United States Proof Coins 1936-1942 - Subject matter questions.

[RWB]

16 hours ago, numisport said:

Would like to know more about the images. Where did they come from, are the photos touched up, who did the imaging and other questions. All of the images appear to be outstanding examples and likely among finer known pieces. They obviously have been chosen for all the right reasons; strike, surfaces, luster and most importantly eye appeal. Please tell us what you can (I don't expect to know who owns them).

Image sources. Most of the images, both overall and details, were provided by Heritage Auctions (HA.com) from their image database. Some special coin images were provided by collectors - they usually have credit lines - or by my myself. David W. Lange provided the album photos. In general, every image that was provided by other than Heritage or me, has a credit line. The exceptions are where collectors requested complete anonymity. I kept records only of the exceptions. I bought a few coins for imaging and research purposes, but have disposed of them all.

Most images were culled from thousands of Heritage photos. I looked for maximum detail, resolution and overall clarity. One coin might have been best for the header and another for a specific detail and yet another fro a different detail. The total database of images was examined, and then the best 80 or so were used to create each image in the date/denomination chapter.

As for image handling. I adjusted color and tonal range so that all the images were reasonably consistent and as accurate in color and detail a possible. The goal was the best reproduction quality possible from the images available. I don't recall any defects being removed, but I did not keep records of that detail - especially for the header images. All header images were scaled to a minimum of 600dpi, then inserted into a 3.25x3.25 frame. Sharpness and electronic resolution were enhanced on some detail photos using several techniques that help bring out fine detail. This is beyond the scope of a message board post discussion.

Hope this helps answer your question.
 

[LINCOLNMAN]

Comments rather than a question. First, I have spent several enjoyable hours reading your book. This hobby would be a pretty empty place without researchers and writers, many thanks.  Examining my own walkers, I noticed a progressive deterioration of Liberty's right hand up until 1942, when it is fully articulated. Even my 36 isn't fully articulated. I've always looked at Liberty's left hand, which seems to vary in detail from year to year. Hadn't noticed the right until I picked up your book. I also had not paid attention to the surface roughness on some of the high points on the obverse. You can add my sample of several to your hypothesis regarding the cause: seems clear that these areas didn't fill, perhaps owing to the big dish on the other side. Again, thanks.  

[RWB]

Your comments are much appreciated!

[physics-fan3.14]

If the Type B quarter was made to improve striking features, why was it only used on proof coins? Why wasn't it used on business strikes as well?

I suppose a similar question could be posed for the Type I and II Franklins.... 

You mention that no business strike Washington Type B's are known for '36-'42, but several are known for the later era. What changed with how the mint controlled them? How did they prevent MS-B's in the earlier era (or, how did they allow MS-B's in the later eras?)

If they made special proof-only designs for Washingtons, why didn't they do that for any other series? 

[RWB]

Excellent questions for which I have found no answers among archive papers. Having a special reverse only for proof quarters is contrary to efficient operation and normal practice for the other denominations. It required these dies to be segregated from all other quarter reverse dies - extra work, extra die tracking, and for what benefit?

Mint engravers worked in their own world of incredibly fine tolerances and design detail. It is possible that the Type B quarter reverse was tested for circulation but did not perform well on a toggle press. It is also possible that the Type B of later years is not identical to that use on earlier proof coins. (An example might help. McKinley gold dollars were issued in 1916 and 1917. Engraver Morgan is documented as making changes for 1917 that he said greatly improved the coin. Yet, no one has been able to discern differences between 1916 and 1917 coins.)

Several tables in the remaining Engraving Dept notebooks describe multiple changes to hubs. Unfortunately, we have no examples of these - or at least we don't think we have examples. Notebooks also refer to changes made to hubs or master dies and don't tell us much about how the coins looked.

[DWLange]

Washington Quarters were not the only series to have a separate reverse hub for proof dies. The Franklin Half Dollar transitioned to a new proof reverse during 1956's production, and it continued to be used for proofs through the end of the series. The old hub, however, was continued for currency strikes. The Type 2 reverse was a great improvement to the eagle figure, and it should have been used for all dies. Perhaps, the Mint didn't want to wear it out making dies for mass production coins. Why the proof dies were reused for circulating quarters, while the proof half dollar dies were not reused, is a mystery.

