1917 Lincoln

[mikew148]

I just bought this one last week. It has nice color but the fields in front of Lincolns profile have been messed with. It's likely going back to the seller this week.

 

I read an article about the processing of Matte Proof Lincolns. It said that some coins that were struck as Matte Proofs, that didn't quite have the quality desired, were thrown into the group of circulating coins.

 

I'm not much into these - except for admiring Bob's awesome set (thumbs u

 

The surfaces on this one are interesting - thoughts?

 

 

[MarkFeld]

The referenced area doesn't look messed with to me.

 

And a discussion about processing of Matte Proof Lincoln cents shouldn't pertain to business strike examples dated after 1916.

[mikew148]

Thanks Mark.

 

When I catch the coin just right it shows several vertical scratches that cut through the toning in that area. The luster is a bit subdued as well, looks like someone wanted to rub the dark stuff off.....

 

There were claims it that article that there is a graded 1917 matte proof. What's that all about?

 

This is from an article ATS -

 

Matte Proof production

 

According to Brad Podraza’s LincolnCentResource.com website, Matte Proof Lincoln cents were officially struck at the Philadelphia Mint from 1909 through 1916. It is believed some Matte Proof 1917 Lincoln cents were also produced; Podraza indicates at least one is known to exist.

 

 

[dimefreak]

Surfaces seem unusual but appealing. I see the vertical scratches, which is a shame because the coin otherwise looks like a real doozy. Did you take the pics?

[mikew148]

Surfaces seem unusual but appealing. I see the vertical scratches, which is a shame because the coin otherwise looks like a real doozy. Did you take the pics?

 

Yes, the sellers pics didn't show the area in front of Lincoln quite as well.

 

 

[messydesk]

There were claims it that article that there is a graded 1917 matte proof. What's that all about?

No TPG has graded such a coin. Walter Breen wrote a letter authenticating one, and a picture of the coin has been posted either here or ATS quite recently (search will be your friend), but his word isn't always worth that much.

It is believed some Matte Proof 1917 Lincoln cents were also produced; Podraza indicates at least one is known to exist.

The at least one he refers to is the Breen-authenticated coin. The indication should be that one is alleged to exist, in contradiction with mint records.

[mikew148]

Aha, that explains it - Thanks John (thumbs u

 

Haven't found a pic yet. I'm not a member ATS, if someone can access that pic please post it.

[RWB]

"It is believed some Matte Proof 1917 Lincoln cents were also produced; Podraza indicates at least one is known to exist."

 

The only thing missing is evidence.

[jpcienkus]

"It is believed some Matte Proof 1917 Lincoln cents were also produced; Podraza indicates at least one is known to exist."

 

The only thing missing is evidence.

 

Funny thing, that....

[jpcienkus]

Aha, that explains it - Thanks John (thumbs u

 

Haven't found a pic yet. I'm not a member ATS, if someone can access that pic please post it.

 

I don't collect Lincoln's, but I really like the looks of this one. I agree the vertical marks in the right field are distracting in the picture. I'm not sure what you paid for the coin, but I imagine it wasn't cheap. I can't speak for you nor tell you what to do, but I'm sure there are others available if you chose to return this one.

[halfpint]

 

 

...Very nice coin. Looks like you have some MD going on at the reverse too...

[ThosArch-migration]

Here is the photo of the obverse of the 1917 matte proof Lincoln cent that resides in Hawaii

Here is the photo of the reverse of the 1917 matte proof Lincoln cent that resides in Hawaii

 

The Red Book was right!!!

(Matte Proof coins were made for collectors from 1909 to 1916, and an exceptional specimen dated 1917 is also reported to exist.)

THIS IS IT!!

 

[physics-fan3.14]

If Roger says it doesn't exist, then you can be pretty sure that it doesn't exist.

[moneyhoney]

I been reading up on that coin and there is a lot of doubt if it exists or not. I saw the same coin and nobody is saying for sure. someone went as far to say it should be removed from the Red Book because it doesn't exist. I am just a newbie so I just do a bit of research..and cant find anything definite about that coin.

 

Edit: the article did say " the 1909 Matte Proof seems to be the rarest and most valuable matte proof Lincoln cent. Two was struck, one with V.D.B and one without. Like I said I am just a newbie. It also said " it's believed that some 1917 Matte Proof were struck illegally and at least one is know to exist.

[MarkFeld]

Here is the photo of the obverse of the 1917 matte proof Lincoln cent that resides in Hawaii

Here is the photo of the reverse of the 1917 matte proof Lincoln cent that resides in Hawaii

 

The Red Book was right!!!

(Matte Proof coins were made for collectors from 1909 to 1916, and an exceptional specimen dated 1917 is also reported to exist.)

THIS IS IT!!

