RWB

The ones at my church wear nothing at all. It's a very open and affectionate church...not an Evangelinical in the bunch.

Good for you. Buy the coin - not the plastic. Be very critical of raw coins - many are fine and good values, but a lot are rejects or damaged/cleaned in some way. Check for return conditions.

All "price guides" are exactly what the name says: "guides." They are not absolute values, but merely approximations and references. Higher priced coins are bought and sold as individual pieces depending on objective and subjective factors. This is unlike stocks or commodities. The same date, mintmark and "grade" coin might sell for hundreds or thousands of dollars depending on it's appeal to a specific buyer. Lower priced coins are often lumped together into averages for guides, but the quantities sold in any week or month are usually too small to give a really accurate average or even range of values. The OP's example is unusual for the disparity between the "guide" and what one seller is asking; however, other sellers might have much different prices - or even below the "guide." You best approach is to compare a lot of similar pieces, then decide if one of them - or none - meet your interests and budget. Waiting can also help improve your chance of getting a fair deal.

Chemical stain. No collector value.

Even the Cosmos is subject to unexpected scratches. [Early morning on Monday, November 18th, Cliff Johnson (Northwestern University) and colleagues took this image using the Dark Energy Camera on the 4-meter Blanco Telescope at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory. Trails from 19 [sic 14] recently launched Starlink satellites crossed the image during the six-minute exposure. CTIO / NOIRLab / NSF / AURA / DECam DELVE Surves via Sky and Telescope.]

Snide and ignorant remarks aside, facts, not "opinions" are attributes.

Open the image. Right click ans select "Save As" then point to where on your Mac you want to save the file. (If you are asked to order fries with your Mac, just say "No thanks.")

Yes. That was the reason he gave. The same letter (14 pages long) also supports his decision to remove EPU, although that had begun with the quarter a few years earlier. Jefferson's 1825 reply was basically that he found nothing in his papers about the cap or what was supposed to be "emblematic" of the concept of liberty. He said he remembered nothing about the subject.

In another thread the subject of Liberty wearing a cap came up. Several comments were made which suggest a thread on this subject might be of interest. Following are two quotations from director Samuel Moore on the subject. The director contacted Thomas Jefferson about his recollections of a figure emblematic of liberty and use of a cap in a symbolic sense. It seems expedient, if indeed there is no an official obligation, to complete the series of our dies; and the unsettled question – “What is the proper emblem of Liberty for our Coins?” is entitled to consideration before a new original die of our money unit if prepared. Permit me therefore to request information on the following points, as having a fair relation to the subject. 1. What figure, or device, may be considered as intended by Congress, or the administration, at the establishment of the Mint, by the words in the law, “an impression emblematic of Liberty” [?] 2. Was the cap of Liberty adopted or alluded to, as a fit emblem, bu any act of the confederation, or of any of the states, or by popular usage, during the revolution, or previously to 1792, so that this device may be supposed to have been intended? 3. When emblems or representation of Liberty were in those times resorted to, on public occasions, of what description were they[?] 4. If the Liberty Cap be the emblem intended in the law, is it proper to place it on the head of the figure personifying Liberty? Such information or suggestions as you may find it convenient to favor me with, will be thankfully received. When I am satisfied as to the impression emblematic of Liberty which can be sustained on the best ground, a few pattern pieces will be struck, to be submitted to the consideration of the Government, which if approved, or with such modifications as shall be directed, may fix the character of our Coins. Supposing the female head to be an appropriate figure, three views in relation to it present themselves. To adhere to the present dress cap, or copy it so nearly as to exhibit the appearance of any specific change. To exclude the cap, and adopt an easy disposition of the hair, with no ornament but the band of Liberty. To adopt the classic style of cap, which though resembling the cap of Liberty nearly in form, would nevertheless be distinguished from it, by being worn on the head of the figure, if it be true that the cap of Liberty is out of place there. [Moore to Jefferson February 14, 1825.] A more direct discussion was presented in 1834: In 1805 or 1806, the headdress of a lady of this city, considered as a pleasing example of the fashion of the time, was copied by the Engraver of the Mint on the die of the silver coins, from a miniature placed before him, as alluded in my letter of the 9th of July.... It is, however, obvious to remark, that thought the Cap of liberty appears on the most unquestionable grounds to be forbidden on the head of the figure representing Liberty, as an unfit emblem of the condition of the United States; it may not necessarily follow that the cap should not be introduced in some other manner. On this aspect of the question I would respectfully observe, that if this emblem can be dispensed with, as in fact it has thus far been dispensed with, except on the copper coins during a very brief period, there are good reasons against its admission. The cap emblem properly relates to a full length figure of liberty. It should be borne on a wand or staff, sustained in her hand, or laid on the pedestal on which she stands. When detached from the figure, I perceive no place or form in which to dispose of it with tolerable effect. As borne on the cent in 1794 and 1796 it is incongruous and unsightly. A full length figure is, however, illy [sic: ill] suited for a coins, from the exceedingly diminutive proportions to which it must be reduced in the smaller denominations. On the whole, believing that the Pileus is not an essential emblem of Liberty, that it is not the emblem intended by the law, and that it must to some extent impair the beauty of our coin, its employment as an emblem now would be viewed with some regret. The precise impression designed in the Act of 1792 is not distinctly apparent, but the device introduced on the new gold coins seems founded on good authority, as well as in good taste. It is a slight modification of that borne on the silver coins for the first ten years, differing therefrom chiefly in the position of the word “Liberty,” now inscribed on the cincture which controls the arrangement of the hair, after the manner exhibited in No. 7, a specimen of the copper coinage during the Administration of Mr. Madison. I cannot be entertain the conception that there is fitness in this device for the object in view – Liberty restrained only by the band of liberty – suggesting the idea of the Liberty of each controlled only by the equal Liberty of all, which is but another expression for liberty regulated by equal laws. [Moore to Sec Woodbury October 8, 1834]

Great pocket piece! Kind of on the same idiotic level as collecting all the world's gold, casting it into a large die to be rolled in settlement of international disputes instead of fighting. (Which SiFi story did that come from....?) There's also the old trope of fighting wars and enforcing casualties by computer - no physical damage.

