Walter Breen's Numismatic Legacy 1 1

[kidrootbeer]

Just wondering, among the hypotheses, if any Satin finished Proof Buffs are Certified lower than, let's say, AU53?

Edited July 5, 2017 by allmine

[MarkFeld]

18 minutes ago, allmine said:

Just wondering, among the hypotheses, if any Satin finished Proof Buffs are Certified lower than, let's say, AU53?

The lowest grade I see is 58.

[kidrootbeer]

20 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

The lowest grade I see is 58.

me, too

[DWLange]

 I picked up a nice 1983-s proof Kennedy half dollar from my bank this way.

The S-Mint proofs of the 1970s-80s found in circulation were largely the result of theft by SFM employees. The coins were being spent at casinos in Reno. I got that information directly from the Officer in Charge, Thomas H. Miller (the presiding executive's title during the years before that facility was restored to full mint status). This and other juicy bits were in an article I wrote for the November 23, 1992 issue of Coin World. We can only hope that CW eventually gets posted to the Newman Numismatic Portal, but the process is trickier with still-active commercial publications.

[t-arc]

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. 

The more I look at this 1936 nickel I would also call it a matte proof even though none were officially released that year.  Considering that previous proofs of the buff series were mattes it is not out of the

realm of possibility that they tried something akin to what we see here before proceeding to the satin finish proofs which of course were not well received by collectors.  But lets just see what the pcgs graders

say about this.  

[Afterword]

23 minutes ago, DWLange said:

The S-Mint proofs of the 1970s-80s found in circulation were largely the result of theft by SFM employees. The coins were being spent at casinos in Reno.

It makes me wonder how many times over the course of the years something like this has happened but was never detected by the mint. Or was never recorded by the mint.

[Afterword]

38 minutes ago, t-arc said:

The more I look at this 1936 nickel I would also call it a matte proof even though none were officially released that year.  Considering that previous proofs of the buff series were mattes it is not out of the

realm of possibility that they tried something akin to what we see here before proceeding to the satin finish proofs which of course were not well received by collectors.  But lets just see what the pcgs graders

say about this.  

 

If one of these proof coins that are believed to not exist, did actually exist, how could it be determined authentic, or not authentic, without knowing the particulars of its production? The diagnostics used to authenticate a known proof would not necessarily apply, given the unknowns involved. Was it experimental in design or method of production and subsequently rejected, with only a few examples struck and all record of its existence lost?

Also, if counterfeits of proofs could be otherwise produced with convincing qualities sufficient to deceive the experts, could the experts not be led to also believe they have discovered a hitherto unknown proof (and, hence, very rare proof), which requires a new set of diagnostics to establish authenticity?

Absent historic records to substantiate (in a limited capacity) the diagnostics used for authentication, you are left with speculation alone, such as the above two paragraphs - which is not to say proof coins that are believed to not exist, could not exist, because they very well might.

Then there is the question of reliability in regard to historic records themselves, which I allude to in the parentheses above and below. Unfortunately, we do not have anything like historic records to enable us to develop diagnostics that substantiate (in a limited capacity, of course) the accuracy of historic records.

Not that it would get us any closer to the truth if we did.

But do not get me wrong historic records are useful, in as much as they gives us something upon which to base our best guess.

[WoodenJefferson]

 

Why would a grading service deliberately stick it's neck out and call it a 'proof' if no Mint historical records exists? Not gonna happen.

[MarkFeld]

1 hour ago, WoodenJefferson said:

 

Why would a grading service deliberately stick it's neck out and call it a 'proof' if no Mint historical records exists? Not gonna happen.

Odds are certainly incredibly strong against it. However, the situation you describe has occurred a number of times previously with "Specimen" designations for coins, without any "historical records". And ditto for some coins labeled "Proof".

Edited July 6, 2017 by MarkFeld

[kidrootbeer]

4 hours ago, DWLange said:

 I picked up a nice 1983-s proof Kennedy half dollar from my bank this way.

The S-Mint proofs of the 1970s-80s found in circulation were largely the result of theft by SFM employees. The coins were being spent at casinos in Reno. I got that information directly from the Officer in Charge, Thomas H. Miller (the presiding executive's title during the years before that facility was restored to full mint status). This and other juicy bits were in an article I wrote for the November 23, 1992 issue of Coin World. We can only hope that CW eventually gets posted to the Newman Numismatic Portal, but the process is trickier with still-active commercial publications.

What do you know about all those Error Proof Coins B&M were forced to pull from auction?

