So, I have been reading about coins that I can probably never own...namely early 20th century US proofs. I understand that these coins were made with multiple finishes...what I don't understand is why? Based on what I have read...most (all) of the early 20th century proofs (up to 1916) seem to be matte proofs. But then, when I read about them starting up again in 1936 I see some categorized as satin and others as brilliant. Why were the finishes changed?
I'll try to give a short answer to your questions. The first proofs of the 20th century were the Barber, Morgan, Longacre designs. These coins were all designed with flat fields with clearly delineated devices. This made the dies easy to polish for a mirrored field, leaving devices unpolished. If the dies were pickled before polishing, then the devices would have the cameo look. The coinage redesign of 1909-1916 turned that practice on its head. Fields were now an integral part of the coin's design and Barber said there wasn't a good way to polish dies with these new designs for the same type of appearance as was seen on the older designs. Saint-Gaudens and Pratt actually objected to the possibility of polishing the dies to a mirrored finish. Instead, these dies were lightly sandblasted before being hardened. This brings us the matte proofs. The combination of declining demand in 1916 and World War I halted proof coin production, which wouldn't be resumed for 20 years. Barber, Morgan, and those practiced in manufacture of proof coinage were gone. The first proof cents and nickels of 1936 were a satin finish, not polished, but not sandblasted. Customers didn't like them, so the mint re-developed the process of making brilliant proofs. Saint-Gaudens and Pratt weren't around to object, and their designs weren't in play anyway. Barber wasn't there to say it wasn't going to work, either. The act of polishing dies to a mirror surface often wreaked havoc on the designs. Floating bits of Lincoln's coat, missing initials on the reverse and flag detail on the obverse of the Walking Liberty half, Jefferson's hair ribbon were all casualties of production of brilliant proofs. Looking at pre-WWII coinage, they never really got good at producing nice looking brilliant proof dies. By 1950, the most troublesome designs with regard to proof coinage were replaced with designs where the field was more separate from the design. Despite the 8-year break and a bit of knowledge loss, brilliant proofs were easier to produce now. Cameo proofs could also be made, since there was a meaningful delineation between the fields and devices, but this wasn't intentional at first. By the 1970s, relief was starting to be lowered a little bit, and die preparation could look a bit more like it did in the Barber era, with an easily polished flat field with a pickled device that would start off cameo. Soon the cameo appearance became more deliberate, and dies were retired when this effect faded. In 1997, the platinum eagles were the first experiment with a reverse cameo look. In 2006, the silky cameo of pickled dies started to be phased out with the introduction of a much coarser, laser-applied texture that would contrast with the fields. This process could almost be seen as a separate hubbing, since design elements were being applied to the die, even if it was a computer-controlled laser rather than a press with a hub doing the work. Hmm... that wasn't short. If you want a longer answer, Roger Burdette wrote a book on proofs from 1936-42, which will give you a more rigorous answer regarding the evolution of proof finishes during that period.
I really don't have much time to expand. I am sure that others here can give a better answer. One of the major changes was the evolution of die prep.
I'll try to give a short answer to your questions. The first proofs of the 20th century were the Barber, Morgan, Longacre designs. These coins were all designed with flat fields with clearly delineated devices. This made the dies easy to polish for a mirrored field, leaving devices unpolished. If the dies were pickled before polishing, then the devices would have the cameo look. The coinage redesign of 1909-1916 turned that practice on its head. Fields were now an integral part of the coin's design and Barber said there wasn't a good way to polish dies with these new designs for the same type of appearance as was seen on the older designs. Saint-Gaudens and Pratt actually objected to the possibility of polishing the dies to a mirrored finish. Instead, these dies were lightly sandblasted before being hardened. This brings us the matte proofs. The combination of declining demand in 1916 and World War I halted proof coin production, which wouldn't be resumed for 20 years. Barber, Morgan, and those practiced in manufacture of proof coinage were gone. The first proof cents and nickels of 1936 were a satin finish, not polished, but not sandblasted. Customers didn't like them, so the mint re-developed the process of making brilliant proofs. Saint-Gaudens and Pratt weren't around to object, and their designs weren't in play anyway. Barber wasn't there to say it wasn't going to work, either. The act of polishing dies to a mirror surface often wreaked havoc on the designs. Floating bits of Lincoln's coat, missing initials on the reverse and flag detail on the obverse of the Walking Liberty half, Jefferson's hair ribbon were all casualties of production of brilliant proofs. Looking at pre-WWII coinage, they never really got good at producing nice looking brilliant proof dies. By 1950, the most troublesome designs with regard to proof coinage were replaced with designs where the field was more separate from the design. Despite the 8-year break and a bit of knowledge loss, brilliant proofs were easier to produce now. Cameo proofs could also be made, since there was a meaningful delineation between the fields and devices, but this wasn't intentional at first. By the 1970s, relief was starting to be lowered a little bit, and die preparation could look a bit more like it did in the Barber era, with an easily polished flat field with a pickled device that would start off cameo. Soon the cameo appearance became more deliberate, and dies were retired when this effect faded. In 1997, the platinum eagles were the first experiment with a reverse cameo look. In 2006, the silky cameo of pickled dies started to be phased out with the introduction of a much coarser, laser-applied texture that would contrast with the fields. This process could almost be seen as a separate hubbing, since design elements were being applied to the die, even if it was a computer-controlled laser rather than a press with a hub doing the work. Hmm... that wasn't short. If you want a longer answer, Roger Burdette wrote a book on proofs from 1936-42, which will give you a more rigorous answer regarding the evolution of proof finishes during that period.
Barber was a buffoon. Disliked any design other than his own. I get the die preparation was different but I still think it's funny that from 1909-1916 any design that wasn't his, got the sandblasted proof look, while his Barber designs remained as brilliant with mirrored fields.
Barber wasn't a buffoon. He was a great technician when it came to creating designs that would optimize quality of strike and die life. He was also correct when he said the new designs wouldn't polish up the same. He wasn't the greatest artist, though, and his designs, workable as they were in production, fell far short of those of his contemporaries.
Agreed. Very informative. These animations show the play of the light off of the flat fields of the Barber and the compound curvature used on the Lincoln, especially in front of his face. Here’s a Barber proof. Here’s a matte proof. I don’t have a satin proof, but I like my brilliant one.
I know with world coinage, matte proofs were produced as well, especially in Great Britain and France. I used to own a few matte proof maundy coins from that era. I've never heard a reason why they produced them certain years, with some years having both matte and mirrored specimens. But, it doesn't seem like they were all that popular with the public and of course, of it's not making money, it's unlikely to continue!
He didn't like Brenner's Lincoln design, which is buffoonish in my opinion, when the Barber designs were some of the worst ever made. Yeah the high grades and proofs look okay, but as soon as a smudge of wear shows up, the barber coinage turns to hideous. Maybe buffoonish is the wrong descriptor. Arrogant, blind, and moronic might be better to describe the man.
