James_OldeTowne

I vote: "counterfeit"

The subject coin appears counterfeit to me.

In a sense, I agree GSA dollars are overrated with respect to how readily they may be obtained.  However, there is some degree of guarantee as to the original quality (i.e., the coin's been untouched at least since encapsulated).  Also, I know some collectors aggressively pursue VAMs in GSA holders, making some non-CC GSAs particularly valuable.

I have seen reeded-edge large-cents (and incidentally, 5-cent nickels) as well, and have always assumed it to be an activity comparable to creating love-tokens.  In every case, the reeding was noticeably handiwork, and not machine-made.

I finally got my dime book out and formally attributed it, rather than just relying on shorthand notes, and was wrong the first time around.  It's actually JR-9, which is only R.2.  Sorry about that!  

Definitely not a practical candidate for certification.

I do hope Zebo does the research.  If I'm correct and this is a legitimately rare die-marriage, that might change the type-set strategy.  This one could be sold at a significant premium, and the proceeds used to purchase a commoner die-marriage in higher grade.

In that case, I am thinking JR-8, which is a much better die-marriage for 1833 - probably still R.5.  And I like it as a straight-grade VF, even with the little planchet flaw.  It could well be a $300 coin.

Both of the bison nickels depicted appear to have post mint damage.

If that were mine, I would spend the money to get it certified.  This one looks like it has a shot at being something special!

Is it genuine?  It looks almost like brass (which could be just due to the toning, of course).

Personally, I wouldn't pay to certify these.

Definitely pay $100 - looks pretty nice!

Most definitely send that one in!  I believe it's worth a couple hundred dollars in UNC.

I absolutely would not spend the money to have it certified!  It's worth something like a dollar retail at most.

Honestly, more like AG money to me.  From my experience, a cent this heavily corroded is one tough sell!

Even without rim dings, at this grade level, save your money and let someone else pay for certification.  It isn't worth the cost.

It's one of many very common modern (well, 1960s / 1970s I believe) replicas with no real collector value.

Common strike doubling.

To my frequently wrong eye, it looks like more than 10 degrees - perhaps 20?  But it isn't worth really anything more than base value.

That one looks legit to me!  You'll want to research which DDO you have, there.  Even the "lesser" ones for 1972 are worth a great deal more than face.

What happened was, eventually, a certain executive at a certain grading company made a public, printed statement that the provenance was covered under the guarantee.  

On 9/21/2020 at 12:26 PM, Coinbuf said:

If you look at the registry info:  "All NGC-certified coins are eligible for the NGC Registry".  So my question to you is once a coin is cracked out of a slab is it still NGC certified?

This answers your own question.  If there are explicit rules that everyone agrees to abide by, by virtue of participating in the registry, then it is a rules violation to list a cracked-out coin as being certified.  (A coin must remain in the NGC holder to still be "certified" ,with the exception of some Ancients, which are photo-certified by NGC.)

On 9/21/2020 at 12:26 PM, Coinbuf said:

This is the argument and the way to rationalize putting one's ethics on pause that I see used often, "nobody is going to be harmed right".

I don't agree.  The first argument is (as I queried orginally): What to the rules explicitly state?  If the rules set an explicit form of conduct (i.e. "certified coins only"), then that should prevail.  If there are no such explicit rules, then the second criteria would be "will actual harm occur".  But as you just explained, there ARE rules about coins having to be certified only, so given that, I would agree with you that there is an ethical violation in the OP scenario.

Regarding the infamous Norweb Hibernia, in order to turn it into an ethical dilemma, I was required to discover whether or not the PCGS guarantee explicitly covered a stated provenance for a coin, and as it turned out, it did.  Therefore, that as well was a violation of a stated rule.

Great discussion, Coinbuf!

On 9/21/2020 at 2:29 PM, jgrinz said:

Are those toning at all in the dansco ?? Curious @James_OldeTowne

Yes!!  I need to dig the set out and show you all, but some of the coins are looking pretty amazing.  (To be fair, some already had toning in-progress.)

Agreed - it looks like a rim dent (or edge dent, if you prefer).