The difficulty with using a Phrygian Cap as a symbol of freedom or liberty is that it was associated with manumission of slaves. As director Snowden commented in 1853: "The Pileus or liberty cap placed by the Romans upon the head of a slave in token of his manumission has been very much used and is perhaps a worn out idea. The Greek emblem of Liberty was a horse or head of a horse without a bridle. It may well be considered whether there is any necessity for our going back so far or seeking an emblem of doubtful expressiveness. We should endeavor to adopt such designs as would be expressive of our own institutions, and peculiar to our country." In 1824 director Moore asked Thomas Jefferson about the Pileus and commented that our liberty was not that of freed slaves, but of free people exercising their natural right of independence.

High EF. Too much wear for AU-58.

Your English is just fine. (My Spanish is limited to: "Una Dos Equis por favor" "Dos tacos por favor" and "¿Donde esta el inodoro?" -- and that's before the beer.)

RE: "The other theory suggests that the Philadelphia Mint was repurposing unused Morgan Dollar reverse dies already prepared for the Carson City Mint months or years earlier and repunched an “O” mint mark over the extant “CC” for use at the New Orleans Mint. For many numismatic experts, this particular proposal makes more sense, because many dies originally prepared for the Carson City Mint ended up going unused after that facility’s closure and were reappropriated for use." This is correct. When looking at detail photos (see VAMworld.com) notice that the prominence and location of the "CC" undertype varies. This is because the CC on a die was first filled, then smoothed with a graver before the entire surface was rebaisened then hardened. If the repair was fully successful, it would never be noticed. If unsuccessful, the fill chipped out in small pieces, or fell out entirely. The same method was used after about 1820 to restore back dated dies and make other repairs. At $25 each, it was a cost effective way to use old dies. Unused reverse dies for San Francisco and Philadelphia were merely cycled back for the following year. Denver did not open until after dollar coinage ended in 1904. Survival of uncirculated pieces is mere chance. New Orleans usually ran two dollar presses at the same time, and the coins were often mixed during quality inspection. An original bag might have half O/CC and half from a different die pair with just the O visible.

It is not a coin - merely a medal with a date.

One hopes not. After all, we'll still have meat slicers.

It might be helpful if one of the internationally astute members would post a concordance of grading terms as used in several countries.

In French the same term is possibly: ménage à trois ?

"Cabinet friction," "BU rub," and "wire rim" are all old, well-worn expressions that mislead collectors. The first two are euphemisms for wear - that is, the coin is no longer uncirculated. The third is actually a "fin" (Mint's own description) or defect in minting. "Matte" is another misused term although not necessarily deceptive - for Saint-Gaudens/Pratt gold proofs the correct term is "sandblast" which describes exactly how the visual effect was created. "Matte proof" is now reserved for early proof Lincoln cents and Buffalo nickels where the dies were sandblasted, but not the coins.

Just an opinion: The new ASE reverse is nice, but does not make good use of the full area - compare with Weinman's use of space on the obverse.

Very pleased to see your interest in half cents. My objections to Breen's book are that he makes unsubstantiated claims - things without clear evidence. The feud between Cohen and Breen did not help at all and divided specialist collectors. Production sequences are notoriously subjective especially when dealing to the later proof-only pieces. (Notice that I do not use the phrase "emission sequence." The word emission indicates release or issuance, and what is really being discussed the order of manufacture/production. It's fine point, but clarity of meaning is important in this or most other subjects -- except possibly politics.) The "cabinet friction" discussion is central to one's attitude about accuracy. Surface abrasion is wear -- that is a fact. No amount of equivocation will change that; whether rose or turd, it will smell the same. Wear is the absolute discriminator between uncirculated and circulated - by basic numismatic definition.

Your comment is an absolute lie. Your should known better. You're supposed to be a Big Shot ANA Judge -- with powdered periwig and monocle. Read the standard definition of "uncirculated." It only goes back 200+ years in the US... As for YOU not knowing what "Roman finish" is -- I can understand --- no one does. It was never been defined and is totally meaningless. Merely invented to garner bucks for an ignorant pedophile who's biggest success was dying in prison.

Most don't care. but when I write about "proof coins" or "circulation coins" or "master coins" the meaning has to be clear. I emphasize "provenance" vs "pedigree" for much the same reasons. That's also why I object to phony euphemisms such as "cabinet friction" or "wire rim."

The item quoted is merely cheap cut glass and paste - no real gems there. I tend to state the truth, even if the "sacred received wise ones' " can't factually support their lies; it is a matter of playing the sucker coin-com game, or standing aside and laughing at them falling over their own words. A coin with so-called "cabinet friction" is no longer uncirculated by any definition of the word. The term "cabinet friction" is not generally accepted any more than Breen's "Roman proof" or any other lies built on greed and the purveying of ignorance.

It's a damaged circulation strike coin. (ALL US coins, including proofs, patterns, novodels, etc.) are part of the Mint's "business" and thus business strikes.