DWLange

Since the late 1980s the coins that go into the Uncirculated Sets have been struck solely from fresh dies that are specially treated and then discarded as soon as they begin to wear. The resulting coins have hard, faintly prooflike fields, while the ones mass produced for general circulation often reveal normal die erosion and mint luster that looks nothing like those on the set coins. When I was buying each year's Proof and Uncirculated Sets throughout the 1970s and most of the '80s I could always count on mediocre quality coins from my mail orders. The half dollars, in particular, took much abuse, as the Uncirculated Set packaging machinery placed a characteristic scrape on the chief of the shield for most examples seen. One was better off getting current coins from a bank back then. Once the Old San Francisco Mint Museum opened in 1973, with its gift shop, I could cherrypick through five or ten sets searching for unmolested halves, but that didn't happen until after the folks there got to know me. Since I performed research in the museum's superb library (where is it now?), I became a familiar figure there, and they gave me a lot of leeway after that. Sadly, the museum closed in 1994, and the building has been underutilized ever since, though there have been occasional coin shows there.

That's not something the U. S. Mint would ever do with coins of that vintage. In its earliest days it resorted to using cut-down commercial tokens and mis-struck cents as planchets for the making of half cents, but all of that ended after 1800. Here's a nice 1795 half cent revealing the undertype still quite visible.

I'm afraid I have to side with Kurt on this one. Grading has been evolving for decades, and participating today means understanding current criteria. I have a Brown & Dunn book from 1964, but it's just a relic. Perpetuating obsolete standards is of no value to those who read these forums to learn.

The Eliasberg Collection was inherited by his two sons. Louis, Jr. got the USA gold coins, and Richard got the remaining USA coins and the world pieces. Evidently, Pop thought that was an approximately equal division of value. Louis was impulsive and opted to sell the USA gold almost immediately in the very bad market of 1982; thus, he left a lot of money on the table. Richard held back, selling his USA pieces in the quiet but better market of 1996-97, then selling the world pieces in the very active market of 2005. Regarding Abner Kreisberg, he was never a collector but always a dealer. He and Abe Kosoff had a parting of the ways following the King Farouk sale in 1954 when Abner suspected (or was certain) that Abe had bought some coins for their joint business and some for his own account on the side.

Technically, it is a crime to mutilate USA coins, but no one in government is going to investigate the conversion of cents into novelty pieces. Since they already cost more than one cent to make in the first place, why would anyone spend good money after bad trying to protect them?

I'll simplify the matter---very fake.

The waves are typical of the Spiked Chin obverse die. It was used several die marriages with varying degrees of damage that probably resulted from the same accident that gave Liberty her protruding feature. It has no bearing on the authenticity or lack thereof. A known genuine piece is illustrated below.

Absolutely---NGC will not add a notable provenance (pedigree) to any coin unless it can be so identified from an auction photo or original documentation. There are many vanity pedigrees to be found where the submitter simply wanted his own name, his daughter's name or his dog's name on the label. Oftentimes, these are submitted by subsequent owners for removal of the unfamiliar name. Years ago, before it became so easy to trace the sales history of particular coins online, dealers frequently would request removal of famous names such as Norweb or Eliasberg, because they didn't want potential buyers knowing how much the dealers had paid by checking the published "prices realized" list. From time to time new owners discover that they have coins from these famous collections and request that the names be added. NGC will do this, as long as it can be certain of the provenance from the criteria stated above.

Yes, a lead or white metal replica.

I spotted an interesting video about The Philippines that was produced shortly after World War II. At the 11:15 mark there's a segment showing how American divers recovered huge numbers of silver coins that had been dumped into Caballo Bay in 1942 to prevent their capture by the invading Japanese. Many of these coins survive today, though all suffer from various degrees of damage to their surfaces from saltwater erosion.

Unfortunately, I won't be there this time. I've been on the disabled list since April.

I came to Penny's defence a couple days ago, though I'm not certain it was noticed. 😹

Doggone it. I finally grew my beard back, and now I can't travel.

Nowhere did I describe this as "wear." In this instance the flat tops to the letters seem to be the result of abrasion, or scraping of the metal through contact. Something roughly similar can occur from inadequate striking, but the facing surface would not have the sheared appearance seen on this cent.

The initials are weak from die polishing, but they remain faintly visible. Therefore, NGC would not label this coin "No FG."

Yes, as long as you don't value it higher than $3000.

UHRs come under the same situation as gold Stellas---declaring them patterns may reduce their perceived value. There are going to be times when numismatic fact is subordinate to marketing. One doesn't have to agree, but it isn't likely to change anytime soon.

That resulted from biting every gold coins to see if it was real. 😁

It looks like the defects in the planchet extended beyond the lamination, because the weakness of the obverse is directly opposite the same weak portion on the reverse.

Just to clarify my own comment, I was referring to abrasion on the coin, not the die.

It appears to be the result of a planchet lamination, with the surface partially peeling at upper left. A photo of the reverse might provide some clue to the striking weakness at upper right.

@DWLangeCare to share some pictures of the Morgan set you put together? It didn't seem worthy of photo documentation at the time, and I no longer have that set. The rising price of silver around 2010 or so was too much of a temptation, with common dates bringing over $20 apiece.

Yes, that would definitely not get a numeric grade. Assuming that it's genuine, it would come back with a details grade.

In my writing I use the term "currency strikes," an affectation I picked up while collecting and researching British coinage. It means the same thing, and it's certainly better than "business strikes," a term I will never use and which makes me cringe whenever I see it in print. Back in the late '90s I put together a set of raw Morgan Dollars in circulated grades. Silver was around $6/oz back then, so I was paying $8 for most pieces and limiting my purchases to completely original, problem-free examples grading VF to XF. Of course, the scarce dates cost more and sometimes were only Fine, but it was a very attractive set and that had a matched look (and weighed a lot) in the old Whitman Bookshelf albums. I never did get the 1889-CC and 1893-S, because there were just too many other coins that seemed a better value at those prices.

The quality of strike is not a big component of certified grading, unless the striking deficiency is extreme. Grading services evaluate more on the basis of surface quality, luster, toning, etc. I prefer a fully struck coin over a flashy one that's weakly struck, but most buyers are drawn to the sizzle. That's just a market reality.