Request for information on 1936-1942 proofs

[RWB]

Anyone with interesting information or anecdotes about the 1936-42 proof coins, please PM me. (I'm looking for insights beyond what is in the published books. They are good but I want more depth to go with the newly located die and delivery records.)

 

Thanks in advance!

[Nutmeg Coin]

This is probably something irrelevant to your query, a dealer was buying a 1940 "original" proof set at his shop on Sunday; the silver coins looks toned out, should be OK, generally these grade MS64-66 from what I have seen; the nickel and cent looked E.D.. I told the dealer I wouldn't touch the set with a 10 foot pole. He apparently paid $950, a couple hundred under bid, which was way too much unless he can find a bigger sucker than himself. Even if those set coins all grade gem and CAC sticker, you would be hard pressed to get GS bid for them in my experience. I have tried to make money with a 1940 set and a 1939 set. No dice.

[RWB]

Are you saying that the sets tend to be difficult to sell?

[Nutmeg Coin]

Yes, unless they are PR67, cameo, or other characteristic that put them in the top percentiles.

[RWB]

Why do you think they are difficult to sell?

[Nutmeg Coin]

One theory I have is that the mint has flooded the market with moderns with similar designs. Registry set collectors and the well-heeled investors are looking for the creme de la creme. Of course exceptions could be found with the first year or two, the 1936, 1937 issues. I have seen "original" raw sets that dealers can move based on the collectors ability to buy as well as the dealer's sales schpeil that that is how they come....Unfortunately when the buyers send them in the problems can emerge in their awareness. It all depends on the style of dealer and whether he has collectors willing to buy them at strong prices.

[RWB]

30 years ago a 1942 set with both nickels, in gem proof sold for about $2,300. Now the set in "proof 66 or 67" costs about half that....

[e1cnr]

The reverse changed on the quarter in 1937 in proof coins. I have used that to grab some 1937 - 1955 proof sets from pictures where you could not tell if business strike..

[jom]

Cameos are very rare from these dates. I know you don't care much for the grading services but PCGS has never graded a Cameo Washington from this series for example.

 

The ones I've actually seen in hand that were graded Cameo (such as a couple of Walkers and maybe a Merc or two) didn't look too good to me. I'd love to see a Buffalo as I don't recall ever seeing one with any kind of contrast.

 

I'm sure Coinman can give some notes on this as he tries to collect them. I've always wondered why the mint such trouble with this...it's not as if they hadn't done nice proofs before. The Barber series some 30 years earlier has quite a few Cameo proofs....maybe they just didn't care.

 

jom

[RWB]

Very helpful.

[Coindude]

Here is a cameo Buffalo, exceedingly rare. And probably the best Mercury I've ever seen in cameo. Mostly Mercs you see that grade cameo are lacking on the obverse and the blade on the reverse.

[jom]

I'd love to see that Buffalo in hand!

 

jom

[jom]

Here is a cameo Buffalo, exceedingly rare. And probably the best Mercury I've ever seen in cameo. Mostly Mercs you see that grade cameo are lacking on the obverse and the blade on the reverse.

 

These are REAL rarities. I remember when Rick Tomaska's book came out in the 90s it talked of how rare some of the dates were in Cameo and Deep Cameo from the post-war era proofs. Those post-war proofs have NOTHING on these.

 

The popularity of the post-war series is clearly due to actually having coins for everyone to collect. The pre-war era proofs simply do not have enough to go around to put a set together.

 

jom

[coinman_23885]

Why do you think they are difficult to sell?

 

1. As you know the packaging is well known for producing thick toning, and most of it is brownish and unattractive. I have also seen many with a blueish, hazy looking toning that I hate. Coins are also well known for haze. Many may be reluctant to dip these, fearing the toning has eaten into the surfaces. I have seen coins clean up nicely after a dip (and to my surprise). I think many collectors are resistant to take the chance.

 

2. Spotting is also an issue even when the haze and toning are limited. This is particularly a problem for the cent. I have passed on many cameo cents that are otherwise there because the spots bother me.

 

3. The nicer coins have been dipped, turning some away because of concerns of lack of originality.

 

4. The coins become expensive quickly in nicer graders (say PF67 or even PF66 and higher). Coins with strong mirrors are especially sought after and more expensive.

