United States Proof Coins 1936-1942 - Subject matter questions.

[RWB]

If collectors have questions about the subject of US proof coins made from 1936 to 1942, please ask them here. See the Money Marketplace for other information.

[numisport]

I have some legitimate questions Roger and I'll wait for my book to arrive.

[RWB]

OK. In the book, use the CD to find any topic - it's fully searchable.

[RWB]

Die information for part of 1936 was not available. After examining the medal department foreman's journal, it appears the information was not recorded.

[numisport]

My response to your newest book is completely positive Roger. Incredible images of certainly high grade coins to boot. Obviously eye appeal is subjective and I think your survival numbers by grade are accurate and relevant. However after a few years of actively seeking gem knockout examples I must say that many of the nicer coins are in Pf 67 holders. So while I wont ask you to speculate how many Pf 68 or better coins have great eye appeal, maybe a better question would be how many high grade coins are left that are brilliant, untoned or otherwise expertly conserved ?

[RWB]

" My response to your newest book is completely positive Roger. Incredible images of certainly high grade coins to boot. Obviously eye appeal is subjective and I think your survival numbers by grade are accurate and relevant."

Thanks! Did the best I could with what was available.

"... maybe a better question would be how many high grade coins are left that are brilliant, untoned or otherwise expertly conserved ?"

That's really tough to answer or even speculate. A large percentage of these proofs have been either lost to time and attrition, or still held by heirs of original owners. Their relatively low value, especially when compared to the high costs of "authentication and grading," make the situation economically unsupportable. I suspect attritian was considerable after 1936 and 1937 --- album handling, unstable packaging...low ROI for dealers and collectors wanting to sell.... [Suggestion: NGC could offer a short-term very special "special" on these -- all five coins in one holder, graded. for $20. Yeah, OK, it's not my business....but this might pull a lot of nice coins out of the woodwork as well as helping protect them for the future.]

[ldhair]

Just received my copy. It's going to keep me busy for some time. I love all the data. Nice work.

[RWB]

Thanks! I doubt there will be anything to replace it for many years. This is the only edition planned.

[physics-fan3.14]

Got mine today. I got a kick out of the "80th anniversary edition"

[RWB]

"80th anniversary edition" kind of spiffs it up a bit?   Well....it was planned for release in 2016 --- but the 'ole wallet couldn't support the printing cost at that time.

An article about United States Proof Coins 1936-1942 is the lead for today’s Coin World e-newsletter. An article also appears in the May 8 issue of Coin World.

[RWB]

A correspondent asked how long it took to research and write the 1936-42 proof coin book.

   Initial research took only a couple of days - prior literature was very sparse. Detailed research and writing required 6 months of daily work - 6 to 10+ hours per day depending on location of source materials. Several research experts provided feedback on early drafts and collectors asked questions or suggested topics via message boards and emails. An updated draft was prepared in November 2016 and it was intended to print in December, hence the "80th anniversary edition" tag line. Together it took about 1,000 hours work plus another $2,500 in related expenses to produce. Printing, CD duplication and shipping to the distributor and shrink wrapping were all additional.

   I feel it is important to understand that input and ideas from coin collectors were very important in developing the book concept and in suggesting content and clarifications. An author of this type of detailed research material is at considerable risk of becoming too deeply immersed in the subject. The result can be a work that fails to answer basic questions that readers - coin collectors - have. Hopefully, United States Proof Coins 1936-1942 will be beneficial to the business and hobby, and remain a standard reference for many years to come.

[numisport]

Roger, significant numbers of 1942 proof halves survive in high grades. Despite the fact that mintages were at least twice that in 1950 relatively few survive above Pf 65 even though packaging was the about the same. How can this be explained ? Even though more coins per die were struck in 1950 fewer high grade halves are available and these coins are given technical grades rather than market grades by grading companies.

