RWB

It's a damaged 1884-O (round O). The number of photos posted doesn't change anything. Further, VAMworld's variety listing shows no O/S variety for this year.

2 liters p/m you would have been gray..... Glad everything was successful and you're doing well.

Kevine84 --- OK. Are you planning to change the holder info before posting larger photos. Folks would still like to see them, but with the correct date/mint information.

Are you saying it's an 1884-CC, not `79-CC ?

Thank you, FlyingAl !

Here's a link to a thread ATS regarding a suggested $73 gold piece. Thought it might be of interest to members here.

Seems like an "odd" motivation for using a company's services....At least there's no new label screaming "NOW!! 50% HIGHER GRADES at the SAME LOW PRICE." Or --- "FREE UPGRADE with EVERY REGRADE"

Ahhh...the Smedley award, once an honor for positive service, now given for running ANA into the sewer and fixing its place as "clueless" in Colorado Springs.

Here's what I could pull out of the coin labeled "1879-CC." Mintmark might be lost in file compression noise.

Great argument for moving Mint HQ to Alabama, Mississippi, or Arkansas. That will make hiring incompetents much easier, and cheaper -- especially the legal staff. As usual VKurtB's comments represent his prevailing ignorance and inability to look beyond superficiality. Nothing new except the label. And remember, your ANA gives awards to those who "are dumb as a bag of hammers."

The 1879-CC.... yes.

The same way crows and octopuses like shiny stuff.

I didn't get a "Congratulations Set." They sent me a bunch of parking lot overdates and doubled dies in a holder that said "Tough Luck Set."

There are limited practical uses for this technology in American numismatics. It could be used to profile and examine overdates and repunched mintmarks, confirm doubled die coins, characterize counterfeits, produce precise and repeatable distance measurements for relief elements. We already understand that so-called “Longacre doubling” was caused by a punch or logotype being struck too hard when impressed into a working die. This allowed some of the punch matrix to contact the die surface and then transfer to coins. One small refinement now understood by direct relief measurements is that the original logotypes were too shallow for coin use. That is, the individual letters were not long enough from matrix to top surface to produce a clear impression in a die. These punches and logos were commonly made on individual contracts with outside diesinkers – only a few were by Longacre.

Scott, There are no qualifications to be a "coin dealer." None; or to add any of the industry puffery such as "expert", "Highest prices paid for gold", "Lowest prices on gold," etc.

This might be a clearer image of mushy details on a coin. This is the letter "I" in LIBERTY on a modern quarter. Any metal not parallel to the coin's field (table) contributes to reduced contrast and softer-looking details. Notice the irregular top surface of the letter, and the slight rise in the field adjacent to the letter. (Last photo, I promise. I know everyone's bored stiff with this.... )

Looks like his right eye was damaged....

It will help if you can crop the photos so only the coins show, and lighten them to make it easier to identify.

Here is a more visually oriented approach. (Image profile diagram is exaggerated.) At upper left is a relief image of the word LIBERTY on a current quarter. Blue indicates lower and red higher relief relative to one another. The thin red diagonal line shows were a detailed measurement was taken. Upper right is a color image showing a selected relief measured range across the L and I, ending just before the letter B. At bottom is the measured relief beginning just left of the L and ending just left of the B. The light blue/cyan color line is the profile. Red “Xs” mark relief height measurement points. The greatest point of relief on the letter I is 0.028mm above the field; the greatest relief on the L is 0.023mm above the field. The profile shows that the top of both letters is not flat, but irregular. Further, the letter I has greater relief above the field than the letter L. (Is this due to metal flow or die design?) Notice the red angles where each letter intersects the field. The blue/cyan profile clearly shows broad curvature, and the outside angles are in excess of 114 degrees. The result of these measurements is to show why modern coins look “mushy.” [Measurements made with a Keyence 3D Optical Profilometer, VR-6000 Series.]

I'm in touch with several Trade Dollar specialists. I've seen samples from them and offered suggestions, including reconstructed pages and images. I've made a couple of rough outlines for my own use. That's where things stand at present.

Enlargement of the group photos suggests they are mostly lightly circulated coins with lots of scratches. Your 1880-S is likely one of the many 1880/79 over date varieties.

N H Ourso -- Here is a photo of the mintmark on an authentic 1884-S Morgan silver dollar. They all resemble this photo with minor variations from one reverse die to the next. Also, an 1884-S coin is not rare except in choice uncirculated condition. A nice looking extremely fine condition coin has a retail value of about $75. Your coin is a badly scratched 1884-O with rim damage. It is a common date/mint in common condition.

The photo shows an 1884-O (round "O") with damage and lots of scratches, etc. There are no O/S varieties listed on VAMworld.

Could we be reading the question incorrectly? Did the OP really intend to say "proof reverse" rather than "reverse proof" or possibly "80 proof?"

There is a good series of Polish coins issued under the dictatorship of Russia.