RWB

Yep. Right as good Kentucky whiskey ... or is that hard cider! Also, the coin is not MS-65. (opinion)

There are (or were) album-like pages for slabbed coins, but the whole thing is so bulky that it seems to defeat the purpose of an album or folder. [Maybe next time, ask for "Incredible Shrinking Slabs." Just squeeze the corners until the entire thing - including coin - is shrunken down to the size you want. Great for travel, or album storage, or hiding rare coins inside hamburgers in the freezer!]

I'm noting certain inconsistencies with the premise of natural circulation.

I use these for my coin labels....

In another post, a member mentioned the practice of retaining reverse dies (those without date) from the previous calendar year to the new year. In checking a little more in my database I came across this interesting example from the Denver Mint. The die record, large chart, is for 1922 cents. Reading left to right, it shows the date, obverse die number, pieces struck and date die was condemned. The same is repeated for the reverse die. From these data we can tell which obverse and reverse dies were paired, and pieces actually struck –– NOT pieces accepted for distribution. But this die record has a lot of die numbers written in red with annotations. If we rotate the sheet to the left and enlarge the reverse die list, we find something very interesting. Reverse dies #786 through #795 were originally sent to Denver for coinage in 1920. These were retained for two years and then used in 1922. Also, Dies #11 through #18 were from dies intended for use in 1921 but retained (reverse dies for the balance of the year were also from 1921). Thus, we can see that not only were reverse dies retained and used across the new-year transition, but they could be carried forward at least two years. Further, in 1922, no Denver cents were struck from new dies provided in calendar year 1922. [See forthcoming research on 1922 No D cents by Tom DeLorey.] Presumably, the prior year dies were either new or in good condition, but a general “sloppiness” in cent detail during the 1920s suggests quality control was lax. [See David W. Lange’s columns in The Numismatist for his observations about cent coinage during the ‘20s.]

Nope....read "very small" as "insignificant" for the stated purposes.

RE: The MCMVII double eagle, above. I've seen circulated HR-DE and this coin does not have a similar wear pattern. Specifically, there is too much detail loss in protected areas, and the overall surfaces do not show abrasions typical of circulated DE. Likewise, the uniformity of detail is inconsistent with coins that missed one of the three necessary blows. Not comfortable assigning a "grade" to that piece.

A grubby EF for Tsar Alexander III, 1891. The font is an ornamental version using old letter forms. Think of it as roughly equivalent to Old English. As for value, ebay has a bunch at a little higher asking prices than JKK mentioned. But, unless you're doing a budget-minded date/moneyer set my opinion is that there are too many of these around to justify a $200 price tag. (The Soviet government put aside millions of rubles as they were removed from citizens and banks during the latter NEP period. These were sold little by little, but a great many remained after the change from Communism to Putinizm.

The coin is so rare that whatever the slab says hardly matters.

The proportion of "low ball" collectors is very small when compared to normal.

No one submits a coin for a down-grade; further skewing "grades" in an unaccountable manner.

RE: "...how do I see if I still have a grading credit?" The three large credit grading companies assign point scores based on everyone's input - except yours. These companies are: TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax. Best to contact each company individually - all are required to offer free access to your information. Then you can make corrections.

An aside comment. This die record page for cents from the Denver Mint, 1924, shows that at least as early as that year, undated dies (reverse) from a previous year were used for current-year coinage. In this instance, three reverse dies held over from 1921 were used in early January.

Also note the comments from Mint Cabinet Curator Comparette to Goddard about acquiring a 1921 DE.

Guess it's time to sell my little stash - glad the Barber folks saved them for me.

For rare pieces, one coin represents a significant portion of the known population. For common pieces, 1,000 examples might be a trivial quantity. Thus, piece-count errors in the TPG populations are of very limited utility.

To be clear - an "authentication event" occurs when a TPG receives a coin, medal or other object. This is the raw count of items submitted. Following submission, several actions occur which separate damaged, defective, counterfeit and other ungradeable or limited-grading, from graded coins.

Circulated coin. Steps cannot be broken by any defect including a scratch.

I don't recall there being any consistency....one guess is as good as another on this point. The reports for the last few years are bloated with cumulative authentication events and nearly useless for my purposes.

Both "coins" are counterfeits. The first made from copy dies, the latter from false dies.

Empirical data and anecdotes were treated separately as is consistent with their information quality.

Well, I can add one more positive comment -- according to archive sources employees of the Coining Department claimed clad was easier to work than 900 fine silver-copper. It certainly took much less work to strike coins - there was no melting, rolling or annealing involved. Just cut out the cookies and stamp with a smiley face.

Usable undated dies normally remain in use across calendar year changes. This approach has been in place, with small differences, for 150+ years.

Not quite. Models were built and tested against data and did not involve use of any earlier guesses or estimates. Comparisons with previous estimates - published and private - occurred only after the model results were complete. Also, TPG populations were lower reliability data than some other sources; they also had to be adjusted for resubmission and crossover events whose ratios changed over time. In effect, TPG population data decreases in reliability and validity as one approaches the present. It is like starting with thick, rich bean soup, then adding water hour after hour. Eventually one has runny bean broth - the beans remain, but are harder to find in the excess liquid.

Cladking's comment (above) is incorrect. Also, explosive bonding was tested, not adopted. See the book Pattern and Experimental Pieces of WW-II for details.