 

5. Many collectors like to finish entire sets. For some, the early years (e.g. 1936 and maybe to a lesser extent the 1937) are much more expensive and cost prohibitive.

 

6. The very nice coins (with exceptional toning or cameo) are scarce to exceedingly rare. While many are surprised how quickly people will throw fistfuls of money on toned Morgan Dollars, any coin with even remotely attractive toning will bring a premium. Truly nice coins will bring a large premium. Many collectors are not okay with this.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

I have held back posting to this thread because I do not think I have anything to add of sufficient/scholarly quality to be useful. Most of the pieces that I see are cameos or heavily frosted pieces that just miss the designation, so I am looking at a much smaller population. Nevertheless, your research topic is interesting and useful to me. I have long wondered whether records concerning die production, use, and maintenance could allow for a meaningful estimate not only of the number of full cameos, but for frosted pieces that otherwise miss the designation.

 

In terms of observations, I am sure you are familiar with all of this but I post it in case others are interested in the matter:

 

1. The dies were heavily polished even more so than proof coins from other generations. As a result, many of the finer details (e.g. hand on WLH and lapel on the cent) are sometimes polished away.

 

2. Because of the polishing and other die preparation processes, a number of die polish or die lines commonly appear on the devices (especially along the bust/neckline).

 

(As an aside, I have long wondered whether it may be possible to analyze die usage and perhaps even estimate the number of working dies used based on this by watching the pattern of lines. Of course, such an analysis is probably flawed as die maintenance processes used after several strikings would probably convolute the data, so it is probably wishful thinking on my part any way).

 

3. Some years produce a disproportionate number of cameo or near cameo pieces. It would seem that the larger the mintage, the more cameo pieces or near cameo pieces that you would see (longer die use leading to more polishing and/or more dies being used). This is not always the case. In terms of overall mintage, the 1939 is in the middle of the pack, but it has produced a remarkable number of cameo Mercury Dimes receiving the cameo designation. It also produced nickels, cents, and 2 designated half dollars. With that said, based on coins I have handled, there are a number of near cameo pieces, especially for the dimes. The 1940 and 1941 sets have the 2nd and 3rd highest mintages, but are among the years that produced the lowest number of cameo coins. That strikes me as very odd. Moreover, I have noticed that 1942 has produced a disproportionate number of cameo cents and near cameo Liberty Walking Half Dollars, much more than the increase in mintage would suggest. I wonder what happened in the 1940-1942 period concerning the number of dies used and die maintenance. Does this represent a difference in die usage, the number of dies used notwithstanding overall mintage, or does it represent a change in die preparation? Sadly the population reports do not tell the whole story, so it is based on my observations.

 

4. Interestingly, the Lincoln cent has produced the largest number of cameo coins, and it is the most common cameo 1936-1942 coin. All of the other coins are exceedingly rare except for 1939 cameo Mercury Dimes. For some reason, there is a larger number of these (perhaps as many as 50 or so total). All of the other Mercury Dimes are much, much tougher.

 

5. Although PCGS and NGC did not always designate these coins as cameos, I do think the standards have changed throughout the years. Based I what I can gather, the population seemed to increase in the mid 2000s, although this is confounded by possible crack-outs. Nevertheless, based on holder generation, I have seen a number of mediocre cameo coins from both services corresponding to that time frame.

 

6. Insofar as others reference DCAM coinage, there is a single DCAM war nickel with PCGS and no other DCAM coinage. NGC has graded a handful or so of UCAM cents, and no other denomination has received a UCAM designation from NGC.

 

Here is a cameo Buffalo, exceedingly rare. And probably the best Mercury I've ever seen in cameo. Mostly Mercs you see that grade cameo are lacking on the obverse and the blade on the reverse.

 

Having seen the Mercury Dime you posted in hand, I can tell you that I think it looks even better. The images make it appear as if there are areas where the cameo contrast is lighter. This is not the case. The devices are evenly and uniformly frosted. If only it were a little thicker, the coin would be worthy of a DCAM/UCAM designation. I have no idea why NGC did not award a star to it. In addition to the contrasts, the mirrors are also very nice. When Legend sold this piece, it concurred with my assessment writing that the contrasts could be seen from across the room. I thought that was an exaggeration until seeing it for myself.

