RWB

The same process can be used to aid determination of restrike vs original based on alloy differences caused by both immediate alloy mixing and time-based changes in refining capability. A simple example: 1836, 38, and 39 flying eagle dollars were evidently restruck on one or more occasions approximately 20 years after the original manufacture. Silver refining improved over this period, and the restrikes were almost certainly of higher quality alloy (fewer and/or different impurities). These data can be collected from multiple samples and used to separate originals from restrikes and empirical resolve current controversies about die orientation and other factors. As USAuPzlBxBob implied, current technology makes this a simple, non-destructive data collection and statistical correlation project. If the two major TPGs decide to cooperate and coordinate data collection, results could be available within a year or two as the dollar coins cycle though sales and owners. The TPGs could also make a meaningful, positive contribution to numismatic knowledge by offering to reholder specimens gratis.

Your 1982 cent is worth 1 cent --- but even less to a collector due to the green corrosion. Almost all of the stuff you see on-line are lies. The perpetrators are trying to hook-in buyers of their junk lists and other garbage.

Overdating a die was a way to save money and time. Each working die cost about $25 in 1887. If unused dated dies remained after the close of a calendar year, they could not be used (leftover 1886 obverse in January 1887). Rather than deface and discard the prior year die (1886) and loose all of its value, the Engraving Dept could anneal the die and fill the "6" digit with soft steel. This was forced into the "6" until the hole was tightly filled. Any excess sticking above the die surface was smoothed with a graver. A new digit was punched into the die. The die was given its final hardening and temper, then gently rebaisened (abraded to a uniform radius or curvature), dipped in acid to remove oxidation from heating, and released to the Coiner for use. It might have cost $5 in labor to do this and could be accomplished in half a day. Raising a new die from the 1887 hub would require 7-8 blows from the hubbing press with an annealing between each blow. Only two annealings could be done in a day, so the full working die required 3-4 days before it was complete. [I suspect overdating worked best if the die had never received its final hardening -- as would be the case with dies reserved to be mintmarked.] The work would be invisible on coins if the repair held. If the repair began to fail under the high pressure of use, tiny flakes and grains of the filler would fall out, mostly along the edge of the original digit. This is what is seen on an 1887/6 dollar and the many overdates of 1880/79, and the well known 1900-O/CC varieties.

Here is the disposition of the first five Trade Dollars struck at the Philadelphia Mint July 11, 1873. #1 Secretary of Treasury Richardson #2-5 Charles Broadhead of Philadelphia (letter below) Hon. Charles Broadhead, Philadelphia October 13, 1873 Sir: I enclose herewith as requested by you and promised by me some months since, four of the first five Trade Dollars, struck at the Mint. They are not so handsome as those since struck, as the dies are now in better working condition. Dr. Linderman was in town on Saturday. I understood he was to leave last night for Washington. He was stopping at the Washington House. I am, Very truly yours, A. Loudoun Snowden, Coiner

the OP bought 2,022 Mint sets? Peppermint or spearmint or beemint?

Can anyone mention any "famous Morgan dollar collections?" (Real collection, not hoards of bags.) I recall only a couple....

Not illicit. 1913 Liberty nickel is dated after the new design was accepted in Dec 1912. 1884-85 Medallic Trade dollars also come to mind.

VF, lots of obverse scrapes. Mostly bullion value.

All are circulated and seem to range VF (F ?) to EF condition. Most of the value is in their silver content.

Puts the cart before the horse. It presents the attitude that collector involvement is not worth (worthy of ?) the money-industry's attention. This has never been the case in the hobby in the past, and it presents a disturbing dictatorial hubris from those who pump out "official grading opinions." All past coin grading guidance was developed collaboratively. The present was not.

It's a matter of how each person views value. An experienced, astute collector might look through hundreds of specimens of a certain date/mint before finding the "right one."

They gave you kids the coins as representing something unusual, or a gift that might be cherished for the sentiment accompanying them. It's very unlikely anyone thought of some sort of immense future value. A suggestion is to buy a little plastic holder for each, then write a short description of where the coin came from and who received it. [My great grandparents’ farmhouse was assembled from hand hewn beams using timber joinery and wooden pegs – no nails or other metal. When the house was torn down my mother saved a basket of the pegs. She wrote a short message about how the pegs were used and who lived and died in the house, and packaged the story and peg. She addressed each story to a family member and signed them. Everyone in the family received one set. They are among the most enjoyed family remembrances.]

Good point. We got off-track! Opinion, #3 is a high end VF - at least that's what I feel it's worth.

Good point. One minor correction. The 1886 die was first repaired by filling the "6" as completely as possible, then smoothing the field. Then a "7" or and "87" logo was punched into the die and the die hardened for use. During use small parts of the filler separated, making the faint lines pointed to by the red arrows. That is, the new 7 was not actually punched over a 6.

