Roger Burdette's 1936-1942 Proofs Book 1 1

[FlyingAl]

I've had many conversations about these proofs with Roger over private messages, but his comment about being able to discuss with others (referring to @GoldFinger1969's thread) made me decide to bring my next question to the public forum. 

Roger, you state in your section on manufacturing the proofs that you viewed three groupings of 1936 proof sets (still in their mint mailing boxes). There were 28 coins in total. My questions are as follows - where did you find such a large grouping of these coins in their original state, and do you have photographs of the coins?

[GoldFinger1969]

FlyingAl, why don't you tell us a few things you learned from the book that maybe you didn't know ?  Any "shockers" or things that you found REALLY interesting ?

Let's jumpstart this thread.  I may have to check out the book, sounds interesting ! 

 

[ldhair]

It's a great book. I'm still reading it. 

[FlyingAl]

On 11/26/2022 at 3:55 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

FlyingAl, why don't you tell us a few things you learned from the book that maybe you didn't know ?  Any "shockers" or things that you found REALLY interesting ?

Let's jumpstart this thread.  I may have to check out the book, sounds interesting ! 

 

Well, I must say it's been a while since I read it the first time. What might have been shocking then is almost certainly not now, and what I took from the book I use almost every day searching for these proofs so it all blends together. 

I will say it is the most complete reference and covers everything and anything one wants to know about these proofs. It can't be more recommended from me (in other words you should definitely pick up a copy). Roger and I seem to take a similar stance on what makes a proof from this era exceptional, so I'll share a little about that and what I use to conduct my eBay or auction searches for these pieces, as well as an interesting discovery I had a few weeks ago.

The first big thing about these coins is detail. If you pulled up a random registry set right now and looked at it, chances are that it has some coins that have sub-par detail when compared to a proof with full detail. The over polishing of the dies in this era was quite frankly catastrophic to a lot of the proofs, and it remains the reason that very few cameos were ever produced, along with a few other factors. Finding the proofs with good detail in a particular grade is very difficult, sometimes impossible if you want attributes like attractive color. Very few collectors get that and instead buy the number on the label, which is why I call very few of the top sets "exceptional" if you will.

Secondly, the book does an excellent job of putting into print every die use for these coins that is known currently. This was initially a part of the book that I skipped over, but now I use it almost daily as my focus starts to shift from sets to cameo coins. It was exceptionally cool when I was able to pin-point the use dates of a particular die pair, which I'll share here:

Roger had mentioned in his book that one die pair for 1942 proof halves had a doubled die obverse, and that we would likely never know which die it was. Challenge accepted! I was able to identify a cameo coin from that die pair, so I knew that it had to have been paired with a new obverse and reverse. A quick look at the die data showed more than a few dies that could meet this criteria. However, Roger hypothesized that it must have been a die that struck over 3000 coins, and I agreed based on the percentage of coins with that particular obverse. That narrowed it down to one die pair and obverse die. 

Die #65, first used on February 11th, was the doubled die obverse die. It was one of two die pairs that struck cameo proofs for the date/denomination. Die #65 was paired with a new reverse, and then paired with a reverse that had been used before, and which was then condemned for a weak monogram. Pictures of these coins are below. We can therefore track die #65 to a use date on February 11th and 24th, as well as March 10th and 23rd. It struck over 3,500 coins, and all cameos from this die were produced on February 11th. 

I found this discovery really cool. It is exceptionally rare when you can track the striking of a coin to a single day in history. The tracking of the second coin to confirm isn't really necessary, but it backs up the logic with proof.

Cameo coin, Die #65 obverse and Reverse #108. Struck February 11th, 1942. Not the best image, but it's what Coinfacts had.

Weak Monogram (AW on right lower corner under eagle) coin, Die #65 and Reverse #65. Struck February 24th. 

[GoldFinger1969]

Having read through Roger's Saints Double Eagles book with 650 pages and LOTS of footnotes....I am WELL aware of his attention to detail. 

