Popular Post ldhair Posted February 26, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted February 26, 2023 Graded by ANACS many years ago. Rod D., Coinbuf and Lem E 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandon Posted February 26, 2023 Share Posted February 26, 2023 Based upon the photos, this coin appears to be a MS 62-63 BN due to no better than average "eye appeal" and conservative ANACS "small holder" grading. If the holder says "RB", the color has likely faded since certification. I've always liked this issue as the (relatively speaking) scarcest Philadelphia issue of the "teens". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod D. Posted February 26, 2023 Share Posted February 26, 2023 64 BN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coinbuf Posted February 26, 2023 Share Posted February 26, 2023 (edited) I am torn between AU64 and MS64, lol, there are signs of stacking friction on the cheek, jaw, and coat, but my guess is ANACS called it MS64RB, maybe 63 if the rev luster is low as the photo implies. Hammered rev strike as often seen on this year, I think that in today's grading room it would go 64 or better, just depends on if those obv areas are seen as rub or the slightest bit of incomplete strike, and the rev luster. Edited February 26, 2023 by Coinbuf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lem E Posted February 27, 2023 Share Posted February 27, 2023 I like this look on copper. I have similar pieces. MS 63 BN Sandon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J P M Posted February 27, 2023 Share Posted February 27, 2023 (edited) I like it nice strike, If it is in a older ANACS holder it may have a lower than reality grade of 63RB Edited February 27, 2023 by J P M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldhair Posted February 28, 2023 Author Share Posted February 28, 2023 You guys pretty much nailed the grade but there is one more thing about the coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J P M Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 On 2/28/2023 at 6:18 AM, ldhair said: You guys pretty much nailed the grade but there is one more thing about the coin. I see a bit of a MAD strike but it is minor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coinbuf Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 On 2/28/2023 at 4:18 AM, ldhair said: You guys pretty much nailed the grade but there is one more thing about the coin. There are no significant varieties for this date that I know of, I did consider that it could be a proof due to the overall sharpness of the strike. But the rims do not look broad enough and the surfaces do not seem to look like a matte proof, perhaps the toning is disguising the surface and the holder insert is covering some of the rim? ldhair and rrantique 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Bob Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 On 2/28/2023 at 11:17 AM, Coinbuf said: ...I did consider that it could be a proof due to the overall sharpness of the strike. That was my first reaction when I saw the coin, but I will be the first to admit that I don't know enough about matte proof Lincolns to be able to make that call from a picture. Rod D. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post ldhair Posted March 1, 2023 Author Popular Post Share Posted March 1, 2023 On 2/28/2023 at 11:17 AM, Coinbuf said: There are no significant varieties for this date that I know of, I did consider that it could be a proof due to the overall sharpness of the strike. But the rims do not look broad enough and the surfaces do not seem to look like a matte proof, perhaps the toning is disguising the surface and the holder insert is covering some of the rim? You got it. The rims are hiding in the holder. Lem E, J P M, Coinbuf and 3 others 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coinbuf Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 (edited) On 2/28/2023 at 6:34 PM, ldhair said: You got it. The rims are hiding in the holder. Thats what I get for thinking with my head instead of going with my gut! Edited March 1, 2023 by Coinbuf ldhair 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandon Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 The seemingly narrow rims fooled me also. Additionally, I didn't notice much of a grainy texture to the surface, and Lincoln's cheek seems a little flat. Some aspects of the texture of Lincoln's hair and the toning made me think the coin could be a matte proof, but I dismissed the possibility due to the other factors. The coin would appear to only rate a "BN" designation now. Coinbuf 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldhair Posted March 4, 2023 Author Share Posted March 4, 2023 On 2/28/2023 at 8:35 PM, Sandon said: The coin would appear to only rate a "BN" designation now. I have watched many Lincolns and IHCs in my collection turn brown over the years. Even with proper storage, copper just wants to be brown. Coinbuf 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numisport Posted March 4, 2023 Share Posted March 4, 2023 If this were a 1936 Brilliaant proof it would be Pf 65 RB. Serious have you ever tried to find a nice accurately graded '36 proof Lincoln ? ldhair 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Charriere Posted May 14, 2023 Share Posted May 14, 2023 On 3/4/2023 at 11:24 AM, ldhair said: Even with proper storage, copper just wants to be brown. I don't know about that. The easiest way to determine whether stone masonry ornamentation topped with green fixtures, gutters and leaders, old church steeples, finials -- the Statue of Liberty, cleaned on its centennial, reverted to green -- is copper, is by the tell-tale sign of Green. Maybe bronze bells want to be brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldhair Posted May 14, 2023 Author Share Posted May 14, 2023 On 5/14/2023 at 11:00 AM, Henri Charriere said: I don't know about that. True. You don't know. Stay