RWB

Even the crickets were silent. Possibly eaten by the frogs.

How was it tested? What is the density? It should be 19.32 grams/cm3 if pure gold; somewhat less depending on alloy and actual gold content. (Check the story about Archimedes.) What caused the discoloration? XRF will only show the surface unless used carefully. Jeweler measurements with a handheld XRF are not reliable.

These are easier to grade if you concentrate on the high points - the field and the Native American's cheek just under the eye. Too many try to "force" the sunk relief design into a normal sunken field coin.

All of the 22 comments were mentioned by more than one poster, usually on more than one message board. I simply consolidated a bunch for your viewing pleasure. The value in this kind of unstructured list is that it is a blurry snapshot of concerns - possibly something to which hobby organizations, the US Mint, and businesses might want to consider for future use. Such as: How to return excitement to a coin bourse and improve the experience for collectors? Suggestions were made long ago to ANA and a couple of commercial show sponsors, but only the tree frogs responded.

Yep. The question is: do we ruin a genuine ancient coin by jewelry use? I think the answer is "No." Absolutely no one will detect a well made replica worn in a bezel. A very few might ask about it. If so, just comment on the striking designs and their meaning - not need to tell them it's a replica.

The black or dark gray plastic foam might be the kind that, after 4 or 5 years, suddenly decomposes into gunk. I had a Hasselblad ruined when this happened - and it was in a high-end, foam-lined metal case. As for the cat - your coin is not protected from barfed hair balls or bacteria infested slime. Put the coin in a box with sulfur absorbent and the cat in the freezer. Both will benefit.

Look at the flaked color on the reverse at and somewhat above the hole. Further, the texture should vary with wear, but it does not. Likely plated for jewelry use and sold to an unknowing tourist before they fell into the lagoon next to their 75-storey cruise ship.

Check my book "A Guide Book of Peace Dollars" from Whitman Publishing LLC. Get the 4th edition. It does not tell you how to grade the coins, but it has good photos of some superior coins and a lot of information on each date/mint in the series. Some find the 1922-1928 coins difficult to grade. This originates with the casual quality control at the time of production. The coins were rushed through merely to redeem 2% bonds used to finance the silver and Secretary Andrew Mellon had no interest in quality. (He was, however, interested in buying paintings from the Soviets for cheap prices.)

These comments were collected from published comments on several message boards. They have been lightly edited for brevity and directness. Statements are grouped by subject and in rough order of frequency of comment. There is no claim to completeness or statistical accuracy – these are opinions. 1. Commercialization of hobby segments that were once enjoyed for coin hunting and collecting. 2. Over emphasis on money not numismatics. 3. More people who want to flip coins for a quick buck, yet fewer pure collectors. 4. Greedy flippers who pretend to be collectors. 5. Bounties paid by big coin companies for coins. 6. Lack of stable grading standards by TPGs and the resulting grade inflation; good for TPG's and dealers, but bad for collectors. 7. Fad of CAC stickers ruining collectability of nice coins. 8. Too much collector reliance on expensive TPGs instead of building their own grading skills. 9. Shows are tedious, dull and way too expensive. 10. No longer enjoy coin shows or coin club meetings. Online coin sites and online friends have replaced them. 11. Excess churn of coins from dealer-to-dealer so that it becomes overpriced for most at shows. 12. U.S. Mint offerings and ordering procedures that don’t allow an average collector to have a fair chance of buying a coin. 13. Used to be excited by the various Mint offerings. 14. Excitement over US Mint offerings faded when quality, creativity, and ordering fairness of NCLT coins declined. 15. Bots and other unfair advantages discourage buying Mint products. 16. Emphasis on sky-high grades. 17. Marketing and sale of common Uncirculated and proof coins in slabs with a grade of 70, when ones with a grade of 69 are deemed grossly inferior. 18. Counterfeits. 19. Concern about buying un-slabbed coins due to profusion of fake coins. 20. Impersonal. Much less in-person coin buying. 21. Fewer people willing to help others unless a profit to be made. 22. Collectors tougher to impress

It was not until the 14th that the TPG said the mistake had been corrected, and the first post from the customer was the first week of July. But the question has broader implications for the explicit trust that must be part of the authentication/grading paradigm.

A recent discussion/complaint thread elsewhere showed it required more than 6 weeks of persistent contact by the collector to resolve a data entry mistake. How long should a TPG take to resolve that type of error? How about for other kinds of "clerical" mistakes? What about attribution or authentication errors?

There are many museum replicas to choose from for jewelry. Why not use one of them instead of paying hundreds for an authentic coin that will damaged with use in a necklace?

I have not asked to be reappointed.

Congratulations! Is there also an award for Judging Mediocrity - like maybe US Mint coin designs? PS: Now that you've blown your cover, with "they" be after you?

"Please help me identify this 1946 s/s quarter." The quarter is named Ethel. That's all the identity information I have.

The mark is a from a squished giant paramecium.

PS: Precious metal planchets come from contractors. The US Mint does not make them. If there is residue on them, it has to be corrected by the vendors.

Ten percent copper adds a slight yellowish "warmth" to the silver. Very noticeable when 0.900 and 0.999 are new and compared side-by-side. Pure silver can seem almost "harsh" and "cold."

...except McKinley commemorative dollars.

Pedigree is only correct if your coin is breeding stock. Who were your coin's parents? NGC's use is incorrect, and always has been.

Spotting and stains might preclude grading, otherwise possibly MS-63. Cannot be proven to be from an SMS set.

The materials available do not support the descriptions. Ask the TPG to show you copies of all the tags, seals, etc. Then, go do some original research.

Demand forecasting means collecting and sifting data - but Congress placed "excessive" controls on what could be done. That is also the reason for the fall in precious metal NCLT demand - lack of advertising that was promoting Mint products and coin collecting.

I've seen that little blurb. It is what was told the pubic, not what was done. The director's note was an expression of the PLAN. It did not happen until CY1966, due to the urgency of making enough clad coinage for circulation. Archival documents reveal this. Further, look at the 1965 coins. Polished "blanks"? Nope, Polished dies? Nope. High tonnage presses. Depends on what that was supposed to mean. The presses in use in 1965 could handle 150 to 175/180 tons (especially the converted Bliss presses) - but the dies would not stand that. There is more to the story than blindly accepting a US Mint/Treasury publicity statement as completely factual. If one looks back on most of the Mint Press Releases, it is easy to see that they are built on generalities and copying from prior releases. Good examples are -- almost anything - but include 1955 cents, the coin shortage, GSA dollars, removal of silver from coins, Saudi gold discs, on and, on and, on and....

Nope. In 1965 the SMS coins were made the same way as normal circulation pieces. The only differences were in less handling contact and the pliofilm packaging. They were really just slightly nicer Mint Sets as had been sold for many years. Only in 1966 and 1967 were there real differences in manufacturing. This is documented in NARA files. Both of the TPG descriptions ignore archival facts and are concocted from hobby publications, not from reality. Simply put, the descriptions lack the subtle differences in manufacture during each of the three calendar years. Once NARA reopens to useful research times, I'll copy the documents.