I find that you can learn alot about things he just touches on -- like small denomination gold coin circulation here and overseas -- just by focusing on the FN's.  And I have to re-read the book again, like you, because there is SO MUCH information I couldn't absorb it all the first time.

How many pages is the Proof Book ?

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/26/2022 at 6:23 PM, FlyingAl said:

Cameo coin, Die #65 obverse and Reverse #108. Struck February 11th, 1942. Not the best image, but it's what Coinfacts had.

Weak Monogram (AW on right lower corner under eagle) coin, Die #65 and Reverse #65. Struck February 24th. 

Beautiful coins....now THESE are proofs I can have grow on me, as opposed to the ones decades earlier.  Not the modern mirror-like proofs I am used to but you can see the artistic beauty come through with the clean fields.  

Edited November 26, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[FlyingAl]

On 11/26/2022 at 4:33 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Having read through Roger's Saints Double Eagles book with 650 pages and LOTS of footnotes....I am WELL aware of his attention to detail. 

I find that you can learn alot about things he just touches on -- like small denomination gold coin circulation here and overseas -- just by focusing on the FN's.  And I have to re-read the book again, like you, because there is SO MUCH information I couldn't absorb it all the first time.

How many pages is the Proof Book ?

328 pages. No small detail goes unnoticed!

On 11/26/2022 at 4:34 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Beautiful coins....now THESE are proofs I can have grow on me, as opposed to the ones decades earlier.  Not the modern mirror-like proofs I am used to but you can see the artistic beauty come through with the clean fields.  

Exactly. Once you see a few nice coins from the era, they grow quickly on you. However, you've got to look and know what to look for to find them.

[RWB]

On 11/26/2022 at 4:16 PM, FlyingAl said:

Roger, you state in your section on manufacturing the proofs that you viewed three groupings of 1936 proof sets (still in their mint mailing boxes). There were 28 coins in total. My questions are as follows - where did you find such a large grouping of these coins in their original state, and do you have photographs of the coins?

I devote an unusual amount of time to talking with and listening to collectors - they are the owners of most of these things. Nearly all are very private about their collections. Many articles, and almost all my books have protected files containing confidential information and publication approvals. Therefore and book might include a comment such as the one FlyingAl mentioned, but no details. That is intentional to respect the wishes of individuals/dealers and integrity of confidential research sources. (Anyone who as allowed me to mention their coins or photograph them, knows that I go through an information verification and publication process for each detail that might appear in print. This includes attribution in footnotes/bibliography, photo captions, and other information that could suggest an owner or where they live.)

[RWB]

On 11/26/2022 at 6:23 PM, FlyingAl said:

I will say it is the most complete reference and covers everything and anything one wants to know about these proofs. It can't be more recommended from me.... Roger and I seem to take a similar stance on what makes a proof from this era exceptional,

Thank you for the nice comments. The book (and articles), like most I write, is intended to be a long-term resource. As for "exceptional" I merely state facts and observations as objectively as I can. Labels, "expert" comments, seller notions, and so forth are not primary sources -- they are, at best, merely confirmation. As with the DE book, that produces considerable disagreement between my examination results and so-called "revealed wisdom." That also produces the freedom to state observation results without no consideration of "cost" or "rarity" or other extraneous conditions. That is, I respect the collectors' and try to give them the best information - then let them decide the entire "value" subject. (It's the same approach as for grading coins.)

[RWB]

On 11/26/2022 at 6:23 PM, FlyingAl said:

I found this discovery really cool. It is exceptionally rare when you can track the striking of a coin to a single day in history. The tracking of the second coin to confirm isn't really necessary, but it backs up the logic with proof.

Cameo coin, Die #65 obverse and Reverse #108. Struck February 11th, 1942

FlyingAl's investigation is certainly an example of pulling additional information out of the larger data stream. (It's what is done with "big data" where details are analyzed and squeezed for their juices.) I hope others will take a similar approach.