Judging by the availability of semi-prooflike Philadelphia Mint coins of other denominations from the late 50s through the early 60s, it's likely that retired or unneeded proof dies were used for currency strikes across several denominations. The lack of obvious hub differences beyond the quarters and halves, however, makes this purely speculative.

[RWB]

Sadly, as Mr. Lange noted, we have very limited information, so almost anything is speculative. For example, it is possible that use of a different steel alloy for dies caused changes in die preparation; or maybe hardening and tempering processes resulted in steel that performed better under one range of striking pressure than another range....It can go on and on. Most of coin collecting is focused on product, not process.

[MarkFeld]

Roger,  David and anyone else who would care to comment - over the years, I have seen quite a few examples of Proof 1936 Buffalo Nickels, which I would describe as a hybrid between the typical Type 1's and the Type 2's. They are clearly not Type 1's, but they don't have the depth of mirrors of the typical Type 2's. And it's not that the coins are sub-par, quality-wise and/or toned in such as fashion as to mask the mirrors. 

I've long wondered, could there be three Types of 1936 Proof  Buffalo Nickels?

[RWB]

Real satin proofs will have more detail than brilliant proofs. Check the book photos.

I found no evidence of anything except the deliberate satin and brilliant proofs. However, the engraver also was clear they were learning how to do this, and it's likely that  many coins with subpar surfaces were shipped out. 1936 is the one year for which die information is very incomplete, and that gap is likely reflected (no pun intended) in the conclusions made for the issue. There is also a range of quality in the fields; even for the best years, there are coins with poor mirrors including some with scattered luster. I put everything I could find and verify into the book....hence, the 330 page tome.

[RWB]

Also -- the letter from Director Ross concerning proof coin quality that was published in 1936, did not accurately state Sinnock's internal communication. It was probably edited by either Mary O'Reilly, who ran things, or Ednis Wilkins, Ross' personal secretary. Sinnock's own explanation isn't much good either -- as if he was trying to be evasive but really didn't know how.

[MarkFeld]

31 minutes ago, RWB said:

Real satin proofs will have more detail than brilliant proofs. Check the book photos.

I found no evidence of anything except the deliberate satin and brilliant proofs. However, the engraver also was clear they were learning how to do this, and it's likely that  many coins with subpar surfaces were shipped out. 1936 is the one year for which die information is very incomplete, and that gap is likely reflected (no pun intended) in the conclusions made for the issue. There is also a range of quality in the fields; even for the best years, there are coins with poor mirrors including some with scattered luster. I put everything I could find and verify into the book....hence, the 330 page tome.

Thank you.

[numisport]

Also there appears to be some nice deep mirrored '37 Buffalo proofs available and if I am patient I will find one. Compared to shallow mirror pieces these appear to have a type two finish like the 1936 nickels. Care to elaborate ?

[DWLange]

All 1937 proofs have a brilliant finish, but there's a range of brilliance that reflects (pardon the pun) the state of the dies. The U. S. Mint's proofs of 1936-70 were made with varying degrees of carelessness. Dies may have brilliant when new but soon began to lose their polish. At some point these were polished again, restoring their brilliance while wiping away many of the shallower details. The coin you should seek is one from fresh dies having their initial polish and all details presents.

[RWB]

RE: " The coin you should seek is one from fresh dies having their initial polish and all details presents."

The book's die use tables might be helpful in estimating how many coins were produced from new proof dies versus ones that were repolished.

 

RE: "Also there appears to be some nice deep mirrored '37 Buffalo proofs available and if I am patient I will find one. Compared to shallow mirror pieces these appear to have a type two finish like the 1936 nickels. Care to elaborate ?"

No sure I understand the comment. All 1937 and about half the 1936 nickels were intended to be brilliant. The clarity of surface varies from coin to coin depending on original polish, planchet polish and die use. That is, there will be excellent proofs and there will be inferior proof nickels for each year.