RWB

Like any business or government agency, contracts for services are put out for open bid. (Government must disclose this, businesses do not.) Bidders present a proposal usually including delivery schedules, contingencies, price, etc. Once a bid is accepted and the contract signed, the agency or business buyer is obligated by the terms of the contract. There might be several contract awards for the same item in different parts of the country, or for contingency awards if the prime bidder cannot fulfill their obligations. There is no "political correctness," "socially justified" or other ignorant nonsense. Contractors have to meet all technical terms of the RFP (Request for Proposal). The US Mint's RFPs define ready-to-use planchet specifications - not "bulk metal" that would require considerable manipulation or refining. Government is also required to be entirely open in the acquisition process, and this creates legal conditions for publication, public response, and notification that cannot be ignored. (A corporation can do what it wants in most cases and has to disclose nothing.) Lastly, Mint supply contracts are nearly all on an "as and when needed" basis. This avoids wasting money on maintaining raw material inventory, but it also comes with the risk of supply-chain disruption. (The pandemic has clearly shown how supply disruption in one country can affect production, distribution and sales in other countries. Silver and gold are just commodities and float about the globe on the same container ships as underwear and turnips.)

re: ..."stepping down." Are those 6 full steps, or possibly a "two-step" ?

If you want to buy one in uncirculated condition, only buy from a legitimate coin dealer. A great many of these have been chemically stripped and replated, then sold to unsuspecting people as "original." They are worthless. 1943 cents are too common for all but the very best to justify the cost of authentication and grading.

Extreme circulation damage, such as being lost in a parking lot.

Appears to be a brass imitation sold to tourists as souvenirs.

Cashiers and other money handlers counted coins by stack height. They counted one stack of 10 or 20 pieces, then matched that height without counting each piece. Mixing issues of different rim heights slowed counting and produced inaccuracies.

Since the poster said "They can be “fixed” with my Eastman Kodak silver coin dip.... the clue pointed to sodium thiosulfate with a little acetic acid. This is photographic "fixer" that dissolves silver halides and makes the image permanent. Thiourea with citric acid is used in some toners for silver photographic prints, but is not/was not used to fix a film or paper image.

He likely means sodium thiosulfate in an acid solution.

They are among those "doctors" who take a "Hypocritic Oath."

Several posters here and elsewhere have tracked specific coins. Some end up in approved holders, others get stripped and retoned, some are ruined. It is all about greed, dishonesty and lies.

For many, I am being "too picky" and likely overly dogmatic. I'm used to hearing those complaints from my very first published article right up to yesterday afternoon. That's OK.

An "original surface" can be anything, but can usually be described very simply. Problems occur when people get overly enthusiastic (or greedy), and start mixing words of conflicting meaning in the same description. The obvious example is that a "mirror proof" cannot also have "luster" - BUT the mirror on a proof coin varies with the smoothness of polish, so a "mirror proof" might actually have a little luster created was the die surface changes during use. In the original example, a conflict was created by juxtaposing conflicting terms "mirror" and "luster."

This is a product of acid dipping the incomplete coins after each annealing. It is also present, but to a minimal extent on MCMVII circulation DE.

