RWB

Nothing reported missing by count, by weight, by melt. The first "theft" was by Treasury of the legal property of coin owners. The second "theft" was again by Treasury in stealing the Langbord's coins under false pretense. The Treasury is ahead by the aggregate monetary value of the coins, which means that the books do not balance. [PS: The article is the usual reheated leftovers, stirred around and occasionally misunderstood. There's also far too much space devoted to irrelevant material. There's nothing requiring comment because there nothing interesting or new presented.]

They are government issued silver bullion pieces. So long as they are authentic and unaltered (...there are fakes and altered pieces made in China and Colorado), why would you waste most of their value on "grading?"

Sharann: Let's go back to basics on the "grading" companies, like NGC or PCGS or ANACS, whose names get tossed around. First, the three most widely accepted and trusted companies are Numismatic Guaranty Corporation (NGC), Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) and ANACS (long ago the letters stood for American Numismatic Association Certification Service, but now the letters are the name). Second, the origin of all of these was an increase in counterfeit and altered coins in the US coin hobby market. ANA began a service to examine and authenticate coins, then added an assessment of coin condition - or "grade" - based on a set of standards developed and published by ANA. Third, NGC, PCGS and some other businesses began doing much the same thing, but with greater emphasis on grading than authentication. This period also coincided with a large speculative increase in prices as several stock broker companies tried to form "Rare Coin Mutual Funds" using coins graded by the three major entities. Incresing emphasis was placed on the idea that grading could be so consistent and reliable, that people could buy rare coins without seeing the coins. The entire "coin fund" concept collapsed, but the independent "grading" concept remained viable with collectors. Auction companies and dealers also liked the idea of independent grading (and authentication) because it took away nearly all their responsibility for knowing details of authentication and grading. Fourth, the "Third Party Graders" (TPGs) early on began deviating from the ANA Standards, and extending from a relatively clear, compact structure to the present plethora of grades, plus signs, smiley faces, stars, buzzards and whatever. Hence, the ease with which even the "grade" stated on a TOG slab, might not be the same as it was 20 years ago -- or last week. Maybe this will help a little - it is a confused and contradictory business with no agreed on standards and no empirical measurement/assessment of even the most simple of coin surface characteristics.

Nice, quick ID there Fenntucky Mike !

Singapore Dollar 22.4mm diameter 6.3 grams weight Aluminum bronze alloy This design first issued September 28, 1987 Value in US dollars: 75 cents

Authentic fake "1865 CC" Morgan dollars do not have "? ? ? ?" in the dates.

The collections seem typical for pieces acquired from circulation in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Assuming most were pulled from circulation or local banks at face value, you should have a good return just on bullion value. You really should run the dimes, quarters and halves by experienced collectors in your area and see if some have additional collector interest. Nice VG and F to VF WLH and Early Mercury dimes have a substantial following.

It's worth $1 in purchasing power. A color-added coin is valued at whatever someone would pay for it - but at you local 7-11 --- it's $1. And no, do not wast money on authentication/grading/suntan lotion/Lysol/ or bees' wax.

That's a really rare coin, esp in PL.....They were made only at the Canton China Mint that year.

Thanks for correcting my muddled comment. Might be the excitement of finally getting a vaccine jab.

The non-slip shelf liner they sit on is worth more than the coins.

Please enter an internet search, then compare resulting images.

Side note: Heaton's booklet contains about 50 pages of text and 83 blank pages. These were evidently intended for notes, although they also might have been put there to help justify the $1 price.

No.

There are no empirical standards for "proof-like" surface coins. All the designations are equally correct - or incorrect - or without meaning.

Weight should be about 1/3 heavier than a dime and less than a quarter. If there are no signs of abuse or acid treatment, it might be worth having it authenticated by the hosts. (PS: The coin surfaces look suspiciously like they have been treated with acid. Also, the design details should be weaker.)

I think you are referring to “A Treatise on the Coinage of the United States Branch Mints” by Augustus G. Heaton, May, 1893. There were definitely collectors of US coin by date/mintmark decades before the traditional claim. Bowers and others refer to the first publication devoted to mintmarks as if it were a great revelation - it was not. Only the publication was new, not the collector awareness. The publication certainly stimulated interest in mintmarks and helped create a slightly broader base. I understand you comment and agree it's likely as good as the other position - we'll probably never know for sure.

Suggestion - Try to get sharper image focus. The OP's photos are better than the first batch and a considerable improvement. Yet, they are not critically sharp.

I'll eventually learn a little....

This little letter was posted ATS and seems to have generated minor confusion there. The letter was a reply to Superintendent Fox of the Philadelphia Mint, who requested permission to strike some 1887-date half eagles for circulation. Fox felt this would prevent the coins from becoming "rare" and the object of collector hoarding. Up to that point in 1887 only proof half eagles had been struck - no coins for circulation. Mint Director Kimball approved Fox' idea then commented that 1887 half eagles would no become rare since a large quantity had been struck at the San Francisco Mint. What this demonstrates is the Director Kimball did not understand the to a coin collector and 1887-S half eagle and an 1887 proof or 1887 from Philadelphia were not interchangeable -- they were three different things. This was part of Kimball's misunderstanding that helped create very low circulation mintages for otherwise ordinary denominations during the 1880s. Some ATS also asked when proof half eagles and double eagles were made in 1887, and if the Annual Assay Commission examined any of the proofs. The following table shows dates proof coins were delivered in 1887 and also the proof pieces of these denominations reported among the Assay Commission's minutes. (The Commission met in mid-February 1888.) This should clear up any confusion here or elsewhere.

"Liberty" is pouting because she does not like the crude, sloppy "frosting" applied to her face by the old laser.

This and many more answers are in the three Renaissance of American Coinage books covering 1905-1921. The Lincoln cent is discussed in Vol 2 1909-1915. These were published 12 to 15 years ago - sufficient time for collectors to read them.

Well, to me, the OP's Lincoln proof is PR-67 at best and after removal of the small spots, etc. If the $800 retail asking price is typical, then a "Details" version might - might - be offered at retail for $300, assuming the remainder of the large spot is not too distracting. Since there are 2 other doubled die proof varieties, a seller might have to wait for a buyer to come along and nibble.

The large contamination spot behind Lincoln's head appears to have already etched the surface. The coloring can be removed but not the damage. The small spots might be removable, but it hardly matters. The coin is damaged. As Coinbuf noted, the most important outcome of conservation is chemical stabilization of the surface in an attempt to prevent further damage. There are a couple of dealer selling prices of $800 for PR-67 and $1,750 for PR-68.

Ugly. Was it made in Colorado?