RWB

A "cameo" has to have complete frosted relief on both sides with mirror-like fields. In the photos, I see too much reflectivity on the relief.

Thanks for posting the correction. The thread seemed to be growing with no one correcting the original errors. There is another version of the reverse with a different star arrangement, plus the one finally used in later 1917. There isn't much more information about these ----

Could someone here post on the thread ATS and correct things before it gets too far out of hand?

None of the members are "tied" to NGC or any other company. A message board like this one is composed of coin collectors with a wide range of experience, and a considerable depth of honesty that you will not find on esty and other garbage "experts" you've listened to. Mr. Lange is the Research Director at NGC and offers occasional thoughts as appropriate to the situation - usually about a posted variety question.

Many Mint press releases are superficial as far as numismatic terminology and usage is concerned. Remember that the US Mint was and remains a very insular place, steeped in "secret" knowledge and not comfortable with keeping details of how things were done. Had they been better at keeping engraving notebooks, there would never have been problems with 1936 or 1950 proofs or packaging, among just a few examples. There is also a strong tendency to deny obvious problems, then take destructive actions, and finally admit they made a mistake.

Here are cropped, rotated and tonal adjusted copies of the OP's original photos. They are simply too fuzzy to be of much use.

Maybe they'll accept my "Double 180 Degree Rotation" coin....? Checking to see if I have any documents mentioning this for 1864 2-cent pieces.

Yep! Just sold the "Tough Luck Collection" on esty for big bucks! Got enough $$$ to buy a new chrome-plated lug nut for my spare Bentley.

The major authentication and grading companies are prime instigators in "grade inflation" and absence of firm standards. Doubtful they will change. Those who buy and sell coins for profit, also want lower "standards" because it makes their existing inventories worth a false-more with no effort. That permits easy picking of collectors' pockets by sell commonplace EF coins with an "AU-50" coin label.

It has not been printed and released yet. I delayed publication, but am now making the final edits and proof reading. Should go to the printer by the end of the week. Trying to hold price down without cutting quality.

Ordinary low-end AU. Probably authentic as Mark notes.

The new photos are much better. Aim for at least this photo quality in future posts. They clearly show it is a damaged, corroded 1920 cent. Doesn't matter if it had rainbow-skittle stripes and polka dots; it is what it is. You asked for opinions from experienced collectors and that is what they provided.

This illustration should help. Notice the labels at top. The coin is "medal turn." If it were normal "coin turn" the "2 cents" would be upside down.

To measure diameter with calipers (nylon is best for coins - not steel), place the coin flat then hold the caliper flat and measure. If the coin and caliper are perpendicular, you will likely get an incorrect measurement due to difficulty in measuring across the exact diameter. PS: You cent is a beat-up 1920, worth 1-cent.

Long ago my grandmother gave me a silver dollar on my birthday for each year of my age. If not bright and new, her way of making them "better" was to shine them with pot cleaner, or wipe them vigorously on her kitchen apron with stone ground flour. Back then it didn't matter - silver dollars were available at any bank, saloon, or cat-house.

The designs are bereft of innovation and originality....merely cheap commercial illustrations for cereal boxes.

I'm puzzled about why the "Innovation Dollars" are so prosaic.

No legitimate authentication service or coin seller would: a) authenticate either coin, and b) designate either "proof like." Variety of your 1878 dollar is immaterial - the coin was ruined long ago. Woods Alex and the others are entirely correct.

Thank you! A Nice diversion from parking lot doubled dies and "mint errors." The falcon is supposed to be protecting the baby, but it really seems to be preparing to make a meal of the kid. James Stanley, 10th Earl of Derby, 6th Baron Strange. (1664–1736) "Derby" is pronounced "Dah-r beh" the 'r' is soft. The obverse French inscription "Sans Changer" is commonly translated as "without changing," but in context it can also mean "eternal." "Quocunque Jeceris Stabit" is usually translated from Latin as “Wherever you throw it, it shall stand." It’s meaning is less literal: “Wherever thrown [ I ] will land upon [my] feet.”

Fun and personal enjoyment are the base of any hobby. Collect and learn about things of interest, then expand into related things.

Polished and ruined. Filters make no difference.

Note that the "grade" on most of these proof slabs does not reflect (sorry...) the amount of visible detail. Suggest collectors look for best details first, then "grade."

This post on another message board is certain to confuse and mislead newer collectors. https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1075302/the-original-1916-quarter The statement in that post is entirely false. The obverse design pictured was MacNeil's final design and the one actually approved for use by Secretary of the Treasury in late August 1916. The Mint director stuck with a modification of the original (May 1916), then Morgan revised it for the initial 1917 coins. MacNeil objected and was allowed to revise his design to the one known as "Type II." (The photo is one I took while authenticating the bronze cast in 2008.) The reverse pictured on the false post dates from 1917 and was one of MacNeil's proposed modifications to the star arrangement. It has no connection whatsoever to the dolphin obverse, It was never used. [See Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921 for facts.]

Sorry! I have only a Homer Simpson account, but no one has used it. It's only 10 years old though.

Magical! Call Harry Potter !