Interesting Finds Regarding Proof (1921) Peace Dollars 2 2

[FlyingAl]

I was over at ATS when I was reading a thread about an exceptionally well struck circulation strike 1921 Peace dollar, so I made the comparison that the strike rivals a proof. Then I discovered that PCGS labels all proofs as "matte" while the proof shown was clearly (in my opinion) a satin proof. There were no exceptions to this rule, I need to ask why, but first I need to get a few things straight: 

Just a brief definition segment so we're all on the right track with the different proof finished discussed (all dies are identical to circulation strike dies before these treatments, and all planchets are polished):

Matte: dies get a sandblasting before they are used in striking coins.

Satin: Dies have no special treatment, the proofs look unique due to a polishing of the planchets and special handling as well as extra pressure and a slow strike from a medal press.

Sandblast: A satin proof is taken and individually sandblasted.

The reason I wanted to post this over here is that in the course of my research, I discovered Roger's old comments about these proofs ATS and he stated that satin and sandblast proofs were struck of the dollars of 1921. I agree fully with the satin proofs, but what Roger termed as sandblast proofs appear more like matte proofs to me based on the images I saw. Which is true? Are there any mint documents supporting the striking of any proof 1921 dollar?

The satin proof:

[RWB]

On 6/28/2022 at 1:19 PM, FlyingAl said:

Matte: dies get a sandblasting before they are used in striking coins.

Satin: Dies have no special treatment, the proofs look unique due to a polishing of the planchets and special handling as well as extra pressure and a slow strike from a medal press.

Sandblast: A satin proof is taken and individually sandblasted.

Matte refers ONLY to early Lincoln cents and Buffalo nickels.

The other two are correct.

Referring to the 1921/1922 sandblast proof dollars as "matte" was a pile of horse droppings that someone (Breen ?) started just after WW-II. I blame Breen because he was prone to invent things when he didn't bother to do the research to learn the truth. From the first coin-use of sandblasting in 1908, the coins were always called "sandblast" or "sand blasted" which was also the Medal Dept.'s normal means of finishing most medals. (The work was done in the same department bu the same people.)

About 20 years ago Dave Bowers and I began reverting to the original descriptive names for such pieces. "Matte" returned to "sandblast;" "Roman proof" returned to "satin." I was the one who did the research and discovered what was actually done. Kevin Flynn added more about sandblasting from a document he located. Since then, usage has slowly moved back to the original description approach for these and several other terms that have been misused for a long time. I also recommended reserving "matte" for the Lincoln and Buffalo proofs because that was a suitable descriptive term, and there could no longer be confusion about what "matte" meant.

I have no clue about what the US Mint means with their surface descriptions. They refuse to fully explain and are not consistent -- hence I ignore them.

Edited June 28, 2022 by RWB

[FlyingAl]

On 6/28/2022 at 11:25 AM, RWB said:

Matte refers ONLY to early Lincoln cents and Buffalo nickels.

The other two are correct.

Referring to the 1921/1922 sandblast proof dollars as "matte" was a pile of horse droppings that someone (Breen ?) started just after WW-II. I blame Breen because he was prone to invent things when he didn't bother to do the research to learn the truth. From the first coin-use of sandblasting in 1908, the coins were always called "sandblast" or "sand blasted" which was also the Medal Dept.'s normal means of finishing most medals. (The work was done in the same department bu the same people.)

About 20 years ago Dave Bowers and I began reverting to the original descriptive names for such pieces. "Matte" returned to "sandblast;" "Roman proof" returned to "satin." I was the one who did the research and discovered what was actually done. Kevin Flynn added more about sandblasting from a document he located. Since then, usage has slowly moved back to the original description approach for these and several other terms that have been misused for a long time. I also recommended reserving "matte" for the Lincoln and Buffalo proofs because that was a suitable descriptive term, and there could no longer be confusion about what "matte" meant.

I have no clue about what the US Mint means with their surface descriptions. They refuse to fully explain and are not consistent -- hence I ignore them.

