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

[kidrootbeer]

It's hard to see, but this coin has a sand-blasted reverse that is a close match, die marker wise, to the PR67+ sold by Heritage recently. When I received it, I thought someone had brilloed the reverse; but it's in a 65 holder. It's full red as well

https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/4558314-007/65/

[robec1347]

The dot after the D in VDB looks like it is left of center. All Proof VDB's have a centered dot.

A more focused photo would help, because it' pretty tough to pick out the D with any kind of clarity.

This is the OP's VDB

 

This is a circulation strike VDB

 

This is a Proof strike VDB

[kidrootbeer]

The dot after the d is just a pile of mush-but it is situated between the D and B, and the reverse is very slightly rotated. The tooling marks under the right wheat and behind AMER are there, as is the "D" and the dot above the stalk. I read that the Mint picked some of the better business dies to make into Proof dies, so did they return one or so to that use? This coin has no radiating luster; it just "glows". I'll try to take better pictures. If you see this coin in person it's a Wow thing

[kidrootbeer]

here's a blow up of the reverse. It looks like a moonscape. The obverse has gorgeous lustrous two-tone peachblow colors; the reverse is flat and kind of red/orange-colored

[kidrootbeer]

fwiw: in that lot there are a couple of coins with the D period between the D and B, and they are definitely  business strikes

[robec1347]

11 hours ago, kidrootbeer said:

fwiw: in that lot there are a couple of coins with the D period between the D and B, and they are definitely  business strikes

The centered dot does appear on both strikes meant for circulation and proof coins. But the proof examples only have the centered dot. The left of center dot is a way of eliminating a coin from being a proof.

Another diagnostic to check is the presence of the crescent shaped die gouge to the right of the M in UNUM. Only and all VDB proofs have this gouge. I will be raised. I don't see it on the reverse of your coin.

 

 

[kidrootbeer]

yeah... that's mush now but there is an outline of it (under one of the arms holding the coin in place). Many of the fine die lines on the right are still evident. It's just wild-looking. You would think the reverse had been harshly cleaned upon first glance. It's totally different-looking than the obverse. What's interesting is the tooling behind AMER, which can be plainly seen on the 67+ coin

[robec1347]

The strike is so strong on this coin, the wheat ears are full and the lines clearly separated. 

You mentioned and have shown how pristine the fields are 

if all this is true, and we can see by the photos it is, the gouge would easily be seen and not be mushy. 

They didn't use the VDB reverse die for business strikes after the Proof run was completed.

They didn't even use the reverse dies for the non VDB 1909 Proofs as evidence by a completely different set of diagnostics  

 

[RWB]

The dies were sandblasted for this issue, not the coins. Further, all were struck in the medal department which was separated from the Coining floor. Dies passed from the engraving dept direct to the foreman of the medal room - not to the coiner.

[kidrootbeer]

yeah... this is a BUSINESS strike. Most of the tooling lines along the inner rim are mushed out. I read that a number of dies were prepared from the die pool. I sent just the pic of the back to a friend who is a "waaaay up there" exec of a National Coin Firm, and he wanted to know the date of the matte Proof. One thing: this has some tooling behind AMER: something I have yet to see on any Business Strike from a 200 BU different coins sample. It looks like the tooling on the 67+.

[kidrootbeer]

3 hours ago, RWB said:

The dies were sandblasted for this issue, not the coins. Further, all were struck in the medal department which was separated from the Coining floor. Dies passed from the engraving dept direct to the foreman of the medal room - not to the coiner.

yes: just the reverse is "sandblasted" enough to alter the radial mint luster, but it's still bright. The obverse is a gorgeous ultra lustrous two-tone Peach. And, what's to stop the die from being returned to regular production after striking proof cents is finished?

[kidrootbeer]

14 hours ago, robec1347 said:

The strike is so strong on this coin, the wheat ears are full and the lines clearly separated. 

if all this is true, and we can see by the photos it is, the gouge would easily be seen and not be mushy. 

They didn't use the VDB reverse die for business strikes after the Proof run was completed.

