Walter Breen's Numismatic Legacy 1 1

[kidrootbeer]

On ‎6‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 9:08 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

Nobody will argue that proofs were made in 1915 or 1916. That is a well recorded fact. There is documentation to support it. 

There is no documentation or evidence that proofs were made in 1917. That's the major difference here. 

 

Yes, Walter's "endorsement" notwithstanding... we all know clandestine things happened at all of the Mints. It's not out of the realm of Possibility, but the Probability meter says Uh Uh. Still waiting to see the Unc. 1895-P  Morgan that some say turned-up at what, the 1960 ANA?

Edited June 29, 2017 by allmine

[Conder101]

23 hours ago, allmine said:

die placement (misaligned die)-it can affect any coin series at any time

He is speaking of a incuse line on the rim not the raised finning.

 

22 hours ago, allmine said:

simply check the milling; proof strikes have decidedly different reeding than do their business-strike counterparts

Reeding? On nickels?

[t-arc]

On 6/28/2017 at 11:13 AM, Insider said:

Back to the cherry-picked nickels...Does anyone here think/know that the incuse line on the reverse rim at 7 is  is also found on some business strikes? 

 

18 hours ago, allmine said:

I looked a bunch in Heritage; the "line" moves

Slight misalignment of the upper Reverse  die is my guess
that it's a Hallmark of Matte Proof Nickels I have no idea, but it is not limited to them
the line does not appear on the obverse, and you can see that the rim opposite the line is thinner

I first became aware of this line on proof buffalo nickels from the book “Coin Collector’s Survival Manual” by Scott Travers, which is widely known and went  thru a number of different editions.  

It had a page devoted to this line and pictures were included. 

Scott mentioned it on 1913 type two, 1914, and 1915 proof strikes and every one of those three years does have this line on all proofs I have ever seen.  The 1916 seems to come with and without this line.

Never have seen a 1913 type one with this distinctive line.    Some business strikes do seem to come from these left over proof dies as I have seen them on all three years mentioned.

For emphasis:  I have NEVER seen a 1913 type two, 1914, or 1915 matte proof buff that does not have this distinctive line. 

But I have seen this line on 1915-s, 1916-d, and 1917-p.

[DWLange]

20 hours ago, Insider said:

Note: I'm asking about the incuse line at 8 OC (not 7) across the reverse rim that is considered a diagnostic of Proof Buffalo nickels.

It's a flaw in the master hub and appears on any early-date Buffalo Nickel that is fully struck. Most of the currency pieces aren't sharp enough to show such a subtle feature.

[kidrootbeer]

2 hours ago, DWLange said:

It's a flaw in the master hub and appears on any early-date Buffalo Nickel that is fully struck. Most of the currency pieces aren't sharp enough to show such a subtle feature.

a Hub flaw? Then it should appear on every Nickel, regardless

Edited June 29, 2017 by allmine

[kidrootbeer]

OK, I must be missing something re: Incuse Line... would someone kindly (or not kindly, that's OK) tell me what?

I'm pretty good with strikes (that why, after a discussion with PCGS,  I had an 1867 Seated 1$ come back MS64 instead of PR64)
but I'm not Mastering the Obvious on this one

Edited June 29, 2017 by allmine

[t-arc]

Here is a picture of the reverse of a 1915 proof buffalo nickel with that line on the rim, southwest of the buffalo on the rim. 

 

 

[t-arc]

I have never seen a 1915 proof buffalo nickel without this distinctive line on the rim.  Same for 1913 type two and 1914 proofs.  But after proof strikings were finished some of these die pairs were “retired” to

produce business strikes.  Has anyone ever remember seeing one of these three years of proof buffs without the straight line?

[kidrootbeer]

Thanks, t-arc... yeah Hub Flaw
here's Eric Newman's coin-it really shows up (the pic is blow-uppable)

PR66-really; if it were PR64 I'd blast it and dip it; unless it would 67 under all that

Edited June 30, 2017 by allmine

[kidrootbeer]

fwiw: did someone on here say it was, like, impossible to keep cherrypicking Matte Proof Buffalos, something like that? I remember my friend cherrypicked TWO 1804 C-2 Half Cents from the same junkbox. Yes he did. So, anything IS possible

[kidrootbeer]

On ‎6‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 1:27 PM, disme said:

You mention “controversial attributions which so far have not been substantiated outside of Wally Breen’s mind.” Please name some of these controversial attributions. A half dozen would be nice.

well, for $100 Walter attributed a really nice Rhode Island Half as a Proof Strike. Even though I had no familiarity with the series, I thought that $100 was a good investment

[t-arc]

5 hours ago, allmine said:

fwiw: did someone on here say it was, like, impossible to keep cherrypicking Matte Proof Buffalos, something like that? I remember my friend cherrypicked TWO 1804 C-2 Half Cents from the same junkbox. Yes he did. So, anything IS possible

Not impossible at all, here are two I picked up over the past few months that are on their way for slabbing.  first one a 1916 matte proof which might go PR-58 because of rub on hip and second is a satin finish proof.

So I think anyway.  