[FlyingAl]

On 11/27/2022 at 1:48 PM, RWB said:

I devote an unusual amount of time to talking with and listening to collectors - they are the owners of most of these things. Nearly all are very private about their collections. Many articles, and almost all my books have protected files containing confidential information and publication approvals. Therefore and book might include a comment such as the one FlyingAl mentioned, but no details. That is intentional to respect the wishes of individuals/dealers and integrity of confidential research sources. (Anyone who as allowed me to mention their coins or photograph them, knows that I go through an information verification and publication process for each detail that might appear in print. This includes attribution in footnotes/bibliography, photo captions, and other information that could suggest an owner or where they live.)

Thanks Roger, this answers my question perfectly. I had never heard of an original state 1936 proof set being known, let alone 28 proofs in original mailing boxes! I think they must have been wonderful to behold!

[Hoghead515]

Spoiler

 

On 11/26/2022 at 6:23 PM, FlyingAl said:

Well, I must say it's been a while since I read it the first time. What might have been shocking then is almost certainly not now, and what I took from the book I use almost every day searching for these proofs so it all blends together. 

I will say it is the most complete reference and covers everything and anything one wants to know about these proofs. It can't be more recommended from me (in other words you should definitely pick up a copy). Roger and I seem to take a similar stance on what makes a proof from this era exceptional, so I'll share a little about that and what I use to conduct my eBay or auction searches for these pieces, as well as an interesting discovery I had a few weeks ago.

The first big thing about these coins is detail. If you pulled up a random registry set right now and looked at it, chances are that it has some coins that have sub-par detail when compared to a proof with full detail. The over polishing of the dies in this era was quite frankly catastrophic to a lot of the proofs, and it remains the reason that very few cameos were ever produced, along with a few other factors. Finding the proofs with good detail in a particular grade is very difficult, sometimes impossible if you want attributes like attractive color. Very few collectors get that and instead buy the number on the label, which is why I call very few of the top sets "exceptional" if you will.

Secondly, the book does an excellent job of putting into print every die use for these coins that is known currently. This was initially a part of the book that I skipped over, but now I use it almost daily as my focus starts to shift from sets to cameo coins. It was exceptionally cool when I was able to pin-point the use dates of a particular die pair, which I'll share here:

 

Roger had mentioned in his book that one die pair for 1942 proof halves had a doubled die obverse, and that we would likely never know which die it was. Challenge accepted! I was able to identify a cameo coin from that die pair, so I knew that it had to have been paired with a new obverse and reverse. A quick look at the die data showed more than a few dies that could meet this criteria. However, Roger hypothesized that it must have been a die that struck over 3000 coins, and I agreed based on the percentage of coins with that particular obverse. That narrowed it down to one die pair and obverse die. 

Die #65, first used on February 11th, was the doubled die obverse die. It was one of two die pairs that struck cameo proofs for the date/denomination. Die #65 was paired with a new reverse, and then paired with a reverse that had been used before, and which was then condemned for a weak monogram. Pictures of these coins are below. We can therefore track die #65 to a use date on February 11th and 24th, as well as March 10th and 23rd. It struck over 3,500 coins, and all cameos from this die were produced on February 11th. 

I found this discovery really cool. It is exceptionally rare when you can track the striking of a coin to a single day in history. The tracking of the second coin to confirm isn't really necessary, but it backs up the logic with proof.

Cameo coin, Die #65 obverse and Reverse #108. Struck February 11th, 1942. Not the best image, but it's what Coinfacts had.

Weak Monogram (AW on right lower corner under eagle) coin, Die #65 and Reverse #65. Struck February 24th. 

