RWB

Why? It's preserved in the original container and you avoid the risk of contamination by not opening it. You seem to gain nothing and have to pay for that nothing.

The article/book (however it turns out) covers approximately 1836 to 1895. It is an exploration of how, when, who and why of restriking coins and pattern pieces. I am presently in early drafts of various sections largely divided by directorships - that's simply how the story lines fall into place. (I was asked to do a presentation/web session on this in October, but I don't feel I will have enough corroboration to present conclusions. After all, there's already more than a century of assumption and misinformation on the subject and I don't want to add more.) The piece Jason mentioned is illustrated and described in my book Pattern and Experimental Pieces of WW-II. The correct variety numbers are: RB 42-16 for normal thickness and RB 42-17 for double thickness. The Judd number is obsolete and its description is bogus. The designation by PCGS is an incorrect variety identification which PCGS has failed to change after repeated references to the WW-II pattern book.

Ask NGC. They print the labels.

The article is typical bluster, and not based on data. The commercial part of coin collecting does itself a disservice by failing to collect and analyze its own financial results....that said, some companies make this an important part of doing business. With all hobby businesses effectively private, there is no resource of public data for collectors to examine. Thus, it is not possible for collectors to accurately review, analyze, interpret or act on trends until it is too late.

coinjunky: Common coin with ordinary surface marks. Worth 1-cent. Cost to authenticate and grade, approx $35. Value after grading, 1-cent. What do you think?

The OP's photos suggest it was once coated in mercury to make it shiny, then rubbed. Doesn't matter a lot - the coin was ruined by someone.

Happens all the time. Is despicable. Is misleading. Is unethical. Standard must be identical for all coins or it is worthless. Your description shows how far down quality has sunk. The coins you mention must match either my posted definition (Sheldon) or the TPG's stated definition (see the quote from NGC site per Mark F.) Neither permits the pieces you describe. Letters to hobby publications might have some effect, but can never correct the misrepresentation that could exist.

When you go to your physician the information is not public, unless specifically stated. When I examine a specimen (not the physician's "specimen") at the owner's request the results are not public, unless specifically stated. This applies, also, to background or other information the owner might provide to me in context of the examination. This approach is followed in all my books and articles. Credit lines and sources are always checked with the owner before publication. Typically, I will send a page mock-up for approval. Many collectors like to remain anonymous; some prefer a special name for their collection, others approve use of their name - it is the individual's choice.

Concentrate on learning what an uncirculated coin looks like, then you can make better decisions when looking at "raw" coins.

If the OP's goal is to search circulating coins for ones that can be sold at a profit, then he/she best learn what buyers want and how to spot them among hundreds of thousands of ordinary coins.

Sure. They wanted objective information for their own use...whatever that use might be at the time or in the future. Similar to going to your physician.

Quintus -- have you forgotten your basic Latin....?

The definition is the one used and accepted by the TPGs from Sheldon's book. The one quoted is actually more stringent since the coin has to pass unaltered through all production steps; Sheldon limited it to post-strike.

Owners. My report is confidential to the owners, only.

I've examined one of the two 1921 DE. See the comments in my book.

A. MS-70 or PF-70 means perfect as the coin comes from the dies. B. Without specific production information, it is not possible to determine when, during die life, a coin was made. A few guesses might be attempted using known die wear conditions. Therefore any "eye appeal" is subjective and has no relation to "early strike" "first strike" "early ship" or "third strike, you're out" designations.

The key word is in the title "Crooked." Will not win the national Spelling Bee, either.

Total sales might have increased, but numismatics is a tiny sub-segment of the tiny collectibles category.

This is what a nice uncirculated 1886-O silver dollar should look like.

Similar "complete set" deals were once common in hobby publications. At price of $5,000 for a complete set of Morgans in MS-63 or almost any other condition is close to impossible. 1889-CC and 1893-S alone would cost more. One dealer has a "complete set" in "genuine" slabs for $20,000.

Much has changed in 40 years....borrow a copy of the 1981 book, then await an updated/expanded version that should be out "soon."

Even if authentic, it is worth only silver content. It is what collectors call a "cull." Holed, bent, chopped an otherwise abused are also culls.

The OP posted a photo of a quarter. The OP thought something about the quarter suggested it could be graded and wanted to know if there was a cost. The connection is obvious for ordinary use.

The pictured coin is worth only half the cost of a first class postage stamp. What caused the original poster to think it should be "graded?"

No and very no. Worn, cleaned, polished and otherwise abused. Suitable for a belt buckle - maybe.