'36 to '42 proof coinge

[numisport]

Although cameo proofs are rare for all proof coins in the '36 to '42 group, they are available. However no cameo quarters have been graded. Were dies prepared differently as compared to '50 to '64 era coins ? Very little reading is available on this subject. Why no cameo quarters ?

[coinman_23885]

RWB is writing an excellent treatise on 1936-1942 proof coinage that will likely answer your question. The book will probably come out in the first or second quarter of this year. My understanding is that the Mint didn't care about producing cameo coins, those that produced the cameo coinage of earlier series either died or retired, and many collectors rejected matte proof coinage, so there was a push for highly brilliant coins. Over polishing was highly prevalent and on coinage of this era, it is not unusual to find fine details missing from polishing. Lincoln's lapel on the cent, for example, comes to mind. On many coins, you can find polish lines including on the devices that also attest to this.

 

With regards to quarters specifically, the reverse die (especially the eagle's wings) seems to be the designation stopper in many cases like the sun on the Walking Liberty Half Dollars. I have seen quarters with contrasted obverses and hints of frost on the reverse, but the wings always kill it.

 

This one looks frostier in hand, but is still far, far from a designation. NGC PF67 CAC

[numisport]

What a lovely quarter ! I own a '38 with a look approaching yours. Thanks for the info. I'll look for a Burdette book to com out soon. Guess I should get the WWII pattern coinage book also.

[RWB]

Here's a brief quote from the entry for 1938 proof cents. It might help you understand the 'problem' of cameo proofs of this era. The book is titled United States Proof Coins, 1936-1942. I'm doing some re-editing at present to make sure the material is clearly and consistently presented. It includes specific die use and delivery data never before published.

 

Only forty-four cameo proof cents have been identified by authentication companies. This is less than half that of the previous year. There were three possible instances of new dies being paired that could have produced cameo proof cents. These were reported on December 5 (O-173/R-114), December 27 (O-473/R-445) and December 30 (O-474/R-446). If each pair made between twenty-five and thirty-five cameo coins, the maximum number of pieces would be between seventy-five and one hundred five. Normal attrition could have easily cut availability to something close to those already identified.

 

By definition, a cameo proof must have visible contrast between the relief and field, on both sides. This is really a difference in texture between the mirror-like polished field and the normal new-die satin texture of the unpolished relief. For a new die, this texture difference fades very quickly resulting in only 25 to 35 coins that might have complete distinctive contrast.

 

Further, polishing often rendered low relief details brilliant (think of the left portion of the flag or the sun on WL halves), thereby disqualifying a coin from being called "cameo."

 

In addition, the requirement that both sides have cameo features means that a fully cameo proof coins could only be made by a pairing of two new dies - obverse and reverse.

 

Lastly, contemporary coin collectors and dealers paid little attention to frosting, if any. So not special efforts were made to preserve these.

[BillJones]

The first of the "modern" Proof coins that were issued in 1936 had a Matte-like satin finish that collectors did not like. That prompted the mint to polish the Proof dies like crazy, sometimes way over polish them. The results were coins with very bright surfaces, but sometimes incomplete design features, most obviously lacking the designer's initials.

 

When dies from the 1930s, '40s, '50s and '60s went into production the cameo finish was the first thing to go. There was also die over polishing problem in the early 1950s. These factors made the cameo coins very scarce. Even scarcer are the cameo coins that say "cameo" in the slab label.

[RWB]

To update Bill's comments a little - the first 1936 proof cents and nickels were made with unpolished dies on a medal press. The dies were not pre-treated by sandblasting as was the case for Lincoln and Buffalo coins from 1909-1916.

 

The silver coins were intended to have mirror-like surfaces, but some 1936 pieces are not very reflective.

[mark]

RWB:

 

Do you know where your 36 to 42 Proof coin book will be available? Wizard possibly? (Where I am currently--slowly--completing my collection of your JNRs.)

 

Mark

[SkyMan]

That's a Lovely 1942 Washie proof!