How often did they have to polish those proof dies? You can see not only the monogram is weaker but some detail also. For example the detail in the log and other places. There may be no way to know for certain but how many times do you think those dies were polished between the first coin and the second? Just an estimate? I find it very interesting and Ive been wanting to learn more about polishing and the frequency. Ive always wondered how much of the surface gets removed each time.  I guess it probably has to do with how much damage and how much is needed. But I figured they probably didnt strike as many proofs between polishings. Figured they took better care of those. Thats just my opinions only and very interested in learing any thing more that I can. Did they keep records for every time they had to polish them or did they just do it and continue on? Sorry if these questions are uninteresting. Im find things like that very interesting. 

Edited November 28, 2022 by Hoghead515

[Hoghead515]

Hopefully I didnt hide the last comment. My fat fingers hitting buttons. I think I hid it and I tried to unhide it. Let me know if its not visable and Ill try again. 

[FlyingAl]

On 11/27/2022 at 5:50 PM, Hoghead515 said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

How often did they have to polish those proof dies? You can see not only the monogram is weaker but some detail also. For example the detail in the log and other places. There may be no way to know for certain but how many times do you think those dies were polished between the first coin and the second? Just an estimate? I find it very interesting and Ive been wanting to learn more about polishing and the frequency. Ive always wondered how much of the surface gets removed each time.  I guess it probably has to do with how much damage and how much is needed. But I figured they probably didnt strike as many proofs between polishings. Figured they took better care of those. Thats just my opinions only and very interested in learing any thing more that I can. Did they keep records for every time they had to polish them or did they just do it and continue on? Sorry if these questions are uninteresting. Im find things like that very interesting. 

At the time that second coin was struck, the reverse die had been used on four separate occasions. I can't be sure how many times it was repolished, but I'd expect at least once or twice. 

The mint recorded each use of each die, as well as the number of coins that it struck for each use. Records do not see to show each polish, but I could be mistaken. There are some exceptions, but they are infrequent. Hope this answers your questions! 

[Hoghead515]

On 11/27/2022 at 8:58 PM, FlyingAl said:

At the time that second coin was struck, the reverse die had been used on four separate occasions. I can't be sure how many times it was repolished, but I'd expect at least once or twice. 

The mint recorded each use of each die, as well as the number of coins that it struck for each use. Records do not see to show each polish, but I could be mistaken. There are some exceptions, but they are infrequent. Hope this answers your questions! 

Does the reverse dies usually wear out faster than the obverse? I noticed they are still using the obverse and not the reverse they started with on the coins above. Or does it just depend on which die is harder that last the longest? Youd think the die that does the hammering would wear out faster. Which die do they usually fix on the hammering end? Sorry if these questions are aggravating. I need to read about it again. I read a little in FMTM this evening. Skipped to where they are engraving the dies but have not made it to where they set the dies in the press yet. Its been well over a year since I last read about it. Ive forgotten alot since then. Im sorry I done blew the thread way off topic. Maybe this will help others get a better understanding of why so many die pairs were used. And start getting back on topic.  Very cool you were able to trace down the die pairs of those coins. Once I get a better understanding Id enjoy further researching into doing that. Ive still got alot to learn first though. 

[FlyingAl]

On 11/27/2022 at 7:15 PM, Hoghead515 said:

Does the reverse dies usually wear out faster than the obverse? I noticed they are still using the obverse and not the reverse they started with on the coins above. Or does it just depend on which die is harder that last the longest? Youd think the die that does the hammering would wear out faster. Which die do they usually fix on the hammering end? Sorry if these questions are aggravating. I need to read about it again. I read a little in FMTM this evening. Skipped to where they are engraving the dies but have not made it to where they set the dies in the press yet. Its been well over a year since I last read about it. Ive forgotten alot since then. Im sorry I done blew the thread way off topic. Maybe this will help others get a better understanding of why so many die pairs were used. And start getting back on topic.  Very cool you were able to trace down the die pairs of those coins. Once I get a better understanding Id enjoy further researching into doing that. Ive still got alot to learn first though. 

