• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

1909 VDB Proof Penny
0

Started by Me4it,

28 posts in this topic

Me4it

Me4it

Posted
Posted (edited)

The thicker rimmed/thicker vdb is a nice pick from my collection.

Any opinions on a grade/is it proof?

 

I have noticed a few key die marks necessary for proof vdb pennies.

Beautiful toning.

Nice sharp flat rim

 

 

Any thoughts guys on how to distinguish between a MS and PR vdb?

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

8742806C-CADF-4168-8D98-D4248C5B2BC4.thumb.jpeg.083155c88d17004a0c01268e0155c2b1.jpegD5BD66D1-C694-47FA-A545-9DDE90B8D003.thumb.jpeg.7a24a242b97f7a98d2513d3f1becc90f.jpegB6A01CB9-C536-4F85-97BD-85402FDB3AD0.thumb.jpeg.19520c55e59478284e3a3072ebf15893.jpeg8742806C-CADF-4168-8D98-D4248C5B2BC4.thumb.jpeg.083155c88d17004a0c01268e0155c2b1.jpeg

Edited by Me4it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Me4it

Me4it

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Rwb & Vkurt Im guessing you guys are right, the matte proof’s are so rare I highly doubt that’s what I’m looking at either. There should be no doubt when having a coin graded that it is a 100% exact match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Just Bob

Just Bob

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Me4it said:

Any thoughts guys on how to distinguish between a MS and PR vdb?

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

 

The main obverse die marker for a 1909 Matte Proof is raised, parallel die lines in front of Lincoln's nose, extending down to a point even with his lips. I think there are markers for the reverse, too, but I don't remember them. Shouldn't be too hard to find that information online.

Regardless, I don't think yours are proofs. Nice coins, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Member: Seasoned Veteran
DWLange

DWLange

Posted
  • Member: Seasoned Veteran
Posted

Die markers are unnecessary to the trained eye. The coins illustrated lack the strike and texture of the proofs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VKurtB

VKurtB

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, DWLange said:

Die markers are unnecessary to the trained eye. The coins illustrated lack the strike and texture of the proofs.

Because of the paper in which 1909 proofs were sent, there are virtually no “red” proofs. Just about ALL are Brown or at best Red/Brown. Thus spake Carl Waltz of Millersville, PA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VKurtB

VKurtB

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

Those examples bear no resemblance to Proofs.

There is one justification for the question from newer collectors - there are many very crisply struck circulation strike 1909 cents. Why do so many still exist? Hoarding when they were new. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

There is one justification for the question from newer collectors - there are many very crisply struck circulation strike 1909 cents. Why do so many still exist? Hoarding when they were new. 

While some newer collectors might ask for that reason, my feeling is that far more ask merely because a Proof is worth considerably more money. Likewise, countless owners of common, damaged coins prefer to believe that they have rare, valuable errors. And owners of normal examples imagine that they’re seeing valuable doubted dies. 

Edited by MarkFeld
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VKurtB

VKurtB

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

While some newer collectors might ask for that reason, my feeling is that far more ask merely because a Proof is worth considerably more money. Likewise, countless owners of common, damaged coins prefer to believe that they have rare, valuable errors. And owners of normal examples imagine that they’re seeing valuable doubted dies. 

I point out those things and I get blamed for not being “nice”. Glad you said it. My belief is that until a new collector actually gets to see one of these “special coins (of many types)” in their actual hands, under proper light, and not in Internet digital pictures, they have little to no business speculating on having one. You have to do the homework, ironically by leaving home and going to see things in person. Mr. Waltz, referenced above, has won many Class 1 (US coins) first place awards at ANA shows for his unrivaled studies on Matte Proof Lincolns. On two occasions, I was on the judging panel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VKurtB

VKurtB

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, rocket23 said:

boy you guys would have a field day with the proofs I picked up today 1 being a 1944 proof.....along with a 1957....both in very good shape .

There are no 1944 proofs. There were none between 1943 and 1949. 

Edited by VKurtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldFinger1969

GoldFinger1969

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

I point out those things and I get blamed for not being “nice”. 

I don't think anybody should blame you or anyone else for pointing out an error in their coin evaluation.

It's usually the commentary that follows that might set people off after they were disappointed to learn that their $5.00 coin isn't worth $500. xD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, rocket23 said:

boy you guys would have a field day with the proofs I picked up today 1 being a 1944 proof.....along with a 1957....both in very good shape .

What supposed 1944 proof are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VKurtB

VKurtB

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, MarkFeld said:

What supposed 1944 proof are you talking about?

Quiz for rocket23: Why are Belgian 1944 2 franc pieces interesting to U.S. numismatists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RWB

RWB

Posted
Posted
On 2/5/2021 at 5:43 PM, Me4it said:

Rwb & Vkurt Im guessing you guys are right, the matte proof’s are so rare I highly doubt that’s what I’m looking at either. There should be no doubt when having a coin graded that it is a 100% exact match.

I think VKurt and I recognize the semantics of your comment, but it's not a matter of "guessing." There are specific and obvious characteristics by which to identify matte proof cents and nickels. If you familiarize yourself with these, you will be more readily able to distinguish circulation strike coins from legitimate proofs made on a medal press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VKurtB

VKurtB

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, RWB said:

I think VKurt and I recognize the semantics of your comment, but it's not a matter of "guessing." There are specific and obvious characteristics by which to identify matte proof cents and nickels. If you familiarize yourself with these, you will be more readily able to distinguish circulation strike coins from legitimate proofs made on a medal press.

The toughest one to eliminate as a proof for me was several years ago I acquired a truly special 1913 Type 1 nickel that at first glance looked like a matte proof. A little deeper study revealed it to not be one, but it sure was an awesome strike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
robec1347

robec1347

Posted
Posted (edited)

The 1909 VDB is definitely not a proof. On the Reverse all Proof VDB's have a centered dot between the D and B. The dot on yours is close to the D.

There are other diagnostics, but aren't needed  as proof for this coin.

Proof - Dot Centered between D and B

VDBproofDot1.jpg

VDB - Dot close to D MS, not Proof

VDB_uncentered_dot.jpg

Edited by robec1347
Corrected Proof pic
Link to comment
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
0
Go to topic listing