RWB

Let's examine this in a more orderly manner --- First question. Please describe how US cents were struck in 1986. Second question. Describe the differences in weight, thickness, diameter and composition between 1986 US cents and any previous Canadian cent. Third question. Explain how a Canadian cent would be introduced into the supply of US cent planchets. PS: Your photos are too fuzzy to convey anything more than it's a normal 1986 cent that has been stained and damaged.

Two floods in a week. Folks in St. Louis, eastern Kentucky, and parts of Virginia, W. Virginia and Tennessee are taking a beating. Let's hope they and their homes are safe.

Do you have a copy of the Guide Book of United States Coins? If you do, then compare photos. as YB or CS once said "You can lean a lot just by looking."

Your were "given" a fake.

Contemporary advertisements plus silverware museum experts uniformly agree that the word "COIN" means "coin silver" or "use of silver coins" in producing the items. Among US silversmiths the word "STERLING" was similarly used. Earlier American silverware was likewise made from silver coins - primarily Spanish. In all instances, coins were the cheapest way to obtain silver of known purity. Dentists and goldsmiths used similar sources. Bullion was not commonly available to artisans until after 1857 in the US when silver and gold fine bars were allowed to be sold.

The article was and is false.The supposition in the first case merely reinforces the authors' ignorance about standard US Mint practices. The authors' presume an extensive fantasy of their own making, combined with abject stupidity of Mint employees and collectors of that era. Now about the flat earth thing.... However, the thread is about a fantastic group of gold proof coins, and that's where it should remain.

Sandblasted coins are each unique - the abrasion pattern cannot be duplicated. Matte cents and nickels will be almost identical subject to slight changes in the dies imparted by metal fatigue/stress. But matte proof nickels will never have the same kind of surface as a sandblasted coin -- die hardening and tempering always moderate the die surface.

Spend it. Common damage. Do you think any national mint would release coins looking like that? (Also, try reducing the software image compression on your phone/camera - parts of your photos are blurry because of that.)

Dampen your hands, add a little liquid hand soap, work up a lather, add your coin. Lightly handle just like washing your hands, rinse and pat dry (or dry Pat, if she's nearby). All that is happening is removal of surface dirt and oils. If you add any abrasive -- then you'll scratch the coin. This whole thing is NOT done with proofs or other coins with very delicate surfaces....it's occasionally useful for circulated coins with dirt build up.

Today we merely take coins to a bank and exchange one denomination for another. But in the 19th century, it was not so simple. Even coins that looked the same might or might not be exchangeable. Here's a typical letter from a bank. Exchange Bank of Darling & Co. Fond du Lac, Wis. June 27, 1866 Director U. S. Mint Philadelphia Dear Sir: I would wish to know on what conditions can we send you dimes, quarters, and half dollars in silver, and have them coined into American Silver dollars. Please answer. Yours Truly, etc. /K. A . Darling/, Cashier Per W. Martin [Abstract] From K. A. Darling, Esq. Fond du Lac, Wis. Old silver coins & American dollars in return, etc. ­­_____ Answ’d by Circular. No American coins [are] received for re-coinage unless coined prior to 1853. July 2nd ’66. P

A lot of silver dollars and halves ended their "lives" as plates, spoons and sugar dishes.

This is absolutely correct. My supporting opinion is that very very few sandblast proofs remain in their original, unaltered appearance. The “crystalline, nearly diamond-like facets” as Mark mentioned, are characteristic to all sandblasted coins for this era. Ordinary crushed sand or quartz were used and these grains had sharp edges and flat crystal faces that were directly imparted to the gold coins. An experienced equipment operator was able to work quickly and avoid re-blasting the same area - some of the 1911 coins might have benefited from this, especially given that the order to switch from satin to sandblast was given by Asst Sec Andrew. (See Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908 for correspondence between Andrew and William Woodin for ANA members.) Every btach of sandblasted proof will be slightly different from its predecessor depending on the technician and abrasive used. I suspect the Medal Dept. used whatever abrasive was in current use on medals that day. However, sandblasting also increased the total surface area and exposed more copper alloy to atmospheric chemicals. Within a few years of release, a sandblasted coin assumes a somewhat darker tone than a normal coin (or a satin proof), and collectors began dipping them to make them brighter. Each dip removed a tiny amount of copper and also etched the exposed surface of every facet. What began as sharp boundaries and flat abrasion surfaces became duller, smoother and less representative of the originals. I do not know how many of the Kossel coins are truly original. I suspect that the darker looking specimens might be less "messed with" than brighter pieces.

This is Allison's hallmark on the back of a silver spoon c.1850. Notice the word "COIN" showing that it was made from coin silver. Jewelry and tableware were significant uses for US coins in the 19th century.

