Curious Acquisition: 1943-S PL Washington Quarter

[PocketArt]

This NGC MS64PL 1943-S  Washington Quarter arrived today at my mailbox.  Any possibility the '42 proof dies were utilized for production in '43?  Or, is this just the work of an overzealous mint employee polishing the dies.  I don't own a '42 proof quarter so curious if anything matches.  I realize proofs were minted in Philadelphia; any chance proof dies may have been sent to San Fran in '43?  Who knows?

Thanks,

Rich

 

   

[WoodenJefferson]

The reverse is hammered! You pose an interesting question about proof dies making their way west, we have some experts here that just might be able to answer that question. I would say that in most instances, the regular working  dies were polished and returned for use. The first few coins minted on those refurbished dies made the 'proof like' appearance. Jason (Physicsfan 3.14) can add to this scenario and RWB might have some mint information out of Frisco. Nice coin.

 

Adding PL to the title might attack more visitors.

[PocketArt]

Thanks WoodenJefferson on comment, and advice. 

Since I posted this I looked at some '42 proof reverses online, and my reverse is different.  On proofs I've seen- there appears to be a gap between the "E" and "S" in "STATES."  Unless there were different reverse styles used for proofs in '42- I think my quarter is just a business strike.  Guess I should research before I post...

However- still wondering if any proof dies may have been utilized for business strikes on early proofs, '36-42, and any possibility those may have been sent to branch mints?  I have Roger's book ordered but in transit so I'm sure that will answer some questions.     

 

[Conder101]

I wouldn't think they would have polished the proof dies until after the hardening process.  After the hardening they are not going to be punching an S mintmark into one, and before the hardening and polishing it is just a regular die.  If they had a leftover hardened, polished or unpolished proof rev die they probably would have just used it for Philadelphia coins.

[RWB]

Nope.

[A.Phillips]

The NGC census showed that there are only 2 1943-S PL, one is yours - MS64PL, and other is graded at MS65PL. That's pretty obvious that they knew that your quarter is a business strike. That's a nice coin, by the way! 

[numisport]

I would like to by a proof '42 that has those deep mirrors and no surface mess. Most have shallow mirrors and unacceptable toning.

[physics-fan3.14]

8 hours ago, RWB said:

Nope.

Well, Roger stated it very succinctly!

14 hours ago, PocketArt said:

Since I posted this I looked at some '42 proof reverses online, and my reverse is different.

However- still wondering if any proof dies may have been utilized for business strikes on early proofs, '36-42, and any possibility those may have been sent to branch mints?  I have Roger's book ordered but in transit so I'm sure that will answer some questions.     

 

To elaborate on Roger's loquacious post, this is not a possibility. Once you read Roger's book, I think many of your questions will be answered. As you have already noticed, there are different reverse types for the Proof and Business strike coins (the proof reverse is known as "Type B"). In the 36-42 era, no Type B (proof) reverses are known on business strike coins (later, in the 50's and 60's, some Type B quarters and Type II Franklin halves were minted as business strike. Generally, surprisingly, these are not PL). As you read the book, you'll see how the dies were controlled and will notice that there is virtually no possible way that a proof die could be shipped to San Fran. 

22 hours ago, WoodenJefferson said:

 I would say that in most instances, the regular working  dies were polished and returned for use. The first few coins minted on those refurbished dies made the 'proof like' appearance. Jason (Physicsfan 3.14) can add to this scenario and RWB might have some mint information out of Frisco. Nice coin.

As Woody states, the dies for some coins were polished (hence the "scratches" visible all over your coin). One of Roger's other masterpieces, "From Mine to Mint" has a description of how this was done. Sometimes, new dies were polished to remove burrs and smooth out the die, and sometimes dies were refurbished. Something about the way that is was done in San Fran from the 40's through early 60's led to the creation of numerous prooflike coins across most denominations (with the curious exception of the copper cent). @coinman1794 has done a couple of fascinating studies of the lives of a couple of dies (recognizable by a couple of popular RPMs), who's early life included PL strikes (I know he studied the 47 S/S quarter). Perhaps he can share some information as well. 