This is simply false. The "same cadre of experts" has been wrong about many important coin characteristics and processes. It assumes conditions that did not exist and a result that would condemn nearly every gold ingot. "Solid solution" is correct and "diffusion of copper" in incorrect, which demonstrate why the "improper alloy mixture" is wrong for gold-copper alloys. In a solid solution the minor component is uniformly mixed within the major component crystal lattice. This explains why at the Mint gold and copper were readily combined into a "solid solution" that did not segregate on solidification. This was tested many times at Philadelphia, Bureau of Standards (now NIST), Royal Mint, etc. Copper can be depleted or altered from a gold coin's surface by repeated dipping in acid (HCl, H2SO4, etc.) --refer to MCMVII Ex High Relief DE patterns-- but it cannot be augmented. It does not "diffuse towards the surface" of an ingot, strip, blank, planchet, or coin. Any gold coin toning is a surface compound film byproduct, or aggregated contamination (dirt, rust, salt erosion, oil, and so forth). However, silver and copper do not form an entirely uniform solid solution - they form intermittent crystal bonds, that is, silver aggregates at copper grain boundaries - and thus the material will segregate on solidification. The degree of this is easily measured in manufacturing situations. The US Mint M&R had a target assay of silver ingots that was below tolerance, then the Coiner cut blanks from the center of each strip, producing blanks that were very close to 0.900. The scrap, low fineness, was sent back to M&R where it was used as the base for the next melt batch. (As an aside -- This is one of the technical reasons the Charlotte and Dahlonega Mints were never allowed to strike silver coins - getting and keeping 0.900 fine silver coinage strip was difficult.) Thus, silver coins are more likely to have alloy differences if cut from parts of the strip with excess segregation. Also, copper, tin and zinc are conceptually more like a solution - solvent and solute - where producing a reasonably uniform ingot depends on critical temperature control during melting. (Think of the difference between dropping a raw egg into lightly simmering water and into rapidly boiling water....The first produces a perfect poached egg; the second created strings and threads of egg white and a tough yolk.) Maybe the "improper alloy mixture" is one of those old wives' tales that got extrapolated from a correct situation to one that was incorrect.

Possibly. Eagles and half eagles were the primary high value gold along the west. $20's were too heavy for most uses and checks predominated for large purchases. $20's were also good for squirreling away in metal cans. After the Treasury's replacement program in 1917, the volume of gold coin declined (from FRB data) with large paper becoming much more prevalent. Also, gold deflated in purchasing power during the War.

Ah....that's better than my rambling....

Unfortunately, Akers gives no source or argument for his comment. Give him a break, also -- that statement was made a long time ago.

It's the kind of sloppy language that eventually causes problems. A deep mirror proof coin has almost no luster (caused by repetitive surface irregularities) in polished areas. The smoothest coin surface is mirror-like, as the proportion of irregularities increase, the surface becomes less mirror-like. This is the result of greater scatter of light by roughness.

EF, cleaned and dull. Which means....?

Don't ship them loose. Follow NGC's directions for the kind of flips to use, numbering, etc. Stack the flips in numerical order, wrap with small bubble plastic, and put in a tightly fitting box. If using USPS follow their instructions for sealing the box and any outer wrapping/labels and take to a P.O. fop mailing.

For most US gold, that target alloy is .900 gold, .100 copper - nothing else. Legal tolerance is so small it can not be detected by sight. During melting, casting, ingot rolling, blank cutting, etc. gold ans silver were subject to multiple assay tests on each melt and then on ingots poured (dipped in many cases) from top, middle and bottom of the crucible. The last few ounces were not used at all, and simply put into the scrap for reuse. Trace elements can be used to locate the source of native gold. By definition, fully refined gold (0.9999) has few trace elements, that is, refined gold is anonymous. Mechanical issues not included. Old time US Mints routinely shipped gold and silver to one another to better balance regional coin demand. (called "redeposits.") The NYAO refined metal from all over the world; SF got deposits from Australia, Philippines, Alaska, Yukon, Japan.

No. Plastic holders differ and there is no meaningful "standard" for them. Plus, plastic physical deformation from mechanical stress can show up in photos, although it's especially clear when polarized light is used.

Although more limited, the word "specimen" was subject to confusion even in pre-1860 numismatics. One can usually determine its meaning from context, but in some situations the reader has to dig into other documents by the same author - and even them might fail. Director J. R. Snowden used master coin, proof coin, and specimen synonymously - at times. He also used pattern piece, trial piece, experimental piece, and specimen synonymously AND with individual meanings, occasionally in the same long letter. However, it was not used to label a purpose-made piece in recognition of some person or event.

That's a generalization that is not correct. Colors on the posted DE have no basis in alloy uniformity.

Details make the difference between an accurate, repeatable result and "heresay."