[RWB]

Tough questions for me to begin to answer --

I did not pay much attention to 1950 and later issues.The idea of "survival" is difficult to quantify - we don't have a way to determine an accurate count of extant pieces. Quantities authenticated are a rough indicator, but much depends on collector behavior....yet, sometimes it's all we have. So far as the grades assigned, there is no standard....just a range.

When the Mint was planning to resume proof production in 1946-47, they noted that the man who had done most of the previous proof work had retired. Thus, the 1950 issue was likely of lower quality than of the early 40s....That might be a clue to lower present grade assignments from PCGS, NGC and ANACS. As for  "technical grades rather than market grades" I feel there is only one "statement of condition or grade" - the coin grades itself.

I've probably not answered your questions. Hopefully, the 1936-42 proof book will have enough information to help future collectors figure out the questions now being asked.

[coinman_23885]

Do you think the certified populations for cameo Mercury Dimes, Bison Nickels, and Walking Liberty Half Dollars are maxed out or do you think significant numbers remain to be certified?  I hope to have my copy very soon.

[RWB]

The potential quantities of cameo proofs can be estimated by looking at the die tables. A cameo could occur only when new obverse and reverse dies were paired, and then for maybe 25 or 35 coins. For some years this occurred only once or twice, other years more frequently. Modern opinion regarding the relative "frost" on relief necessary for a cameo coin will also affect potential. I recall there being a couple of dates/denomination that had a lower than expected cameo population. Therein lies potential for some nice "finds."

[physics-fan3.14]

WAAAAIIIIITTTTTT! Stop the presses! 

I was reading the chapter about production of these proofs, and you make it sound like they were only struck once!?!? I thought the widely accepted definition of a proof was that it was struck twice? 

Did I misunderstand what you wrote, or have I been living a lie all these years? 

[coinman_23885]

7 hours ago, RWB said:

The potential quantities of cameo proofs can be estimated by looking at the die tables. A cameo could occur only when new obverse and reverse dies were paired, and then for maybe 25 or 35 coins. For some years this occurred only once or twice, other years more frequently. Modern opinion regarding the relative "frost" on relief necessary for a cameo coin will also affect potential. I recall there being a couple of dates/denomination that had a lower than expected cameo population. Therein lies potential for some nice "finds."

Thank you!

[coinman_23885]

6 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

WAAAAIIIIITTTTTT! Stop the presses! 

I was reading the chapter about production of these proofs, and you make it sound like they were only struck once!?!? I thought the widely accepted definition of a proof was that it was struck twice? 

Did I misunderstand what you wrote, or have I been living a lie all these years? 

He is saying that for some years, there were only one or two times when both the obverse and reverse die were changed together (i.e. events that could potentially generate cameo coinage on both sides).

[physics-fan3.14]

5 hours ago, coinman_23885 said:

He is saying that for some years, there were only one or two times when both the obverse and reverse die were changed together (i.e. events that could potentially generate cameo coinage on both sides).

No, I fully understand his response to your post. He explains the die process pretty thoroughly in the book (you are in for a treat when your copy comes!)

I'm asking a new question. 

[RWB]

US proof coins were struck once on a medal press. A few early 19th century pieces show evidence of being double struck, but not normal proofs (including patterns).

[physics-fan3.14]

3 hours ago, RWB said:

US proof coins were struck once on a medal press. A few early 19th century pieces show evidence of being double struck, but not normal proofs (including patterns).

If that is the case, why is it then the widely held opinion that proofs are double struck? Where did this myth start? Are there any series or eras where this is true? Is it true of the modern pieces made today? 

[coinman_23885]

6 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

No, I fully understand his response to your post. He explains the die process pretty thoroughly in the book (you are in for a treat when your copy comes!)

I'm asking a new question. 

I misunderstood.  Sorry.  I have a lot to learn from his new book.

[RWB]

RE: "Double striking proofs." I suspect this rather goofy idea came from observations that some very early master coins/proofs were struck twice. That was simply extended to later (post 1840) pieces by assumption. Double striking is never mentioned and there is no physical evidence of this being done on any but the most occasional occurrence. If you think about the technology, it reinforces that only single striking on a large screw press was performed or was necessary.