No, they generally wear at the same rate. In this case, the reverse die had been paired with a different obverse earlier (so it had already stuck over two thousand coins before being paired with the DDO obverse), and then was paired with the DDO obverse die after its' third use. It just so happened that this reverse die was paired with the die that struck the cameo coins, which led to its discovery and matching up its die number.

Not aggravating at all! This is exactly why I started the thread!

Edited November 28, 2022 by FlyingAl

[RWB]

"Proof" dies were ordinary ones that were polished. Some lasted longer than others in the hydraulic press and were repolished more times. The average strikes between polishing was about 800 -- but with wide variation. The polishing was done by Adam Pietz and there are a couple of comments in the die book (Sept 28, 1937 - below) about him ruining a die by excess polishing. There are other comments about weak design details. It appears that all proof coins have inferior detail compared to the best normal circulation coins. This is most evident on the dime and half because they have more detail than the quarter and Jeff nickel.

[FlyingAl]

On 11/28/2022 at 7:17 AM, RWB said:

"Proof" dies were ordinary ones that were polished. Some lasted longer than others in the hydraulic press and were repolished more times. The average strikes between polishing was about 800 -- but with wide variation. The polishing was done by Adam Pietz and there are a couple of comments in the die book (Sept 28, 1937 - below) about him ruining a die by excess polishing. There are other comments about weak design details. It appears that all proof coins have inferior detail compared to the best normal circulation coins. This is most evident on the dime and half because they have more detail than the quarter and Jeff nickel.

Roger, would you agree with me if I stated that some cameo proofs certainly had equal or better detail than their circulation counterparts? I've seen some very nice cameo proofs that blew me away. Of course, they aren't the norm. 

I notice that February 27th and August 13th show "tryout" dies with bases ground down. What was the mint doing with these dies - I don't think I've heard of the mint grinding down dies. 

[RWB]

Grinding refers to the base of the die shank, not the face. The purpose was to get a good fit in the medal press. That one technician succeeded indicates different levels of skill.

Polishing always removes material, therefore a polished die can never, in theory, have as much detail as an unpolished die. In a practical sense, there are multiple variables that could affect visible detail and us ordinary folk do not have the discriminatory training to see the differences.

[FlyingAl]

On 11/28/2022 at 2:51 PM, RWB said:

Grinding refers to the base of the die shank, not the face. The purpose was to get a good fit in the medal press. That one technician succeeded indicates different levels of skill.

Polishing always removes material, therefore a polished die can never, in theory, have as much detail as an unpolished die. In a practical sense, there are multiple variables that could affect visible detail and us ordinary folk do not have the discriminatory training to see the differences.

I see, this makes much more sense now. Thanks for clarifying!

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/28/2022 at 4:51 PM, RWB said:

Polishing always removes material, therefore a polished die can never, in theory, have as much detail as an unpolished die. In a practical sense, there are multiple variables that could affect visible detail and us ordinary folk do not have the discriminatory training to see the differences.

Question....if you use a super-fine polish that removes microscopic materials invisible to the naked eye...combined with a much nicer Cameo appearance...couldn't you end up with a much nicer-looking coin that only under magnification can you see loss of detail ?

[FlyingAl]

On 11/28/2022 at 11:15 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Question....if you use a super-fine polish that removes microscopic materials invisible to the naked eye...combined with a much nicer Cameo appearance...couldn't you end up with a much nicer-looking coin that only under magnification can you see loss of detail ?

I think this was the conclusion we reached - that while the coins may be much more attractive, and therefore desirable, they still have less detail than the circulation coins. As you said, it could be invisible to the naked eye.

[RWB]

...or invisible to the untrained eye. The engraver's notebook mentioned many tiny changes being tested or made for quarters and nickels. George Morgan noted a difference in the 1916-1917 McKinley dollars. Dav Bowers and I spent nearly an hour several years ago trying to find the difference(s) --- nada to our eyes.