 

Cameos are very rare from these dates. I know you don't care much for the grading services but PCGS has never graded a Cameo Washington from this series for example.

 

Neither has NGC. Cameo obverses are not very common either, but the reverse is usually a stopper for coins that show any frost. Even frosted non cameo coins are also very rare. My one and only has a full cameo obverse, but there are breaks in the wings on the reverse.

 

I'd love to see a Buffalo as I don't recall ever seeing one with any kind of contrast.

 

There are a handful of really nice pieces out there with exceptional contrast. In my opinion, more so than for the others, the services are more generous with the designation. I returned a piece in fact because the cameo was very light (only visible at one very specific angle and was light even then) and was an overall mediocre coin.

 

The Barber series some 30 years earlier has quite a few Cameo proofs....maybe they just didn't care.

 

I had a discussion with David Lange and RWB on this topic before. It appears that the Mint didn't care to produce contrasts and that the people that made the Barber coinage you spoke of had died or retired by 1936. RWB also wrote a fabulous Coin World article on the reintroduction of proof coinage in 1936. He mentioned something about an uneven radius for Buffalo Nickels and the cent making polishing difficult, but I also thought he said that this was corrected by 1936. I'll try to find the article again.

[RWB]

Thanks! I'm not focusing on "scholarly" but on observations and patterns by collectors.

 

The purpose is to put a real-world face on the new technical information I located and then present a balanced picture of the 1936-1942 proof coins.

 

PS: The uneven radius problem was fixed in mid-1936 when the change was made to brilliant cent and nickel proofs.

[jom]

Is there a link to that article at CW?

 

jom

 

[RWB]

There might be a link on the Coin World site....If you can't find it, send me a PM with your address and I'll email you a PDF of it.

[James_OldeTowne]

Technical or anecdotal commentary? I've wondered why so many Walkers come >< this close to cameo quality - did the mint intend to create cameo proofs? or was it merely random luck??

[coinman_23885]

Technical or anecdotal commentary? I've wondered why so many Walkers come >< this close to cameo quality - did the mint intend to create cameo proofs? or was it merely random luck??

 

There was no intention to create a cameo effect, and it was random. And while I agree that the number of just miss cameo coins is larger than the number of designated examples, the total number is still very small. I would estimate less than 1% of the population contains cameos or just miss cameos. This is also the reason I am interested in RWB's die records, as it may be possible to give better estimates of the number of frosty but non-designated coins (i.e. we can estimate the number of true first strikes, estimate how often polished and allow for a few strikes, etc.).

[RWB]

The data show the number of dies used and how many times they were repolished before being condemned. Some of the defects are also included in annotations.

 

As for comments: I'm looking for observations about availability, quality, defects or die varieties. It might be possible to correlate some of this with the die and delivery data.

 

You don;t have to be an "expert" - just an interested, consistent observer.

 

[it's OK to report this on PCGS or other boards....I'm interested in all inputs.]

[coinman_23885]

RWB, where will your research and data be published? In the JNR?

[RWB]

It is looking like a free-standing book, but a JNR issue might work also - but not sure. A lot depends on what kinds of information uncovered in addition the the new stuff.

[Coindude]

Technical or anecdotal commentary? I've wondered why so many Walkers come >< this close to cameo quality - did the mint intend to create cameo proofs? or was it merely random luck??

There was no intention to create a cameo effect, and it was random. And while I agree that the number of just miss cameo coins is larger than the number of designated examples, the total number is still very small. I would estimate less than 1% of the population contains cameos or just miss cameos. This is also the reason I am interested in RWB's die records, as it may be possible to give better estimates of the number of frosty but non-designated coins (i.e. we can estimate the number of true first strikes, estimate how often polished and allow for a few strikes, etc.).

I truly believe they were trying to make cameo proofs. There is no other explaination for the fact that there are cameos if they weren't at least trying to make them. The process back in those days meant treating the whole die and then polishing to make the shiny fields. I believe they were trying to get the look of the Barber proofs but got frustrated when it took too much work to get a substandard product. It's most likely that they would polish all the initial striking proof dies and what came out was what was minted. No repolishing was performed like you see in the 50's proof halves especially. The repolishing can create some intense and very impressive cameo coins. Or maybe it was only one or two workers that cared enough to even try? Well, at least they tried or else I personally believe there would be no cameo proofs of that era.