Alright, sounds good. Just one last question: 

Were the proofs of the 1921 dollars that are sandblast made in the same process of the sandblast 1911-1916 gold? Or is the process of their production unclear? 

[GoldFinger1969]

And today's MIRROR PROOFS which have been around for decades....which of the 3 methods are they closest to ?

[FlyingAl]

On 6/28/2022 at 12:43 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

And today's MIRROR PROOFS which have been around for decades....which of the 3 methods are they closest to ?

None. Those proofs are made by taking a normal pair of dies, acid dipping them to etch the surface, and then polishing the fields. Of course there are nuances to what I've said, but that's the general idea. I also took the liberty of not using the modern method of sandblasting the dies, which in my opinion ruins the finished coin. I've developed a general distaste to the modern proofs after I discovered 1936-64 CAM and DCAM proofs, which have a frost that just looks natural. 

Edited June 30, 2022 by FlyingAl

[FlyingAl]

On 6/28/2022 at 12:43 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

And today's MIRROR PROOFS which have been around for decades....which of the 3 methods are they closest to ?

Found this post I made ATS for the 1950-64 era, 1936-42 is very similar, albeit without retouching the die to make sure that the frost was there. 1936-42 proof CAMs were entirely unintentional.

For the true numismatists here, here's a description of proof die production in this era (50-64)

A normal die was taken and inspected for flaws, then acid dipped or pickled in 95% alcohol and 5% nitric acid.

A worker would check the die to make sure there was not weakness in frost, if there was a spot with frost weakness then there would be an additional step of taking a swap of the aforementioned solution, and applying it to the die to strengthen the frost and ensure there was no area missing frost. Some 1959 halves show this on the reverse of the bell in the lower right, it's rather interesting to see. I'm not sure if CoinFacts has an example to show, but you could look in both the CAM and DCAM sections to try and find one. I'll check and edit my post here if I see one. Edit: I found one, note the difference in texture and color on the lower right of the bell:

The above step would have created a die with a uniformly frosted surface, so the worker would need to polish the fields with a diamond dust compound. This would be done with a wooden mandril and then a felt tipped mandril. The polishing would not reach the devices, and as such they maintained their cameo appearance.

The dies were inspected to ensure everything looked right and they went into production. There were no test strikes. If there were any in the design process, they would be patterns and they would appear deep cameo and are unknown today, I doubt they ever existed.

During the 1970s, the acid was switched for a sandblasting of the die, which made the DCAM or CAM appearance last for hundreds of thousands of strikes. The frost also appeared different.

 

[RWB]

On 6/28/2022 at 1:43 PM, FlyingAl said:

Alright, sounds good. Just one last question: 

Were the proofs of the 1921 dollars that are sandblast made in the same process of the sandblast 1911-1916 gold? Or is the process of their production unclear? 

The work would have been performed by the Medal Dept., who were the same ones who used a medal press to strike the coins.

It is important to understand that there are several ordinary 1921 and 1922 low relief coins that were sandblasted outside of the mint in order to imitate a proof. To confuse things further, there seem to be several 1921 and 1922 HR coins that were both sandblasted and antiqued to more closely resemble medals. Some of these have appeared slabbed as proofs, but lack the necessary clarity of detail.

[RWB]

On 6/28/2022 at 2:53 PM, FlyingAl said:

The above step would have created a die with a uniformly frosted surface, so the worker would need to polish the fields with a diamond dust compound. This would be done with a wooden mandril and then a felt tipped mandril. The polishing would not reach the devices, and as such they maintained their cameo appearance.

The general description is correct, but diamond dust was never used -- cerium oxide was the polishing agent. All of this was before the use of friskets (masks) to isolate relief for frosting and possible re-frosting.

We do not have really complete data on this little side-discussion of making modern proof coins.

[FlyingAl]

On 6/28/2022 at 12:56 PM, RWB said:

The work would have been performed by the Medal Dept., who were the same ones who used a medal press to strike the coins.