Edited November 30, 2022 by RWB

[FlyingAl]

I made this pretty cool (to me) discovery in a bit of research I was doing on the 1942 and 1942-P proof nickels. Using CoinFacts and Roger Burdette's die tables and book United States Proof Coins 1936-1942 for these two coins, I noticed a die variety that Roger pointed out carries on into the later half of 1942 proof nickel production and is used for CU-AG-MN coins.

A bit of background - 1942-P copper-silver manganese nickels were a major burden for the medal department. Only 47.6 percent of the coins struck by the dies ever made it past quality control. This is a major reduction from the 88% the CU-NI nickels had earlier in the year.The alloy of CU-NI-MN was brittle and prone to cracking. The high pressure strike of the medal press likely caused the alloy to crack more and caused more failed coins. Half the success usually meant extra dies. Dies were expensive, so if there were dies to be used, the mint would use them. The mint did just that in 1942 - it used Type One obverse dies to strike Type Two coins.

I started with what I knew. There was a proof Type One nickel obverse die with a die chip that was easily visible, circled here:

A Type Two example has the same die chip here:

I wanted to figure out what day the coins with the chip were struck on. I had little to go off of but this:

In October, the mint began striking the Type 2 nickels in proof. They used three old obverse dies from the Type One proofs, die numbers 122, 124, and 456. I'll break down what number of coins each die struck:

122- 6,385 CU-NI, 1,500 CU-AG-MN (First Used Oct 10 for silver alloy coins)
124- 5,190 CU-NI, 1,000 CU-AG-MN (First Used Oct 20 for silver alloy coins)
456- 3,300 CU-NI, 3,900 CU-AG-MN (First Used Oct 23 for silver alloy coins)

One of these dies had to be the one with the die chip. I compared how many coins of of each type one and type two proofs had the die crack. I came up with about 9 percent Type Two coins and roughly 28% Type One coins. By doing some math with the amount of coins struck with obverse dies and the percent we get:

T1 with chip - .28 * 25,895 total coins struck by an obverse die = 7250 coins with chip struck
T2 with chip - .093 * 19,550 total coins struck by an obverse die = 1818 coins with chip struck

Well, we now know a ballpark estimate of what we should be looking for. From this, we can rule out Die Number 456 as it doesn't even get close to out estimate. The other two dies are too close to call.

Now we get to the real detective work. Dies 122 and 124 are nearly identical. I believe I found examples of both dies in the Type One format, and the only difference is the die chip. They both seem to pop up at about the same rate and look very similar.

Here is where I'll throw in the comparison of Dies #122 and #124 (In my experience and opinion on #124 based on what I've seen - I could almost prove it but don't feel the need.) I will prove die #122 has the chip later on.

Die #122 (Obverse)

Die #124 (Obverse)

I couldn't match anything based on reverse die usage. Both obverse dies were paired with the same reverse dies (one exception, but I had no luck finding a coin from that exception) for the Type One format. I had to turn to the dies in the Type Two format. I knew that they were paired with the new reverse dies 387 and 388, respectively.

The 122/387 combo would prove to be the saving grace needed to identify the striking date. Both dies were condemned after one day of usage, so those two reverse dies are the only two that need to be focused on. Die 387 is noted later as condemned for being "Worn out", while die number 388 (paired with obverse 124) is condemned as "Cracked".

We immediately notice some lettering weakness on the die chip 1942 Type Two Proofs, shown here - this is suggestive of reverse die #387 and it will prove to be reverse die #387:

It's not bad, but remember - this die is brand new. Any weakness of this caliber on a brand new die is to be noted. We also know that at the time die #387 was condemned, it was paired with an obverse die that was also condemned for "Worn Out - Pig Tail." This "Pig Tail" refers to Jefferson's queue. The obverse it was paired with was used solely on CU-AG-MN coins for those wondering. I was able to find an example of that pairing (457 obverse/387 reverse pre condemnation):

You'll immediately notice the weakness is in the same areas circled above, but worse after multiple repolishes. We know definitively that the reverse die that the die chipped die (obverse) was paired with is number 387. That die is #122. Mystery solved!

