past, been used for sandblast proof gold and Peace dollars, etc. The term "sandblast proof" was in common use before WW-II, but thereafter, possibly through misunderstanding, the descriptive term fell out of use. Numismatists now are moving back to the original descriptive tern: "sandblast proof."

 

The pieces that are now called "satin proofs" were named "bright proofs" by the mint, but that term never caught on with collectors. After WW-II Walter Breen popularized the meaningless term "Roman proof," possibly because he didn't know how they were made. We now know that the "satin" surface is the original surface of a new die from that time period. All the mint did was put new dies in a medal press, select some nice planchets and strike the proof coin with one blow of the press. “Satin proof” is gradually replacing the obsolete “Roman proof” term.

 

(Both “satin” and “sandblast” refer as much to the method of production as to the appearance of the coins. Thus, we don’t have to invent a new term when discussing proof Peace dollars, or early 20th century pattern coins.)

 

[karpman9-migration]

I love this topic!

 

Knowledge is power!

[RWB]

karpman9:

Seneca Mill Press records show your set of 3 books was shipped on Nov 29, media mail, insured for $200, #13071300000303322831.

 

Let me know if they do not arrrive soon, although it can take 10 days to western states.

[karpman9-migration]

HI Roger,

 

Thanks for the heads-up on my shipment. I am somewhat embarrased that I didn't realize until your last post that you are the author (RWB) of the series. I am honored that you would take the time answer my post in such detail and check on my order as well. I look forward to immersing myself in your works as soon as I receive them.

 

As of late, I'm spending more and more of my time on this forum rather than ATS where I had spent most of my time in years past. PCGS (HRH) really blew it when they (he) chased away the highest levels of talent that contributed to their boards on a regular basis. It was a huge miscalculation. ATS has become boring and quite stale with minimal appeal for the advanced collector. Thanks again.

 

Best regards and Happy Holidays!