RWB

"Hype"has no value. A specific provenance might add 5% if it's of interest, but that's mere opinion.

AU-58 based on field disturbance and slight abrasion (cause is irrelevant). Also, I like the large hand-made "O" mintmark -- nice touch.

No proof coins or mint sets were made with 1965-67 dates. 1964 came in the usual proof set and a normal mint set.

I recall a company selling these at the entrance to the Denver ANA. (I think they were supposed to be melted as scrap and not resold to a vendor....but that might be a figment of the altitude -- the convention was on the 2nd floor of the convention center. (I guess that's better then the 2nd floor of the sewage treatment plant.)

Counterfeiting laws have no relationship to who owns the design. The language used is something like the US words "likeness or a similitude" which also covers slugs and blanks when used in place of coins. (Years ago Iceland's 25 aurar bronze coins would operate US vending machines as if they were quarters. Customs confiscated bags/boxes of these from travelers intent on passing them as 25-cents.)

OK. At least I'm only partly crazy....

Has this post/topic been around before -- 1 or 2 years ago?

Henri/Quintus....There is a vast array of legitimate pattern pieces from around the world. American collectors rarely branch out beyond their own narrow borders. There are also, many other proposed designs that exist only in model form.

A legitimate pattern piece is made only by the government or by direct commissioning of such work. If any privately made, non-commissioned piece includes the national identifier and a legal tender valuation, then is a correctly called a counterfeit coin.

The piece is NOT an Irish Republic pattern piece. It is a privately made token imitation. There are authentic Irish patterns made on authority of the government, but this piece is not one of them.

Nothing was "gifted" to anyone. The letter does not say what the gift was, however. Possibly cash in one form or another.

A "half roll" of quarters is worth $5. You will not find a coin that will be worth more than the cost of "grading."

The only public sourced (i.e., government supported) research would come from Smithsonian and U.S. Mint. Our Mint has never been much of a supporter of research or publisher of results; more often they suppress accurate information. Smithsonian does not view this within their NNC portfolio except when it's all in-house. Numismatic research is all privately-funded and has nothing beyond EPNNES supporting it. TPGs would seem to be logical supporters of original research, but their historical performance is almost nill. Heritage Auctions has supported certain research, but they do not have a grant program. None of the deep-pocket people have done anything beyond a couple of technological whims related to certain coins. FlyingAl wants to research a specific sub-set of 1936-42 proof coinage. A TPG is a logical supporting partner, but it is doubtful if any of them give a squat goose. The same applies to simply recording accurate data for pattern and experimental pieces, or the so-called "specimens" etc. TPGs are nothing but expensive paper label printers (think "Dymo Label Maker.") The failure of the hobby to support original research is an indirect cause of the continuing flow of misinformation, and outright lies that pester collectors. I recently read a book about one of the old branch mints. It was filled with inaccuracies, confused interpretations and outright falsehoods. Yet, this is just the thing collectors buy because they think it is a reliable source.

No one was trying to be "harsh." Members here will help in any way they can. They will also be honest with you, each in their own way. The comments are simply truthful based on the coin and your original statements. The damage is obvious on elementary comparison with other pocket change. You also made a judgement statement about the coin: "The coin itself is in good condition, no major dings," which indicates you had some sort of experience. The suggestion to "Revise your idea of good condition" is about as gentle as it comes without a long and possibly confusing conversation.

My impression of the letter is also of one that seems unusually effusive - especially for official correspondence. The original is not marked "Personal" or "Confidential" as was the custom in government. Dunning wanted to take his family back to his home state of Maine, but Patterson convinced him to stay at the Philadelphia Mint until he could find a suitable replacement as Chief Clerk. (At this time there were 4 mints to run, and the 3 new ones were "wobbly" requiring more of Patterson's time. The Chief Clerk/Director's Clerk ran the Philadelphia Mint and kept the various mint treasurers in check.) Dunning eventually was running the NY Assay Office, but had charges made against him. He played a major role in defining what was latter referred to as Dana Bickford's international coinage ideas. (See Fads, Fakes and Foibles for the full story.)

Your quarter is a beat-up damaged coin. RE: "The coin itself is in good condition, no major dings." The coin is peppered with dings scratches and abrasion. Consider revising your idea of "good condition."

Perfect - past tense.

Mint of the United States June 16th, 1845 My dear Sir, The connection which has passed between us, for more than seven years, is about to be discontinued, in consequence of your own desire communicated to me many months since, and on which your final action has been thus long delayed, in kind compliment with my wishes. Our relations have been of the most confidential nature, and have thrown us into close communication, and I therefore speak with knowledge of your character when I say that no one could have proved himself more worthy of entire trust, or could have fulfilled all his duties more balky or more faithfully, I now part with you, with the sincere wishes for the welfare and happiness of yourself and your family in the new career on which you are about to enter, and with assurances of my most affectionate attachment. Believe me, then Ever your friend R. M. Patterson To: Mr. George F Dunning, Director’s Clerk, U. S. Mint Note. I have wished to present to you on our parting, some slight memorial of attachment; but, being perplexed as to a selection, have at last chosen the enclosed as more likely to be useful to you, at this time, than any article to be shown and looked at.

The ink notation suggests you have a roll of "1960 LARG. UNC. RLW" or "50 1960 large date cents, Uncirculated condition," collected by someone with the initials RLW. Any deceased relatives or their friends with those initials?

90% is not acceptable accuracy or content. It is less that what is possible from available data, and inherently flawed. You're assuming the AI system already had the data and the set of integrated algorithms necessary to make necesary logical connections. Further, that the input request was correctly interpreted and understood by the AI system. That little 2-page background about a missing bag of 250 DE (not 500) actually spanned almost 15 years of data collection and several hours of specific correlation, analysis, revision, interpretation and hypothesis testing before its initial draft. Add to that the basic restraint imposed by the language inaccessibility of cursive handwriting and poor OCR. A general AI system would turn out gibberish. A dedicated system might return something with most of the correct words but not the correct story. (Humans are notorious for that.) My present view is that there is no AI system with the capability required. Present AI is copycat "fur ball vomit" good for summaries and amusement, but much too limited to enter a conversation above the "small talk" level. That will change as more powerful computing resources become available.

AI is (and will be) only as usable as the data on which it is trained. I suspect that if one took a huge data set of TPG graded/authenticated coins, the AI output would be mush. That is what would be going in. Coin "grading" has devolved from somewhat objective into entirely subjective and money driven, not a good situation for any system based on 1's and 0's, only. A "quantum" computer might have a chance as would an entirely analog device.

Mutilated, nothing more.

Cataract surgery often helps. If not then endothelial keratoplasty might be warranted. Looking at MS-68 Roosters will not help.

A very large proportion of material generated by current semi-AI products are wrong. The products are useful in making quick summaries, or simple calculations. I've tried some numismatic things with Chat GPT and it has failed all but the most basic. Someone on PCGS message board tried it for coin grading, and the results he posted were uniformly incorrect and misleading....no value at all.

Maybe you got cataracts or floaters.