Does Anyone Know if "One-Sided" Matte Proof 1909 VDB Cents exist?

[robec1347]

36 minutes ago, kidrootbeer said:

 It's probably not farfetched to say that the dies were probably retreated after so many strikes

This is true with MS coins or later date proofs with higher populations, but for an issue where less than 1200 were minted not so much.

[kidrootbeer]

8 hours ago, robec1347 said:

This is true with MS coins or later date proofs with higher populations, but for an issue where less than 1200 were minted not so much.

the Proof (haha couldn't resist) is that die markers disappear and new ones form

[RWB]

All dies change slightly during use. Proof dies, due to constant over-pressure, will do this faster and sometimes more dramatically than those used for circulation.

Matte proof cent and nickel dies were not resurfaced. A second sandblasting would have reduced detail to an unacceptable level. (Sandblasting is a much harsher treatment than polishing; metal is chipped off.) Brilliant polished dies could be easily re polished but always at a slight loss of detail. Proofs of the 1930s-40s indicate that during that time, quality control was very tolerant of detail degradation.

Also, Heritage photographs coins. They do not scan them.

[kidrootbeer]

16 minutes ago, RWB said:

Also, Heritage photographs coins. They do not scan them.

I visited Heritage... I beg to differ (Currency as well). Maybe Special Coins receive Special Treatment...

[The Mighty Duke]

I always get a chuckle from those who believe they know more than RWB (or a few other members of that upper-echelon knowledge, those who everyone knows 'knows their stuff), or even question what he says.  He's probably written more books and articles than the total # of coins the OP has handled.  There's always been one or two hanging around every forum, but there's been a rash of this as of late, from what I can see, on most of the forums I belong to/visit.   Isn't it incredibly easy to be an expert???? 

[kidrootbeer]

On ‎8‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 10:16 PM, The Mighty Duke said:

I always get a chuckle from those who believe they know more than RWB (or a few other members of that upper-echelon knowledge, those who everyone knows 'knows their stuff), or even question what he says.  He's probably written more books and articles than the total # of coins the OP has handled.  There's always been one or two hanging around every forum, but there's been a rash of this as of late, from what I can see, on most of the forums I belong to/visit.   Isn't it incredibly easy to be an expert???? 

dude, made my first sale-for-profit in 1972, and was a Founder of C4
ANA # less than 6 digits, and you have NO idea of my Library

[kidrootbeer]

I Respect RWB (and all others here), and I think he knows that; but that doesn't mean that I cannot disagree with something...
I think even he would find the Humour in this Thing That Happened:
A few years ago I did some restoration work on some Unique NH Obsoletes, Proofs on India Paper which were glued into the Bank's Teller Book. Foxed and falling apart... maybe the work was too good; after having them a year, the Grading Company which my customer sent them to certified them as Reprints. I called the Company, and was directed to the President. We had a jolly good conversation; basically questions were asked of him which were indefensible, and unanswerable. He asked that I return the notes to him; at the following St, Louis Paper Money show, he convened an ad hoc group consisting of four Midwest Currency aficionados, and two New England Currency Dealers, Emeritus. As he related to me in the subsequent phone call, the four dealers from west of Rhode Island agreed with the assessment. The other two dealers gently informed the group that the notes are Proofs, etc., and one had made a 5-figure offer for the entirety. I asked that he mail the lot to him, and then I asked him why he didn't think that they were Proofs. I told him what had been done to the notes, and he said, quote: "That explains it! I had never seen paper like that before!". Yet, he wouldn't change the Reprint certification: "I can't do that" he said, while acknowledging that the notes were, indeed, Proofs...

[numisport]

I normally recognize proofs as a method of manufacture. Therefore how could there exist a coin that is proof on only one side ?

[kidrootbeer]

13 minutes ago, numisport said:

I normally recognize proofs as a method of manufacture. Therefore how could there exist a coin that is proof on only one side ?

Proof Die is what I am looking for; as one VDB pair only is recognized as Proof Strike, either one in business-strike production should (theoretically) be recognizable 

[kidrootbeer]

agreed, a LOT of business-strike VDB's show tortured reverses, but they are all satin-finished with luster. This one has no luster; it's just Bright. Looks like it was scrubbed with steel wool. It has some of the distinct markers seen on the PCGS 67+: especially the tooling behind AMER and the "D" looking thing under the right stalk. The 67+ must be a Late State (I'm guessing retouched reverse die), because these marks are hardly seen on others, and never (from what I've seen so far) on Business Strikes. Of course, no one has ever done a Die Study of the VDB Proof Strikes

[kidrootbeer]

On ‎8‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 9:03 PM, numisport said:

I normally recognize proofs as a method of manufacture. Therefore how could there exist a coin that is proof on only one side ?

just one example:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/large-cents/1836-1c-pr63-red-and-brown-pcgs-n-1-r7-as-a-proof-our-eac-grade-pr63-ms63/a/1213-30050.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

[RWB]

RE: " Of course, no one has ever done a Die Study of the VDB Proof Strikes":

 Check some of Kevin Flynn' publications.