[RWB]

2 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

Odds are certainly incredibly strong against it. However, the situation you describe has occurred a number of times previously with "Specimen" designations for coins, without any "historical records". And ditto for some coins labeled "Proof".

In 1936 the Engraver did not know details of manufacturing proofs, and certainly not how to make 1913-16 style matte proofs.

Many of the claims for "specimen" or special striking" or other weirdities are nothing but foolishness based on a failure to understand the range of normal coinage produced with equipment available at the U.S. Mints.

As to the posted photos and claims, none have the basic appearance of anything unusual. But, nothing could be accurately determined without personal examination by independent experts. 

[MarkFeld]

6 minutes ago, RWB said:

In 1936 the Engraver did not know details of manufacturing proofs, and certainly not how to make 1913-16 style matte proofs.

Many of the claims for "specimen" or special striking" or other weirdities are nothing but foolishness based on a failure to understand the range of normal coinage produced with equipment available at the U.S. Mints.

As to the posted photos and claims, none have the basic appearance of anything unusual. But, nothing could be accurately determined without personal examination by independent experts. 

I realize it's a long shot that the posted 1936 nickel is a Proof. With respect to its strike, however, I disagree with your statement that "As to the posted photos and claims, none have the basic appearance of anything unusual." I don't think I have seen a business strike 1936 nickel with a strike like that.

[kidrootbeer]

28 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

I realize it's a long shot that the posted 1936 nickel is a Proof. With respect to its strike, however, I disagree with your statement that "As to the posted photos and claims, none have the basic appearance of anything unusual." I don't think I have seen a business strike 1936 nickel with a strike like that.

maybe what you see in Striking Details is the result of no surface luster; what "throws me" are the marks up and down the foreleg

Edited July 6, 2017 by allmine

[WoodenJefferson]

I'm by no means an expert and buffs are not my thing, but if you were to ask me what I think about the 1936, I'd say it was nothing more than a 'sintered planchet' with a nice strike.

[t-arc]

38 minutes ago, WoodenJefferson said:

I'm by no means an expert and buffs are not my thing, but if you were to ask me what I think about the 1936, I'd say it was nothing more than a 'sintered planchet' with a nice strike.

I think we have all beat up on this 1936 nickel enough and we’ll just have to wait n see what pcgs says.  Anyone have an opinion on the 1916 posted along with it above?  It is on is way to pcgs along with the 1936 nickel.

Here is pic of 1916 nickel again.  ( I would grade it PR-58)  The nicest 1916 proof buff you will ever see with a grade below 60!  This is an example of a “58” that rolled around in its plastic flip with the reverse rubbing against the plastic, thus imparting the “rub” to the coin.   At least that is my opinion.

Edited July 6, 2017 by t-arc
add additional comment

[kidrootbeer]

any other Matte Proofs of the year known with a partial wire edge on the reverse?

[coinman_23885]

"Many of the claims for "specimen" or special striking" or other weirdities are nothing but foolishness based on a failure to understand the range of normal coinage produced with equipment available at the U.S. Mints."

This is an excellent summary of why I discount Breen's work.  Most of it seems to be based on speculation and a lack of understanding of contemporary manufacturing methods.  Every coin with a nice strike or reflective/unusual properties was suddenly a "specimen" or "proof" when in likelihood, the pieces represented normal variations of business strikes.  For instance, in attributing his branch mint proof 1906-D dime, Breen relied heavily on strike and the reflectivity of the fields.  True proof coins of the era were not double struck as Breen opined, and he overlooked the reality that a coin struck from a fresh dies very easily could have a strong strike and reflective fields.  There are multiple prooflike coins known for the series, so it is likely that Breen's "proof" was nothing more than a semi-PL or perhaps even fully PL dime worth a premium, but certainly far less than a true branch mint proof would be worth.

[coinman_23885]

Speaking of odd nickels, here is a new Buffalo nickel I recently acquired.  I only wish Breen were alive.  I wonder if I might have been "awarded" a letter for this one which has prooflike fields in hand:

 

[physics-fan3.14]

29 minutes ago, coinman_23885 said:

"Many of the claims for "specimen" or special striking" or other weirdities are nothing but foolishness based on a failure to understand the range of normal coinage produced with equipment available at the U.S. Mints."

