Walter Breen's Numismatic Legacy
1 1

229 posts in this topic

203 posts

both the 1916 and 1936 nickels were picked up by pcgs today at 9:16 am.  so we shall soon have their opinion of both pieces.  the more i look at the 1936 nickel i am convinced it is something other than the typical garden

variety 1936 business strike.  But what it is and under what circumstances it was produced shall remain unknown.

s-l1600.1916.satin.obv (1).jpg

s-l1600.1936.satin.rev (1).jpg

Edited by t-arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
3 hours ago, Afterword said:

At least with Carr, he was able to defend himself against the ridicule and small, petty and cruel jokes. It is too bad this type of thing did not disappear along with the old message boards.

To paraphrase Carr supporters, sometimes there is not enough fun in this hobby.  Lighten up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,885 posts

If it is of any assistance, there is contemporary documentation with relation to 1927 nickels struck from chromium plated dies and the Philadelphia Mint experiments concerning this method for improving die life. It was not used for US coins until 1943 when chromium plated cent dies were used to reduce clogging from zinc dust. But is was used for some coinage collars and some foreign contract coinage in the 1930s.

We do not know if the 1927 experimental nickels were made on a medal press - thus being some sort of proof species - or a toggle press. Thus, they cannot logically be called "proofs," but the term "Special" or "Specimen" might be sufficiently ambiguous and different to alert collectors. (The real story is far richer than in the auction catalog quote. Look in United States Proof Coins 1936-42 for a more generous description.

All this has been mentioned before, so readers might want to search older threads here or on PCGS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
203 posts

Here is a pcgs pr64 satin finish proof that i got on eBay couple years ago.  compare to 1936 nickel above.  

( this was a raw unattributed coin)

 

31944454_max_1936.jpg

Edited by t-arc
add cineast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
On 7/7/2017 at 2:25 PM, t-arc said:

both the 1916 and 1936 nickels were picked up by pcgs today at 9:16 am.  so we shall soon have their opinion of both pieces.  the more i look at the 1936 nickel i am convinced it is something other than the typical garden

variety 1936 business strike.  But what it is and under what circumstances it was produced shall remain unknown.

s-l1600.1916.satin.obv (1).jpg

s-l1600.1936.satin.rev (1).jpg

Have you ever thought about giving it a light dip?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
203 posts
4 hours ago, coinman_23885 said:

Have you ever thought about giving it a light dip?

No, but in my opinion that would do nothing for the coin.  Would it?  What would you expect to see from a dipping?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,820 posts
6 hours ago, t-arc said:

No, but in my opinion that would do nothing for the coin.  Would it?  What would you expect to see from a dipping?

If there is toning or haze on the coin, it may be hindering the ability to see the surfaces. It might hide any special characteristics they may or may not have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
332 posts
3 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

If there is toning or haze on the coin, it may be hindering the ability to see the surfaces. It might hide any special characteristics they may or may not have. 

I think the coin was exposed to *something*, which compromised its Original Mint Luster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,820 posts
3 minutes ago, allmine said:

I think the coin was exposed to *something*, which compromised its Original Mint Luster

I do too - but he's convinced its a proof. Looks like a dipped out and retoned business strike to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
332 posts
19 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

I do too - but he's convinced its a proof. Looks like a dipped out and retoned business strike to me. 

the inherent marks on the foreleg forestall any arguments about a Proof Strike (are there Satin Strike Proof Buffs with partial wire rims?); but I'm usually in the You Never Know Unless You Try camp, so, yeah...
had a Big TPG company do an alloy test on a CWT I had: mine was Brass but the token was only known in Copper. They placed the Alloy: 90-8-2 for Brass on the label-yet refused to call mine Brass, because "it isn't known in that metal"

Edited by allmine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
125 posts

Page 190. "The Complete Guide to Buffalo Nickels" Third Edition by David Lange states:

 

"Unless they've been dipped, most 1936 proof nickels show some degree of toning.  This usually takes the form of a hazy or milky film on both sides.  Not especially attractive, it is still valued as a mark of "originality"."

 

Don't do anything to it!  That "milky" finish shows the originality of the coin.

 

Pete

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
203 posts
10 minutes ago, Buffalo_Pete said:

Page 190. "The Complete Guide to Buffalo Nickels" Third Edition by David Lange states:

 

"Unless they've been dipped, most 1936 proof nickels show some degree of toning.  This usually takes the form of a hazy or milky film on both sides.  Not especially attractive, it is still valued as a mark of "originality"."

 

Don't do anything to it!  That "milky" finish shows the originality of the coin.

 

Pete

 

Pete

you are right and I would never under any circumstances dip,  clean,  or alter the surfaces in any way.  pcgs has it now and it went to them in one of those rigged pvc-less flips that pcgs requires for submissions.

one thing i always thought about the coin is that it was completely original, never messed with any way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,768 posts
1 hour ago, Buffalo_Pete said:

Page 190. "The Complete Guide to Buffalo Nickels" Third Edition by David Lange states:

 

"Unless they've been dipped, most 1936 proof nickels show some degree of toning.  This usually takes the form of a hazy or milky film on both sides.  Not especially attractive, it is still valued as a mark of "originality"."