[kidrootbeer]

11 hours ago, RWB said:

RE: " Of course, no one has ever done a Die Study of the VDB Proof Strikes:

 Check some of Kevin Flynn' publications.

I find it for the 1909-P strikes...

[Conder101]

11 hours ago, RWB said:

RE: " Of course, no one has ever done a Die Study of the VDB Proof Strikes:

Don't remember the name but there was someone that wrote a book about all the varieties of the matte proof lincolns, and I believe he listed the die markers for each die.

[RWB]

Just reinforcing a little reality.

1) "Proof" is a method of manufacturing. Absent the medal press, nothing can be a "proof coin" regardless of how much we might wish it or what die is used.

2) 1909 Lincoln cent dies intended for proof manufacture were sandblasted immediately before hardening and tempering. If any were later used for circulation production the surfaces might differ from normal circulation coins until they had worn and developed "luster." But, they would not be "proofs" - only circulation strikes made with former proof dies.

3) In 1909 the Philadelphia Mint struck a large stockpile of 1909-VDB cents prior to initial release. It is difficult to imagine any need or desire to reuse a condemned proof reverse die.

[numisport]

On ‎8‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 10:38 AM, kidrootbeer said:

just one example:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/large-cents/1836-1c-pr63-red-and-brown-pcgs-n-1-r7-as-a-proof-our-eac-grade-pr63-ms63/a/1213-30050.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

I'm sure PCGS would confirm this coin was a proof strike with a 'normal' reverse die. Otherwise it wouldn't be labeled a proof.

[RWB]

19 hours ago, numisport said:

I'm sure PCGS would confirm this coin was a proof strike with a 'normal' reverse die. Otherwise it wouldn't be labeled a proof.

If it is a proof then it MUST have been struck on a medal press. Since both sides are struck at the same time, then both sides MUST be "proof" or "not proof."

[numisport]

This was exactly my original point. Roger always says it better. There is obviously no such 'one sided proof'.

[kidrootbeer]

12 hours ago, numisport said:

This was exactly my original point. Roger always says it better. There is obviously no such 'one sided proof'.

Proof Dies, people, not Proof Strike. In this instance the die wasn't lapped as much, if at all, as it should have been

[kidrootbeer]

12 hours ago, numisport said:

This was exactly my original point. Roger always says it better. There is obviously no such 'one sided proof'.

again, Proof Dies, people... and this one wasn't treated back to radial lusterness

[kidrootbeer]

12 hours ago, numisport said:

This was exactly my original point. Roger always says it better. There is obviously no such 'one sided proof'.

here ya go (struck on a Medal Press, Roger, or... ? It would seem, according to PCGS and every old-time Penny Specialist, that "it's the die" as much, or more than, the strike sometimes. Known for Bust Halves and Quarters, too):

[kidrootbeer]

On ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 10:47 PM, RWB said:

Just reinforcing a little reality.

1) "Proof" is a method of manufacturing. Absent the medal press, nothing can be a "proof coin" regardless of how much we might wish it or what die is used.

2) 1909 Lincoln cent dies intended for proof manufacture were sandblasted immediately before hardening and tempering. If any were later used for circulation production the surfaces might differ from normal circulation coins until they had worn and developed "luster." But, they would not be "proofs" - only circulation strikes made with former proof dies.

3) In 1909 the Philadelphia Mint struck a large stockpile of 1909-VDB cents prior to initial release. It is difficult to imagine any need or desire to reuse a condemned proof reverse die.

I think that they were supposed to be lapped  after use as Proofs ended. We will know for certain soon

[kidrootbeer]

just a fun quote from a Heritage auction: 2004 September Long Beach Signature SaleAuction #355: 6343
"B-1, R.1.The obverse of this lovely quarter is fully prooflike while the reverse has frosty silver luster. Fully brilliant without any indication of toning. The obverse is an earlier state than was known to Browning, without any indication of the die crack from the base of the digit 5. The reverse has the usually seen die crack in the field above the eagle. This must have been struck almost immediately after the few proofs, as most business strikes show the obverse die crack. Alternatively, this may have been a one-sided Proof with the obverse intended to be a proof striking, the reverse not polished. The logic for producing one-sided proof coins, and some such coins are actually documented, would have been that only the side visible in a presentation case needed to be made with special care. Polishing the coinage dies to produce the mirrored finish would only have been necessary for the side that would actually be visible in the case"

[numisport]

Yes of course proof strikes with one substandard side.

