Me4it Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 (edited) The thicker rimmed/thicker vdb is a nice pick from my collection. Any opinions on a grade/is it proof? I have noticed a few key die marks necessary for proof vdb pennies. Beautiful toning. Nice sharp flat rim Any thoughts guys on how to distinguish between a MS and PR vdb? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Edited February 5, 2021 by Me4it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lem E Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 I would suggest putting some gloves on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKurtB Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 I do believe there is next to zero likelihood of either being a proof. I have examined many, and these are not similar. GoldFinger1969 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWB Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 The photos do not suggest a matte proof 1909 VDB. GoldFinger1969 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket23 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 wish mine looked like that........I have 6 that are not even close to what is pictured here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me4it Posted February 5, 2021 Author Share Posted February 5, 2021 Rwb & Vkurt Im guessing you guys are right, the matte proof’s are so rare I highly doubt that’s what I’m looking at either. There should be no doubt when having a coin graded that it is a 100% exact match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Bob Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 18 hours ago, Me4it said: Any thoughts guys on how to distinguish between a MS and PR vdb? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. The main obverse die marker for a 1909 Matte Proof is raised, parallel die lines in front of Lincoln's nose, extending down to a point even with his lips. I think there are markers for the reverse, too, but I don't remember them. Shouldn't be too hard to find that information online. Regardless, I don't think yours are proofs. Nice coins, though. RonnieR131 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member: Seasoned Veteran DWLange Posted February 6, 2021 Member: Seasoned Veteran Share Posted February 6, 2021 Die markers are unnecessary to the trained eye. The coins illustrated lack the strike and texture of the proofs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKurtB Posted February 6, 2021 Share Posted February 6, 2021 53 minutes ago, DWLange said: Die markers are unnecessary to the trained eye. The coins illustrated lack the strike and texture of the proofs. Because of the paper in which 1909 proofs were sent, there are virtually no “red” proofs. Just about ALL are Brown or at best Red/Brown. Thus spake Carl Waltz of Millersville, PA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkFeld Posted February 6, 2021 Share Posted February 6, 2021 Those examples bear no resemblance to Proofs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKurtB Posted February 6, 2021 Share Posted February 6, 2021 12 minutes ago, MarkFeld said: Those examples bear no resemblance to Proofs. There is one justification for the question from newer collectors - there are many very crisply struck circulation strike 1909 cents. Why do so many still exist? Hoarding when they were new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkFeld Posted February 6, 2021 Share Posted February 6, 2021 (edited) 25 minutes ago, VKurtB said: There is one justification for the question from newer collectors - there are many very crisply struck circulation strike 1909 cents. Why do so many still exist? Hoarding when they were new. While some newer collectors might ask for that reason, my feeling is that far more ask merely because a Proof is worth considerably more money. Likewise, countless owners of common, damaged coins prefer to believe that they have rare, valuable errors. And owners of normal examples imagine that they’re seeing valuable doubted dies. Edited February 6, 2021 by MarkFeld GoldFinger1969 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKurtB Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 43 minutes ago, MarkFeld said: While some newer collectors might ask for that reason, my feeling is that far more ask merely because a Proof is worth considerably more money. Likewise, countless owners of common, damaged coins prefer to believe that they have rare, valuable errors. And owners of normal examples imagine that they’re seeing valuable doubted dies. I point out those things and I get blamed for not being “nice”. Glad you said it. My belief is that until a new collector actually gets to see one of these “special coins (of many types)” in their actual hands, under proper light, and not in Internet digital pictures, they have little to no business speculating on having one. You have to do the homework, ironically by leaving home and going to see things in person. Mr. Waltz, referenced above, has won many Class 1 (US coins) first place awards at ANA shows for his unrivaled studies on Matte Proof Lincolns. On two occasions, I was on the judging panel. GoldFinger1969 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket23 Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 boy you guys would have a field day with the proofs I picked up today 1 being a 1944 proof.....along with a 1957....both in very good shape . GoldFinger1969 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKurtB Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, rocket23 said: boy you guys would have a field day with the proofs I picked up today 1 being a 1944 proof.....along with a 1957....both in very good shape . There are no 1944 proofs. There were none between 1943 and 1949. Edited February 7, 2021 by VKurtB GoldFinger1969 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldFinger1969 Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 5 minutes ago, VKurtB said: I point out those things and I get blamed for not being “nice”. I don't think anybody should blame you or anyone else for pointing out an error in their coin evaluation. It's usually the commentary that follows that might set people off after they were disappointed to learn that their $5.00 coin isn't worth $500. RonnieR131 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkFeld Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 1 minute ago, rocket23 said: boy you guys would have a field day with the proofs I picked up today 1 being a 1944 proof.....along with a 1957....both in very good shape . What supposed 1944 proof are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKurtB Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 1 minute ago, MarkFeld said: What supposed 1944 proof are you talking about? Quiz for rocket23: Why are Belgian 1944 2 franc pieces interesting to U.S. numismatists? rocket23 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket23 Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 14 minutes ago, VKurtB said: There are no 1944 proofs. There were none between 1943 and 1949. sorry my bad, 1 unc here and 2 other proofs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket23 Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 RonnieR131 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket23 Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 13 minutes ago, VKurtB said: Quiz for rocket23: Why are Belgian 1944 2 franc pieces interesting to U.S. numismatists? nuts RonnieR131 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWB Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 On 2/5/2021 at 5:43 PM, Me4it said: Rwb & Vkurt Im guessing you guys are right, the matte proof’s are so rare I highly doubt that’s what I’m looking at either. There should be no doubt when having a coin graded that it is a 100% exact match. I think VKurt and I recognize the semantics of your comment, but it's not a matter of "guessing." There are specific and obvious characteristics by which to identify matte proof cents and nickels. If you familiarize yourself with these, you will be more readily able to distinguish circulation strike coins from legitimate proofs made on a medal press. rocket23 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKurtB Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 36 minutes ago, RWB said: I think VKurt and I recognize the semantics of your comment, but it's not a matter of "guessing." There are specific and obvious characteristics by which to identify matte proof cents and nickels. If you familiarize yourself with these, you will be more readily able to distinguish circulation strike coins from legitimate proofs made on a medal press. The toughest one to eliminate as a proof for me was several years ago I acquired a truly special 1913 Type 1 nickel that at first glance looked like a matte proof. A little deeper study revealed it to not be one, but it sure was an awesome strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKurtB Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 49 minutes ago, rocket23 said: sorry my bad, 1 unc here and 2 other proofs. Even with the bad focus I can tell this is “purtier’n a prom date”. Hoghead515 and rocket23 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKurtB Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 48 minutes ago, rocket23 said: nuts Zinc plated steel, 19mm diameter. Sound familiar? rocket23 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket23 Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 30 minutes ago, VKurtB said: Zinc plated steel, 19mm diameter. Sound familiar? yeah for a kia lug nut..... RonnieR131 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coinsandmedals Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 20 minutes ago, rocket23 said: yeah for a kia lug nut..... rocket23 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robec1347 Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 (edited) The 1909 VDB is definitely not a proof. On the Reverse all Proof VDB's have a centered dot between the D and B. The dot on yours is close to the D. There are other diagnostics, but aren't needed as proof for this coin. Proof - Dot Centered between D and B VDB - Dot close to D MS, not Proof Edited February 11, 2021 by robec1347 Corrected Proof pic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
