1909 possibly rare wheat penny 1 1

[Kerrykz]

Looking for thoughts and advice.. I think this maybe a match

[World Colonial]

I'm not proficient at identifying Lincoln proofs of this period (1909-1916) but your coin doesn't look like a proof to me.  It looks like a lightly circulated circulation strike, an AU.

If you really have what you think, send it in for grading but I don't think you will like the result.

[Lem E]

I don’t know. Those rims look pretty sharp and the doubling looks like a pretty good match. Wouldn’t that be a hell of a find. I’m interested in seeing where this goes.

[J P M]

It is a cool looking 09 and the TE look close. Was this coin in a collection ?

[Kerrykz]

I don't enough about proofs. But I can't find a match for the doubling anywhere else 

[Kerrykz]

And no.. random purchase off ebay 

 

[Lem E]

Take a look at where the inner rim meets the fields. It should be a very sharp 90 degree angle. A normal cent will have more of a smoother rounded transition. That’s a good place to start.

[J P M]

The article you posted at the top says it is unknown ? So not proven yet. You may want to send it in to Wexler for a looksee ? If they have more examples it may be put on the list. 

[Sandon]

   Welcome to the NGC chat board.

   I highly doubt that your 1909 Lincoln cent is a matte proof, much less the one from the reverse die discovered in 2010 that is believed to have been used to strike only 180 of the 2,618 or fewer proofs that were struck.  Based on your photos, it lacks both the unusually broad, high and squared off rims and the finely grainy surfaces associated with matte proofs. The obverse rim of your coin appears to be beveled, which would be uncharacteristic of a matte proof. Your coin should have these characteristics despite slight wear. Compare your coin to the photos of actual matte proofs in the NGC Coin Explorer and PCGS Coinfacts, as well as to photos of circulation strikes. Better yet, try to find coin shows or other venues where you can compare your coin to certified matte proofs and circulation strikes.  There were 72.7 million 1909 Lincoln cents struck for circulation, as opposed to the 2,618--some sources say 2,198--proofs issued.  The odds of one of any variety turning up unattributed in a "random purchase off ebay" are extremely small.

   You are apparently comparing your coin, whose proof status is undetermined, with a known matte proof of the rarer variety.  It is possible, though I know of no reference to, a circulation strike made from the same or a similar die as that proof variety. There may or may not be substantial collector interest in such a circulation strike variety. As others have said here, the ultimate determination would have to be made by experts such as at a reputable grading service such as NGC, PCGS, or ANACS.  

  Here is a photo of a known matte proof graded PF 67 BN from PCGS Coinfacts:

Edited February 25, 2023 by Sandon
clarify it's a reverse die

[RWB]

Not a 1909 proof cent.

[Coinbuf]

A very interesting find, your coin does not appear to be a proof, but does have the characteristics of that die.   As was already suggested I would contact Mr. Wexler and see if he can provide any insight.   While I have no data to support such a claim, I would not be surprised if the mint used this die to strike circulation coinage once it had outlived its usefulness for proof coinage production.

[Kerrykz]

I did email all of this to Wexler.  And I'm just following info as I learn it. I have no idea what this is for sure

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/25/2023 at 11:51 AM, Coinbuf said:

I would not be surprised if the mint used this die to strike circulation coinage once it had outlived its usefulness for proof coinage production.

Was that standard/allowed ?  I thought once the proof run was over, they'd destroy or remove the proof dies, however worn.

Maybe using worn proof dies to mint circulation coins was standard ?

[World Colonial]

On 2/25/2023 at 9:18 AM, Lem E said:

I don’t know. Those rims look pretty sharp and the doubling looks like a pretty good match. Wouldn’t that be a hell of a find. I’m interested in seeing where this goes.

Could be, but it's not one I collect.  

[Coinbuf]

On 2/25/2023 at 10:42 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Was that standard/allowed ?  I thought once the proof run was over, they'd destroy or remove the proof dies, however worn.

Maybe using worn proof dies to mint circulation coins was standard ?

Roger @RWB knows more about the die usage at the mint than I do, however, I seem to recall reading and seeing several instances where circulating coinage had all the proper markers of proof coinage and dies for some years/mints.   Again, not an expert but I think this was done when there was a shortage of dies or as a cost savings measure.

[ldhair]

On 2/25/2023 at 12:35 PM, Coinbuf said:

Roger @RWB knows more about the die usage at the mint than I do, however, I seem to recall reading and seeing several instances where circulating coinage had all the proper markers of proof coinage and dies for some years/mints.   Again, not an expert but I think this was done when there was a shortage of dies or as a cost savings measure.

I agree. Some proof dies were used for circulating coinage. With that said, the OP coin is not an actual matte proof. 

[Sandon]

 

On 2/25/2023 at 12:42 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I thought once the proof run was over, they'd destroy or remove the proof dies, however worn.

   This is a somewhat different topic, but at times in the past dies used for proofs were subsequently used to strike circulating coins.

   In the nineteenth century, for some coins with low circulation strike mintages, the same dies that were used to strike proofs were used to coin some or all of the circulation strikes. The 1880 Shield nickel is a notable example in which a single die pair is said to have been used to strike all proofs and circulation strikes. (I do not know why grading services purport to be able to tell well circulated proofs and circulation strikes apart or why collectors pay high premiums for such purported circulation strikes.) 

