If you saw this reverse of a 1909 VDB penny below, would you think that it's from a proof die? Or, are the contrasting fields a bit too deceptive? It looks to have been circulated, but the chances of a 1909 VDB proof ending up in circulation seems too far-fetched. But, I see a tiny mark next to UNUM where the proof die diagnostics would be, as if it's a refurbished proof die recycled for circulation strike coins. Or, is the strength of this strike "common" among early die business strikes?
I think a little rounded. Possibly from circulation wear? If not, could it be possible that it's a proof die struck only once for a business strike coin? The other side shows a raised area at the edge of the rim, like when excess metal gets squeezed out. Maybe it's also a combination of bad photography.
I also wonder... if a proof coin doesn't meet standards (e.g. a bad planchet, misaligned die, etc.), does it simply get melted down? Or, does it get tossed into the business strike pile?
I mean it's certainly possible that the mint repurposed old proof dies for circulation coinage as they wore down. Although I think generally without some design difference (Ala type B quarters, or Type II Franklins it would be very very hard to tell because the proof dies would have been worn down to the point where the coins they struck would appear like normal circulation strikes.
After the entire batch of however many 1,000 or so proof coins, maybe the Mint took the die out, repaired it a bit, then used it for circulation strikes. But, that's all speculation. I'll have to get some better pics up... It's just that, the coin looks so sharp and different from other examples I've seen, notably the devices. It's so different from typical strikes.
On all proof VDBs the dot after the D is almost directly between the D and the B. On the business (MS) strike VDB's some have a close dot after the D and some have the centered. Yours appears to have a close dot which means it wasn't struck from proof dies.
Thanks, nice to know. Do you know if circulation strike coins also have the "." centered, or is this unique to the proof dies?
Both centered and close dots appear in circulation strikes, buy only centered dots appear in proof. If your coin had the centered dot it would need more investigating.
Regarding Did the mint use of retired proof dies for business strikes? - or - Were coins that didn't pass inspection as proofs put into circulation?: Albrecht stated in his 1983 article in The Numismatist; "Occasionally, business strikes can be mistaken for Matte Proof pieces, but, as far as our records show, the diagnostics discussed in this article have appeared only on Proof coins." He also stated later in the article: "...some die polish might be from the master die. If this is the case, similar die polish might appear on business strike also." So the verdict on this seems to be weighted towards "No" in both counts. There is no certain evidence that proof dies were used on business strikes or that proof strikes that did not pass inspection were then put into general circulation. Until something further is shown, I think we should assume the proof production did not overlap with coins earmarked for general circulation. With regard to the period placement on the V.D.B. initials on the 1909 matte proof, Robec is absolutely correct. If the period after D is not centered between the D and B (that is, close to the D) that coin can be eliminated outright as a proof candidate. Some business strikes have a centered dot. How many is something I don't know but it is a substantial percentage. So, you can use the dot placement as a weeding out strategy but it is a minor piece of evidence when authenticating a VDB proof. It is really only a starting place. An actual proof would also need to have the proper rims and all the die lines in place to authenticate. I have found business strikes that can mislead can have any number of the following characteristics and if you are looking for proofs you need to be careful about these: 1) An early die state business strike can have proof-like details 2) A matte proof like surface can be misleading and by itself does not mean a coin is a genuine proof 3) Die lines that are on the master die and appear on proofs and business strikes. One reoccurring case involves the lines from the M in UNUM on the reverse. The proof also has a line from the middle of the M while the business strike has them only from the outer lines of the M. There is also a vertical line from the L in Liberty than appears on some proofs and business strikes. There can be a line through the O in One on proofs and business strikes. In conclusion, when authenticating any proof, you have to be certain of ALL the characteristics. In a case where one thing might be missing or weak, I think you should have an expert on matte proofs help you. You wouldn't want to give up on a coin that might still be authentic just because one aspect is uncertain. Later die states of genuine proofs can have weak or missing diagnostics, so keep that in mind.
