Does Anyone Know if "One-Sided" Matte Proof 1909 VDB Cents exist?

[RWB]

RE: " I think that they were supposed to be lapped  after use as Proofs ended."

"We will know for certain soon."

1. Your evidence is....?

2. How will this be "known for certain?" Lapping (or polishing) a die does not remove all previous surface imperfections and details.

Physics-fan is quite right to mistrust catalog descriptions. The catalogers sell coins and love to include anything that will encourage the fantasies of potential bidders. There is almost no original research until we get to major rarities and very unusual items.

[WoodenJefferson]

13 hours ago, kidrootbeer said:

 not me so much, but PCGS and scores of Copper Specialists consider it a One-Sided Proof strike; and it has company. Those who don't agree are free to argue the merits with PCGS, et al. As far as intent: you would have had precedence in 1835 when the basic 'Young Head' (or Type of '36) made its appearance

I'm not arguing the fact that it is labeled PR by PCGS, the 1836 cent was probably struck in a medal press with a proof obverse die under someone's direction. The question remains, why are there just 8 proof coins that are known? Trial strikes? 

Your 1909 was probably struck up on a knuckle press, that alone cannot make either side of that coin into a proof.

[kidrootbeer]

1 hour ago, WoodenJefferson said:

I'm not arguing the fact that it is labeled PR by PCGS, the 1836 cent was probably struck in a medal press with a proof obverse die under someone's direction. The question remains, why are there just 8 proof coins that are known? Trial strikes? 

Your 1909 was probably struck up on a knuckle press, that alone cannot make either side of that coin into a proof.

they were "Struck to Order" with whatever was chucked in at the time
that's why there are a couple of different 1820 Quarter Varieties known in Proof (from Heritage):

In the early days, before about 1840, proofs were struck whenever some government official, such as the Secretary of State, requested specimen coins for diplomatic presentations, or when well-connected collectors, like Robert Gilmore, Jr., made special arrangements to procure the coins for their collections. As we understand the process today, when the Mint received these orders, the workmen polished a business-strike die, perhaps polished specially selected planchets, and struck the desired coins on the screw press normally used to produce medals. Thus, if the Mint received requests for proofs at different times during the year, they were struck from whatever dies were on hand at the time, resulting in several different die varieties of proof coins of the same date and denomination. This is the case for the extremely rare proof quarters of 1820.

again, people: I'm NOT saying my coin is a Proof Strike, just that it's struck from Proof Dies

 

[kidrootbeer]

3 hours ago, RWB said:

RE: " I think that they were supposed to be lapped  after use as Proofs ended."

"We will know for certain soon."

1. Your evidence is....?

2. How will this be "known for certain?" Lapping (or polishing) a die does not remove all previous surface imperfections and details.

Physics-fan is quite right to mistrust catalog descriptions. The catalogers sell coins and love to include anything that will encourage the fantasies of potential bidders. There is almost no original research until we get to major rarities and very unusual items.

I sent it to my Good Friend at a Good Coin Place; he knew that my Higley was Genuine when all others said 'Boo'
and I daresay that, here, we have a very unusual item

[RWB]

Sorry, the is not evidence; merely speculation.

If one side of your coin was struck from a recycled proof die, that's fine. That's what it is. It can never be legitimately referred to as a "proof," however.

[kidrootbeer]

12 minutes ago, RWB said:

Sorry, the is not evidence; merely speculation.

If one side of your coin was struck from a recycled proof die, that's fine. That's what it is. It can never be legitimately referred to as a "proof," however.

I Know I Know... and I do have the luxury of seeing it "in hand and not in scan". I'll let you know what my Good Friend says, Good-Bad-or Indifferent

[kidrootbeer]

On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 10:04 AM, RWB said:

2. How will this be "known for certain?" Lapping (or polishing) a die does not remove all previous surface imperfections and details.

 

it pretty much does-one example: 1836 N-1 Large cent, courtesy of Goldberg's:
Lot 447

1836 N-1 R1+ EF40. EF-40. Sharpness EF45 or slightly better with too many small nicks for the higher grade, including a small rim nick under star 13. Glossy steel brown and chocolate with frosty luster in protected areas and peeps of faded mint red at stars 9-11. LDS with all the obverse and reverse die cracks clear and the legends weakened slightly by a strong die lapping that removed most of the earlier roughness in the obverse fields. The repunching on the peak of the 1 remains clear. DWH #0843.
Estimated Value $150-UP.
Ex Village Square Coins via John D. Wright 6/84.

[RWB]

Conflating an 1836 coin into a 1909 setting proves nothing. It is immaterial.

[kidrootbeer]

1 hour ago, RWB said:

Conflating an 1836 coin into a 1909 setting proves nothing. It is immaterial.

the question was about Lapping and its Effects: it's very effective at removing roughness from working dies (and the surfaces from VDB MP reverse dies); and the lapping effect can thin devices on the die

[RWB]

5 hours ago, kidrootbeer said:

the question was about Lapping and its Effects: it's very effective at removing roughness from working dies (and the surfaces from VDB MP reverse dies); and the lapping effect can thin devices on the die

That is correct. But there are many degrees of die lapping/routine polishing. A former proof die might have been lapped and still retain some of the previous imperfections.

Further, in August 1909, why bother? The Philadelphia Mint had a large stockpile of Lincoln cents and plenty of working dies. Why waste time and effort to lap and reuse a retired proof die. Please read the book to become more familiar with the context and contemporary conditions. There's nothing more I can add for the present.

[kidrootbeer]

51 minutes ago, RWB said:

That is correct. But there are many degrees of die lapping/routine polishing. A former proof die might have been lapped and still retain some of the previous imperfections.

Further, in August 1909, why bother? The Philadelphia Mint had a large stockpile of Lincoln cents and plenty of working dies. Why waste time and effort to lap and reuse a retired proof die. Please read the book to become more familiar with the context and contemporary conditions. There's nothing more I can add for the present.

I have No Idea either... but it certainly appears that it was done