This is an excellent summary of why I discount Breen's work.  Most of it seems to be based on speculation and a lack of understanding of contemporary manufacturing methods.  Every coin with a nice strike or reflective/unusual properties was suddenly a "specimen" or "proof" when in likelihood, the pieces represented normal variations of business strikes.  For instance, in attributing his branch mint proof 1906-D dime, Breen relied heavily on strike and the reflectivity of the fields.  True proof coins of the era were not double struck as Breen opined, and he overlooked the reality that a coin struck from a fresh dies very easily could have a strong strike and reflective fields.  There are multiple prooflike coins known for the series, so it is likely that Breen's "proof" was nothing more than a semi-PL or perhaps even fully PL dime worth a premium, but certainly far less than a true branch mint proof would be worth.

Never Fear! Julian Liedman has taken up Breen's obsession with unauthenticated, undocumented, completely ludicrous "branch mint proof" claims. If you want to sell a PL coin for a ridiculous premium, just convince Liedman that you've got the formerly unheard of specimen strike, and he'll sell it for thousands more than it's worth! 

Here, ladies and gents, I've got the complete run of turn of the century proofs! 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

But wait! There's more! If these aren't Proofs, I don't know what are! Too bad Wally's been discredited, how could I ever get a letter saying these are proofs! I'd gladly pay a hundred bucks for these! 

[coinman_23885]

12 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

Never Fear! Julian Liedman has taken up Breen's obsession with unauthenticated, undocumented, completely ludicrous "branch mint proof" claims. If you want to sell a PL coin for a ridiculous premium, just convince Liedman that you've got the formerly unheard of specimen strike, and he'll sell it for thousands more than it's worth! 

Are you encouraging me to send him the 1937-D buffalo nickel with prooflike fields?   

[physics-fan3.14]

4 minutes ago, coinman_23885 said:

Are you encouraging me to send him the 1937-D buffalo nickel with prooflike fields?   

I'll cut you a deal! $50 and I'll declare it a Branch Mint Proof! Just send it to me!

Edited July 7, 2017 by physics-fan3.14

[coinman_23885]

43 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

I'll cut you a deal! $50 and I'll declare it a Branch Mint Proof! Just send it to me!

There might be precedent for calling it a specimen.    I wish I could actually view one of the 1927 specimen coins (as recognized by PCGS in hand).  Here is the catalog description for a PCGS SP65 1927 Buffalo nickel (see second paragraph):

(P.S.  I am not making fun of the authenticator at all.  I respect JA and the two major services).

 

Quote

Specimen 1927 Buffalo Nickel, SP65
Probably Struck From Chromium-Plated Dies
One of Only Three Pieces Known

1927 Special Strike 5C SP65 PCGS. Twenty years ago, I closely examined one of the most interesting discoveries that has ever crossed my desk. Three Specimen 1927 Buffalo nickels had just been certified by NGC after being sold to Jim Halperin at a coin show. The source of these pieces was unknown. However, after consulting with Walter Breen it seemed reasonable to conclude that these coins came from the estate of John Sinnock. Sinnock was a "quiet and unassuming" man, according to Neil Harris, former editor of The Numismatist, but he was "always trying new things." Sinnock's collection was consigned to the joint ANA-CNA auction conducted by Kelly and Charlton in Detroit in 1962. In that auction, lot 352 contained 10 Buffalo nickels. Three were dated 1927, three 1930, and four 1934. All were described as Uncirculated and the lot sold for $60 on a $75 estimate. Of course, no one knows today whether the three Specimen coins were the same three 1927 nickels in this lot from Sinnock's estate, but Walter Breen thought it was a reasonable conjecture.

One of the problems encountered when these coins first appeared is that they were totally unsuspected. There is no actual documentation that says such coins were struck. No one knew they existed. And yet when they appeared the physical evidence from the coins themselves was incontrovertible. When John Albanese of NGC examined the coins, he stated: "I could have sworn they were Proof." However, "It's terribly hard to call them a Proof without any backup. ... We couldn't call them Uncirculated or a Proof. They are definitely something special. We felt classifying them as Specimen was the proper thing to do."
Jim Halperin purchased two of the coins from an unspecified source. His impression at the time was noted in a Coin World article shortly after purchase: "Two of the coins came to me as standard MS-65s, but when I examined them, I was impressed by their extraordinary texture. It reminded me of the Satin Finish Proofs minted in 1936, but to see texture like that on a 1927 mintage was unbelievable! It didn't seem possible."

Several months of on-again, off-again investigation of these pieces ensued. It was suggested that these special nickels were distributed to members of the Assay Commission. The problem with this theory is that the Assay Commission only dealt with gold and silver coins. There also was a medal struck and given to members of the 1927 Assay Commission. What was certain about these pieces is that the reverse die was leftover from the matte proof strikings from 1913-1916. This was first observed by Walter Breen who wrote an opinion of one of the coins where he stated in part: " ... with complete knife rims, in all details comparable to 1913-16 'Type I' Proofs. Surfaces are satin finish and untampered. (The diagonal line on reverse flat rim about 8 o'clock is in the original die from which hubs and working dies came; no business strikes are brought up enough in strike to show it.)"

