Don't be misled by incorrect 1910 Satin proof gold comment ATS 0

[RWB]

The following false comment was posted ATS by a well known numismatist. Obviously mistakes happen, but these are simply perpetuation of falsehood.

"The Mint responded by altering the proofing process in 1909 and 1910. The coins were struck on specially selected blanks and struck multiple times, but the sandblasting was no longer done. These pieces were struck on a medal press, multiple times, with special dies, and on special planchets. However, their appearance was still confusing to many collectors to that of a fully detailed business strike.
The finish used on these coins has gone by several names over the years. These have been variously referred to over the years as brilliant matte proofs, Satin proofs, bright proofs, new style proofs, and yellow proofs. But the name that has stuck has been the enigmatic "Roman Gold" proof. This term has been in use since the early 1940s, but no one seems to know the source of the term. According to Walter Breen (1977), the surfaces of such coins are "light in color, midway between satiny and mirrorlike, entirely without the granularity of matte or sandblast."

The first two highlighted comments are absolutely false. Satin proof gold of that era was struck once on a high pressure medal press. The ONLY difference between satin and sandblast, is the actual physical sandblasting of the coin at the Philadelphia Mint.

The longer third comment is also false because the Breen BS of "Roman Gold" has been abandoned by modern collectors and dealers in favor of the accurately descriptive "satin proof." Breen's term was totally meaningless and invented becuase he did not do the research necessary to learn what was really done in 1909-10 and in other situations at later dates.

There is no evidence one way or the other that blanks were "specially selected;" however, it is a reasonable idea when making a premium product for very picky collectors.

 

[GoldFinger1969]

I think I see the term "Roman" in descriptions because people brought up on Breen's stuff look for that key word since the new terminology might not "grab" them.

I kept getting the 2 different proofs from that era confused when I read about them in your book and QDB's.  Had to break down all the key descriptives into the 2 camps:  Roman Gold....Matte Proof....Satin Proof....Sandblasted....etc.  The words would change and I wouldn't know which coin the author/article was talking about.

And I believe you told me that the modern "shiny mirror-like" proof appearance that most of us know today didn't happen until a few decades later.

Edited November 10, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

Did anybody correct the "well-known numismatist ?"

Edited November 10, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[Sandon]

  Is there any contemporary written record of how the U.S. Mint created each of the non-traditional finishes of the proof coins of the 1907-21 era?

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/10/2022 at 12:17 PM, Sandon said:

  Is there any contemporary written record of how the U.S. Mint created each of the non-traditional finishes of the proof coins of the 1907-21 era?

Roger covers it in his American Renaissance series.

[VKurtB]

On 11/9/2022 at 7:40 PM, RWB said:

The following false comment was posted ATS by a well known numismatist. Obviously mistakes happen, but these are simply perpetuation of falsehood.

"The Mint responded by altering the proofing process in 1909 and 1910. The coins were struck on specially selected blanks and struck multiple times, but the sandblasting was no longer done. These pieces were struck on a medal press, multiple times, with special dies, and on special planchets. However, their appearance was still confusing to many collectors to that of a fully detailed business strike.
The finish used on these coins has gone by several names over the years. These have been variously referred to over the years as brilliant matte proofs, Satin proofs, bright proofs, new style proofs, and yellow proofs. But the name that has stuck has been the enigmatic "Roman Gold" proof. This term has been in use since the early 1940s, but no one seems to know the source of the term. According to Walter Breen (1977), the surfaces of such coins are "light in color, midway between satiny and mirrorlike, entirely without the granularity of matte or sandblast."

The first two highlighted comments are absolutely false. Satin proof gold of that era was struck once on a high pressure medal press. The ONLY difference between satin and sandblast, is the actual physical sandblasting of the coin at the Philadelphia Mint.

The longer third comment is also false because the Breen BS of "Roman Gold" has been abandoned by modern collectors and dealers in favor of the accurately descriptive "satin proof." Breen's term was totally meaningless and invented becuase he did not do the research necessary to learn what was really done in 1909-10 and in other situations at later dates.