These PL strikes are fascinating. I have the privilege to own quite a few from this era (~1940 - ~1960, usually S-mint) from all denominations. I'll share more if people are interested, but for now here is my 65PL 47S quarter:

[coinman1794]

The distinctive, unusual, highly polished Prooflike phenomenon seems to occur at branch manager mints only, and between the dates of 1934 and 1954. San Francisco is the most commonly seen, with fewer coming out of Denver. The finish on heavily polished dies from Philadelphia during these years seems to be different, and the resulting Prooflikes more typical in appearance. Any Prooflikes from Philadelphia during these years are extremely rare, in fact.

These articles, posted on my website, are considered imperfect works in progress, but they do shed some light on the subject, at least.

"Jekyll and Hyde:" Prooflike Coins of 1934 to 1954

A Rough Reflection: Die State Analysis of the 1947-S/S RPM FS-501 Washington Quarter

[coinman1794]

18 hours ago, PocketArt said:

Thanks WoodenJefferson on comment, and advice. 

Since I posted this I looked at some '42 proof reverses online, and my reverse is different.  On proofs I've seen- there appears to be a gap between the "E" and "S" in "STATES."  Unless there were different reverse styles used for proofs in '42- I think my quarter is just a business strike.  Guess I should research before I post...

However- still wondering if any proof dies may have been utilized for business strikes on early proofs, '36-42, and any possibility those may have been sent to branch mints?  I have Roger's book ordered but in transit so I'm sure that will answer some questions.     

 

The design hub used for Proof Washington quarter is different than that used on Business strikes, and the absence of any Type B quarters from the 1940s confirms that the PL coins seen in this era are not from Proof dies.

[coinman1794]

[RWB]

Also, no proof dies were made with the 1943 date.

 

But the pictured coin is very nice!

[DWLange]

San Francisco did indeed create a number of really PL coins during the 1940s-early 50s. The quarters most often seen this way seem to be 1946-S, 1947-S and 1948-S. As others have noted, this resulted from aggressive die polishing to remove clashmarks and erosion lines. It was a time of post-war budget cuts, and the dies were used way too long.

[PocketArt]

20 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

Well, Roger stated it very succinctly!

To elaborate on Roger's loquacious post, this is not a possibility. Once you read Roger's book, I think many of your questions will be answered. As you have already noticed, there are different reverse types for the Proof and Business strike coins (the proof reverse is known as "Type B"). In the 36-42 era, no Type B (proof) reverses are known on business strike coins (later, in the 50's and 60's, some Type B quarters and Type II Franklin halves were minted as business strike. Generally, surprisingly, these are not PL). As you read the book, you'll see how the dies were controlled and will notice that there is virtually no possible way that a proof die could be shipped to San Fran. 

As Woody states, the dies for some coins were polished (hence the "scratches" visible all over your coin). One of Roger's other masterpieces, "From Mine to Mint" has a description of how this was done. Sometimes, new dies were polished to remove burrs and smooth out the die, and sometimes dies were refurbished. Something about the way that is was done in San Fran from the 40's through early 60's led to the creation of numerous prooflike coins across most denominations (with the curious exception of the copper cent). @coinman1794 has done a couple of fascinating studies of the lives of a couple of dies (recognizable by a couple of popular RPMs), who's early life included PL strikes (I know he studied the 47 S/S quarter). Perhaps he can share some information as well. 

These PL strikes are fascinating. I have the privilege to own quite a few from this era (~1940 - ~1960, usually S-mint) from all denominations. I'll share more if people are interested, but for now here is my 65PL 47S quarter:

Thanks Jason for the informative post, and the inclusion of your 1947- s/s PL.  I, as well, purchased one from coinman1794- his articles had initially piqued my interest in regards to proof like business strikes.  Sort of took my understanding to another level beyond what I thought was just a Morgan dollar phenomenon.   Your registry set of proof likes is nothing short of exceptional, and really doesn't do much to tamp down my interest .  Awhile back, I was finding some business strike Kennedy's that were PL, and that really launched my interest.  Much is still out there- I guess that makes the hunt that much more rewarding.  I passed up a Booker T. Washington commemorative half that was PL in Heritage auction a few weeks ago- saving funds for a big estate sale of coins offered locally, and hoping to rope some "wild ones."  Opportunity cost on this one I suppose...        

