VKurtB

The natural enemy of coins. 

The main reason these dies were horribly overused was the Mint’s absolute CERTAINTY that these coins would be fabulously popular with the public and would soon replace the $1 bill.  What can I tell you? It was the Carter Administration. 

“When ah sez whoa, ah mean WHOA!”

But the St. Gaudens worship lives on forever. 

The main reason these dies were horribly overused was the Mint’s absolute CERTAINTY that these coins would be fabulously popular with the public and would soon replace the $1 bill.  What can I tell you? It was the Carter Administration. 

The main reason these dies were horribly overused was the Mint’s absolute CERTAINTY that these coins would be fabulously popular with the public and would soon replace the $1 bill.  What can I tell you? It was the Carter Administration. 

No. Every coin they work on is a different process. Many chemicals can come into play. They know the proper way and the order the chemicals should be used to leave the surfaces of the coin stable. A simple dip or an acetone bath is not what many coins need. Some coins require a really long bath in a solution to slowly remove a problem without damaging the coin.  

Good coin for a grading set. 

There is ABSOLUTELY NO activity that a majority of collectors engage in. All are minority activities. Not NGC nor P¢G$ membership, not ANA membership, not attendance at any show, not buying or selling on FleaBay. 

Yes, because the one thing you can ALWAYS count on is coin collectors being chatty about what they own. /eye roll so huge you can hear it
Face it: most of the most advanced collections today are cloaked in 100% secrecy. If ANYONE knows what’s out there, it’s the dealers that top collectors are working with.

Where do you see any object that is retained on this ASE??  I see some discoloration/tarnish/gunk/staining that looks like residue from spilled coffee over a rubber band that was used to hold together a group of ASE's.   But I do not see any strike through of any type, retained or otherwise.

Correct, full stop. It’s like counting ballots in a county with deep red and deep blue precincts. You can tell when the precinct changes. 

When discussing British coins, modern has an obvious line of demarcation - decimalisation.

Correct, full stop. It’s like counting ballots in a county with deep red and deep blue precincts. You can tell when the precinct changes. 

Amen, brother. There is an accepted culture here, and this bird is urinating all over it.
 

What we see from this OP is an inevitable example of what happens with being an internet-trained collector. One sees words, and one sees pictures. But does one have the ABILITY to match those words with those pictures? Often not. Take a course, with a live instructor. Then don’t just sit there with your teeth in your mouth. Ask questions. In short, don’t assume you’re getting it right. 

Other than the rims, it looks like a routine 1957 proof. The hits on the rims look like damage. 

Dan Tony Carr Montana, is that you?

Eat from drive-through fast food, wear diapers, and have Smith and Wesson on your hip.

The TPGS have to know how many members they have. It’s a simple database record count. 

I fear, genuinely FEAR a second American Civil War. That’d do it. 

He obviously never heard of Carl Sagan. 
 
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan who reworded Laplace's principle, which says that “the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness” (Gillispie et al., 1999).

According to my dad, “broad struck” would be a coin struck by a woman. He was of the Rat Pack generation. 

I wonder how many unique individual submitters (not dealers) each TPGS has. Then again, we have seemingly an unlimited number of people saving road rash damaged coins in a box or can, “learning” (as if…) about them by watching YouTube videos. 

He obviously never heard of Carl Sagan. 
 
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan who reworded Laplace's principle, which says that “the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness” (Gillispie et al., 1999).