RWB

Reminds me of those dreaded Sunday School attendance and verse memorization awards.

Compare a real standing bald eagle with the $10 coin version. You'll see.

100% counterfeit. Members saved you over $200 in grading and postage fees. Please send liquor -- the good stuff.

If the coin appears to have been cleaned, the TPG it will state "Cleaned" on the label and it will not have a numeric grade. They don't give refunds, either. If the TPG "conserves" a coin, that is handled as a separate process. Afterward, it can be submitted for grading and the coin is supposed to be "dispassionately observed." If the surfaces appear normal, there is nothing on the label in the coin is called "straight graded." ["Conservation" is supposed to be removal of surface contaminants where not bonded to the coin, and chemical stabilization to prevent deterioration from anything that was present. Nothing will restore a coin to original condition.]

"Conservation" will not be noted on the label. It will show in the conservator's in-house records, and the owner's invoice. However, if a coin is "Composted" this might be on the label -- along with some old coffee grounds and a bit of tomato skin.

A major update and expansion of Bower's DE book would be of value to collectors and those who buy/sell coins. However, it will require substantial work, much time, and is guaranteed not make money. A "100 Kutest Koins" book of pretty pictures and superficial text can be assembled in a few weeks, requires no research, and will be profitable. Which will happen first....?

In newspapers the $10 reverse got more complaints than all the other designs combined. It was the first depiction of a standing eagle on a US coin and not entirely realistic. One of the things Pratt was asked to do on the Half Eagle was to adjust the bird to a more natural appearance. Members might like to compare an accurate American Bald Eagle illustration with those on US coins, beginning with Hughes' 1836 flying eagle, and Longacre's versions.

Certainly beyond your capabilities.

I overlooked the above. No one knew about the pattern Pratt HE until my research was published in RAC 1905-1908. Differences are subtle, except for the medal-turn die orientation.

No such critter as a pattern or proposal. The 3 volumes deal only with circulating US coinage, plus a side-trip about the PPIE souvenir coins and gold $1, $3 and MCMVII $20s used as political treats. The quantity and quality of information is almost immeasurably beyond anything previously written on the subject.

May 29, 1915. Superintendent U. S. Mint, Philadelphia, Pa. Sir: In reply to your favor of the 24th instant relative to proof sets of Cuban coins, you are hereby authorized to comply with the request of Mr. E. [Eduardo] I. Montoulieu, Technical Commissioner and representative of the Cuban Government to execute the desired number of sets of proof coins, and to place on sale the coins and sets in the mint at Philadelphia. Respectfully, [Signature] Robert W. Woolley, Director of the Mint.

I recall that several decades ago Coin World sent batches of coins (the identical ones) to various TPGs in operation at the time. Maybe someone here has a copy of the results. I remember it being useful data, so, of course, it was discontinued.

Here's a simple Census Bureau population diagram as of Dec 31, 2023. Population for age 10 and under is essentially non-involved. Age 10-20 is limited new involvement; from 20 to about 40 is likely limited or intermittent involvement, and 40 to 70 would be primary acquisition & involvement. Above 70 is the deaccession phase. Several generations ago the collector population would have skewed lower largely because of collection from circulation and very low premium on added value. (That is, a coin collection represented limited loss compared to base value of the pieces. This began to change in the 1950s and was declining rapidly in the mid-1960s.) A situation which has not changed is strong dominance by males in all aspects of coin collecting.

Distance between horizontal leaf-line and top of 2 seems much clearer and less ambiguous.

It's a casual emotional observation of little value. To test this theory, a broad selection of identical coins (meaning the SAME coins) would have to be submitted by several "anonymous" collectors and several "well known" dealers. Once the coin-by-coin results were compared, a more rigorous experimental design could be prepared.

Can the OP define any of these terms: strike threw [sic "thru" or "through"]: rotated obverse/reverse: broad struck: Take away: If one does not understand the words, do not use them.

Too many U-tube click-bait videos///

The example is a commonly available, mass produced item sold to confused and unwary people. These things never touched the shores of any of Palau's 340 islands and will not purchase anything. The only currency is the US dollar -- which this thing is not.

Skip the forms. No 1957 cent is worth the certification cost. These remain available by the 100-roll and mint-sealed bag lot.

Yes. There will be an article available soon that debunks the entire lie.

Hummm....His name is "LOCK34" and his profile shows public information. That's all we get on message boards.

The defect was, evidently, not noticed until some of the coins made it to HQ -- possibly in routine Special Assay samples from each delivery. This had happened previously, and was the responsibility of the production mint to catch during routine inspection. As we can readily see from a long history of cracks, cuds, and clips, employees did not get them all -- and still don't.

The director was a presidential appointee, and responsible for the quality and legal compliance of all coins. Any mint-produced defect, such as the lumps described, would reflect badly on national coinage, and the authenticity of coins.

"1964 SMS" coins are a lie, and myth and a fantasy. None were made and none exist.

Heritage has hundreds in the auction database.