[coinman_23885]

I truly believe they were trying to make cameo proofs. There is no other explaination for the fact that there are cameos if they weren't at least trying to make them. The process back in those days meant treating the whole die and then polishing to make the shiny fields. I believe they were trying to get the look of the Barber proofs but got frustrated when it took too much work to get a substandard product... Or maybe it was only one or two workers that cared enough to even try? Well, at least they tried or else I personally believe there would be no cameo proofs of that era.

 

I can’t say that I agree that the existence of cameo coins proves or suggests that cameo proof coinage was intended. The first few strikes could have absolutely been produced by serendipity (much like early 1800s proof cameo bust coinage), and statistically, the cameos make up such a tiny proportion of the mintage, suggesting that it was unintentional. Moreover, the dies were heavily polished, and it was not limited to the fields. It is not uncommon to see finer details removed from over polishing of the devices such as a missing lapel on the Lincoln cent. The devices also commonly exhibit die polishing lines and/or other die lines. If the goal was to produce cameos, then you would want to heavily polish the fields and leave the devices alone or polish them only sparingly (or use abrasive methods to "rough up" the devices on the die like the diamond dust used on the "repolished" proof coins of the 1950s). I haven't seen any evidence of this. Am I missing something?

 

I think your theory also contradicts the population report data. If the goal was to produce cameo coinage, then why is it that in the Mercury Dime series that 1939 cameo proofs are so plentiful compared to the other issues? There are 1-2 proof cameo 1940 and 1941 Mercury Dimes between both services, and the number of 1942 cameo proof dimes is also much less than 1939. If the goal was to produce more cameo proofs, I would expect to see the numbers after 1939 to either increase or at least stay close to the same if the contrasts were intentional. I am curious as to what, if anything, RWB's die records might suggest to us about discrepancies like this. Was the increased number of cameo proofs due to more dies/repolishings, was the die preparation process altered, or is there something else going on?

[illini420]

Here is a cameo Buffalo, exceedingly rare. And probably the best Mercury I've ever seen in cameo. Mostly Mercs you see that grade cameo are lacking on the obverse and the blade on the reverse.

 

 

Received a message ATS about my old proof Buffalo being posted here and thought you may be interested in some more info/pics. The coin was graded PCGS PR67CAM and was sold on eBay over a year ago. The image posted above was cropped and resized into a template I use from mostly unedited slab photos (can't remember for certain, I may have adjusted the lighting/levels in processing the photo).

 

Here's a link to the page on my website which as those those slab images of coin:

 

http://www.kittlecoins.com/60191207.htm

 

And here are the full slab shots of coin (again, I think they've only been resized from larger raw shots from my camera):

 

 

Because getting a single shot of a proof CAM coin can be misleading and/or not show the full look of the coin, I also did a short YouTube video of the coin available at the link below to better show off how it looked in hand. (Best when the video settings are changed to watch in full HD.

 

 

It was a really great coin and somewhat tough to let go, but that's the way it goes... I liked it so much I use the image of it on one of my business card

 

Mike

 

Michael Kittle Rare Coins

 

 

[RWB]

Thanks! I'll check the web site.

 

I copied the highest resolution version from your site. If you grant permission to use the photo, and I use it in the book, please let me know how you want the credit line to read.

[jom]

That is just a GREAT coin Mike....I wish I could have seen it in hand...as I stated above I've never actually seen one.

 

jom

[illini420]

Thanks! I'll check the web site.

 

I copied the highest resolution version from your site. If you grant permission to use the photo, and I use it in the book, please let me know how you want the credit line to read.

 

 

If it helps your book, permission granted.

 

Credit to me is fine "Michael Kittle"

 

Thanks and good luck with the project.

 

Mike

[illini420]

That is just a GREAT coin Mike....I wish I could have seen it in hand...as I stated above I've never actually seen one.

 

jom

 

I didn't have it very long, sold pretty quickly. Was the first I've seen in hand at the time. Seen a couple of other CAM designated Buffalo Nickels since in Heritage auctions, I think all were NGC pieces, but each had spotting or other issues to keep me from going to lot viewing to check them out further.