   From 1956 through 1964, proof quarter dies, which employed "Type B" reverses, were apparently repurposed to strike circulation strikes, which for some of these years form a substantial minority of the Philadelphia mint circulation strikes.  There are also a number of circulation strike 1958 and 1959 Philadelphia Franklin half dollars that feature the "Type 2" reverse used on most 1956 proofs and all 1957-63 proofs.  Many uncirculated examples of these quarters and half dollars that I have seen have somewhat prooflike surfaces on both sides, suggesting that both sides were made from retired proof dies.

  I don't know whether any research has been done to determine whether any dies used to strike 1909-16 matte proof cents were also used to coin circulation strikes of those dates, which attract much less attention because they are so common. @Kerrykz's coin could conceivably lead to such research.

[powermad5000]

I'm no expert on Lincoln Proofs, but it could always be possible that a matte proof somehow got accidentally put into circulation. I once got a statehood quarter proof in my change at a McDonalds drive through window. Not likely, but not impossible scenario either.

[RWB]

In the 19th century proof dies might or might not be used for several years, depending on how they looked, A few were turned over to circulation coinage - but there's no consistency. When 20th century matte  proof cent and nickels dies were sandblasted they were used only for proofs. They deteriorated early due to surface damage from quartz particles chipping off steel which, in turn, abraded the die surface. In 1913 Barfber complained of this caused by the original rough texture on Buffalo nickel dies. (BTW - The "square rims and field to rim junction" were present on all dies. The extra pressure of a medal press caused the dies to fill completely (or should have).

Edited February 26, 2023 by RWB

[VKurtB]

Maybe I’m high or something, but isn’t the whole WAM and CAM business in the 1990’s about using proof reverse dies for circulation cents?

[World Colonial]

On 2/25/2023 at 5:53 PM, powermad5000 said:

I'm no expert on Lincoln Proofs, but it could always be possible that a matte proof somehow got accidentally put into circulation. I once got a statehood quarter proof in my change at a McDonalds drive through window. Not likely, but not impossible scenario either.

There are tens of millions of proof SQ.  How many MPL?  Somewhere around 20,000?  It's also been over a century since the last one was struck and all of them are worth real money while proof SQ isn't worth much of anything.  Someone might have intentionally spent the proof SQ.

[robec1347]

The inside rim is sharp, but the outside rim is beveled. It’s not unusual for Lincoln’s made for circulation to have sharp rims, both inside and out. 
MPL rims

One thing not seen are any of the known diagnostics for the 1909 proof  

 

 

Edited March 1, 2023 by robec1347
Add photos

[Kerrykz]

https://www.pcgs.com/news/1909-matte-proof-new-coin-die-discovered

[robec1347]

On 3/1/2023 at 9:45 AM, Kerrykz said:

https://www.pcgs.com/news/1909-matte-proof-new-coin-die-discovered

Ok, rim sharpness remains the same. 
 

Here is the main obverse marker for the rarer, newer discovered die. 

 

Reverse markers

A diagonal die scratch inside the C of CENT. This doesn’t appear in the reverse of reverse die 1

A diagonal die scratch extending from the bottom right leg of the M in UNUM towards the top of the E in ONE

Edited March 1, 2023 by robec1347
Added more photos and reverse diagnostics

[Kerrykz]

Okay. Had it looked at... so it is a circulation strike. But the reverse was made with the mpl #2 die.  

[Sandon]

   

On 3/4/2023 at 10:03 AM, Kerrykz said:

Okay. Had it looked at... so it is a circulation strike. But the reverse was made with the mpl #2 die.  

   That's very interesting. Who made this determination?

[Kerrykz]

Didn't ask permission so not going to drop a name... 

Your coin appears to have been struck from the reverse die used in minting the 1909 MPL 1c Die #2. It is recognized by the doubling on the top of the T and E in united. This does not give it Matte Proof status. 

 

Your coin is well circulated and I can't match it to the obverse die that was used to strike the 1909 Matte Proof Die 2. Die 2 has die lines in the field between Lincolns eye and the rim of the coin. "see the image above" There is no sign of any die lines on the obverse of your coin in the location as shown, like the image above.

 

I have to call your coin a Mint State example that has been circulated. Not having the coin in hand also hinders my abilities to further attribute.

[robec1347]

On 3/4/2023 at 7:36 AM, Kerrykz said:

Didn't ask permission so not going to drop a name... 

Your coin appears to have been struck from the reverse die used in minting the 1909 MPL 1c Die #2. It is recognized by the doubling on the top of the T and E in united. This does not give it Matte Proof status. 

 

Your coin is well circulated and I can't match it to the obverse die that was used to strike the 1909 Matte Proof Die 2. Die 2 has die lines in the field between Lincolns eye and the rim of the coin. "see the image above" There is no sign of any die lines on the obverse of your coin in the location as shown, like the image above.

 

I have to call your coin a Mint State example that has been circulated. Not having the coin in hand also hinders my abilities to further attribute.

Having the doubling in the top of the T and E isn’t proof your coin is struck from Die #2. I’ve seen high grade MS 1909’s in CoinFacts that have these two markers. A couple of things that sets them apart from actually being struck from Die #2 is they are missing the die scratch inside the C of CENT as well as the die scratch under the right leg of the M in UNUM. In order to have been struck from the MPL die it would have to have these markers as well.