This makes sense, the coins were struck in the same process as the sandblast gold, and they weren't made with sandblasted dies. Thanks for the clarification!

On 6/28/2022 at 1:01 PM, RWB said:

cerium oxide was the polishing agent.

I know this was true for the 1936-42 proofs, but did this carry over into the 1950-64 era? I got the diamond dust compound statement from a book that was specifically focused on the 1950-64 proofs, so I wonder if perhaps the book was wrong or the agent did change?

[numisport]

On 6/28/2022 at 3:05 PM, FlyingAl said:

This makes sense, the coins were struck in the same process as the sandblast gold, and they weren't made with sandblasted dies. Thanks for the clarification!

I know this was true for the 1936-42 proofs, but did this carry over into the 1950-64 era? I got the diamond dust compound statement from a book that was specifically focused on the 1950-64 proofs, so I wonder if perhaps the book was wrong or the agent did change?

Rick Tomaska's book is very informative and involved input from early collectors and dealers that specialized in the heaviest contrasted proof coinage of 1950 through 1964. Whether or not diamond dust was used exclusively is tough to confirm, but he was the one who lobbied NGC and PCGS to include Cameo designations in their grading services. In his book you'll find some of the most heavily contrasted coins imaged but not all necessarily the highest graded pieces. I think these same die prep practices carried into 1971 and appears to be used for SMS coinage as well. 

[RWB]

1. Some of the 1965 SMS coin die preparation and production is in pubic US Mint literature.

2. Emery and rouge were still used in the 1930-40s. Cerium oxide was the post-WW-II standard largely because it was more consistent grit size. Diamond dust was too costly and harsh for coinage dies. Cerium remains in use for telescope optics.

[MarkFeld]

On 6/28/2022 at 12:25 PM, RWB said:

Matte refers ONLY to early Lincoln cents and Buffalo nickels.

The other two are correct.

Referring to the 1921/1922 sandblast proof dollars as "matte" was a pile of horse droppings that someone (Breen ?) started just after WW-II. I blame Breen because he was prone to invent things when he didn't bother to do the research to learn the truth. From the first coin-use of sandblasting in 1908, the coins were always called "sandblast" or "sand blasted" which was also the Medal Dept.'s normal means of finishing most medals. (The work was done in the same department bu the same people.)

About 20 years ago Dave Bowers and I began reverting to the original descriptive names for such pieces. "Matte" returned to "sandblast;" "Roman proof" returned to "satin." I was the one who did the research and discovered what was actually done. Kevin Flynn added more about sandblasting from a document he located. Since then, usage has slowly moved back to the original description approach for these and several other terms that have been misused for a long time. I also recommended reserving "matte" for the Lincoln and Buffalo proofs because that was a suitable descriptive term, and there could no longer be confusion about what "matte" meant.

I have no clue about what the US Mint means with their surface descriptions. They refuse to fully explain and are not consistent -- hence I ignore them.

Why is “matte” a “suitable descriptive term” for Lincoln and Buffalo Proofs, but not 1908 and 1911-1915 Proof U.S. gold coins?

coins

[RWB]

On 6/28/2022 at 9:15 PM, MarkFeld said:

Why is “matte” a “suitable descriptive term” for Lincoln and Buffalo Proofs, but not 1908 and 1911-1915 Proof U.S. gold coins?

coins

1. Sandblast was the standard name for sandblasting a coin or medal. It is specifically descriptive. "Matte" might convey surface appearance but "sandblast" includes more information.

2. Thanks to Breen "matte" was being tossed about  as a surface description for several types of coins, leading to needless confusion. A rule of engineering is that the same term should not be applied to different classes of object.

3. "Sandblast" does not work well for the cents and nickels, because the coins were not directly treated - only the dies were treated.

Hence the original descriptive term was re-applied to gold and certain silver proofs that were treated to a literal blast of fine sand at the mint. "Matte" works well as a descriptive of the surface effect when proof dies were sandblasted.