The first breakthrough in discovering the origin of these coins came from an entry in the 1928 Report of the Director of the Mint: "At the Philadelphia Mint a chromium plating plant has been installed and is being used for greatly improving the wearing qualities of dies, coin collars, machinery parts and models." George Hunter at the Philadelphia Mint said chromium-plated dies had been used on U.S. proof coinage since 1972, and he said these dies left telltale signs when they were used. Chromium-plated dies show microcracking in a "crazing pattern." In more common parlance, coins struck from such dies show a "dry riverbed look" in the fields. This microcracking is very subtle and is more easily seen toward the edge of the coin in the thin area between the light and dark areas of the coin's surface. Strong magnification is also required, he suggested between 10x and 50x. The three coins all had evidence of microcracking. On this particular coin the evidence can only be seen on the obverse because the plastic lip of the PCGS encasement covers the reverse rim.
It is our opinion that these Specimen strikings most closely conform to Dr. Judd's definition of an experimental coin:

" ... include those struck with any convenient dies to try out a new metal, such as aluminum, a new alloy, such as goloid, or a new denomination; those which represent a new shape, such as the ring-dollars; those which represent a new use of an accepted metal, such as nickel for a ten-cent piece; and those representing changes in planchets for the purpose of preventing counterfeiting, sweating, filling or the clipping of the edges of the coins. Those struck in the proper metal, where it is specified, are experimental pieces ... ."

While these pieces do not neatly fit into any of the categories listed by Dr. Judd, one can easily see that coins struck from a new process would fit into the experimental coin category.
The striking details on this piece are, of course, beyond reproach. No trace of weakness can be seen on either side. Because of the plastic encasement it is impossible to see the curved die scratch on the left side of the reverse rim. The coin displays all the necessary features to qualify it as a Satin Finish proof. Each side shows lovely light blue and rose colored toning. This particular coin can be distinguished from the two others known by the presence of a tiny spot on the end of the Indian's nose, a cluster of carbon specks below the chin, and several in the reverse field that are no higher than the bison's hooves.
Ex: Jim Halperin; Larry Whitlow; Andy Lustig; "Southern Gentleman." (NGC ID# 278W, PCGS# 3987) 

Fees, Shipping, and Handling Description: Coins & Currency (view shipping information) 

Sales Tax information  | PCGS Guarantee of Grade and Authenticity  |  Terms and Conditions 

Bidding Guidelines and Bid Increments

Glossary of Terms

 

Edited July 7, 2017 by coinman_23885

[kidrootbeer]

40 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

I'll cut you a deal! $50 and I'll declare it a Branch Mint Proof! Just send it to me!

we all know that most older Proofs can be known by their die varieties-and that is a really pretty 1908-S IHC...

[coinman_23885]

1 minute ago, allmine said:

we all know that most older Proofs can be known by their die varieties-and that is a really pretty 1908-S IHC...

Some of Breen's "specimen" or "proof" coins were unique or near unique.  Moreover, many of them lacked the traditional die diagnostics associated with proofs of the issue (see, e.g., Breen's 1917 putative matte proof wheat cent).

[kidrootbeer]

Walter was Unique unto himself; plenty of others have scribed that information: Jules Reiver/Bob Grellman spring to mind...
and Yes, like the '27 Specimen Nickels, you want to see more than one example

Edited July 7, 2017 by allmine

[kidrootbeer]

fwiw: we bought the Signer of a Certain Maine National Bank's Currencies' coin collection. For a little Bank in Maine, there was a LOT of stuff: proof-like $5.00 Classic Gold, uncut sheets of NB Currency Serial #1's, some Unique Medals, etc. You never know what you'll see in the coin collection of someone who had the wherewithal to make one

Edited July 7, 2017 by allmine

[physics-fan3.14]

10 hours ago, allmine said:

and that is a really pretty 1908-S IHC...

Thanks. I bought it from Rick Snow as a PCGS 65, crossed it to NGC as 65+. Need to submit it for designation review to get the PL. 

Rick said that this coin was formerly owned by Q David Bowers. 

[WoodenJefferson]

That 1898 half is off the hook!

[Afterword]

At least with Carr, he was able to defend himself against the ridicule and small, petty and cruel jokes. It is too bad this type of thing did not disappear along with the old message boards.