jtryka

I believe the first proof is scheduled for release on Feb. 11.

I'm not sure I understand this post. What does the 20-euro note have to do with the rooster? Did you buy the rooster for 20 euros? Where does the 13.45 euro shortage come from?

Not in the ocean...

Don't forget solar panels...

so many words...so little meaning...

Apparently the Reddit short squeeze folks just realized that silver is the most manipulated market in history and decided to pile on for another short a squeeze, spot silver is up near $29 and the major dealers are asking $42 for silver eagles but all are reporting "sold out" conditions...

Congrats, I'm a big fan of Mexican gold!

Congrats on the unc silver bicentennial quarter! The fingerprints you added will no doubt increase the value over melt.

If this coin is genuine, it would be at least a VF given the full liberty. I agree it looks off to me, but not as off as many cheap Chinese fakes (which would likely have a motto reverse paired with an 1859 obverse).

Here are the two pages on the 08-S from the first edition. I hope this helps!

This one arrived today, my first new die marriage in a while!

Great to see you (or at least read what you typed) and congrats on the registry award, well deserved!

The problem with the NGC boxes I've found is that some of the newer PCGS slabs have some sort of weird dimples on the corners that causes them not to fit. So I switched to the intercept boxes.

I can't confirm the percentage, though I would say if I only owned the second edition, I would not purchase the first.

@GoldFinger1969 I think this is not correct for this particularly book, I will admit the format is different with the 1st ed. having paragraphs that cite things like "in 1982 such and such date was sold by some doctor that was really awesome and beautiful" while the 2nd ed. just states more plainly that "the Dr. XX example was sold at auction in 1982, with this description" in bullet point format. I can see how that might be taken as one being more "Akers' experience and expertise" but the reality is that the information is still there. I personally prefer the more anecdotal format of the 1st ed. but the information is still there.

The size of pages is about the same, but the biggest differences I note as follows: First edition has all black and white photos vs. color There are differences in rankings (I mainly use these as references for Saints, so as an example in the first edition, the 25-D is ranked 16th in "mint state", in the second edition it's ranked 14th "overall" (not sure if the difference in terminology had any impact on rankings). The ratings for higher graded specimens also changed, with 1st ed. noting ranks in MS-64 or better, 2nd ed. just notes "high grade." These changes may also be due to additional information or discoveries since 1988, though it seems counterintuitive that the 1st ed. considers the Saint Series to have 54 coins while the 2nd ed. considers only 53, which is because the 1st ed. included the UHR in with the overall series, rather than excluding it in the 2nd ed. Rarity rankings in 1st ed. uses traditional "R" rating (i.e.25-D in overall mint state is "Very Scarce, R-5") while in 2nd ed. they just have a table with estimated number of coins known. Most of the other information is very close between the two, but just different formatting, such as paragraphs vs. bullet points (this is also a reason for more pages since many of the coins in 1st ed. were on one page but with different formatting most are on 2 pages in 2nd ed.). The one other big difference (and improvement in the 2nd ed. if you care about them) is the addition of separate pages and rankings for proof coins from 1907-15, while the first edition just includes a notation on the number of proofs for each of those years and a ranking table for proofs in the apendix. I hope this helps!

I have both I think, but it's been a while since I've reviewed them but I can take a look and let you know.

This one needed to be corrected...

This is a very nice XF example of a great early half! I would agree with the others on the die marriage. For the O-116, you have a later die state for Obverse 8 (noted as obverse 8-s2, obverse 8, die state 2). The diagnostics for Obverse 8 are star 1 extending through the curl, star 2 touching the outer end of the second curl and the lumpy die break that starts below star 1 and extends through stars 2 and 3. There are some other minor diagnostics as well. For the second die state on the O-116, the clashing is diagnostic along with an additional die crack from the milling to star 7. It's hard to see the berries on the reverse (for me at least) based on the small image in the slab, but the positioning of berries would confirm that this is reverse M rather than L as on the O-115. As for the other coins you want for your mint set, you might consider investing in a membership to the JRCS (John Reich Collectors Society) as the members run the gamut of collecting half cents to gold. It's nice to network with other collectors and they produce the John Reich Journal 4 times a year (though last year with Covid it was only 3). The dues are $25 a year and you can get a lot of info at the website: https://www.jrcs.org/. They used to have meetings at the major shows, but since Covid we have started doing zoom meetings which I have found very informative and valuable.

What a generous gesture and great contest idea!

Very nice!

Seems to me this is just a toned proof silver Ike, perhaps from an earlier die state. By the way, the "mini moon" is actually the earth.

This one arrived a couple days ago, and of course it's a duplicate die marriage!

Centering dots were used quite often on early coinage and can be a key diagnostic for die marriages. I can only speak for Bust halves which I collect, and they can be found on the obverse as in this case or on the reverse within the shield, which you can also see on this example.

But you said there was nothing special about any of them, perhaps you should choose your words a bit more carefully.