Another detail to mention --- modern sandblasting of medals or coins will not reproduce the early 20th century appearance. Back then they used real silica (silicon oxide); now sandblasting is done with glass beads which are more uniform in size, and thus allows better control over the final effect. (For Saint-Gaudens sandblast proofs, use of different grit sizes and contaminated grit made each batch unique as well as each coin.)

Edited June 30, 2022 by RWB

[CaptHenway]

On 6/28/2022 at 12:50 PM, FlyingAl said:

None. Those proofs are made by taking a circulation pair of dies, acid dipping them to etch the surface, and then polishing the fields. Of course there are nuances to what I've said, but that's the general idea. I also took the liberty of not using the modern method of sandblasting the dies, which in my opinion ruins the finished coin. I've developed a general distaste to the modern proofs after I discovered 1936-64 CAM and DCAM proofs, which have a frost that just looks natural. 

If I might toss out two-thirds of a quibble here, what do you mean by "a circulation pair of dies?" There are certain Proof issues where dies were made specifically for the Proof coinage from slightly modified artwork. These do occasionally turn up on a business strike coin, to the delight of cherrypickers everywhere.

TD

[VKurtB]

On 6/28/2022 at 8:49 PM, RWB said:

1. Sandblast was the standard name for sandblasting a coin or medal. It is specifically descriptive. "Matte" might convey surface appearance but "sandblast" includes more information.

2. Thanks to Breen "matte" was being tossed about  as a surface description for several types of coins, leading to needless confusion. A rule of engineering is that the same term should not be applied to different classes of object.

3. "Sandblast" does not work well for the cents and nickels, because the coins were not directly treated - only the dies were treated.

Hence the original descriptive term was re-applied to gold and certain silver proofs that were treated to a literal blast of fine sand at the mint. "Matte" works well as a descriptive of the surface effect when proof dies were sandblasted.

Another detail to mention --- modern sandblasting of medals or coins will not reproduce the early 20th century appearance. Back then they used real silica (silicon oxide); now sandblasting is done with glass beads which are more uniform in size, and thus allows better control over the final effect. (For Saint-Gaudens sandblast proofs, use of different grit sizes and contaminated grit made each batch unique as well as each coin.

But NOW all proof die devices are etched using lasers. Even glass beads are passé. 

[RWB]

CaptHenway's comment is correct. However, it is unusual for a different pair of hubs to be used for proofs but not for circulation.

[MarkFeld]

On 6/28/2022 at 8:49 PM, RWB said:

1. Sandblast was the standard name for sandblasting a coin or medal. It is specifically descriptive. "Matte" might convey surface appearance but "sandblast" includes more information.

2. Thanks to Breen "matte" was being tossed about  as a surface description for several types of coins, leading to needless confusion. A rule of engineering is that the same term should not be applied to different classes of object.

3. "Sandblast" does not work well for the cents and nickels, because the coins were not directly treated - only the dies were treated.

Hence the original descriptive term was re-applied to gold and certain silver proofs that were treated to a literal blast of fine sand at the mint. "Matte" works well as a descriptive of the surface effect when proof dies were sandblasted.

Another detail to mention --- modern sandblasting of medals or coins will not reproduce the early 20th century appearance. Back then they used real silica (silicon oxide); now sandblasting is done with glass beads which are more uniform in size, and thus allows better control over the final effect. (For Saint-Gaudens sandblast proofs, use of different grit sizes and contaminated grit made each batch unique as well as each coin.

Thanks very much.

[FlyingAl]

On 6/29/2022 at 3:28 PM, CaptHenway said:

If I might toss out two-thirds of a quibble here, what do you mean by "a circulation pair of dies?" There are certain Proof issues where dies were made specifically for the Proof coinage from slightly modified artwork. These do occasionally turn up on a business strike coin, to the delight of cherrypickers everywhere.