 

Edited July 1, 2017 by t-arc
add a picture

[kidrootbeer]

the knot and ribbon ends on yours are definitely sharpr than an ms67 1916 sold recently, so I'm guessing the hub wasn't reworked like it was with the penny

Edited July 1, 2017 by allmine

[kidrootbeer]

the 36 is cute... what it looks like under an incandescent bulb will tell you if it's a Type 1

[t-arc]

9 hours ago, allmine said:

the 36 is cute... what it looks like under an incandescent bulb will tell you if it's a Type 1

This 1936 buff is an unusual coin.  completely original and has never been played with.  absolutely no mint lustre.  I cannot see this being called a business strike but maybe it is somehow a prototype to the 1936 type one satin finish proof?  Look like one but somehow different.  we will see what the graders say in a couple of weeks.  whatever it is an interesting coin.

[MarkFeld]

1 hour ago, t-arc said:

This 1936 buff is an unusual coin.  completely original and has never been played with.  absolutely no mint lustre.  I cannot see this being called a business strike but maybe it is somehow a prototype to the 1936 type one satin finish proof?  Look like one but somehow different.  we will see what the graders say in a couple of weeks.  whatever it is an interesting coin.

It actually looks more like a matte (proof) than a type one or type two proof. I look forward to hearing about the results. 

[kidrootbeer]

re: 1936

any striae on the edge?

[t-arc]

55 minutes ago, allmine said:

re: 1936

any striae on the edge?

none

[coinman_23885]

 

On 7/1/2017 at 9:10 AM, MarkFeld said:

It actually looks more like a matte (proof) than a type one or type two proof. I look forward to hearing about the results. 

It looks like a stripped, sharply struck business strike to me.  I cannot think of any reason the Mint would produce a 1936 matte proof nickel.  My understanding is that the original matte proof coinage (1913-1916) was disliked by collectors and would not have sold well at all in the 1930s.  Even the early satin proofs were less favored by collectors hence the excessive polishing implemented later in 1936 that would continue throughout the early modern proof era (i.e. throughout the 1940s).

[MarkFeld]

12 hours ago, coinman_23885 said:

 

It looks like a stripped, sharply struck business strike to me.  I cannot think of any reason the Mint would produce a 1936 matte proof nickel.  My understanding is that the original matte proof coinage (1913-1916) was disliked by collectors and would not have sold well at all in the 1930s.  Even the early satin proofs were less favored by collectors hence the excessive polishing implemented later in 1936 that would continue throughout the early modern proof era (i.e. throughout the 1940s).

I agree wth almost everything you wrote above. But the strike looks better than any I remember, so my guess was/is a satin Proof.

Edited July 3, 2017 by MarkFeld

[Insider]

On ‎7‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 7:46 AM, t-arc said:

This 1936 buff is an unusual coin.  completely original and has never been played with.  absolutely no mint lustre.  I cannot see this being called a business strike but maybe it is somehow a prototype to the 1936 type one satin finish proof?  Look like one but somehow different.  we will see what the graders say in a couple of weeks.  whatever it is an interesting coin.

IMO. the surfaces of the 1936 5c are not original.  I also do not think it is a Proof.  I hope I am wrong and it is a Proof.  While my opinion of the surfaces is not changed, I can see a grade of 62 or 63 if the graders see the scrape in the hair.

[kidrootbeer]

1 hour ago, Insider said:

IMO. the surfaces of the 1936 5c are not original.  I also do not think it is a Proof.  I hope I am wrong and it is a Proof.  While my opinion of the surfaces is not changed, I can see a grade of 62 or 63 if the graders see the scrape in the hair.

there IS residual luster around the devices, picked-up by the picture-taking device

there is an old trick to remove Polishing from a Nickel, and it makes them look matte...

[coinman_23885]

11 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

I agree wth almost everything you wrote above. But the strike looks better than any I remember, so my guess was/is a satin Proof.

That would make sense.  Are you thinking potential environmental damage?

[coinman_23885]

@RWB - I've read in various places that some of the proof coins from the WWII era were available for months or sometimes years after the coins were produced.  Is there any chance that the Mint may have circulated excess satin proof 1936 Buffalo nickels?

[RWB]

There weren't any excess 1936 proofs. The same for most years - approximately $12.50 in mixed proofs. Data for 1942 was no available, and the silver-nickels of that year seem to have been around until finally sold in bulk.

Proofs were made in batches based on demand, with more produced toward the end of the year to cover late-year orders and as replacements.

Check the book United States Proof Coins 1936-1942 for exact information.

[Afterword]

The mint may not have released any 1936 proofs into circulation, but some surely entered circulation nonetheless.

[t-arc]

Proofs are sometimes released into circulation by accident by their current owners.  Or perhaps by their relatives who do not know any better.  I picked up a nice 1983-s proof Kennedy half dollar from my bank this way.

[kidrootbeer]

we/I used to release into circulation impaired modern proof coinage we happened to buy as a matter of course; too much trouble to make Dealer lots out of them (they didn't want them either)

One time the ex- wanted some money for a local political donation, so gave her a torn SF 1929 $50.00 FRBN. Big deal, right? You'd've thunk that they had never seen one before...

Edited July 5, 2017 by allmine

[LINCOLNMAN]

11 hours ago, Afterword said:

The mint may not have released any 1936 proofs into circulation, but some surely entered circulation nonetheless.

I would think satin proofs in particular as they were apparently not well received.

[MarkFeld]

6 minutes ago, LINCOLNMAN said:

I would think satin proofs in particular as they were apparently not well received.

Not to mention, indistinguishable from business strikes by laymen.