RWB

Just remember --- those kinds of people also vote!

Several glasses of good Madeira make translation easier.... ....especially from Portuguese.

I understand, but there is a tendency to underestimate the time required for research. For the S-G book - one which is much shorter than a comparable Liberty DE book - I had source materials collected over the previous decade+ and it still required over a year to fill gaps, correlate, and add new research. From my perspective, the 1st edition is superficial and largely repeats prior knowledge. Like all the other Guide Book series, it is intended as a general introduction and reference, not anything comprehensive. Printing pricing in a book is always a questionable practice - it automatically outdates the day the book hits shops. In the Liberty DE book, prices are more of a relative indicator for future use.

Field disturbance on both sides suggests AU.... but I seldom agree with TPGs on this kind of thing -- they like to call 'em "MS-63."

No "Ws" ?

There are no clear rules, and none of the TPGs seem willing to adopt any kind of consistent empirical system for determining PL, etc. and the difference in reflectivity to equal a "cameo" coin. It's all just opinion of seller and buyer.

OK. Looks nicer in the slab photos....

Good choice.

The cost of work might outweigh the profit on estimated sales.

Tails of 9s and 6 all have splits -- very likely a doubled die. Definitely clearer than the very minor ones usually seen. Got to check my old 1969 rolls.

It's a "47" --- says so right on the coin... As for condition -- Unc-65. Scrapes on the forehead and cheek, plus the field to the left. I would not necessarily object to Unc-66, though.

Coin books seem to age slowly, but once outdated, they are more confusing than useful. Anything older than 25 to 30 years has to be researched to see if it is worth buying and if it is of practical use. Some books, such as the Bowers silver dollar volumes remain useful although significant portions are obsolete.

The pictured coins are worth face value, that is all. If you see someone offering to sell them for more than 5-cents each, ask them what they will pay. You will likely not hear from them. They are either crooks or incredibly ignorant people looking for a sucker to cheat. That is the blunt, factual response.

The doubling commonly seen is caused by small persistent mechanical problems with coin presses and planchet feeding mechanisms. If you spin a quarter on a hard flat surface you'll notice that as it looses momentum, it begins to wobble, then fall while making multiple contacts with the surface. When a coin planchet does this in the final instant before struck by dies, parts of the design will "smear" very slightly resulting in "mechanical doubling" on parts of the coin but not others. There are a great many moving parts in a coin press, so identifying the specific cause can become quite complicated.

A Franklin medal by John Sinnock was a favorite of director Ross, and that's why the same portrait - nearly bald - ended up on the half dollar in 1948. She had also proposed it for a planned 1942 half-dime or 3-cent coin. [See Roger W Burdette “The 1942 Half-Dime,” Coin World. 2003.]

If we can skip back to Coinbuf's informative post --- It takes very little to create mechanical doubling, so it is very common and generally accepted by modern world mints. Under certain circumstances it can appear very prominent and is a constant area of confusion for new collectors. A "doubled die" ("Hub doubling" in the illustration) occurs during manufacturing of a working die from the year's master hub. Before more recent improvements in die making technology, it took at least 2 blows from the steel hub to transfer all its detail to a working die. Many denominations took up to 6 blows. (Really "squeezes" in a hydraulic press.) In between blows, the die had to be softened by heat treatment. If the first and all following blows were perfectly aligned, then the die would make normal looking coins. But if the first blow and any of those that followed were very slightly misaligned, then a second set of details was pressed into the die. This usually was visible in the peripheral lettering where displacement was the greatest. The accidental impression of two (or more) slightly our of register images is what produced the "notch" shown in the illustration. Hope that helps a little. Ask away if you have questions.

Nice coins! Question: Do you find that Franklin halves with "full bell lines" have better overall detail than "ordinary" coins? I ask because several other types have analogous modifying terms that can be interpreted as better total detail quality.

Great that NGC corrected the omission! [Oh, OK on the terminology. What's it called by NGC? - RWB]

It's a legitimate question. I've noticed that many beginners look at coins similar to those posted and think they are "perfect" and must be very valuable. This situation is exaggerated by the newby's unfamiliarity with coin grading, and with the continued growth of social media liars.

Go here: http://www.vamworld.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2647 ...or search the NGC site for a similar explanation.

You asked for opinions. My first was a little sarcastic - mainly meaning that you have no way to telling what was done to the coin in the past. Not a comment about your family only about unknowns. The second is cold reality, something you requested. Don't feel to bad....The old coins look "odd" to most people, and they automatically assume that if its old or strange looking it must be valuable. There are 2,000+ year old coins that are old and odd and worth only a couple of dollars....or even less.

Curiosity, only.

[It seems that posted photos are not as sharp as the originals --- noticed with some that I've posted.]

Glad you got an honest opinion. Consider that coin dealer next time you want to buy a coin. Thanks for posting the photo. Yes, it's an obvious counterfeit -- about the only thing correct is that it's circular.

Well, from a strictly financial perspective, they do. Most of their revenue comes from this kind of packaging - kind of like husking the corn, then packaging the husks as "Fire Wood." All three major authentication companies would have vanished long ago if they did not have a steady stream of special labels and TV/Cable hucksters anxious for the next "deal." We have to face the fact that the real coin collector market is too small to sustain TPGs and all the things they do for the hobby. Hobby collecting is not a growth market. They must have external customers. That is: if we want the convenience and general reliability, then we have to accept the absurdities so obvious to us, but less so to TV/Cable buyers. [Same applies to televangelists and their kind - they have to present the old fears in new packaging.]