Thanks for all of that comprehensive info. Banks received specimens of business strike coins in advance, right? I'd think that it would be appropriate in 1909 when they transitioned to a completely different penny design. If that's the case, I'm wondering if any of these business strike specimens had higher pressures applied to the planchets when struck. Just speculation - not sure if banks received specimens or that they're even struck any different. Also, has either NGC or PCGS graded a 1909 VDB penny as a Proof-Like strike? Unless it would need to be matte proof-like, which would need to be judged on a completely different criteria from regular proof-like. That would be neat to see (e.g. only when a proof die is used to strike a business strike coin as an early strike). But, from what you wrote, that doesn't appear to be a likely possibility. I guess regular proof-like could be possible, though. In any case, all of this stems from my thought that this particular 1909 VDB penny's strike is unusually strong. Perhaps that's not the case? I've been diving into US currency more and more, and I'm particularly a silver collector, so I haven't seen thousands of these 1909 VDB cents like many of you - more like hundreds for me. Maybe someone can point out the obvious and let me know if the strike is "not uncommon", unless of course it's uncommon.
iPen - Interesting questions! In the first case regarding the early release of coins to banks and the possible method of mintage; From what I've read, proofs were struck on a special machine - in a completely separate area of the mint building. This machine used for proofs was capable of up to 300 to 400 TONS (!) of pressure per square inch. - (Flynn/Lincoln Cent Matte Proofs) The business strikes were made on a machine that exerted 60 tons per square inch. Also, the proofs were struck TWICE. This really enhanced the smallest details. If you have the pleasure of seeing in person, a nice 1916 Matte Lincoln, the detail can be literally breathtaking. (the 1916 matte proof was generally the best struck of all the mattes) The grading companies do designate "PL" or "proof-like" for some coins, usually silver dollars I believe. They have not in my knowledge, ever used this for matte proof Lincoln cents. I think if they did, it might even cause more confusion in an area where there already is enough! Collectors and dealers do speak about "EDS" or "Early Die State" coins but I've never actually seen this on a slab label. (ok, no jokes about EDS - erectile dysfunction syndrome! This has nothing to do with coins, at least as far as I know!) Back to your first question regarding the banks. In David Lynch's great book about Lincoln Cents from 1995, he remarks about the crush for the new Lincoln cents when they were first released. People lined up outside the banks far out onto the sidewalks for a block or more. The bank officials had to limit the quantity you could get and they still ran out! Enterprising young boys were reselling the coins and they were able to get from up to 25 cents each. That was a tidy sum in 1909! Probably at least $3.00 today. Nevertheless, there wasn't anything special about the striking of these coins other than they were "early run" or "first run" and may have had a larger than normal amount of EDS and well struck specimens among them. There are no anecdotal reports about this however. So often, coin collecting has me wishing for a time machine! I would have been in that line at the bank! I would have been in San Francisco though! Your coin pictured in the OP looks like a nice strike. it has a nice rim that is even in depth all the way around. Exactly how well struck it is can be very hard to ascertain without seeing it in hand. For conversation sake, can you say it is "proof-like"? You certainly are free to do so but there isn't any OFFICIAL designation for that and honestly, I don't see that becoming an actual recognized designation - but - who knows what might happen...? A quick aside; There were collectors back then who liked to have proof issues every year. They were used to sending the mint a quarter to get their minor proof set of a nickel and a penny. The mint only ran a small amount of the VDB proofs and after just a few days, the VDB was removed from the die and that was the end for the VDB reverse. People who were used to collecting the proofs got cut off and some were irate about it. If you get Kevin Flynn's book, "Lincoln Cent Matte Proofs" in the appendix are some interesting letters in the mint archives by collectors who were quite upset at not getting their annual proof sets. Note that in 1909, there were three (!) proof pennies; The indian cent, the VDB and the Lincoln with the VDB. If someone managed to get all three, they were from a small and very lucky minority.
Typo in the last post - sorry. The next to last sentence should read; "Note that in 1909, there were three (!) proof pennies; the indian cent, the VDB and the Lincoln WITHOUT the VDB.
I am sure I wasn't lucky enough to dig up a matte probably just a cleaned v.d.b but was worth asking I picked this up from a fellow collector a while back in the current 2x2 it has a lot of the characteristics, but also maybe lacking a few. The vdb dots can't be conclusively placed but I'm 60/40 they are in the middle but can't get image magnified enough