 

The photos are of a claimed/purported Matte Proof, not necessarily an actual Matte Proof. If the coin stood on its own merits there is a very good chance it would be recognized as something special by NGC or PCGS. Don't you at least wonder why that hasn't occurred?

[ThosArch-migration]

NGC and PCGS will never slab any 1917 proof coinage

[MarkFeld]

NGC and PCGS will never slab any 1917 proof coinage

 

If that's the case, it's likely because it doesn't exist. It's not like they haven't recognized undocumented rarities of extremely high value, before.

[ThosArch-migration]

I think the coin shown above stands on its own and carries its own credentials so to speak. it is not a coin that I own.

[MarkFeld]

I think the coin shown above stands on its own and carries its own credentials so to speak. it is not a coin that I own.

 

Have you examined it in hand and what is your expertise?

 

And if the coin is the real deal, what reason would a major grading company have for refusing to recognize it as such?

[ThosArch-migration]

I am sorry that I ruined the intent of this thread by posting these two pix. Not the original intent of the thread to get into a p--sing match over 1917 proof coins!!

 

The original cent posted here is a nice coin but too soft in strike to have any claims to proof or special strike status. Still the rough surfaces could give someone the perception of a proof or specimen coin.

(end of discussion)

[moneyhoney]

Hey hold your horses...these guys are just trying to help. I see you just signed up this month. You have to be careful about finding a rare coin before doing research, it could very well be a dud, Do a little research. I would have asked these guys and see what they thought and they would give you some feedback. Since you said it isn't your coin...they are just letting you know the fact. They have their own way of saying things (as I have learned) but, they are good guys....When you said" THIS IS IT!!" They weren't sure of your intentions. These are pros....and honest (don't you think they are?) Give them some slack...

[mikew148]

I am sorry that I ruined the intent of this thread by posting these two pix. Not the original intent of the thread to get into a p--sing match over 1917 proof coins!!

 

The original cent posted here is a nice coin but too soft in strike to have any claims to proof or special strike status. Still the rough surfaces could give someone the perception of a proof or specimen coin.

(end of discussion)

 

 

It's certain that some coins were not struck to the mint's standards.

The article I was referring to said - "MPL's not up to the mint's standards were thrown in with the business strikes".

 

Seems logical that during the mint's setup process some coins may have been struck with less pressure and resulted in weaker coin details.

 

Not my series - just thought it was interesting....

[moneyhoney]

Yes, it was interesting, I had to do research on that. I think they feel that your post was interesting too. I think that "THIS IS IT!!", threw them a curve....they were just being cautious since you said it wasn't your coin...didn't want you to get zapped!!

[MarkFeld]

I am sorry that I ruined the intent of this thread by posting these two pix. Not the original intent of the thread to get into a p--sing match over 1917 proof coins!!

 

The original cent posted here is a nice coin but too soft in strike to have any claims to proof or special strike status. Still the rough surfaces could give someone the perception of a proof or specimen coin.

(end of discussion)

 

The subject of Matte Proofs was raised by the original poster in his initial post in this thread. So it is highly unlikely that you ruined the intent of the thread. And I wasn't in a p--sing match with you - I apologize if it seemed that way.

[RWB]

"I think the coin shown above stands on its own and carries its own credentials so to speak. it is not a coin that I own."

 

That it does...and those credentials are not consistent with a matte proof. That is why no reputable company or organization with authenticate the pictured coin. Further, making a die pair for matte proof cents was not a trivial matter (pun intended) and was not a no-cost activity. The mint director had killed collector proof coinage in October 1916 on the Philadelphia Mint Superintendent's recommendation.

 

Several folks have posted comments that are contrary to how the mints operated. Might I suggest some borrow a copy of From Mine To Mint and read the relevant sections?

[Conder101]

Might I suggest some borrow a copy of From Mine To Mint and read the relevant sections?

No they should BUY a copy.

[RWB]

Thanks! It comes with a fully searchable CD. (The ANA has copies for loan to members, and a few libraries have it on ILL.)

[ThosArch-migration]

Learned a lot today, a bit about matte proof Lincoln cents a more about RWB.

[RWB]

Let's hope it was positive overall...

[coinquest1961-migration]

I am certainly no expert on this ephemeral stuff but I thought one of the hallmarks of matte proof Lincolns in particular was the flat, consistently wide rims seen on BOTH sides of the coin, with no narrowing, rounding, or beveling to be seen anywhere around the perimeter of the coin.. It's also clear that proof dies, including matte proof dies were used to strike circulation coinage on a regular press (not a hydraulic press as is/was used for proofs) once the proof dies were no longer suitable for striking proof coinage (i.e. irrefutable circulation strike Buffalo 5c with the depressed line at 7 o'clock on the reverse rim found on the MP.) Someone please correct me if I am in error on either of these two points.