Cynics could, of course, blame Wally Breen, but I don't know if that would be fair. Maybe someone can use the NNP to search mack and find the first mention of "double struck proofs." [Are they like "double stuff" Oreo cookies? Hmmm no, those would be piedfort proofs.]

[RWB]

" I have a lot to learn from his new book."

Many have found the CD to be a great "tour guide." It lets you find any word or phrase in less than a second. (It's OK to load the file on your PC, tablet or "smart" phone; it works fine on a Mac or Linux machine, too.)

[numisport]

Would like to know more about the images. Where did they come from, are the photos touched up, who did the imaging and other questions. All of the images appear to be outstanding examples and likely among finer known pieces. They obviously have been chosen for all the right reasons; strike, surfaces, luster and most importantly eye appeal. Please tell us what you can (I don't expect to know who owns them).

[physics-fan3.14]

33 minutes ago, numisport said:

Would like to know more about the images. Where did they come from, are the photos touched up, who did the imaging and other questions. All of the images appear to be outstanding examples and likely among finer known pieces. They obviously have been chosen for all the right reasons; strike, surfaces, luster and most importantly eye appeal. Please tell us what you can (I don't expect to know who owns them).

While I obviously can't speak for Roger, and I'm only halfway through the book, all of the images have been well-sourced so far. I've noticed a few from Bob Campbell, some from Kittle, several from Heritage. I was pleased to see SkyMan's Cameo proof Walker in the book (one which I have seen in hand - and which is absolutely incredible to behold).

I think there is an explanation at the front that states that all coins pictured are from Heritage unless otherwise noted. I might be wrong about that, but Roger can clarify. 

[numisport]

39 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

While I obviously can't speak for Roger, and I'm only halfway through the book, all of the images have been well-sourced so far. I've noticed a few from Bob Campbell, some from Kittle, several from Heritage. I was pleased to see SkyMan's Cameo proof Walker in the book (one which I have seen in hand - and which is absolutely incredible to behold).

I think there is an explanation at the front that states that all coins pictured are from Heritage unless otherwise noted. I might be wrong about that, but Roger can clarify. 

Thanks I missed that. I do have the book but with some of these text books I read from the back to front first before I delve into the guts.

[Conder101]

18 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

If that is the case, why is it then the widely held opinion that proofs are double struck? Where did this myth start? Are there any series or eras where this is true? Is it true of the modern pieces made today?

Well it probably comes from the US Mint which states on their own website that proof coins are struck at least twice.

Quote

Proof Coins: Are the finest quality of coin produced by the United States Mint. The term "proof" refers to the coin's finish. Proof blanks are specially treated, hand-polished, and cleaned to ensure high-quality strikes. The blanks are then fed into presses fitted with specially polished dies and struck at least twice. The coins are then carefully packaged to showcase and preserve their exceptional finish. These coins:

• Are struck at least twice, which gives the coin a frosted, sculpted foreground for a glamorous shine; defined, intricate design; and mirror-like background.

https://catalog.usmint.gov/faqs-faqcategory-products-programs/products-programs-coin-design.html?fdid=faqcategory-products-programs   

I would suspect that Roger is correct about the earlier proofs and probably through the 1942 proofs, but possibly it changed withthe post 1950 proofs.

[DWLange]

I had the pleasure of attending several "First Striking" ceremonies during the 1980s, and the SF Mint struck each commemorative or bullion coin three times on a conventional, but slow-action, press. I don't know whether this was the case for proofs of the circulating issues, but it may have been where the idea of multiple striking arose. It's also possible that the three strikes were meant to impress viewers, and the coins may have required only a single strike.

[RWB]

Modern US proof coins are struck at least twice - occasionally more depending on relief and design. This produces less waste and is easier on dies since the blow has less force. The US Mints did not have equipment to produce in-register multiple strikes until the lats 60s/early 70s. The Schuler presses were the first to allow this capability.