1917 Buffalo Nickel & Wheat Cent Proofs - Do They Exist??

I know that NGC and PCGS don't recognize their existence. However, I discovered that the 1917 Annual report from the director of the Mint states that there were 939 proof pieces made for "minor coins". These minor coins refer to nickels and cents, as you can see from the Mint's table of minor coins.

Since we know that the nominal value of these minor coins is $27.99 with a total of 939 minted, that means that there were exactly 474 proof Wheat cents and 465 proof Buffalo nickels minted.

I did make sure that those figures are for 1917 and not for 1916 (the latter of which had a proof mintage of 600 for each of the cents and nickels). So, they did exist, but do they still exist? What happened to these proof nickels and cents? Were they melted down??

Thanks in advance!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I am chiming in to learn something new.

 

Some info here:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/859734/the-1917-matte-proof-lincoln-fact-or-fiction

 

Interesting. The photo shows a very convincing one.

A lot of the folks there seem to say that a matte proof 1917 Lincoln cent is a fiction.

They're very insistent that it doesn't exist, but the original Mint report (as shown above) says that they did in fact exist!

 

Does anyone know the official reason stated by any of the major TPGs as to why no 1917 MPLs exist? Were they simply not formally issued to collectors - all 939 proofs?

 

Something you have to consider, that annual mint report refers to the mints' fiscal year, which for 1917 ran from July 1, 1916 to June 30, 1917. So those 939 proof coins in the 1917 report could have been struck in the last half of 1916 with a 1916 date.

 

Wouldn’t that mean we have to re-evaluate all the mint reports back through 1909?

In the meantime I’ll try to corner the market on all high-end 1917’s. Don’t tell anyone!

 

Yeah that's a good point.

I did check the 1916 mintages for the cent and nickel and they're at 600 each.

I'm wondering if proofs were simply not issued to collectors and subsequently melted due to the U.S.'s entry into WWI.

 

I just checked and the 1918 Mint report omits any mention of proof coins for minor coinage. So it looks like the year of the report applies to the same year.

 

But if it’s fiscal year all that means is none were minted between July 1, 1917 and June 30, 1918. 1917 date proofs could have been minted in the first six months of 1917 and would have been on the 1917 report.

 

Yes, I was weeding out the various possibilities.

 

That report also lists half cents, 2 cents and 3 cents. We know those weren't made in 1917.

 

Yeah, I don't know why the Mint shows all minor coinage minted since 1793 - seems a bit overkill. But, at least they're keeping meticulous records.

That said, I did check the 1918 Mint report and it mentioned nothing about melting any proof coins from 1917. With such attentive record-keeping, you'd think that they'd note the specific melting of those proof coins. Though, I guess it could have been held at the Mint and melted in a different year.

And, I'm wondering on what basis the major TPGs aren't recognizing 1917 MPLs.

 

Here is a quote from Kevin Flynn about the possibility of the 1917 MPL. He has researched the Matte Proof Lincoln's in depth and has published a book about these little jewels.

Click on the text to make larger.

 

Interesting, I wonder if the Director of the Mint was referring to proofs for 1916 only. If so, then that may explain why the 1917 figures show that there were fewer (939) proofs struck.

What's important to note is that March of 1917 saw a new Director of the Mint coming into office. Maybe the staff secretly signed off on minting proof coins during that transition lol

 

It is a little odd. My guess is they have to balance their books. They issued the coinage and it is still legal tender. So, they have to stay balanced with how much they issued, how much they reclaimed and melted and how much is still outstanding.

 

I don't believe that coin is a proof. While the rims seem thick they are not squared enough. The notation says this coin has no luster.
Walter Breen's authentication of this coin being a matte proof has little weight/validity and his name and authentication has been removed from that coin.

 

In 1917, Raymond T. Baker became the new Director of the Mint (March 1917 - March 1922). The previous Director of the Mint, F. H. von Engelken, only served from September 1916 - March 1917.

I don't know why the previous director had such a short tenure - perhaps it was due to the US's entry into WWI against Germany, and his German sounding surname, even though Engelken was born in Denmark. With the transition to a new Director of the Mint, it's possible that Director Baker made a series of publicly distinct changes to set his administration apart from the previous. This is the same guy that overlooked the creation of unique Peace dollar specimens:

https://www.pcgs.com/News/unique-peace-dollar-rarities-stacks-bowers

 

Yes the report mentions large cents and half cents, but as you can see from the title in that section it refers to all the coins that of been issued since 1793. It showed the number of coins issued, the number of coins melted by the mint, and therefore the total outstanding. Why is it in there? The early mint reports contained a huge wealth of information compared to those currently produced. You'll find all kinds of things in them.

 

Another thing, I've read somewhere of anecdotal evidence that the Red Book indicated that a 1917 Wheat cent proof existed. In my Red Book (2016, 69th edition), however, there is no entry for a 1917 Wheat cent proof.

I'm not sure why it was removed... Perhaps Breen retracted his claim that his 1917 cent was a proof, and the Red Book edited that part for for the following edition?