RWB

"Blue" points were exchanged for oysters, and "Red" points were exchanged for herring.....Well, that's what the internet says. Here's a short explanation: https://bobstokens.com/the-history-of-opa-tokens/ Here's ANA's article: https://www.money.org/collector/user_66708/blog/a-guide-to-ww2-opa-tokens-an-obscure-section-of-numismatics Here's Wikkidoodle's version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Price_Administration

The slope on a coin alphanumerical character or design-relief edge is never zero degrees (i.e. perpendicular to the face (table). If the slope is too small, the coin will stick to a die and get smashed against the next planchet. (Ten degrees is near the minimum practical limit.) "Stickiness" is caused by changes in die steel and planchet alloy during deformation, friction, impact recrystallization of alloy, and vacuum suction as the coin tries to release from the die. The latter is a particular problem with high relief coin designs such as 1921 Peace dollars, and 1850 double eagles struck with vertical toggle presses.

The title is from a post on this thread: https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/426807-1987-p-dime-possible-error/. It refers to circulation coins from the 1980s. A useful answer deserves more than being buried in an obscure spot. Several factors go into the visual sharpness of a struck coin. The most commonly noted are the pressure used to strike a coin, and the softness of planchets before striking. Softer planchets mean that metal flows better into recesses of dies and this increases the uniformity of relief height above the fields. Increased striking pressure has a similar result but the metal tends to recrystallize differently than with softer planchets. Visually there is little differences except under high magnification. Before changing to clad metal planchets in 1965, the Mint Bureau did extensive testing to determine changes in processes and dies that would improve the durability of equipment. Experimentation continued over several years and one of the more significant findings was that the intersection of relief and the table (field) on a die was a critical stress point and source of metal failure. (This can be seen on Morgan dollars where die cracks often originate and connect these intersections.) To reduce this stress concentration and thereby increase die life, the Mint Bureau made two significant changes. The first was to make the relief-to-table intersection less abrupt – that is, to smooth the curve and thereby disperse stress along a greater area. The second involved changing the slope of the sides of relief – especially inscriptions. This is the angle between the top surface of a letter and the junction with the table (field). For coins whose reductions and master dies were made before adoption of the Janvier reducing lathe, this is about 10 degrees. For coins made during the Janvier lathe reduction era the angle increases to about 15-18 degrees. Current coins, such as quarters, have a measured relief slope of about 24 degrees. Our eyes perceive sharpness as a function of contrast. Greater contrast produces greater visual detail and a stronger perception of relief. As the side slope of inscriptions increases, more light is scattered from the shallower angle and the total contrast of a letter with the flat field decreases – making the letter look “softer” and “flatter” even if its height above the field is unchanged. Further, smoothing the intersection of relief and table (field) scatters more light, thereby reducing contrast and apparent sharpness. (The reverse of peace dollars 1922-1928 is a notable example of excessive slope.) The effects of these, and relief alterations produce coins that are “mushy” or lack the acuity of detail that we see in older coins. During the 1980s some experimental changes were put into production with the result that much of the coinage lacked sharpness and visual clarity. Modern die making uses machine tools, and these can change the factors mentioned above. But so far the US Mint refuses to return to more acute angles for low-mintage commemorative and NCLT bullion coins.

See new post for reply.

'Cause it was a cast copy of the photo of a cast copy of a cast copy....

Is that him squeezing out of a roll-over....or is he merely searching for his bottle?

It's also a good way to see if there are outstanding warrants for your neighbors, or if the lady on the next bar stool is collectible.

Legitimate tubes or rolls of quarters hold 40 coins, not 25. Is he using small dollar tubes to mislead people?

Won't change anything - the coin is ruined.

Quarter and half dollar rolls hold $10 face -- 40 and 20 coins respectively. Nickel rolls are $2 - 40 nickels and cent rolls are $0.50 - 50 coins. Large dollar rolls are $20 face - 20 coins and small dollar rolls are $25 - 25 coins.

What a greedy waste for the nice 1896-S half....

You'll have to ask NGC or PCGS or ANACS....I can only speculate.

So....every year people up and down US 60 exchange unwanted items with each other, then trade them back the next year.... curious. How long does it take for great-grandma's 5-lb flat iron to travel from one end to the other? (Just kidding.)

Gambling machines took a toll before casinos switched to paper chits. But, you're right to be skeptical about any modern coin with extensive wear. Rock tumblers plus encouragement from flat grinders, help a lot.

2007-D dies were made in the Denver die shop. It's a nice, clear clash, and from the quantity Errorists has acquired, sufficiently available that many could enjoy searching for them. Specialist groups are aware of similar/identical clashes, but I don't think PCGS or NGC would consider them distinct enough for a separate label (unless requested/paid for). The way TPGs handled some of the state quarter clashes and die scratches would likely be appropriate.

The coins pictured are all normal looking circulation strike coins. There is no such critter as a "1964 SMS [special mint set]" coin. The ones being touted as "SMS" are merely early coins off new dies -- of which thousands were made and part of normal coinage.

If he is selling $10 in silver quarters, they are worth, just like the halves, $169.90. (If they are in a roll, they already have handling marks.)

This comment and the follow-up of: ...are somewhat confusing. Are you saying the seller was offering 20 .900 fine silver halves for $250? Market is about $8.47 each so they are worth $169.90 in silver. The seller wants $12.50 each.

Nice overlays.

Sadly, much of the hype would be impossible without the presence of TPGs. Their reputation for rare coins extends to common stuff in the minds of many, so they assume that if it's in a slab it's "rare and valuable." Then there are those who encourage such behavior for their own selfish purposes.

That's an excellent reason for the book to be a long-term, high quality resource. If you ever become interested in the series, there will be something you can go to for answers, and not dealer hype.

Nice that someone found a use for cats --- hot air "catalloon" rides for mice.

That's why the microwave oven was invented....

It is an unfortunate "rule" in the hobby that very, very few participants with deep pockets do anything to encourage publication of improved information. The approximate cost of printing a Trade Dollar book is $15,000 - a considerable sum for most of us -- but hardly more than pocket change or an overnight hotel stay for a number of collectors. That $15k does not do anything more than print the final product, so there is nothing put toward all the research, writing editing, layout and other necessities.

Several years ago, the person mentioned was asked to share some of his "vast ? expertise about Trade dollars with other collectors. The request was refused; possibly too busy, or possibly had nothing useful to say; there was no follow-up.