Also, I was aware of the type B's occurring on business strikes for the '50-'60's but didn't know much about the early proofs design from '36-'42, and if it differed from normal business strike coins.  Now I do, and look forward to Roger's book to help my understanding along.  In particular '39 Jefferson proofs.  I'd bought a pair some time ago, that were in cellophane similar to what you see in the box sets from early '50's.  They look like high quality business strikes more than proofs though; so, maybe Roger's book can shed some light.  Looking forward to it's arrival Roger!

Thanks conder, coinman1794, Roger, A. Phillips, numis, Mr. Lange, and Woody for comments.  I do have a submission that I'm putting together for NGC.  One of these coins is a 1974-D Kennedy Half that is PL...I hope.  Please tell me what you think.  

Thanks all,

Rich 

  

  

        

[coinman1794]

This 1974-D does appear to be PL or very close. However, it is not the same type of finish as that seen on the 1934-1954 coins.

[physics-fan3.14]

I agree, the 74D appears to have strong prooflike qualities. 

To elaborate on what coinman1794 said: there are a number of prooflike coins from 1968 to 1972 across all denominations (although some are much rarer than others). By far the most common is the half dollar, and the most common half is 1970D (97 graded, plus 4 DPLs). The Washington is tougher, but its most common date is from 72D (19 graded), and the dime is most common in 1969D (14 graded). The nickel is very rare (with a single coin from each 68D and 69D),  and the cent is even harder (with a single coin, a 1970S/S which I believe Doug made). As you peruse auction histories and the census, it becomes obvious that the vast majority of the PLs from this era are from the Denver mint. Your coin, as a 74D, fits the D-mint trend but is unusual (and is outside the currently known range of PLs).

The PL coins of this era do not tend to have the strong die polish of the 40's and 50's S-mint PL's. These coins tend to have a more satin appearance, with much smoother fields. There are light striations evident across the entire surface of these coins, which indicates some measure of die polish, but they don't have the same appearance as the previous era. These are highly attractive coins, but I am not sure exactly why they exist. I'm also not sure why they stopped in 1972 (the next currently known PL is the 1984D nickel, which I own one of the 4 designated). 

For some examples, I've attached my 72D quarter (66PL), my 69D Kennedy (65PL), and my 70D Kennedy (64PL). 

[PocketArt]

Nice PL coins, and more examples that I'll have to keep a watch out- thanks for sharing, and especially the information.  I wasn't aware of the pl's occurring in the late '60's- '70's for Quarters, Dimes, or even Nickels.  The Halves I have PL in are '71-D, '72-D, '73-D, '74-D.  Ironically, also have a '72, and a'74.  I have a Bicentennial that is from the Denver mint that is semi-pl, and one from the Philadelphia mint that is PL but is AU condition- a bit chewed up.  Of course, I've searched well over 20,000 halves over the past 10 months in rolls looking for these, and silver.  The biggest drawback to roll searching are the wheel marks- much more prevalent on Brinks rolls.  I posted some time ago the '73-D that would have been uncirculated, if not for the pronounced "circulated" ring around the obverse...

I've been lucky finding pl examples on Heritage, Great Collections, Ebay, and of course Doug's site.  He has some really neat semi-pl, and pl coins.  I could kick myself for not checking sooner on a few items that were already sold.  His research is very well put together- good to have a resource that is passionate as well offering quality PL's.

I bet that '84-D Nickel you have Jason is top-notch.  The only '80's PL's I have are Halves.

         

[coinman1794]

Thanks for the comments, PocketArt!