[physics-fan3.14]

Proof dies do not make proof coins without proof strikes. 

There are many, many examples throughout the mint's history of them using dies which were intended for proofs on business strike coins. Quite a few of the PL Bust coins and Seated liberty coins were this way. We were recently having a discussion about 1959 Type II Franklins - some of which are prooflike - which used proof dies. I don't think anyone would claim that these are proofs. And so, your so-called one-sided proof coins may have used dies that were intended for proofs (or may have even been used for a couple of proofs, and then recycled) - but that does not make it a proof! It makes it a business strike coin with a one-sided proof-like finish. That's the whole reason they call them proof-like: because they look like proofs, but aren't! 

In other news, I really hate it when auction catalogues engage in unfounded speculation. All they do is start stories based on numis-myth, which researchers then have to spend a lot of time trying to debunk even though it was a bunch of bunk to begin with. 

[kidrootbeer]

12 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

 And so, your so-called one-sided proof coins may have used dies that were intended for proofs (or may have even been used for a couple of proofs, and then recycled) - but that does not make it a proof! It makes it a business strike coin with a one-sided proof-like finish. That's the whole reason they call them proof-like: because they look like proofs, but aren't! 

In other news, I really hate it when auction catalogues engage in unfounded speculation. All they do is start stories based on numis-myth, which researchers then have to spend a lot of time trying to debunk even though it was a bunch of bunk to begin with.

That's pretty much what I was getting at...  if the obverse looked like the reverse it'd be the Finest Known Proof Red VDB by yards

Can you show us other "unfounded Speculations" by Auction Cataloguers that drive you bananas?

 

[physics-fan3.14]

57 minutes ago, kidrootbeer said:

That's pretty much what I was getting at...  if the obverse looked like the reverse it'd be the Finest Known Proof Red VDB by yards

Can you show us other "unfounded Speculations" by Auction Cataloguers that drive you bananas?

 

The one that comes immediately to mind was recently discussed in another thread: Catalogers blindly repeat the fairy tales told by certain authors about "specimen" strikings of certain commemoratives. Makes a good story, sure, but there is no documentation, evidence, or proof that they exist. 

And it isn't just auction houses. There is also another well-known dealer that seems to have a knack for finding previously unknown and undocumented supposed "Branch Mint Proofs." Despite the complete lack of evidence, this well-known dealer insists on his numis-myth. 

[kidrootbeer]

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

The one that comes immediately to mind was recently discussed in another thread: Catalogers blindly repeat the fairy tales told by certain authors about "specimen" strikings of certain commemoratives. Makes a good story, sure, but there is no documentation, evidence, or proof that they exist. 

And it isn't just auction houses. There is also another well-known dealer that seems to have a knack for finding previously unknown and undocumented supposed "Branch Mint Proofs." Despite the complete lack of evidence, this well-known dealer insists on his numis-myth. 

hey, ummmm, I was present (don't want to say "Party to") when Walter, for $100, wrote a paper 'on the spot' calling a RI-P Commem 50c a Proof-strike. It was a pretty PL, but...

Didn't W.O. Woods have some clandestine 'arrangements' with collectors and dealers?

 

[WoodenJefferson]

On ‎8‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 9:38 AM, kidrootbeer said:

just one example:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/large-cents/1836-1c-pr63-red-and-brown-pcgs-n-1-r7-as-a-proof-our-eac-grade-pr63-ms63/a/1213-30050.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

Not to sure this is a viable representation that your looking for. According to 'Coin Facts', "In 1836, Liberty's head was modified by making the tip of the coronet more pointed and the tip of the bust narrower and less rounded." There were only 8 proofs minted, do you suppose that these were struck to show the slight modifications on the obverse before the production run? 

[kidrootbeer]

8 hours ago, WoodenJefferson said:

Not to sure this is a viable representation that your looking for. According to 'Coin Facts', "In 1836, Liberty's head was modified by making the tip of the coronet more pointed and the tip of the bust narrower and less rounded." There were only 8 proofs minted, do you suppose that these were struck to show the slight modifications on the obverse before the production run? 

 not me so much, but PCGS and scores of Copper Specialists consider it a One-Sided Proof strike; and it has company. Those who don't agree are free to argue the merits with PCGS, et al. As far as intent: you would have had precedence in 1835 when the basic 'Young Head' (or Type of '36) made its appearance