The proofs from the 50's and 60's often lack the cameo effect. This typically is attributed to overuse of dies which, in turn, causes the frosting on the devices to fade. My question is: does anyone know if dies for matte proof cents produced smoother, shinier coins as they aged?
The most matte proof they made were 4100. I really doubt that was enough use to begin to show any evidence of wear. BTW, not only do the proofs from the 50's and 60's often the cameo effect, they rarely have it. Many of them sell for moon money.
To RLM's comment, smoothing of the matte dies for cents doubtless did occur, but microscopically, and so little over 2,848 pieces (highest MP mintage, that being of the 1913) that any difference would be imperceptible to us. From 1950 forward, during which cameos can be considered legitimately rare for some years, the degrading of the dies is much more apparent, but the differences in annual mintage are huge, starting at over 50,000 in 1950, and eclipsing 1 million before 1960. I don't have a good feel for how often proof dies were changed, but I suspect they were run well beyond 10,000 strikes before replacement in the press. If you've seen cents of the matte proof era, which are proof strikes without matte surfaces, you are either looking at a discovery coin, or a coin with altered surfaces. Last year, I was fortunate to win an altered matte proof quarter eagle in an eBay auction for little more than what a common AU quarter eagle would cost. Finding a buyer for an altered coin was quite a task, but I still made out very well. . . . Wish I'd used that as an example for the guy complaining about not being able to find good deals on eBay.
I don't know where you are getting you mintage figures. My Red Book shows 2983 for 1913. Whoopee for that difference, but 4118 for 1910.
Both Breen's Encyclopedia and PCGS CoinFacts indicate 2405 for 1910 and 2848 for 1913. I'm really not trying to be argumentative on CT but, even if my figures were incorrect, it seems to me that discussions over principles and practices would benefit the community more than disputes over facts and figures . . . do you not agree?
Interesting. Heritage agrees with the Red Book and Lange agrees with yours. Not sure what you are driving at with the rest of your comment, but I have no problem discussing/arguing principals, practices or facts - so long as the discussion does not stray to personal.
This is a subject that fascinates me and I felt like I needed to share this info even though it doesn't address the matte proof question. I felt it might be helpful to the discussion to differentiate the cameo proofs of the 50s and 60s and give the facts as to why. The frosting on the devices for coins from 1950-70 are much different than post 1970. Today the devices are sandblasted and then have their fields polished and rubbed with diamond dust compound to give them the cameo effect and then chrome plated. In the previous period (1950-70) the dies were instead dipped in a "pickling" solution of 5% nitric acid and 95% rubbing alcohol. This would frost the entire surface of the die. A worker preparing the die would then touch up the frosting on the devices with a cotton swab and more "pickling" solution and then the dies would be buffed and polished with the same diamond dust compound, first with a wooden mandril and then a felt-tipped mandril. The mandrils wouldn't be used in the recesses of the die and that is why the dies had a cameo effect at first. The earlier process made a cameo frost on the dies that was much more delicate and it often wore away quickly. To say that it was overuse of dies that accounts for the small number of cameos is factually incorrect. The chrome plating of the dies is what accounts for the long lasting cameo effect and the change in proofs today. Now nearly ALL have strong cameo devices. The cameo coins are all well struck as are many without cameo devices. The weak strike of a large percentage of these proof coins can be correctly attributed to the overuse of dies, but the lack of cameo devices cannot.
You're right. My reference was dated and I concentrated more on the process from 1950-70. I sit corrected.