They didn't even use the reverse dies for the non VDB 1909 Proofs as evidence by a completely different set of diagnostics  

 

Here is a PR61 1909 VDB; you can clearly see that the die imperfection is much less pronounced on this example.
(of course they didn't use the reverse dies for "non VDB 1909 Proofs" because of the VDB... and by Reverse Dies, do you mean that there are more than one Reverse Die?)

[Conder101]

12 hours ago, kidrootbeer said:

I sent just the pic of the back to a friend who is a "waaaay up there" exec of a National Coin Firm, and he wanted to know the date of the matte Proof.

You sent pictures of the reverse of a wheat cent with VDB at the bottom to a high exec of a big coin firm and he wanted to know what the DATE of the coin was?  Either an amusing mental slip, or even though he is a high exec he doesn't know coins.  (And that is possible, a large coin firms needs specialists in many fields, they don't all have to have a knowledge of coins.)

[robec1347]

3 hours ago, kidrootbeer said:

Here is a PR61 1909 VDB; you can clearly see that the die imperfection is much less pronounced on this example.
(of course they didn't use the reverse dies for "non VDB 1909 Proofs" because of the VDB... and by Reverse Dies, do you mean that there are more than one Reverse Die?)

What is the imperfection you see, the spots? If you are talking about the rims being uneven or that clip at 3 o'clock that isn't an imperfection. That is caused by the plastic surrounding the coin. Any dings you see, such as the one on the bottom left leg of the N in ONE, is just one of the reasons this coin was graded a 61. You are comparing this with your 65 coin........there should be differences.

There was only one reverse die for the Proof VDB. It should have been "reverse die" not "reverse dies".

Your coin is a beautiful, well struck example of the 1909 VDB. Being a first year design, these were saved in bulk by the consumer. As a result there are many that have the MPL "look". But so far there has never been a business strike (meant for circulation) VDB struck from either the single obverse die or single reverse die. The dies have the diagnostics and these would transfer to the planchet during striking. As Roger said earlier these dies never went to the coiner.

[kidrootbeer]

1 hour ago, Conder101 said:

You sent pictures of the reverse of a wheat cent with VDB at the bottom to a high exec of a big coin firm and he wanted to know what the DATE of the coin was?  Either an amusing mental slip, or even though he is a high exec he doesn't know coins.  (And that is possible, a large coin firms needs specialists in many fields, they don't all have to have a knowledge of coins.)

no, the picture seen above was sent

[kidrootbeer]

1 hour ago, robec1347 said:

What is the imperfection you see, the spots? If you are talking about the rims being uneven or that clip at 3 o'clock that isn't an imperfection. That is caused by the plastic surrounding the coin. Any dings you see, such as the one on the bottom left leg of the N in ONE, is just one of the reasons this coin was graded a 61. You are comparing this with your 65 coin........there should be differences.

There was only one reverse die for the Proof VDB. It should have been "reverse die" not "reverse dies".

Your coin is a beautiful, well struck example of the 1909 VDB. Being a first year design, these were saved in bulk by the consumer. As a result there are many that have the MPL "look". But so far there has never been a business strike (meant for circulation) VDB struck from either the single obverse die or single reverse die. The dies have the diagnostics and these would transfer to the planchet during striking. As Roger said earlier these dies never went to the coiner.

I was referencing the diagnostic die chip seen a few mm to the right of M (UNUM)

[kidrootbeer]

2 hours ago, robec1347 said:

Your coin is a beautiful, well struck example of the 1909 VDB. Being a first year design, these were saved in bulk by the consumer. As a result there are many that have the MPL "look". But so far there has never been a business strike (meant for circulation) VDB struck from either the single obverse die or single reverse die. The dies have the diagnostics and these would transfer to the planchet during striking. As Roger said earlier these dies never went to the coiner.