There is no evidence one way or the other that blanks were "specially selected;" however, it is a reasonable idea when making a premium product for very picky collectors.

 

Question, Roger. Is there any indication what the MINT called the 1909 and 1910 product? Or did they even refer to them by any name at all? If they didn’t, aren’t all names equally unofficial?

[RWB]

On 11/10/2022 at 10:49 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Satin Proof....Sandblasted.

These are correct and appropriately descriptive. The others are bovine excrement left over from Wally being... "out, standing in a field."

[RWB]

"Matte" is reserved solely for Lincoln and Buffalo early proofs. No more confusion not more ambiguity, etc.

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/9/2022 at 8:40 PM, RWB said:

....However, their appearance was still confusing to many collectors to that of a fully detailed business strike.....

My only objection is to the gratuitous use of the completely made-up term, "business strike" to describe the surfaces of coins from over 100 years ago. Contemporary accounts, if still extant, would more properly refer to them as "circulation strikes."  It seems to me, any well-known numismatist would know this.

[MarkFeld]

On 11/9/2022 at 7:40 PM, RWB said:

The following false comment was posted ATS by a well known numismatist. Obviously mistakes happen, but these are simply perpetuation of falsehood.

"The Mint responded by altering the proofing process in 1909 and 1910. The coins were struck on specially selected blanks and struck multiple times, but the sandblasting was no longer done. These pieces were struck on a medal press, multiple times, with special dies, and on special planchets. However, their appearance was still confusing to many collectors to that of a fully detailed business strike.
The finish used on these coins has gone by several names over the years. These have been variously referred to over the years as brilliant matte proofs, Satin proofs, bright proofs, new style proofs, and yellow proofs. But the name that has stuck has been the enigmatic "Roman Gold" proof. This term has been in use since the early 1940s, but no one seems to know the source of the term. According to Walter Breen (1977), the surfaces of such coins are "light in color, midway between satiny and mirrorlike, entirely without the granularity of matte or sandblast."

The first two highlighted comments are absolutely false. Satin proof gold of that era was struck once on a high pressure medal press. The ONLY difference between satin and sandblast, is the actual physical sandblasting of the coin at the Philadelphia Mint.

The longer third comment is also false because the Breen BS of "Roman Gold" has been abandoned by modern collectors and dealers in favor of the accurately descriptive "satin proof." Breen's term was totally meaningless and invented becuase he did not do the research necessary to learn what was really done in 1909-10 and in other situations at later dates.

There is no evidence one way or the other that blanks were "specially selected;" however, it is a reasonable idea when making a premium product for very picky collectors.

 

The “well known numismatist” has removed the incorrect portion of his post. While you obviously had no obligation to do so, if you’d messaged him, he would have been aware of it and taken action much sooner. Thank you.

Edited November 20, 2022 by MarkFeld

[Nutmeg Coin]

Curious what thread was being referenced.

 

There is this thread where collectors are awaiting a final verdict on whether a 1910 $10 Indian is a proof or business strike....

 

1910 10 dollar Indian, any chance this is a proof? Update, Back from NGC! - Page 2 — Collectors Universe

[MarkFeld]

On 11/20/2022 at 12:59 PM, Nutmeg Coin said:

Curious what thread was being referenced.

 

There is this thread where collectors are awaiting a final verdict on whether a 1910 $10 Indian is a proof or business strike....

 

1910 10 dollar Indian, any chance this is a proof? Update, Back from NGC! - Page 2 — Collectors Universe

That was the thread in which I’d posted an old Heritage lot description about 1908-1915 Proof gold coinage.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/20/2022 at 2:21 PM, MarkFeld said:

That was the thread in which I’d posted an old Heritage lot description about 1908-1915 Proof gold coinage.

For Saints, Indian Heads, or both, Mark ?

[MarkFeld]

On 11/20/2022 at 5:39 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

For Saints, Indian Heads, or both, Mark ?

The referenced thread was about a 1910 $10. My post originally contained an old description for a four piece ($2.50, $5, $10 and $20) 1910 Proof gold set.