[coinman1794]

The lack of obvious polishing lines, and the orange peal rippled gloss, on the featured 1974-D PL 50C gives it the appearance of some of the early 1970s, D-Mint coins believed to be struck on Proof planchets.

[physics-fan3.14]

21 minutes ago, coinman1794 said:

believed to be struck on Proof planchets.

Is that the theory? I hadn't heard that before. 

Why/how were proof planchets sent to Denver? They didn't mint proofs. 

[PocketArt]

Here's hoping that the '74-D grades PL by NGC.  I'm going to send it out this week.  Since your posting of the 1972-D PL Jason, I just had to purchase one myself. I also picked up a 1972-D MS66 PL graded by NGC.

While on my hunt, I've seen a lot of MAC stickers on coins with PL designation.  Some even on NGC coins that weren't graded PL.  I can understand PL MAC stickers on PCGS coins since they designate so few series as PL.  But I wouldn't think NGC would need the MAC PL stickers, unless MAC considers semi-pl as PL.? 

Curious on thoughts with the MAC PL designation.

Thanks,

Rich 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

23 hours ago, PocketArt said:

Curious on thoughts with the MAC PL designation.

 

MAC is a scam. Plain and simple. 

There are third world slabs that you should avoid, and MAC is a third world "stickerer." If you read their website, it should become obvious that they're stickering a bunch of nonsensical, made-up designations that have no widespread acceptance in the hobby. There are one or two sellers that have almost all of the MAC inventory, and I'm pretty sure they either sticker the coins themselves or are in cahoots with the guys who do. 

You'll see a lot of semi-prooflike coins that don't meet the standards with a "PL" MAC sticker, and you'll see a lot of PL coins that don't make DPL with a "DMPL" MAC sticker. Don't trust them, and absolutely don't pay a premium for them. (I bought an NGC designated PL prez-buck with a MAC DPL sticker, and it was definitely PL, but definitely not DPL. I've also perused them at FUN, and they didn't meet my criteria for whatever the sticker said.) They also sticker a lot of ridiculous things that don't exist (a full list is available on their website).  

Avoid MAC, avoid sellers of MAC, avoid the people behind MAC, and avoid anyone promoting MAC. 

Edited because: I was warned after posting that the owners of MAC have a history of suing people for libel, and that I should edit my post. I have done so - but strengthened my negative opinion of and warning against these people even further. 

[physics-fan3.14]

Coincidentally enough, the day after you started this thread, I was lucky enough to win this coin in a Heritage auction (for far less than I was expecting). It arrived today. The coin has a strongly PL obverse, with a weaker reverse. Characteristic die polish abounds. NGC graded it 65PL. 

It appears to have an RPM, but I'm not sure which one. I don't think its the big one for the year. Doug, do you happen to know which S/S this is, or do you have any other S/S 46S quarters known? 

[DWLange]

That does not appear to be a RPM. You'll find the known varieties here, courtesy of James Wiles:

http://www.varietyvista.com/09b WQ Vol 2/RPMs 1946-S.htm

[physics-fan3.14]

7 hours ago, DWLange said:

That does not appear to be a RPM. You'll find the known varieties here, courtesy of James Wiles:

http://www.varietyvista.com/09b WQ Vol 2/RPMs 1946-S.htm

Thanks for that link! I was looking on the CONECA website to try and match mine to their generic descriptions, and wishing that there were pictures. I was not aware that Wiles had posted these pictures. 

I agree, this does not match any of the currently known RPMs. I might send this one off to Wiles for a closer look, because I do think there's something going on there. 

[PocketArt]

21 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

MAC is a scam. Plain and simple. 

There are third world slabs that you should avoid, and MAC is a third world "stickerer." If you read their website, it should become obvious that they're stickering a bunch of nonsensical, made-up designations that have no widespread acceptance in the hobby. There are one or two sellers that have almost all of the MAC inventory, and I'm pretty sure they either sticker the coins themselves or are in cahoots with the guys who do. 