I remember when there  were plenty of 'original rolls' of VDB's to be had... I wouldn't make a fuss about this coin except that the back looks like a Matte Proof-right down to the odd color and abject luster-which is light years different than the obverse's luminous luster on smooth fields. Since these Bandera Bank hoard coins were all in situ, for years and years, it's the perfect opportunity for something weird to pop up, and pop up it did. Of course, there is nothing to prevent the dies from returning to normal coining once Proof striking is finished. Like I said: what looks that little die chip is just worn down or struck with not enough pressure to bring it up in detail. Other markers are worn or mushed-out. The die tooling behind AMER is sharp on the 67+, but hard to see at all on later specimens. You have to know what you're looking at

[robec1347]

41 minutes ago, kidrootbeer said:

I was referencing the diagnostic die chip seen a few mm to the right of M (UNUM)

except for being out of focus, I see nothing wrong with the die chip. It's in the right location and easy to see if you know what you're looking for. Of course lighting has a lot to do with how well the chip shows up in photographs.

[RWB]

If your Lincoln cent was sandblasted on any of its surfaces, the work was not done at the Philadelphia Mint. It is therefore an altered and defaced coin, worth its weight in copper -- more or less.

[kidrootbeer]

2 hours ago, RWB said:

If your Lincoln cent was sandblasted on any of its surfaces, the work was not done at the Philadelphia Mint. It is therefore an altered and defaced coin, worth its weight in copper -- more or less.

tell that to NGC... no, the Die was treated

[kidrootbeer]

2 hours ago, robec1347 said:

except for being out of focus, I see nothing wrong with the die chip. It's in the right location and easy to see if you know what you're looking for. Of course lighting has a lot to do with how well the chip shows up in photographs.

its mass is decreasing

[robec1347]

1 hour ago, kidrootbeer said:

its mass is decreasing

You can't possibly tell that from an old out of focus photo with less than optimal lighting.

[kidrootbeer]

14 minutes ago, robec1347 said:

You can't possibly tell that from an old out of focus photo with less than optimal lighting.

maybe, probably I see things differently than do you

[robec1347]

Here are a few photos I took of a VDB proof 6 years ago, the last one 5 years ago. These were taken with lighting in different positions. Note how the die chip changes in shape and size, yet it's the same coin.

[kidrootbeer]

11 minutes ago, robec1347 said:

Here are a few photos I took of a VDB proof 6 years ago, the last one 5 years ago. These were taken with lighting in different positions. Note how the die chip changes in shape and size, yet it's the same coin.

Nice! Most auction companies scan their lots, though. Now, look at a bunch of different examples...

[kidrootbeer]

1 hour ago, robec1347 said:

You can't possibly tell that from an old out of focus photo with less than optimal lighting.

it is not a photograph

[robec1347]

9 minutes ago, kidrootbeer said:

it is not a photograph

Now I'm confused. Isn't that VDB, with the notation "Imaged by Heritage Auctions HA.com" the coin you were saying  that the mass of the chip was decreasing? 

 

You posted the HA "photograph" saying there were imperfections. When I pointed out spots and a hit on the N as the reason for the 61 grade you said the imperfections you were talking about was the die chip losing mass. I posted my photos showing that lighting can change the way the die chip appears. And now you say that the HA photo isn't a photo........if it isn't what is it?

[robec1347]

Oh, I think I know what you are saying. This is a scan, not a photo. OK, you're right, but a scan makes a coin image even less reliable than a photo.

[kidrootbeer]

2 hours ago, robec1347 said:

Oh, I think I know what you are saying. This is a scan, not a photo. OK, you're right, but a scan makes a coin image even less reliable than a photo.

the scans are consistent, if anything, but Yes: some things are compromised (esp. Original Mint Red). Done thousands of each for eBay, so I come "armed" to Stack's and Heritage auctions. I looked at all the pictures I could find, looking for consistency. The tooling behind AMER comes and goes; in the later states many of the die marks change or disappear. It's probably not farfetched to say that the dies were probably retreated after so many strikes

[kidrootbeer]

2 hours ago, robec1347 said:

You posted the HA "photograph" saying there were imperfections. When I pointed out spots and a hit on the N as the reason for the 61 grade you said the imperfections you were talking about was the die chip losing mass. I posted my photos showing that lighting can change the way the die chip appears. And now you say that the HA photo isn't a photo........if it isn't what is it?

not Imperfections plural... just the die chip as discussed