away from me. Just Bob and Henri Charriere 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKurtB Posted May 15, 2023 Share Posted May 15, 2023 (edited) On 5/14/2023 at 11:00 AM, Henri Charriere said: I don't know about that. The easiest way to determine whether stone masonry ornamentation topped with green fixtures, gutters and leaders, old church steeples, finials -- the Statue of Liberty, cleaned on its centennial, reverted to green -- is copper, is by the tell-tale sign of Green. Maybe bronze bells want to be brown. “See what brown can do for you.” Nice “woody proof”, Larry. I’m not sure I’ve seen one like it before. By the way, old small “soap bar” ANACS holders DO REACT with copper. They may or may not be “silver-inert”, but they absolutely do react chemically with copper. Edited May 15, 2023 by VKurtB zadok 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldhair Posted May 15, 2023 Author Share Posted May 15, 2023 It was the only woody matte proof I have ever seen but someone posted a different one on one of the forums a few days ago. Truth is, I feel it probably hurts the value. Those putting a set together may not care for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zadok Posted May 15, 2023 Share Posted May 15, 2023 On 5/15/2023 at 11:17 AM, ldhair said: It was the only woody matte proof I have ever seen but someone posted a different one on one of the forums a few days ago. Truth is, I feel it probably hurts the value. Those putting a set together may not care for it. ...interesting question...maybe @The Penny Lady could give us her insight into this from her clients' preferences??.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKurtB Posted May 16, 2023 Share Posted May 16, 2023 On 5/15/2023 at 10:17 AM, ldhair said: It was the only woody matte proof I have ever seen but someone posted a different one on one of the forums a few days ago. Truth is, I feel it probably hurts the value. Those putting a set together may not care for it. Hmm. Interesting. It’s so cool on its own, but it would not make a matching set. We’re all just mentally ill, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldhair Posted May 16, 2023 Author Share Posted May 16, 2023 On 5/16/2023 at 10:47 AM, VKurtB said: We’re all just mentally ill, I guess. My lady tells me that all the time. I don't argue, she does the cooking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Charriere Posted May 16, 2023 Share Posted May 16, 2023 On 5/16/2023 at 11:47 AM, VKurtB said: Hmm. Interesting. It’s so cool on its own, but it would not make a matching set. We’re all just mentally ill, I guess. Having been married about seven years ago by a woman with blue hair wearing a tie-dyed blouse, "distressed" (ripped at the kneecaps) acid-washed jeans, who mispronounced both my wife's name and mine, what could I say? She was the official marriage clerk of the city of New York. Just as I was constrained not to make a comment then about that, I won't make a comment about this now. Streaks, striations, scrapes and a generally scratched-up- look eliciting ooohs and aaahs here, mimic those of patrons to museums which exhibit "modern art." Taking my cue from the website coordinator, and her procession of administrators, I will withhold comment. I do, however have a question and fortunately for me, a member in attendance qualified to give me an answer... The year 1915 was not the first during which matte proofs were made. Based on your knowledge and experience, do you recall ever seeing the characteristics so prominently featured on this coin on those produced by the Royal Mint, or any others for that matter, at any time, before or since? And if so, how and why were exemptions granted by quality and control inspectors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKurtB Posted May 16, 2023 Share Posted May 16, 2023 (edited) On 5/16/2023 at 3:16 PM, Henri Charriere said: Having been married about seven years ago by a woman with blue hair wearing a tie-dyed blouse, "distressed" (ripped at the kneecaps) acid-washed jeans, who mispronounced both my wife's name and mine, what could I say? She was the official marriage clerk of the city of New York. Just as I was constrained not to make a comment then about that, I won't make a comment about this now. Streaks, striations, scrapes and a generally scratched-up- look eliciting ooohs and aaahs here, mimic those of patrons to museums which exhibit "modern art." Taking my cue from the website coordinator, and her procession of administrators, I will withhold comment. I do, however have a question and fortunately for me, a member in attendance qualified to give me an answer... The year 1915 was not the first during which matte proofs were made. Based on your knowledge and experience, do you recall ever seeing the characteristics so prominently featured on this coin on those produced by the Royal Mint, or any others for that matter, at any time, before or since? And if so, how and why were exemptions granted by quality and control inspectors? I’ll answer for me only. I suspect the blanks were from the same source material (bronze at the time) as the circulation strikes of the same era. “Woodies” are kinda common among nice circulation strikes OF THAT SAME ERA. But as I typed above, I had never seen a proof. Keep in mind that techniques for blending the bronze were changing during the early 20th century. To the extent other countries used bronze (pure copper would not suffer from this), they may or may not have seen this. Interestingly, every time a coinage material changes, quality control MAY suffer. I point to the copper plated zincer stinkers of the early to mid 1980’s. Some 1960’s clad pieces had nasty quality too. Congress often legislates technical changes - usually a terrible idea. Things are ready when they’re ready, not always when legislators tell them to be ready. Edited May 16, 2023 by VKurtB ldhair and Henri Charriere 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...