You'll see a lot of semi-prooflike coins that don't meet the standards with a "PL" MAC sticker, and you'll see a lot of PL coins that don't make DPL with a "DMPL" MAC sticker. Don't trust them, and absolutely don't pay a premium for them. (I bought an NGC designated PL prez-buck with a MAC DPL sticker, and it was definitely PL, but definitely not DPL. I've also perused them at FUN, and they didn't meet my criteria for whatever the sticker said.) They also sticker a lot of ridiculous things that don't exist (a full list is available on their website).  

Avoid MAC, avoid sellers of MAC, avoid the people behind MAC, and avoid anyone promoting MAC. 

Edited because: I was warned after posting that the owners of MAC have a history of suing people for libel, and that I should edit my post. I have done so - but strengthened my negative opinion of and warning against these people even further. 

I did see the couple of sellers who push Mac items on eBay; thought that was sorta weird too.  Also, I've never seen Heritage, or, Great Collections have these Mac stickered slabs so I thought that was a bit suspicious.  I haven't bought from Stacks, or, any other auction house so can't comment on those.  Appreciate your insight, and experience concerning Mac.  

In regards to your '46-s PL Washington- all I can say is wow!  Nice acquisition; that's one I'll keep my eyes open for as well.  

Thanks,

Rich 

[Conder101]

On 5/15/2017 at 5:24 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

Why/how were proof planchets sent to Denver? They didn't mint proofs. 

Proof planchets that are rejected at San Francisco as not being high enough quality are shipped to Denver to be used for circulation strikes.  Some are probably rejected pre-polishing and some are probably post polishing.  They aren't supposed to ship the silver planchets of course but some 40% silver half and dollar planchets were accidentally shipped in 1974 and 1977.  (Those were for the 40% Unc Bicentennial coins.  How they got to Denver in 1977 is a bit of a mystery because all the silver Bicentennial coins were struck in 1975.)

[MarkFeld]

On 5/15/2017 at 7:28 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

MAC is a scam. Plain and simple. 

There are third world slabs that you should avoid, and MAC is a third world "stickerer." If you read their website, it should become obvious that they're stickering a bunch of nonsensical, made-up designations that have no widespread acceptance in the hobby. There are one or two sellers that have almost all of the MAC inventory, and I'm pretty sure they either sticker the coins themselves or are in cahoots with the guys who do. 

You'll see a lot of semi-prooflike coins that don't meet the standards with a "PL" MAC sticker, and you'll see a lot of PL coins that don't make DPL with a "DMPL" MAC sticker. Don't trust them, and absolutely don't pay a premium for them. (I bought an NGC designated PL prez-buck with a MAC DPL sticker, and it was definitely PL, but definitely not DPL. I've also perused them at FUN, and they didn't meet my criteria for whatever the sticker said.) They also sticker a lot of ridiculous things that don't exist (a full list is available on their website).  

Avoid MAC, avoid sellers of MAC, avoid the people behind MAC, and avoid anyone promoting MAC. 

Edited because: I was warned after posting that the owners of MAC have a history of suing people for libel, and that I should edit my post. I have done so - but strengthened my negative opinion of and warning against these people even further. 

If you went to the trouble to edit you post, you should have deleted the word "scam", even if you think that's what it is.

[Conder101]

On 5/15/2017 at 8:28 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

" If you read their website, it should become obvious that they're stickering a bunch of nonsensical, made-up designations that have no widespread acceptance in the hobby.

At one time FB, FBL, FH, FT, and FS were also "made up designations" with no widespread acceptance in the hobby.

 

On 5/15/2017 at 8:28 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

You'll see a lot of semi-prooflike coins that don't meet the standards with a "PL" MAC sticker, and you'll see a lot of PL coins that don't make DPL with a "DMPL" MAC sticker.

Don't meet the standards?  Whose Standards?  I'm sure they meet MAC standards.  Every service has their own standards for grade and PL, DPL etc, and often these standards differ.  Each collector also has their own standards.  You need to look at the coins and if they don't meet your standards then pass or don't pay a premium for designations.

[RWB]

MAC 'n' CHEESE ? Tasty.