I was about to report this auction as false and misleading.170185184011 I looked it up in the Red book and was surprised to find matte proof listed for 1917. No mintage and no price. None sold on Heritaqge. I always thought that proofs ended in 1916. Can someone fill me in please?
That coin is mine and it is NOT misleading. There were accounts of 1917 proofs as noted by Walter Breen. I'd appreciate that you do some reasearch and not everything is in the Red Book you know.
1917 Lincoln Cent "Matte Proof" RARE! Lightly Cleaned Only a few have traded hands This is a gorgeous example of a specimen "matte proof". This coin could be it. Please read the caption below from David Lange's book "The complete Guide to Lincoln Cents". You got to remember that even the coin that Walter Breen examined as a Matte proof that the coin was cleaned just like most Matte Proofs you will encounter raw. This coin looks as if it also has had a light cleaning in the past. The rims are exceptional along with extreme strike quality of the past matte proofs. Here is an excerpt from David W. Lange's book The complete guide of Lincoln Cents. " Though a few examples have traded hands as proof or specimin strikings, these coins remain in a shadowy netherworld. Walter Breen asserted that matte proofs of the style employed in 1916 do indeed exist for this date. The grading services have declined to certify any 1917 cents as proofs, just as they have for all alleged 1917 proofs of various denominations. The author has not personally examined a cent of this date bearing any characteristics of proof coins, though he has seen a 1917 quarter which he believed to be a proof. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask! There will be no returns on this coin due to the uncertainty of of the 1917 Matte Proofs. Please bid accordingly. Good Luck
First off. he says "possible" proof. (in the title) second there's this: http://coinfacts.com/small_cents/cents_lincoln_wheat_reverse.html which says they're rare. I'll agree, the description can be misleading. I suggest you change it so it works with the title. i.e. "possible matte proof"
That coin is clearly not a matte proof, as evidenced by the lack of sufficient strike detail, lack of squared edges and lack of the proper fabric/texture to the surfaces. Despite claims of their existence, none have been confirmed by any highly respected grading company. What difference does that make? Tens of thousands of dollars to the owner of a genuine one.
Let's see if we've got this right.... The title says "possible matte proof". The body says it is a matte proof: "This is a gorgeous example of a specimen "matte proof"." Yet you take no returns because it may not be: "There will be no returns on this coin due to the uncertainty of of the 1917 Matte Proofs." Like I said the first time.... That is an auction looking for a sucker, that is no matte proof, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Either that coin is not a proof or your pictures are very misleading. A proof would have no orange peel affects and that one looks to be loaded with them.
Understandable, I will add to the description since there is already bids. Look I am not trying to make enemies. This coin has exceptional strike qualities that you don't commonly see on a buisness strike or I wouldn't have paid $800 dollars for it in 2001. I sent it off to NGC and they gave it a no grade and I quote Cleaned ungradeable. That was it and no explenation. I was very discouraged after spending so much on a single cleaned coin. I knew it was cleaned when I bought it but I hoped that they would have at least gave me some info on it being a proof or not. I even tried sending it in to NCS a few years later and they wouldn't grade it either. Now that is some bull honkey.
Like I said you are not a TPG. Oh and BTW how do you suppose you get a genuine one if they won't even slab one??!?! Thanks for your comments.
The aucion is contradictory. Title says possible matte proof, description states " this is a gorgeous example of a specimen matte proof". I believe the description is misleading, even with all qualifiers stated. It will inflate the bid price well beyond what it should be. this is a 99 cent auction with no reserve that could well hit several hundred dollars with a bidding war of Ebay gamblers. You would actually accept $100 ? $200? $300? for a coin so rare? There is a run of Lincolns listed as "possible" this, possible that. All designed to raise bids beyond what they should be. Any Lincoln collector or dealer thinking they have a matte proof 1917 would not risk accepting $50 for it in a 99 cent auction, unless shilling was planned. I believe this auction to be misleading. I also believe PCGS and NGC will not authenticate them as such because there still is doubt as to question of them actually being minted. This coin, 1917 is a new die year, and exceptionally struck examples are not at all rare or even scarce. Supremely struck is the rule for high grade 1917 Lincolns. I am not calling the seller anything unethical, I am just stating my opinion based on the facts as I see them. I believe there is a nil chance that this is a matte proof and I believe that seller knows same.
I'll pay you $10,000 if you can get PCGS, ANACS or NGC to verify that coin as a matte proof (and you get to keep the coin, too). If you have any thought that it is the real thing, you will gladly submit it for authentication to try to take me up on my offer. But I already know you won't even submit it because deep down, you must already know it's not a matte proof, but must prefer to pretend otherwise.