[RWB]

Wizard Coin Supply will be the distributor. They will also provide copies to the trade for resale.

[numisport]

Over polished dies are an obvious problem on many of these issues. Oddly enough the '41 proof Walker reverse die is treated as a variety by the grading companies. It seems like many if not most 41's have designer initials polished off. The example I own has no visible traces of 'AW' and the holder does not specify 'no AW'.

[RWB]

There are halves missing the AAW monogram for all years. There are also many halves with only a trace of monogram. The only one that is a variety has the monogram re-engraved in an attempt to strengthen it.

[coinman_23885]

That's a Lovely 1942 Washie proof!

 

What a lovely quarter ! I own a '38 with a look approaching yours.

 

Thank you both!

[coinman_23885]

Over polished dies are an obvious problem on many of these issues. Oddly enough the '41 proof Walker reverse die is treated as a variety by the grading companies. It seems like many if not most 41's have designer initials polished off. The example I own has no visible traces of 'AW' and the holder does not specify 'no AW'.

 

I agree and have never seen the big deal with the no AW coins labeled by the TPGs. It doesn't appear to be a rare phenomenon. Now the re-engraved die strike me as more interesting, but I still wouldn't pay a premium. It all strikes me as marketing hype.

[coinman_23885]

See Bill Jones's post re re-polish proofs. The repolish proofs incidentally produced cameos, not intentionally as I had stated initially.

[BillJones]

Although cameo proofs are rare for all proof coins in the '36 to '42 group, they are available. However no cameo quarters have been graded. Were dies prepared differently as compared to '50 to '64 era coins ? Very little reading is available on this subject. Why no cameo quarters ?

 

One other point I failed to mention was that in the 1950s the Mint intentionally created cameo coins and often used an abrasive on the devices on the dies to create a pronounced cameo effect after the normal initial contrasts would be gone under normal conditions. These are reknown as re polish proofs. I think these started circa 1953 or so.

 

I was not under the impression that the mint intentionally created these Cameo Proofs. I thought that it had to do with refurbishing Proof dies to get more coins out of them. From what I have seen, these coins were not all that attractive. The cameo part looked crude with raised die polish lines on the devices.

 

My first experience with cameo Proof coins goes back to the early 1960s from a little soft cover book, Major Oddity and Variety Guide by Frank Spidone. I'm pulling this up from my memory banks that have not been refreshed on this book for at 40 years so I could have few details wrong here.

 

According the Mr. Spidone the "real" Gem Proof coins were not the shiny pieces with no hairlines (which were easy enough to find from unopened Proof sets), but were the cameo Proof pieces with deep contrast between the devices and the fields. He pointed out the difference between "original" Cameo Proofs and the die polish pieces with their rather crude surfaces.

 

Back in the 1960s I don't recall ever seeing any print ads for modern cameo Proof coins. There were no listing in the price guides or the price books that companies like the Coin & Currency Institute, Inc. handed out from their coin counters in Gimbels Department Store. I first saw greater interest in Cameo Proofs in the early to mid 1970s.

[coinman_23885]

Although cameo proofs are rare for all proof coins in the '36 to '42 group, they are available. However no cameo quarters have been graded. Were dies prepared differently as compared to '50 to '64 era coins ? Very little reading is available on this subject. Why no cameo quarters ?

 

One other point I failed to mention was that in the 1950s the Mint intentionally created cameo coins and often used an abrasive on the devices on the dies to create a pronounced cameo effect after the normal initial contrasts would be gone under normal conditions. These are reknown as re polish proofs. I think these started circa 1953 or so.

 

I was not under the impression that the mint intentionally created these Cameo Proofs. I thought that it had to do was refurbishing Proof dies to get more coins out of them. From what I have seen, these coins were not all that attractive. The cameo part looked crude with raised die polish lines on the devices.

 

My first experience with cameo Proof coins goes back to the early 1960s from a little soft cover book, Major Oddity and Variety Guide by Frank Spidone. I'm pulling this up from my memory banks that have not been refreshed on this book for at 40 years so I could have few details wrong here.