TD

What I was getting at was that the dies used for proofs and the ones for circulation coinage were the same in production methods up to that point (hubbing and hardening was the same for proof and circulation dies). I neglected to think of those examples where the hubs for proof coinage were slightly different (Washington quarters and Lincoln cents now come readily to mind). In general, the statement I was trying to make is that there's no difference in production of a proof die until the last step of polishing or sandblasting the die for proof coinage. 

I hope this answered your question?

[CaptHenway]

Just remove "circulation" and yuou should be OK.

[Henri Charriere]

[I will go further... why not jettison "business" strike and revert to "circulation" strike.  (If I knew the 2016 gold Mercury dime was nothing but a "circulation" strike in a fancy presentation case, I never would have gotten one. I was had, but good.)]  

[RWB]

On 7/2/2022 at 10:10 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

why not jettison "business" strike and revert to "circulation" strike.

Yep. ALL coinage is the Mint's "business." Circulation coinage is distinct from commemorative coins, collectors' proof coins, etc ...don't forget mint spoons !

[RWB]

"Be terrific! Be specific!"

[FlyingAl]

On 7/2/2022 at 9:19 PM, RWB said:

Yep. ALL coinage is the Mint's "business." Circulation coinage is distinct from commemorative coins, collectors' proof coins, etc ...don't forget mint spoons !

I use this distinction at every opportunity, but the whole field of numismatics seems a bit behind on the terminology. 

Just yesterday I saw a well known coin dealer that commonly sells $100k plus coins list a 1912 proof quarter-eagle as "matte proof" DOH! 

[RWB]

It's very slow. I completed the 3-book series Renaissance of American Coinage almost 20 years ago. I doubt that 5% of dealers and fewer collectors have read any part of it or aware of the immense changes in numismatic knowledge they present. In the 1960s the eminent Don Taxay used about 25 pages to describe the coinage renaissance period and present most of what was believed at the time. I used about 1,000 pages to describe events of the same period - with footnotes, of course.

Two of the large auction companies are slowly moving to the "new" (much is actually old that was displaced after WW-II) and more accurate terminology, but most coin sellers simply don't care.

[Henri Charriere]

On 7/2/2022 at 11:20 PM, RWB said:

"Be terrific! Be specific!"

Thanks. Your counsel is sound and I shall make an effort to take it to heart.

[VKurtB]

On 7/2/2022 at 9:10 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

[I will go further... why not jettison "business" strike and revert to "circulation" strike.  (If I knew the 2016 gold Mercury dime was nothing but a "circulation" strike in a fancy presentation case, I never would have gotten one. I was had, but good.)]  

That was clear all along. 

[Henri Charriere]

On 7/3/2022 at 11:36 AM, VKurtB said:

That was clear all along. 

That's what I get for stepping out of the hobby for so long.

[VKurtB]

On 7/3/2022 at 10:38 AM, Quintus Arrius said:

That's what I get for stepping out of the hobby for so long.

The worst part is that it wasn’t the size of a dime (there was no way it could be) and it wasn’t a particularly nice striking of the design, especially the reverse. 

[VKurtB]

On 7/2/2022 at 10:28 PM, FlyingAl said:

I use this distinction at every opportunity, but the whole field of numismatics seems a bit behind on the terminology. 

Just yesterday I saw a well known coin dealer that commonly sells $100k plus coins list a 1912 proof quarter-eagle as "matte proof" DOH! 

Al, I’ve never seen a 1912 proof gold coin NOT described as “matte proof” by a seller. 

[FlyingAl]

On 7/3/2022 at 9:45 AM, VKurtB said:

Al, I’ve never seen a 1912 proof gold coin NOT described as “matte proof” by a seller. 

Yeah, that's the unfortunate part. To me, it's almost like calling a proof a circulation strike, because the coins are entirely different in production processes. Of course, it's not the same, but it's mildly annoying that sellers don't take the time to learn the correct terminology. Sandblast just fits the look of the coins too. Who knows !