Just Bob

On 7/9/2023 at 9:51 AM, Sandon said:

   I still believe that the item posted in this topic is an impression made from the obverse of a struck 1925 quarter outside the mint and probably made of lead or other base metal. 

That is the most likely explanation, which usually turns out to be the correct one.

On 7/9/2023 at 8:28 AM, EarlyUS.com said:

For what it's worth, ......

My guess would be upwards of 3 grand in today's market.

On 7/9/2023 at 3:50 AM, EagleRJO said:

 

Also, I thought test strikes were always done with working dies for both the obverse and reverse.  I have never heard of test strikes with hubs, particularly with just a hub of only one side.

 

Stacks-Bowers auction archive

Heritage auction archive

When PCGS and NGC first started grading, common date Morgans like the 1881-s in MS65 sold for upwards of $800. Of course, an MS65 back then was today's MS66 or MS67. Still, it was a lot to pay for a coin that turned out to be common in higher grades. The price has dipped below $100 several times over the years since then. MS65s are selling now on Ebay for $170 - $200.

I also remember when the Statue of Liberty $5 gold coins came out. The 500,000 mintage sold out before the coins were issued. Original pre-sale price was $160 for the MS and $165 for the Proof. The MS version was the lower mintage of the two at under 100,000 pieces. At the first major coin show after the release, they were selling for over $700. That price came back down to earth just a few years later. Even now, you can buy a slabbed MS70 for around $600.

On 7/9/2023 at 12:27 AM, EagleRJO said:

Wouldn't the transfer be from a host coin directly to the counterfeit working die, and not to some intermediate strike coin.

That is why I asked the OP about the design. The first pic made it look incuse to my eyes, but if it is raised, then this can't be a hub trial or a transfer die. 

OP, is the design raised or incuse?

On 7/8/2023 at 12:54 PM, Henri Charriere said:

 

All vestiges of the encircling chain on the reverse (which the public objected to) have been worn down.

 

 

Neither the OP's coin nor the Photograde example posted by Jim had a chain on the reverse that was "worn down". They have a wreath on the reverse. That is why they are called "wreath cents."

There was a cent minted in 1793 that had a chain on the reverse.

It was called a "chain cent." 

On 7/8/2023 at 11:06 PM, Coinbuf said:

Posible perhaps, but why would the mint need to do such an operation on this coin at that time?   I am not super familiar with the SLQ series but as far as I know the only change that year was recessing the date, I would not think that a die trial would be needed for that minor a change given that it was a return to the style of 1917.

The fact that they would have created a new master hub that year to recess the date was what gave me the idea that this might be a trial. But as I said, I don't want to get anyone's hopes up, because you are probably right about trial strikes not being necessary. Someone familiar with mint practices at the time would be better able to answer that question than I am.

I don't want to create false hope, but is there any chance that this could be a uniface hub trial?

On 7/8/2023 at 3:15 AM, Tex808 said:

Thank you so much for your wisdom. Your use of the English language is clear and precise. While researching this problem on this site, I came across the information on why or why not the grading would consider it an error or not. I understood that and I understand what you are saying as well. I am going to take a couple pictures that are very close up so that maybe you can see what I see. I don't see a gouge. What I see is a rough indention that has happened on the letter S. The thing that sets it apart is that within that indention you can still see the "raised" letter S. Just not as prominent. I don't believe a gouge would actually leave behind a slightly raised letter. That doesn't seem possible. Correct me if it is.

When I first received the coin from Pinehurst Coins (who actually seems to be the only one on eBay selling these coins with Struck throughs with this particular coin), I was thinking of just how amazingly beautiful the coin was. Then I flipped it over and saw the S. I had never heard of a struck through before and just thought I got a bum deal. Then while researching more, I read that a coin with a "gouge" the size that I have, would have a much lower grade than MS69 and that only in the case of an error would a coin still receive a high MS69 but not a MS70. 

I may be wrong about all of this, and I truly am glad you had responded to me but please if you could just take another look at what I have attached. If you still think its a gouge, then it is a gouge. A gouge that managed to leave being a raised letter S.

I took the best pictures that I could. I believe that the pictures captured what it is we are looking at. Thoughts?

 

 

 

I believe there may have been a misunderstanding about what Sandon was saying caused the spot on your coin. Your first picture made it look as though the spot was raised above the surface - a lump, if you will - which would have been the result of a gouge in the die that was used to make your coin. Your response sounded las though you thought he was talking about a gouge in the coin itself. I believe he was talking about a die gouge. A relatively minor issue, but I felt it may be helpful to clear it up for future readers of this thread.

That is way too young. So sad for his family and friends.

On 7/7/2023 at 6:21 PM, VKurtB said:

People can actually be paid to generate clicks to links and it is OUR DUTY to ferret those out of this forum. He links to a service that generates fake papers and dissertations. How can there be ANY defense of that?

My thoughts exactly. Thank you.

On 7/6/2023 at 8:11 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

I ordered my first token tonight.  I don't have it in hand yet (obviously).  Seller's pics:

IN 460N-1a R.5

If I were going to collect store cards, this is exactly the kind of token I would go for. Interesting, ornate, or unusual pictures, designs, or lettering are very appealing and can form a collection that anyone would enjoy viewing.

Defend spam posters all you want. I will continue to call them out. 

And, no "dues" have to be paid to post here. Membership is free.

And seriously, did you even read his post before he edited it and removed the spam?  

Go ahead and get a copy of The Standard Catalogue of United States Tokens 1700-1900 by Russel Rulau (Whitman Publishing). If you start collecting and researching store cards, you will eventually need to look up something that isn't in the Fuld book. A 4th edition (2004) will set you back about $200 or so, but you can find a 3rd edition (1991 I think) for around $15. (Yes, $15. That is not a typo.) It has over 1000 pages of pictures and information.

Looks like it was supposed to resemble a Byzantine solidus or similar, but it was probably something sold at one of the tourist traps in Turkey.

You can play innocent if you want to, but you intentionally hid a Spam link that was totally unrelated to the subject of the thread, and you knew full well what you were doing. And, what's worse is that it's one of those sites that apparently (I did not click the link ) will write your dissertation for you. How dishonest is that? So, how does that work? Do you get paid every time somebody clicks that link?  You don't have to worry about removing it. I'm sure the moderators will take care of that.

On 7/2/2023 at 10:11 PM, oldbutgold68 said:

 

"The Colonial Coinage of the United States: A Coin Collector's Handbook" by William H. Sheldon: I have found this book here https://essays.edubirdie.com/write-my-dissertation insanely good writing,concise essay and helpful tips!

Very sneaky! I have to hand it to you, that is the best job of hiding  spam in a post that I have seen so far. But, it did not work. You have been reported to the moderators, and you will likely be banned.

Bye bye! 

Those look like fingerprints. I have a feeling that what Powermad said is correct. You may be able to change the appearance, but I doubt you can get rid of it entirely without severely altering the look and color of the coin. Anything that would completely remove the spots would almost certainly make the coin look unnatural and cleaned.

I have read that there were striking issues due to the design, but the coin had only been in production for a couple of years when this was written. Was there already a plan to replace the Flying Eagle at this time, or was this a new idea being presented by Snowden?

65

I wonder how the TPGs differentiate between planchet scratches and marks that the coin receives after being struck.

On 6/29/2023 at 7:12 PM, Ohnoimbroke said:

I got the 65+ . Thank you 

But you deleted your entire first post and the pictures of the coins. Now, anyone who wanted to compare them after the fact can't, and anything that future readers could have learned from your post has been removed.