Just Bob

On 10/16/2022 at 9:51 PM, Jalistair said:

Depends on what I am attempting to do.  If I want to win the item, I attempt to snipe it.  If I simply want to run up the price, I bid and see how things go. 

Why would you want to "run up the price?"

Pigeonman, your 1893 s has that typical Chinese fake look to it.

On 10/17/2022 at 2:03 PM, Crawtomatic said:

annnnnddd.....that's my reminder why I don't check into these forums as often as I used to. 

The more I read it the more I'm convinced it's a chatbot testing.

What's up Crawdad? How have you been?

If the pictures are any indication , that coin must be a blazer in hand.  Any estimate on the number of survivors in each denomination?

Congrats! 

These look very "white." You could be seeing residue from a dip that was not completely removed.

How is it going with sorting through the "hoard?"

Actually, JT did answer your question. You asked the value; he replied with his opinion of one cent. The fact that you don't like his answer doesn't mean he didn't answer you.

As for your coin, it does appear to have been struck through grease on the upper part of the reverse. If that added any value at all to a cent that worn, it would be minuscule. I can't make out any evidence of die clashing in your pictures, either. The rest of what you see looks like either damage or is the result of very worn dies, including the doubling that appears on the date and elsewhere.

Have you tried a specific gravity test?

I always keep any silver that I find in change. It doesn't happen very often these days, though. I will either sell it as junk silver one day when the price is right, or give it to a YN.

Yikes!

That is an awful looking fake.

On 10/9/2022 at 8:28 PM, zadok said:

...yep thats pretty much it...collectors neither need nor require verifiable standards to back up anything...collectors were successfully collecting coins well before any grading standards were implemented...

Thank you for the clarification. 

On 10/9/2022 at 7:41 PM, VKurtB said:

Collectors can DESIRE any set of circumstances they want, perhaps Roger more than most, even though he no longer collects, given the hours turned into years he has poured into this field. But what neither HE, nor YOU, nor Al, nor Numisport, nor anyone else gets to do is pretend what you desire actually EXISTS. IT DOES NOT. 

Oh, believe me, I completely understand that the market is totally different than it was years ago, and I take that into consideration when viewing, buying, or even participating in "Guess-the-grade" threads. We have pretty much gone from assigning a "grade" to assigning a "value."(edit: I wrote that line before I read your quote of Brian Silliman above. Apparently, I understand exactly the current form of grading )  It certainly isn't my ideal, I think that much is obvious, but I am smart enough to know that I have to accept the current state, if I want to participate in today's market.

On 10/9/2022 at 9:32 AM, zadok said:

...its very simple...collectors do not n never will collect coins empirically....

I'm sorry, but I do not understand what you mean by this statement. Maybe I am using the term "empirical " wrong.  I am using it to refer to an observation or statement based on evidence that is verifiable through experiment or documentation. Are you saying that collectors do not require verifiable standards or evidence to back up the grade of their coins, or am I totally misunderstanding? 

On 10/8/2022 at 6:23 PM, VKurtB said:

 100% (bizarre) opinion with no connection to reality.

Actually, it has a very legitimate connection to reality. It is the way ANACS graded before NGC and PCGS came along, and it (in a slightly modified version) is the way NGC currently grades Ancients. I agree that it is not the way that the US coin market currently operates, and it definitely is not an idea that seems to be popular with many collectors or especially dealers, but to say that it has no connection to reality implies, at least in my mind, that it is something Roger invented. 

Here is a question for you, Kurt, to which I would love to get a non-judgemental, non-sarcastic, honest answer - either here on the forum, or elsewhere (like maybe over a plate of ribs at Dreamland barbeque in Tuscaloosa): what is it about a grading scale based on empirical standards that does not appeal to you? It seems to me that a set of standards that remain constant over time, consistently applied, could be nothing but beneficial to the hobby.

Fake

It is not a doubled die. Worth a few cents only. Keep looking 

On 10/3/2022 at 8:46 PM, Yarm said:

I'm not going to be of any help on that North Wales piece. 

My mistake. I apologize for putting you on the spot.

On 10/3/2022 at 11:45 AM, GBrad said:

@Lem E  @Coinbuf  @Just Bob @J P M Not to change the subject here nor rob this member's thread, but along the same lines I have a question that you may be able to answer.   Do you fellas or anyone else know if it is possible to restore a loupe lens? I only use Belomo brand triplet style loupes, predominately their 10x.  I have had great luck with them over the years and they are very durable with zero distortion (and not too expensive).  Over time, after repeatedly wiping/cleaning the domed lens with an appropriate very soft lens rag, the lens coating becomes ever so slightly scratched and hazy.  This leads to a bit of blurriness when viewing coins.  I would have started a new thread, but figured I ask here since this is sort of still on topic.  Thanks!  

If we are talking about glass, I use Cerium Oxide. Here is a link to just one source. There is a " how to mix & how to use" tutorial at the bottom of the page.

Link here

On 10/2/2022 at 3:33 PM, Coinbuf said:

Most knowledgeable collectors understand the value that the market attaches to an old holder, obviously there are some people that have no clue.  

And, I am not sure that Liam has been made aware of this fact yet. It is generally agreed that the coins in older NGC holders (without the indention below the label) are more conservatively graded than coins graded more recently. This is not a hard and fast rule, of course - there naturally are exceptions, but coins in the "old fatty" holder are likely to be solid for the grade at least, and under graded (by current standards) at best.

Yarm was online as recently as Sept 23 of this year.

According to my copy of Dalton & Hamer, 1b appears correct. On 4a, the bottom of the quatrefoil on the reverse extends below the tops of the "7" and "9" of the date, and the two acorns to the right of the bust on the obverse are above the sprig, rather than below it, as in your picture. On DH2, the vertical stroke of the "R" extends below the "7" in the date, and DH3 has the same acorn placement as DH4. I believe your attribution is dead on.

There are two or three collectors on this forum who are much more knowledgeable than I about these tokens. @Conder101 is the preeminent expert in this series on this forum, @Yarm is another. Neither posts very often, but maybe one will see this tag and confirm your diagnosis.

Welcome to the forum, 909.

 I can tell you from experience that your coin was subjected to high heat. It is not a mint error.