 

Don't do anything to it!  That "milky" finish shows the originality of the coin.

 

Pete

 

While I am opposed to dipping, the coin which is the subject of this thread does not display a "hazy or milky film". Nor does it appear to display any reflectivity. My guess as to its possible Proof status is based entirely on its strike. And that makes it a real long shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
332 posts

and that "milky toning" is like a cancer... these things are 75% Copper, and that toning will eventually eat at it.
Most any toning that is opaque means that the damage is underway
annnnd, btw: there are is at least one better way of conserving a Nickel rather than by dipping it

Edited by allmine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
332 posts

"Originality" can suck, sometimes... if you had a US Scott #1 or #2 stamp, with full Original Gum: naturally, that stamp would look horrible, and be brittle and stained

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
125 posts

Strike looks good to me, Mark.  UMM.....I don't know, and it's very difficult to judge by pics...............I'm not NEAR an expert......just a soldier in the Army.

The coin has that "look" milky or whatever, to me.

Observationally, to me, anyway.

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
19 hours ago, t-arc said:

No, but in my opinion that would do nothing for the coin.  Would it?  What would you expect to see from a dipping?

The toning doesn't add much in this case, and it can obscure the fields.  There may be some remnant reflectivity in the fields that is obscured.  If so, it could support the hypothesis that this is an impaired satin proof.

Edited by coinman_23885

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
332 posts
9 hours ago, coinman_23885 said:

The toning doesn't add much in this case, and it can obscure the fields.  There may be some remnant reflectivity in the fields that is obscured.  If so, it could support the hypothesis that this is an impaired satin proof.

not to beat a dead horse, but the inherent foreleg "bag marks" belie any notion that it is Proof strike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,958 posts
1 hour ago, allmine said:

not to beat a dead horse, but the inherent foreleg "bag marks" belie any notion that it is Proof strike

You've never seen an 'impaired proof' of PR-58 or below?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,734 posts

I might be off base with this opinion, but I believe that it would be much harder to verify a circulated Matte Proof than a circulated brilliant Proof. Many collectors, including me, have enough trouble sometimes verifying a Matte Proof when it is as struck. When you add circulation marks to that along with possible wear on the all important rims, verification becomes quite difficult.

 

If the Matte Proof has a die diagnostic, like the die break, which I think appears on the reverse of the 1915 nickels, then it is easier to attribute it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
1 hour ago, allmine said:

not to beat a dead horse, but the inherent foreleg "bag marks" belie any notion that it is Proof strike

Improper storage and/or circulation could result in the hits you describe.  I don't think it is a  proof either, but I wouldn't rely on the presence or absence of bag marks or ticks to separate between business strike and proof coinage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,164 posts

Comparing Tom's certified PR-64 with the subject coin, I see a lack of complete die filling in the hair above the braid knot on the toned piece. This suggests that it's just a very well struck MS coin from fresh dies and not an actual proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
332 posts
1 hour ago, coinman_23885 said:

Improper storage and/or circulation could result in the hits you describe.  I don't think it is a  proof either, but I wouldn't rely on the presence or absence of bag marks or ticks to separate between business strike and proof coinage.

they're not "hits"; they were present before the blank was struck. Two strikes and they disappear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
Just now, allmine said:

they're not "hits"; they were present before the blank was struck. Two strikes and they disappear

Proof coins of this era were not struck twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100 posts
On ‎7‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 9:49 AM, allmine said:

I think the coin was exposed to *something*, which compromised its Original Mint Luster

Absolutely correct!

 

PS Bought Roger Burdette's book on Proofs at the show this weekend from Wizard.  Really good read!    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100 posts
23 minutes ago, coinman_23885 said:

Proof coins of this era were not struck twice.

Interesting...where did you read this?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100 posts
On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 1:55 PM, allmine said:

there IS residual luster around the devices, picked-up by the picture-taking device

there is an old trick to remove Polishing from a Nickel, and it makes them look matte...

BTW, all of us should know that a coin can have luster and still not have an original surface.  Anyone care to dispute this?

So I'll state again that IMO the surfaces of the 1936 5c are not original.  I still believe it will be straight graded by a TPGS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
332 posts
41 minutes ago, Insider said:

Interesting...where did you read this?

 

 

it's in a new book I'm told, but I have no other proof of Not-Twice-Struck... I have a friend at Stack's trying to find out

of course, if that's the case, Business-Strike pressure wasn't enough to bring out the details. And, how do you explain the "razorness" to the reeding that is absent on Business Strikes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,885 posts
4 hours ago, coinman_23885 said:

Proof coins of this era were not struck twice.

Proof coins were struck once using a high pressure medal press. This imparted the full design and other characteristics attributed to US Mint proof coins. (A very few exceptions exist from 1850 forward, but barely enough to count on the fingers of one hand.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
203 posts

=================================

          1936       USA     5 cents

             matte proof  PR-60

=================================

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1