Sure I accept them. They are reality. I have no role in the money part -- which is what is pushing detrimental changes. However, present reality is also subject to change and we'd all like those changes to be for the better. Rather than Coinbuf and others sticking their heads in the sand and getting a numismatic enema from the "grading companies," consider standing up, thinking for yourself and discussing open standards, open disclosure, clear accurate descriptions and consistent, repeatable "grading." Why all the hobby complaints about "grade inflation?" Is it false? Is it a mirage? No. It's real and measurable -- and it's getting worse.

Coinbuf's comment is accurate only if one accepts the almost complete intermixed corruption of preservation, opinion, and greed [money]. In the currently imposed "market grading" objectivity of preservation (condition) is subjugated to opinions about subjective and personal biases on luster, detail, toning, and other things that are strictly opinion and on which collector agreement is unlikely. Coin/medal grading can be effective and reliable with community accepted standards for condition, and objective measurement/description of surface condition. ALL of the subjective factors are things which should be left to the value or price negotiation between parties. Thus, there is "Grade" and there is "Value." When the two are mixed, then the structure will always be unstable and value will always be highly variable.

What a silly and self-serving comment. Change is fine and to be expected. But changes in standards demand input before they are made. That has nto been done, hence the piles of complaints and confusion that are largely unnecessary.

This is one of the clearest US Mint explanations for the cause of thin and tapered coins. Office of U. S. Assistant Treasurer New York July 1, 1873 Hon James Pollock, Superintendent of the Mint Sir: The enclosed half dollar piece was found in a bag of silver coins of the same denomination received from the Mint. You will notice that it is not of the usual thickness, and this depreciation in weight below the standard is over 20 percent. I am unable to explain as similar pieces have never been noticed before, and take the liberty of returning it for examination, with the request that a similar piece of full weight be returned for it. Very Respectfully, M. S. Hillhouse, Asst Tr. U.S. * * * * * Mint of the United States Coiner’s Department Philadelphia July 2, 1873 Hon. James Pollock Superintendent, U.S. Mint Sir: The light half dollar returned from the Asst. Treasurer’s Office, New York, is the result of an accident which annoys me very much. I account for it by the supposition that the cutter, by neglect, cut toward the point of the strip (rendered thin by the pointing roll for the drawbench) instead of cutting from the point. As a result he cut a planchet from an unadjusted portion of the fillet, and as we are not adjusting silver by hand, it was not discovered in any subsequent operation. It is only another evidence that with the greatest care accidents will happen. Regretting the occurrence very much, I remain Very Truly yours, /s/ A. Loudon Snowden, Coiner

Others will have different opinions.

Is the coin one-sided? Difficult to tell what is going on from the photo.

Bag-marked AU. Common date/mint. Worth possibly a little over melt - if you can find a buyer.

Please do not misunderstand. Standards can and often do change as conditions adapt to innovation or free market circumstances. Absolute stasis is not desirable. However, changes in standards should be made in a open, public manner with ample opportunity for discussion among interested parties. In coin collecting, grading standards can change, but it must be preceded by clear proposals, hobby discussion, and consensus adoption/use. Let’s take an example: the “about uncirculated” grade. Authentication & grading companies have changed this from a single point definition to a numeric range from 50 to 58. An “AU-58” coin is close to the traditional definition; and “AU-55” coin is what was called a “high-end EF;” and an “AU-50” coin now looks a lot like a mid-end EF much like the B&D or ANA illustrations. These changes, and trickle-down effects on other circulated grades, were never proposed to the hobby by TPGs – or anyone else. This failure is a significant flaw in both coin grading and in the relationship of TPGs to the rest of the hobby. It is exercise is a de facto assumption of superiority by TPGs that is not, in fact, legitimate or earned. Independent grading was never intended to impose arbitrary pseudo-standards – rather it was implemented to enforce openly approved and recognized hobby standards.

And the definition of "standards" becomes just bologna -- we are then right back into the pre-TPG days of confusion. Only now you pay $50 to be confused and lied to. B&D and the ANA guide are no more obsolete relic than the coins graded with their guidance. The current false grades are promoted by simple, direct greed -- the old disparage and buy cheap; glorify and sell dear. I decline to accept the purification and lies any more than I would falsification of the historical truth. For all who whine and wring their sweaty palms in agony, there are more who agree but remain silent and do not act.

An internal proposal, as I have been told by a reliable source, is to begin shipping proof ASEs to bulk retailers packaged only in capsules. I do not know if that has been adopted.

No, my concept of coin grading is consistent and accurate. It presumes established and documented standards and DOES NOT tolerate "grade inflation" or other money-based lies. Whenever I buy a coin (which is uncommon) valuation is based on the coin's real condition and appearance not some BS on a paper label.