1909 Matte Proof – New Coin Die Discovered

Here's an article Brian Wagner and Kevin Flynn wrote about a new die variety discovery I happen to find for a 1909 Matte Proof Lincoln. It was really interesting how this all came about (including some "sour grapes" controversy from the guy who bought a similar 1909 MPL in an auction with some similar die markings but who never got it attributed and then proceeded to blast Brian about attributing the discovery to me! He was so upset that he posted some unpleasant comments on the CU forum about all this and then ended up having to apologize). In any event, I think it's really interesting that new die varieties are still being discovered after all this time.

Kevin took detailed photos of my coin but I don't have them yet.

http://www.pcgs.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=6162&universeid=313&type=1

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Pretty cool Charmy, can't wait to see the photos!!!

 

Awesome find, It really is cool.

 

Nice!!! Your in the news everywhere now adays

 

Very cool find Charmy. Cooler heads finally prevailed.:high5:

 

Quote from article: I have a 1909 MPL cent that was cracked out of a PCGS PR65RB holder

Question? How did PCGS know it was a MPL then?

Why crack out a MPL from a premier grading companies holder?

Scratchin ma head.

 

I didn't crack it out, the guy I bought it from did and said he put it in an album (yes, scratchin my head on that one too!). Even without the usual die markers, you could tell the coin is a proof by the rims, the strike, etc. But because it didn't have the usual die markers, that's when all the questions, examinations, discussions, photos, research, etc. began.

 

Charmy, thanks for taking the time to answer my question, that is a nice find and be in on the discovery. Will this coin be going (attempt) back into PCGS plastic as a discovery coin?

 

I think ultimately the guy writing the book gets to pick whatever he wants for his book, but you gotta admit, the other guy sure was raising his hand and yelling call on me call on me.

 

WOW! I can't believe this new die hasn't been figured out until now!

Thanks for the story Charmy!

 

Maybe the die was only recently made.....
... in China.

 

Thank for sharing! that PennyLady!!!

As always Charmy some great info! it just goes to show that there is always something new about the Lincolns cent we all love!!

 

Has it been determined whether this was a discovery piece or a re-discovery piece? I thought the understanding was there were some unauthenticated diagnostics present. Were there also some that hadn't even been unauthenticated?

 

Here is a rather lengthy discussion of the coin and variety in question:

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=30&threadid=771316

 

p.s. congrats Charmy!

 

My understanding is that my piece was the first to be "authenticated" so I am guessing that's why they are calling it the "discovery" coin, though Kevin doesn't really like to use the word "discovery" because I believe there are most likely other specimens that have been discussed or known, but just haven't been officially "authenticated" by experts.

If the guy who bought the coin from the auction had sent it to Kevin Flynn as he was advised to do and it was determined that his had the "newly dsicovered" die markers, there is a good chance that his might have been called the "discovery" piece, but he didn't do that nor did he pursue any other means of getting his coin authenticated.

More importantly and something that was not brought out in the other discussions on this, had Brian not seen my coin and brought Kevin in to evaluate it, it is my belief that the other guy would still NOT have taken steps to get his coin examined by experts and the discovery of this different die would still have gone unpublished.

Bottom line on this whole issue really is that it is very interesting that we are just now learning of a new die for a 1909 coin and it is thanks to people like Kevin and Brian who care enough to delve into the nitty gritty technical and time consuming research, including comparisons of minute die markers to known dies.

Personally, I never sought to have my name attached to something like this, I was just curious about my coin since it was raw and looked like a proof but was a little different than the other known 1909 proofs. Also, I personally felt and suggested that Brian should be named as the "discoverer" of this die as he was the one who really identified it as being different, but it was he and Kevin who felt that since I allowed my coin to be photographed and authenticated first, my name should be attached to it.

My feeling is that it really shouldn't matter whatsoever who "discovers" things like this in the coin world, it's more important to focus on the fact that someone took the time to compare, do the research to actually prove or disprove that it is a NEW die variety, however significant or insignificant that might end up being. It is people like Kevin and Brian who care enough to take their own time, in spite of their personal business and family, to contribute so heavily to our understanding by sharing and actually publishing their knowledge and research for the rest of us so we can all learn, understand and more thoroughly enjoy coins. And, sincerely, isn't that what loving coins is all about!

 

Congratulations on your find Charmy. From what I've read or tried to comprehend, yours may be the only one found with this particular die marriage. Whether you care or not having your name attributed to this piece, I think it is ultra cool to have such a rare beast in a relatively rare series.:bow:

It does look like they are out there. Apparently Chris's emails to Kevin were going to the wrong address. I don't know Chris's thinking, but I'll have to agree with you that the matter was not advancing any longer.

Sumorada on the PCGS board just showed images of his 1909 PR64 that also shows the scratch in the C. I checked mine and guess what.........no!

 

I think you hit the nail on the head here, Charmy.

 

Even more so, I pointed out in the other thread that "the other guy" didn't even appear to know his coin didn't have the traditional diagnostics until I pointed it out to him via private message after he posted pics on the CU Forum. Only after that and his further review of the coin did he pursue his initial contacts with Kevin and Brian.

I agree that it's great that new dies are being discovered or re-discovered, whatever the case may be. I also think that Kevin and/or Brian should be the only people considered for "discovery" recognition, if anyone at all deserves such recognition, since they do the nitty gritty leg work to confirm the general observations of us more casual onlookers.

I understand that in some cases there may be some financial motivation to get a coin labeled as a "discovery coin" but I'm not sure that is too significant in this case since I can't imagine that many people collecting matte proofs by die variety at this time. Like Charmy said, it's just cool that new info is being learned or re-learned on this series and it's great there are people committed to devoting the time it takes to research these issues in depth.

 

I was explaning this interesting situation to a close friend today in a conversation. She thought it amazing there is such a thing as "coin drama". Regardless of any of that mumbo chatter, it is important to the coin community that all dies are known. Every day that goes buy makes the archaeology more difficult. It's a good day for Lincoln cents!