To offer further proof, we know that reverse die #387 struck 5,300 coins (most of any reverse die for T2). By doing some math, I concluded that roughly 35% of the CoinFacts coins were struck by die #387. This comes out to roughly 7,000 or so coins, which corroborates what I was saying (known populations won't exactly mirror what the data should say, but it should still fit).

Secondly, if you think or scroll back to the picture I posted of die #124, you'll probably notice the similarities here to it, paired with a reverse die for a T2 nickel without any letter weakness:

I do believe the die was repolished before use as a T2 obverse, which accounts for slight detail change. However, we know that die #388 was condemned for cracking rather than weak lettering, so the sight of a coin with a strong reverse is further support. You can also see what appears to be a die chip in the upper left obverse field, as well as some seemingly minor micro-cracks in the upper reverse field. This would indicate the reason reverse die #388 was condemned - cracking.

With this information, if you have a die chipped 1942 Proof Type Two Nickel, you know it was struck on October 10th, 1942.

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

most excellent @FlyingAl 

[numisport]

In case anyone is interested I've nearly completed my '36 to '42 proofs with my sets only lacking the 1936 brilliant Lincoln cent, the satin cent and the satin Buffalo nickel. View my registry sets if you wish. These are not finest known but include all CAC coins with above average eye appeal. I've avoided the Pf 68 coins because many are not appealing to me with heavy toning and dull mirrors. Better images will follow someday

[RWB]

Very nice! Does this carry forward to the circulating coinage?

[FlyingAl]

On 12/2/2022 at 2:30 PM, RWB said:

Very nice! Does this carry forward to the circulating coinage?

I did not find an example that showed the die chip on a circulation strike coin.

[Hoghead515]

On 12/2/2022 at 12:51 PM, numisport said:

In case anyone is interested I've nearly completed my '36 to '42 proofs with my sets only lacking the 1936 brilliant Lincoln cent, the satin cent and the satin Buffalo nickel. View my registry sets if you wish. These are not finest known but include all CAC coins with above average eye appeal. I've avoided the Pf 68 coins because many are not appealing to me with heavy toning and dull mirrors. Better images will follow someday

You got some very nice coins. I went and checked your registry out. Very nice sets. 

[FlyingAl]

A poster over at PCGS asked me if I could track down the striking date of a cameo 1940 proof nickel he had, I'm happy to say I could. Here are my findings:

Your coin was struck September 11th, 1940. There were three new obverse dies that were paired with new reverse dies (requirement for a CAM coin for the era) for the year with the Rev. of 40, at least two produced cameo coins. Your coin was struck from the die that did not have major recutting of the queue.

Your coin:

I wish to point out two areas of die markers here:

Here is a different coin from the same die pair (note the same markers) that was used for quite some time. It was then put back into service with the same obverse reverse die combo:

Die combo 73/45 was first used Sep. 11th, and it was the only die that was used in combo with a same obverse to gain noticeable die wear. Combo 72/42 (second new die pair) only struck 300 coins, and was never paired together again. Combo 436/46 (third new die pair) struck 320 coins and was never paired together again.

However, the Sep. 11th die pair (73/45) was used for 950 coins together. These dates were Sep. 11th (350 coins), Nov. 16th (500 coins), and Dec. 3rd (100 coins). During that time (Oct 24), only the obverse was paired with a different reverse die (#44) for 840 coins which explains why the obverse shows more die wear than the reverse.

I do not believe that 300 coins would show the wear we see on the obverse die. The die pair had to be the same over a period of time long enough to show visible die fatigue, and I believe upwards of 1190 coins would cause that. The September 11th die pair is the only logical explanation in my eyes.