Detroit. June 28, 1866 Director of Mint Philadelphia Sir: I have a lot of Gold, 25 oz, which has iridium in from gold pen grinding. The gold is of pen gold. Will the Mint receive and part it for me? Respectfully, J. H. Allison [Note below} If the gold certainly constituted one half of the mass, I will undertake it at the rate of 25 cts per gross oz. JCB. We will not undertake to restore the iridium. [Abstract] From J.H. Allison, Detroit, Mich. Gold & Iridium. June 30/66. Ans’d. (John Hammer Allison was a prosperous jeweler, watchmaker, sliversmith and gold pen manufacturer in Detroit in the mid-19th century. Gold pens had a writing nib made from iridium or osmium bonded to a polished gold body.)

That is quite possible. The appearance of a coin that has been washed usually differs enough from circulation-appearance, that it will get tagged with "cleaned" as a pejorative. On occasion, chois dipped in pure acetone - which removes only organic material - will get the dreaded "cleaned" designation, too. If you purchase coins that have already been slabbed by NGC, PCGS or ANACS they will already have been evaluated and meet market acceptance for "cleaning."

Color laser printers can be finicky.....

Coin #1 - Solid Fine Coin #2 - Better VF (VF-30) I suspect both coins have been washed, but not chemically "dipped."

There might be some confusion about a "dipped" coin and one that could have been washed. "Dipping" usually refers to treating the coin with chemicals - usually acids - to convert various silver compounds back into metallic silver. Unless done with great care this leaves a thin white residue visible within fine details and inscriptions. With experience, one can easily spot a dipped coin (pun intended). Washing with mild nonabrasive soap will remove most surface grime and oils, resulting in a lighter looking coin but without the chemical residue from dipping. The coin will be cleaner and thus seem out of place.

1st. "Looks Like" is highly deceptive and biased. Lots of things "look like" one thing and turn out to be another. "There's a UFO...!" "No, George. It's a flock of geese." In US coin collection how many "looks like" proof bust halves and quarters have floated around; how many "looks like" branch mint proofs evaporate on clear-minded examination; how many Trade dollar proofs "look like" coins but were made under Medal Dept. rules and accounting...one could go on indefinitely. "Looking like" is only the first very small step in authentication and attribution - yet we find copious "expert writings" built on nothing but that kind of hot air! "Looks like" is patently false, misleading, inaccurate and confusing because it conveys NOTHING except the viewer's momentary opinion - claims require objective data. Got any Wally Breen authentication letters sitting around....? 2nd. RE: "On top of that, throwing out insults like “foolish” and “degrading” certainly doesn’t do much to invite or further a conversation." These are not insults. They are clear statements about the approach of many in numismatics who treat collectors as gullible insufficiently_thoughtful_persons and John Ford's "boobs." 3rd. Clear communications depends on clear descriptions using the most accurate descriptors available and avoiding term duplication. Untill Wally Breen poked his ignorant keister in to proof Saint-Gaudens/Pratt gold proofs were called "sand blast" and "satin" - accurate brief descriptions of process AND appearance. "Roman" was and is bologna invented by Ford's bought-boy because he was too lazy to actually hit the archives and dig for contemporary data. This becomes increasingly important as dealers and TPG casually toss about invented or misused terms to describe ordinary, but nice looking, coins.

If some members with to perpetuate ignorance that is their option - as foolish and degrading as it might be.

Primarily because the authors of the article are ignorant about what the Philadelphia Mint did in both coin and medal making, and the use of analogous processes for each. They are merely repeating discredited assumptions. This type of ingrained fossilization is only another reason why numismatics - as approached in the US - is not an academic area and there are no degrees by quality institutions on the subject. Rather than explore, investigate, correlate and change, they cling to the old false-familiar, thus promoting yet another generation of mindless copying. The processes used to make satin and matte proof coins are the same, except - matte proof dies were sandblasted before final hardening and tempering. Otherwise, the coins were all struck on medal presses and without further alteration. This method allowed many coins to be struck as proofs but with virtually identical surfaces - no degredatio and luster development as would happen with untreated dies..

It is completely false and misleading. Better to get back on better and historically accurate terminology than to encourage continued confusion.

"Roman gold" is a completely meaningless piece of krap invented/regurgitated by Wally Breen.

This link goes to another message board where there is considerable information posted. Happy bidding. https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1079109/ana-koessl-collection-of-matte-proof-gold-on-display-at-greatcollections-ana-table

Must be a coincidence. Kind-a like sitting in your dining room watching the house burn and not calling the fire department, then complaining about the fire department's slow response.