Just Bob

My wife and I had a brief discussion on this subject last night. My take is that as long as the government can make a profit from seigniorage, they will continue to mint coins. At some point, though, there will be a transition to a completely cashless society, at least above ground. Some cash, or at least metals, may still be used as "barter" in underground transactions.

I did not say they didn't mix metals. I mentioned brass. Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc. I mentioned pewter. Pewter is an alloy of tin, antimony (or lead, in earlier times), copper, bismuth, and sometimes, silver. Coins made from silver were almost always mixed with some metal, usually copper. My point was that the way the quote from Coinquest was worded could be misleading. Your replica is very likely pewter, which is why some silver showed in the test. I am just trying to help you understand that your coin is a replica, and that many of them have been, and are still being, made and sold. Evidently, I am doing a poor job of it. If you want to disagree with my assessment, that is fine.

I have no idea what the silver content of this particular replica is, so I can't say whether or not it would be worth it to melt it for the silver and I am not even sure how to go about doing that. If you do sell it to someone who is not a dealer or knowledgeable collector, make sure you do it with full disclosure.

China, most likely.

Here is the picture you requested.

Genuine coins were struck in silver; they were also struck in pewter, and they were also struck in brass. They were not struck in an alloy of silver and pewter. The interpretation depends on how the sentence is written and how you read it. Not all replicas have the "R" struck on them. In fact, most of the examples posted on here don't have it. If you look at pictures of genuine examples, you can easily see differences in your coin and a genuine coin. Copies and replicas have been made and sold for many years and in many places. There is no hard and fast rule as far as the weight being the same as, or different from, a genuine coin.

Because Matt is a glutton for punishment.

Here you go: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Ireland-2011-year-UNC-coin-set-from-1-cent-2-euro-total-8-coins-3-88-euro/123046266039?hash=item1ca62104b7:g:tssAAOSwfXFau3nh

According to this website, the design has been the same since its inception in 2002. (See the screenshot below) https://oldcurrencyexchange.com/2015/04/13/coin-guide-irish-euro-1c/

ditto

"Naval Stores" are products produced from the resin of pine trees, such as lubricants, soaps, paints and varnishes, etc. From the mid 1920s to 1940, J.B. Newton (see my second post on page one) owned production facilities in Brooklyn, Wiggins, and the site of this particular business: Carnes, MS. In addition to the dollar token shown here, tokens were also issued in denominations of 5 cents, 10 cents, 25 cents, 50 cents, and 5 dollars.

I agree. It was a good post. He learned something, and maybe others did, too. Sure, a lot of us knew that it was damaged, but he didn't. So, he asked. But, he figured it out on his own. And, that's a good thing.

This is one of those instances where cleaning was the best thing to do. You did not lower the value of the coin - it is still worth one cent - and you leaned something. (And, I am sure others did/will, too).

I'm in. And, if this proves popular, I will come up with one, also.

Looks like strike doubling, to me.

Is that a portrait of Ed Ames?

Actually, that is considered a variety, rather than an error. And, since we are on the subject, Doubled Dies are also considered varieties. https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/1655/Variety-versus-Mint-Error/

The acetone rinse that JKK described is safe, as long as you are careful, and make sure your last rinse is contaminate free. Otherwise, Do Not Clean Any Of Your Coins. Especially with something acidic or abrasive, like vinegar or toothpaste. You will ruin them, numismatically speaking.

Try Vamworld's "What's it worth?" forum: Link Here

Fortunately, I don't have to deal with it very often. Aside from my Roosevelts, nothing I buy is slabbed.

Ditto, +1, and "Yeah, Buddy!"

There are those who will disagree with me, but, in my opinion, neither the color of a coin, nor its "eye appeal" should effect the grade - at least not the assigned number. The amount of wear (on a circulated coin,) and the number of contact marks ( on an uncirculated coin,) should determine the grade. "Eye appeal" is subjective, and can not be defined quantitatively. Well, that may not be entirely true. You can assign a number to it, but that number will be arbitrary, and should not determine the grade. If anything, it should be listed separately, along with strike, luster, and any other descriptive term that the hobby decides is necessary to assign a value.

From 1965 to 1970, Kennedy halves were made of an 80% silver/20% copper layer over a core of .209 silver/.791 copper. 1971 and later were made of 75% copper/25% nickel over a core of pure copper. The 80% silver layer is likely why the '68 that you posted first is lighter than the '89. The other '68 may be darker because of toning, caused by exposure to the environment.

Aside from the 1968, are any of your other Kennedys minted before 1971?

The first and last ones being fake does not bode well for the others.