VKurtB

I just love me some Cams and UC's. I could look at them all day.

Let me start by saying I am NOT an expert, nor do I have a collection that they would ever have.  I have a a collection of mainly common coins that I have put in books or 2x2s and a lot of proof and mint sets from 1956 - 2020. I have had a few coins put in slabs, just because I am thinking some day they could be worth something. I collect for the fun, not for profit, My nieces and nephews enjoy coming over and changing my show case around to show different coins. Some day they will get the coins and I want them to know that if they like a coin then save it, and a coin is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.  So I really like proof sets, and 50 year old set are worth a whopping $10, but I love to show them off. I will never be selling my coins, so I buy what I like, not what the pro would get.

You heard right. Ignore this verkokte fluorescent garbage being spewed here. I’m sorry folks, but now I’m pi$$ed off.

The coup de grace:
”Warning: Fluorescent light, which spreads illumination from a diffused origin, is apt to conceal minute differences and camouflage certain defects, and should not be used.“
This article was written by Q. David Bowers and edited by Kenneth Bressett. But yeah, I’m the “troll” here. Get a life. Bowers and Bressett versus Yippee Skippy. I choose the former.

I do “look into” CT from time to time and have found that it is even “thicker with” the sort of newbies who ask questions and then don’t accept the answers than this site is. Nothing gets my blood boiling quicker.

You’ve never typed truer words, sir.
And his trusty wonder doofus @Desertgem too.

Greg,
Enjoy these finds if they are your thing. If I were moved by doubling, I would be excited too. But I am not. Doubled die coins, except for the really major ones, don't interest me, and I'd venture to guess they don't interest huge swaths of the long-timers in this hobby. It just wasn't what we were taught, and not what we looked for. It is mostly a "new collector" niche, with some exceptions. In all fairness, though, what we old-timers did is almost impossible to do today, so the hobby marches on. But I do have to offer one warning: having scads of new collectors finding minor doubling does not create a market for them. Finding more adds to SUPPLY, not DEMAND. For any variety to become financially rewarding to the finder, DEMAND has to either already be there or it has to be created. And that's the trick. Now, if you are okay with hoarding some of these over the intermediate term in waiting for a robust demand to occur, then you have a sound plan. At least you'll be prepared to meet the demand. But as we stand here today, demand for this sort of material is what we call a "thin" market. Demand is small, but growing, undeniably, but it has a way to go still.

In that era, Canada was not yet the Dominion it is today. Eastern Canada was divided into Upper Canada (elevation) which was predominantly English, and Lower Canada, which was predominantly French. This is a Lower Canada half penny token. 

I'll take on faith that all these attributes are correct, but they are not all something I can personally vouch for from this photo:
1. Parallel
2. Relatively long
3. INTO the surface with uniform depth
4. Rough interior
These four taken together would argue for the coin having been scrubbed by some brush or abrasive (other than my personality).

If you want to go all privy mark, the end of WW2 is about as compelling as it gets, but I'd hate to see the U.S. Mint go all "Canada" on us with an excess use of privy marks.

Why? I'll tell you why. Because to some people, being nice is far more important than being right, and God bless them. We need people like them. I'm NOT one of them. To me, being right is better than being anything else, even nice. If you want namby-pamby niceness, don't read my posts. Someone else can fill that role. If you want a more "gosh he's right, but I wish he wouldn't say it that bluntly", then I'm your guy. I prefer to read posts from people like me, even if I think they're wrong. If I want nice, nice, I can dig through my old VHS tape box for my kid's old Barney and Teletubbies tapes, and get nauseous.
I'm a 55 year tenure Philadelphia Eagles fan. We have a certain standard to uphold, after all.

Bubbles are usually a sign of a cast coin, which usually means a counterfeit. The problem here is that the original real ones were also cast, not struck. So we have to look elsewhere. That's all I got. This is not one of my areas.

Copper is a special case at best, Moxie. It just so happens that the wavelengths of light you need to view copper are often missing in at least the mercury vapor fluorescent lamps that dominate most indoor uses. There are exotic fluorescent lamps with special gases and phosphors, which we used in our photo lab to better see color, but they are prohibitively expensive. Stick with incandescent and let @Insider pursue his own mythology. 

There were many sold by third parties with a very thin gold plating. It is likely one of those. 

Posting is fun. 
I use color, bold, CAPS, and size to help make my ideas clear.  I don't police what others do.  What they post is more important to me than how they post. 
I'm a five year old rookie poster.  During that time, I've learned that folks of every background, sex (now there are at least 20!), and intelligence level post on the Internet.  Some of our foreign members may not understand English.  We are all lucky to be welcomed here by NGC.  I don't usually go with the flow and hate most rules so eventually I may be banned.  Anyway, I think there is a way to block a member who often POSTS IN CAPS . 
  

By the way, this is not an Internet standard to which I subscribe, and I steadfastly refuse to abide by it. All caps can mean anything you want it to for you. I'm under no obligation to agree to it or observe it. It's your problem, basically.

I just did for you. Can’t stand seeing someone not able to do what they want to.

I actually believe you may be the first person on planet Earth to write that “fluorescent light eliminates the glare”. Congratulations on that. Most people consider fluorescent light to be the ultimate glare creator. Perhaps a thorough eye exam is in order?

Personally, I am a fan of neither VAM's nor ANACS, but if I were the fan of either, I would be of the other. No one is as sharp on, or committed to VAM's as ANACS is.

He's the one who actually LIKES cats … oh, and Dan Carr. 

Personally, I am a fan of neither VAM's nor ANACS, but if I were the fan of either, I would be of the other. No one is as sharp on, or committed to VAM's as ANACS is.

Most places, maybe not. But Ian is exceptionally approachable. I see him only seldom, but he always greets me warmly. 

It's been quite a while since I've examined any of the 1964 coins. However, my recollection is that they looked noticeably different from typical 1964 business strike or Proof examples, as well as from 1965-1967 SMS coins.

What do you propose is the reason that a fluorescent lamp would have such wonderful capabilities of better revealing wear? I mean what is the physics reason? I am aware of no such science, but you have piqued my curiosity. 
 

Okay, smarta$$, what we have here is another dishonest “gotcha” attempt by a dishonest person trying to play games. Exhibit A, the magenta one, WOULD be a 6, IF it were an honest Ichihara plate, which it is not. It is a representation of what a colorblind person would see in not seeing the 6. Similarly, Exhibit B is a similar “colorblind version” of Ichihara Plate #2, I believe, one of the most severe color blindness ones, in which nearly everyone easily sees the 8 that is present on the honest Ichihara Plate #2, but is missing on this representation of what a profoundly colorblind person would see on Plate #2, except for what can be seen just from dot placement. 
 
Now, just who in the hell do you think you’re messing with here, sir?