1917 "proof" coins

[RWB]

A common question concerns the existence of “proof” coins dated 1917.

 

1. There are no records indicating any “proof” coins were made dated 1917.

2. No 1917 “proof” has been authenticated by PCGS or NGC.

3. All of the artists who designed the new coins in 1916 objected to mirror surfaces (as attempted on some 1916 pattern pieces).

4. At least one of the major grading services cannot differentiate a 1916 medal press “proof” from a piece struck on a production press. (The production press origin is confirmed by documentation unknown to the TPG.)

5. Medal press quarter dollar test pieces dated 1917 were likely struck for mint engineering use and might have been seen in January 1917 by the coin’s designer. However, none of these pieces, of any design, have ever been identified.

6. 1916 experimental and pattern pieces are known in uncirculated and circulated conditions, indicating that some of these reached circulation

7. No reason to make “proof” Lincoln cent or Buffalo nickel. Conformance with matte die practice would have required sandblasting the dies. No record of this.

 

Likelihood of existence of 1917 “proofs” is very slim.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Thanks, Roger, though I am sure that those who wish to believe in the existence of such coins will continue to do so. And, while I don't believe they exist, I can certainly understand the pull that they have on people's imaginations.

 

Curiously, what is the coin which is the subject of your #4 above?

[RWB]

1917 quarter pattern with part of the leaves scratched off. Documents distinctly state it was made on a production press so the director could see what normal coins would look like. (A nameless TPG that does not like facts contrary to their opinions decided it was a “proof” of some sort. Maybe reading RAC 1916-1921 was too difficult...It will be fun to see what they do with the WW-II pattern and experimental pieces now that the book is out.)

[MarkFeld]

Thank you.

[RWB]

PS: Director von Engelken used his pocket knife to scrape off leaves he didn't like.

[mkman123]

I was reading about the existence of the 1917 MPLs, but probably just a myth then

[TomB]

I also don't believe there are 1917 matte proof cents or nickles, as have been claimed to exist from time to time by various folks, and it would take strong evidence for me to change my opinion on this matter.

[e1cnr]

How do you tell if a coin was made with a medal press vs a production press? (without watching it being made)

[RWB]

A planchet deforms differently under pressure from a medal press than a production press. Most of the visual indicators of a proof coin, other than a mirror surface for older ones, are artifacts of the type of press used and the force applied. If you read descriptions of high quality proof coins, and remove references to the mirror fields, everything else comes from the strike. (In general, proof dies and normal dies were identical except for polishing of the field.)

[DaveG]

Since no one else had done it, I posted Roger's comments ATS - with a few slight edits.

 

You can probably guess what I edited and why.

[RWB]

Hardly noticeable edits...

[RWB]

Those who want to see magnificently struck and preserved 1917 quarters should visit the Mitchelson Collection at the Connecticut State Library. All three 1917 quarters are superb, very early strikes from new dies, provided direct from the Mint Collection curator in 1917.

 

But, however great these coins appear, they were not specially made - just normal production coins.

 

(I suspect that most modern collectors fail to realize how good the earlier US coins looked when they came fresh from the presses. What we now call "exceptional" were, in fact, ordinary.)

 

[leeg]

The Mitchelson Collection at the Connecticut State Library.

 

 

(thumbs u