RWB

Just curious. I have Nov 10, 1825.

Top - EF cleaned. Bottom - high VF. Victoria - condition "preserved"

Not much physical coin collection to pass on. However, all the copyrights for my books and articles are prepared for transfer to my kids one day. But, I do not know what to do with all the research materials and database. I'd like to have it used by knowledgeable people, but maybe that's wishful thinking.

Understood. That is a consistent gripe involving coin denominations other than Morgans and Liberty DE. Frankly, any coin that matches the field reflectivity of a PL Morgan should be called PL. Denomination is irrelevant - or is that irreverent.....!

The designation for US Special Mint Sets comes from the official name of the sets. Canada's 1968-1975 sets were officially called "Uncirculated." The consistent solution is to designate a coin "proof-like" or "cameo PL" based only on its field reflectivity and contrast between field and relief. This should be a suffix to the official name. Thus, a coin from a US SMS would be designated "PL" only if it met the same criteria as a PL Morgan dollar; the same for a Canadian UNC set coin. The bottom line is that a TPG must be consistent in measurement and use of such terminology; it must be the same for all coins. Attempting to "slide the meaning" only creates confusion -- see comments elsewhere on "PL Peace dollars" - (which do not seem to exist).

Differences in assay and weight measuring systems in the US and England caused persistent confusion in the post-Gold Rush era. The following is an example which might also be helpful in authenticating 19th century British gold. In reply to the former statement, we have to say that it errs at the outset, in taking United States standards and assays as the basis upon which our gold coin is purchased in the London market. Thus, as our coin ought to be 900 parts fine in a thousand, and as our assays report their coin at 915-1/2 parts, it is assumed that British dealers are guided by those data. But upon inquiry there, we shall find that they consider their own coin as being 916-2/3 parts fine in a thousand (or 22 carats ) as their law requires, and at the same time rely upon their own mint as says for the fineness of our coins. It is important, therefore, to know how they report upon our gold. We have understood, in general terms, that it is found to be equal to the alleged or legal fineness ; and , indeed, a late letter from an English gentleman residing in London, and fully conversant with mint affairs, states that “the twenty - dollar pieces run a trifle better than the standard.” But taking the basis of an exact equality to legal standard, or 900/1000 fine, it is next to be noticed that the British assayers adhere to the old carat system of notation , and do not report nearer than 1/32 of a carat, or 1/8 of a carat-grain; also, that if the coin under trial should fall only a shade below a certain eighth, they drop down to the eighth below; consequently their report upon our coin would be technically “W. 1-5/8,” or “worse one carat-grain and five eighths” – which is 899-3/4 thousandths, very nearly. Then we have $10,000 in gold, weighing 537-1/2 ounces, producing 527.58 ounces in British legal standard, which at £3 17s. 9d. yields £2,050 19s. 4d., instead of £2,057 2s. 10-1/2d.[1] [1] J. Smith Homans, ed., “Export of gold to Europe – Remarks,” The Bankers’ Magazine and Statistical Register. October 1851. Crosby, Nichols and Company, Boston 1852. 274-275.

Gas, diesel or electric? Do you mean street-legal or something else?

Wow! That's one confident drug dealer. Most sell out of an alley, dark street corner, or maybe a grubby apartment.

Damaged 1882-P. No "errors." Bullion melt value only. Members here will help you with honest information. Ignore the on-line videos and frauds like "Etsy" and "Craigs Listing."

Nice. Silver remains in circulation, although at a very small percentage.

Will NGC also authenticate "non-VDB" 1910 cents?

Sounds like an ordinary business decision. Member-dealers will quickly recover the $200 from discounts, and advertising support.

Possibly a " ? " -- well, maybe not.....

I suggest that if Emily May Norweb sat on Wally's carelessly placed candy bar, Wally would not have survived the day.

Nero couldn't play the lyre, either.

Here is director Patterson's initial account of the January 1816 fire at the Philadelphia Mint. This damaged the rolling and drawing machines necessary for silver and gold coin strip production. When coinage was resumed, work concentrated on copper cents. These were struck from planchets prepared by Matthew Boulton in England, so no metal rolling was required. Workmen also spent time building a brick structure and installing new rolls. Mint of the U.S. January 11, 1816 Sir: I have the mortification to inform you, that this morning, about 2 o’clock, a fire broke out in the Mill-house, a wooden building, belonging to the Mint; which is consumed, together with an adjoining building containing the rolling and drawing machines; and also the Milling-house. The front part of the building, containing the coining presses, the office and assayer’s department is uninjured. The manner in which this fire originated is perfectly unaccountable. No fire is ever kept in the part of the building where it was first discovered, nor had any of the workmen been there for some days. No loss of gold or silver will be sustained of any consequence not will the copper coinage be in the least impeded. I shall not fail to give you further necessary information on the unpleasant subject as soon as an examination can be made of the damages sustained. I am, Sir, with the greatest respect and esteem, Your most obedient servant. Robert Patterson

You can only get "population" summaries. No TPG has a true "census" (an enumeration of all specimens).

That's twenty-four hundred.....

Yes. It's nice to see original bronze coins naturally aged. (Mine arrived along with a box of steamed jumbo shrimp from the cocktail party.)

It would have been clearer had I written: "I didn't check newspapers published at the time...." But, the copy editor was off for the afternoon, and the family cat had just been sliced in half by a snowplow; thus, there were extenuating circumstances.

Agree with Mark. Larger quantity = lower quality + lower value. There are exceptions - but rare.

Interesting speculation topic. The SF mint was initially call the California Mint, so we might presume a "C" mintmark -- except Charlotte was still in business, so "S" was adopted. The same would have applied to "D" and "O" mintmarks. Carson was "CC" because there was already the old "C." (A majority of mint docs from the 1860s-80s refer to it as the "Carson Mint." Had the mid-west mint opened in 1942, it was so close to Chicago that "C" could have been considered -- but it never got to the discussion stage. Maybe "W" for Wasco County? How about "P" for Pacific Coast ?

prime fillet = legally tender (med rare)....yum

Mint documents confirm that the withdrawn VDB (or BVD) reverse dies were segregated and destroyed. We also have all the cent die numbers from 1909 for Liberty and Lincoln cents, P and S mints. Claiming it "looks like" such-and-such is merely idle speculation.

Those are "PPP" -- "Properly Pickled Proofs" (before degrading in 2010 to snake skin laser).