 

According the Mr. Spidone the "real" Gem Proof coins were not the shiny pieces with no hairlines (which were easy enough to find from unopened Proof sets), but were the cameo Proof pieces with deep contrast between the devices and the fields. He pointed out the difference between "original" Cameo Proofs and the die polish pieces with their rather crude surfaces.

 

Back in the 1960s I don't recall ever seeing any print ads for modern cameo Proof coins. There were no listing in the price guides or the price books that companies like the Coin & Currency Institute, Inc. handed out from their coin counters in Gimbels Department Store. I first saw greater interest in Cameo Proofs in the early to mid 1970s.

 

The error is mine - sorry. I had read Tomaska's book years ago and took the phrase that the preparer would "frost up any weak areas" of contrast in one segment out of context, which is why I thought it was intentional. Looking back, you are right that the diamond abrasive was used to remove nicks and debris. The re polishing did incidentally (as opposed to intentionally) produce cameo contrasts.

[RWB]

"Diamond dust" is a cutting abrasive. It was not used at the US Mints.

 

Older dies were resurfaced with emery and other commercial abrasives of various grit sizes. Proof dies were polished with rouge or very fine polishing emery.

 

Beginning in 1969 the Philadelphia Mint used the frisket method of isolating the relief, sandblasting it, then removing the frisket and polishing the field. Later, they switched to glass beads for sandblasting, and now they use a computer controlled laser and no frisket. The laser produces the uniform soft pits that collectors sometimes call "snakeskin."

[numisport]

Cameos are a great discussion topic and I sure appreciate comments from great authors. For sure original cameos always have incredible eye appeal. However I have seen some real knockout cameos from polished dies. I think nice cameos from 1950, 51 and 52 are very underrated especially the Lincoln cents. Just try to find Pf 67 Red Cameo examples next time at a major show ! There re not usually available.

[coinman_23885]

"Diamond dust" is a cutting abrasive. It was not used at the US Mints.

 

Older dies were resurfaced with emery and other commercial abrasives of various grit sizes. Proof dies were polished with rouge or very fine polishing emery.

 

Beginning in 1969 the Philadelphia Mint used the frisket method of isolating the relief, sandblasting it, then removing the frisket and polishing the field. Later, they switched to glass beads for sandblasting, and now they use a computer controlled laser and no frisket. The laser produces the uniform soft pits that collectors sometimes call "snakeskin."

 

Rick Tomaska specifically used the term "diamond dust compound" in his text on 1950 to 1970 cameos and indicated that this was used to produce the re polish cameos. If he is wrong (and I would be inclined to take your word for it), then your next project should be a book on 1950 to 1973 cameo coinage that corrects the narrative.

 

Here are some excerpts of what Tomaska said (sorry the text is so large):

 

 

[RWB]

Sorry, but the above is mostly wrong. I have no plans to do anything with 1950-68 proofs as an extended article or book - the available die and delivery information is too voluminous to be of interest to even the most ardent collector: 4,000 identical obverse dies to wade through and gain nothing.

 

1. The mint did not use diamond dust for any purpose. They used emery, carborundum (silicon carbide), crocus, etc. They had no need of the cutting advantage of diamond and no need to spend the extra money when cheaper abrasives were in use and well known to the Engraving and Coining Depts.

 

2. The only use of "wire brushes" on dies or hubs was the use of fine, soft brass brushes by the Coining Dept. to remove debris and compacted grease from the steel. If this was not successful, the die was sent to the Engraving Dept. where brass and soft steel gravers were used to pick out the debris. Old worn dies were routinely destroyed.

 

Re-frosting of relief appears to have have been performed, but an emery stick would have been used. If the abrasive were contaminated the work would leave behind scratches of several widths. Also, it would be very difficult to duplicate the original frosting when retouching an area.

 

PS: Purchase orders/contracts exist for the abrasives mentioned, but I;ve never seen any mention of diamond dust.

 

PPS: The above is not a "dig" at Rick T. ...He presented what he felt was correct at the time and he had the right general idea.