RWB

Nice finds! Were these from pocket change? If so your might go back to the store -- sometimes these things are in rolls from old accumulations.

"Collector's Assistant" seems OK and costs only 2 BU Morgan dollars. But, be prepared to do a lot of customization to get what you want out of it. You could also build your own using Access or some other small database....I think there is even a cheap version of Oracle. However, please think ahead about how you will get your data OUT of the software when you want to change.

Yeah --- just keep your eyes closed to the kitsch and have a sidekick to spot for old farts running red lights. Also, avoid being near any eating place that has a "Senior Special" or "Early Bird" special.

RE: "Coin Camera" There were some of these available at last year's "Spy Expo;" Press the reeds the right way and George W Would blink and take a nice digital photo suitable for framing your adversaries. Or--did I misunderstand the thread title....

Florida? In the summer? Really? Hmmmm.

Elizabeth Jones was the last "Engraver." Dir. Moy gave John Mercanti an honorary title of "Chief Engraver" a couple of years before he retired.

I bet an even larger silver coin will say "Too Real" on the slab....

Patience. You coins are safe and will not miss your admiration while in NGC's custody.

Nice of PCGS to state on the slab that the Peruvian silver coin is "Real."

The Carson Mint was so confused about a silver coin without reeding that they asked for clarification from HQ in Washington. They were told to use a plain collar.

Well, from the fake California gold the other coins could be cleaned damaged, counterfeit or vastly over priced. No reputable coin dealer - NONE - would ever foist those trinkets off on a buyer.

When you receive clear sharp photos, you'll likely be able to easily identify a fake.

Most of these are jewelry trinkets or sold in souvenir sets to clueless tourists. Authentic pieces have the denomination on them.

Go to VAMworld and check the 1893-S listings. There are two mintmark positions.

I think what Quintus is trying to say is : "Every opinion matters."

That's the kind of "rainbow" that killed the Leprechauns !

Sorry, I was not clear. Key was an Assistant Engraver - that was his title. I the mid-1870s William Barber often designated Charles as Acting Engraver when he was on vacation or not at the Mint. Director Linderman suggested that Key be given this 'honor' - largely because he had never had the chance and was clearly not up to making coin and medal designs. There was no meaningful authority to "Acting Engraver" - Key merely signed a few letters or instructed the diesinkers. There were three "engraver" titles in use from 1876 to Linderman's death: Engraver of the United States Mint at Philadelphia ("Engraver"); Assistant Engraver of the Philadelphia Mint ("Assistant Engraver"); and Special Engraver to the United States Mint ("Special Engraver"). The last mentioned was a Mint HQ title given to George Morgan in 1876 with the intention of placing him on the same technical and authority level as the Engraver (W. Barber). It's worth noting that Engraver of the United States Mint at Philadelphia required a Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation; it was a lifetime appointment. Tthe others were merely administrative appointments. PS: There was no official title called "Chief Engraver."

So the OP wants to "invest" in palladium by buying bullion NCLT. Q1. What is the present commercial use of palladium? What are the most reliable 5-year estimates of use change? Q2. What are the known deposits of palladium? Q3. What is the spot price of palladium and how does it compare to the price of NCLT bullion? Q4. What is your expected return on investment for $20,000 purchase of bullion at spot vs at NCLT assuming the 5-year independent project is correct? These are the most basic questions to ask yourself.

OK. since we have a new quiz question, here's the answer to the previous one: William Key. He was assistant engraver under Longace, W. Barber, and C. Barber.

Proof 63. Center 'chatter' eliminates any thought of a higher "grade." Does not have clean contrast on both sides, so is not a cameo.

Nope. This should be an easy one....

At the time I made most purchases, Bowers was in partnership with Terry Hathaway. When he and Ruddy formed their next partnership, I could immediately tell when Ruddy picked a coin vs Bowers. Ruddy also overlooked cleaning and other defects, that I never saw on a Bowers coin. I soon stopped buying or even looking at the Bowers and Ruddy coins. In one instance before B&R started, I'd saved almost $800 to buy one of several choice AU 1799 Eagles Bowers offered in his newsletter. The next month, when I finally had enough money, the price had gone up $200 or $300 -- and I was again out of luck. He also had "Gem proof" gold dollars for $325 (I think). Bowers' "choice AU" was the real thing -- and easily equal to any MS-63 in today's helium-charged holders.

It was a coin that had no evident circulation, but could have a lot of marks, or almost none. Those differences were conveyed with adjectives such as choice, gem. superb, baggy, etc., and it was up to the buyer to figure out if the coin was what he/she wanted for the asking price. By itself "uncirculated" was generally a modern MS62 or 63 coin, but much depended on the opinion of the grader. For example, an Unc graded by Jim Ruddy was likely AU, the same description of a coin by Dave Bowers was MS64 or better. In the late 1960s I bought several coins from Dave that were graded "Choice Unc." Years later, PCGS called the worset of them MS-66 and the best MS-68 (seated quarters).

International Nickel Corp (INCO) private test piece from experiments for replacement to 90% silver coinage. This piece: pure silver 24.35 mm, 6.94 grams, RB-1025. Two known: one in Smithsonian, one in private collection.

Not especially. They seem to be paying more attention to accuracy, but I don't know what resources they have for content editing. Organizational management and publication quality are different and not always concordant. Assuming generalizations is usually a futile exercise.