RWB

Check the package for the kind of plastic used and for adhesive's composition. Nothing containing sulfur, chlorine, or any other reactive element/compound should be in the 2x2. "Archival" is a good word to look for.

Unless you can get it to a really knowledgeable dealer in cents, best to leave it as-in.

This kind of deceptive description pops up about every 25 years - kind of like locust. Unethical sellers use "closely uncirculated," "virtually uncirculated," "looks uncirculated," and other slippery language to plant the idea that a coin or medal is uncirculated with slight exceptions. Avoidance of widely accepted terminology makes it easy to claim buyers misunderstood when the inevitable complaints of over grading occur. Coins described this way invariably turn out to be EF or very low-end AU. (Based on personal experience.) PS: If the buyer can examine the coin in person, then the label "grade" is useless anyway.

You folks are doing just fine and my fingers need a break. I'll leave the elaboration to Eric P. Newman in his book on Fugio cents.

Appears to have been pulled from circulation (as do the others in the photos). Not worth the cost of "authentication and grading."

Recommend you send them to Mr. Marino at Heritage for a preliminary evaluation. If they appear to be authentic, Heritage will prepare a marketing plan and take care of authentication. As you likely already know, 1927-D double eagle is an extremely rare coin. If you will PM to me your grandmother's name (both before and after marriage) I can check her employment at the Philadelphia Mint. (As the author of the standard book on Saint-Gaudens Double Eagles, I'd be pleased to work with the OP and Heritage following evaluation.)

This letter might be of interest to the OP and others. It explains the reason the word "Cents" was not on the first issue of 1883 Liberty nickels. (More information is in the book Fads, Fakes & Foibles to be published soon. June 22, 1885 B. C. Keeler, Esq. Chicago, Ill. Sir: Your letter addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury, in respect to the five-cent nickel, has been referred to this Office. The new nickel and its devices were designed by Mr. Snowden, for six years Superintendent and ten years Coiner of the Philadelphia Mint and who had been connected with that Mint twenty-eight years. It was submitted to Secretary Folger who approved of it as first issued, without the word “cents” although I specially called his attention to the omission; and he then decided that the Roman numeral V alone was sufficient compliance with the law, as in the case of the three-cent nickels, all of which issued (some thirty million pieces) had no other character to designate the value than III. The change of the nickel to the new device and diameter did not, therefore originate with any “young gentleman in the Treasury Department” as you suppose, but at the Philadelphia Mint, and was fully considered, approved, and adopted by the Secretary of the Treasury. It is desirable that gold silver and minor coins should have different devices and be of different diameters as far as practicable, although their color and their weight generally will enable the one to be distinguished from the other. The same criticism made in reference to the nickel and the half eagle would apply to the English sovereign and shilling, both of which are of the same diameter and also to some of the gold and silver coins of many other countries. Very respectfully, Horatio C. Burchard, Director. [RG104 E-235 Vol 038]

Mint archives have many letters from citizens asking if the "centless nickel" is worth a lot of money. It wasn't; and isn't except in extremely high grade.

Here is the OP's obverse photo (the very light one) adjusted for density and color. Not perfect but usable.

This refers to the efficacy of replacing the incandescent light bulb in an EZ Bake Oven, with an LED bulb of the same brightness, and the resulting poorly baked brownies....or maybe not. ?

The letters are all in one box containing 6 folders. The folder titles and date ranges are: RG 104 E-2 Folder 1 1796-1800 RG 104 E-2 Folder 2 1800-1802 RG 104 E-2 Folder 3 1803-1809 RG 104 E-2 Folder 4 1809-1815 RG 104 E-2 Folder 5 1816-1833 RG 104 E-2 Folder 6 1835-1838 As opportunity permits I will edit the images so they are more easily read and the files much smaller. Here is the citation for NARA's Philadelphia facility. These were extracted from General Correspondence during the WPA collection and organization of government archives. There are additional Boulton letters scattered through E-1 and elsewhere. Readers should also refer to Dr.Richard Doty's book, The Soho Mint & the Industrialization of Money. (Dr. Doty was the late Curator of Numismatics at the Smithsonian, and a friend.) 2 "BOULTON CORRESPONDENCE." 1796-1838 6 in. Chiefly letters from and drafts of replies to Mathew R. Boulton of the Boulton Mint, a private institution in England, which supplied the United States Mint with copper. The letters dated after 1808 are signed "M. Robinson Boulton." Included are a letter of January 1, 1843, from the agent of the Soho Mint (the Boulton Mint) to the Director of the Philadelphia Mint relating to mint operations after the death of Mr. Boulton, and a report of May 15, 1836, from the Philadelphia assayers regarding the use of silver tokens for currency and referring to the Boulton Mint. Originally this series was a part of the correspondence described in entry 1. The correspondence is arranged chronologically. For copies of other letters sent to Mr. Boulton, see entry 3.

There is a file of letters to/from Mathew Boulton relating to the US Mint and possible sale of English equipment etc., available on NNP at no cost. It is recorded as "NARA RG-104 Entry 2 "Boulton letters"

Yes.Check the NGC home page for details.

One of the most evocative coinage designs. It's a shame it did not get wider use in the 19th century.

Yep...had the same problem at a restaurant last year. I recall the issue was with the lady's phone taking all her attention. The pandemic has stressed small business networks and systems. Most were not built for present service demands, or planned for necessary maintenance.

There's a Katz' Kosher Supermarket in Silver Spring, Maryland. I don't think they have auctions.

Also, silver or silver plating will have a slightly off-white color, rather then the gray of your coin. The plating is likely zinc.

Nope. The experimental pieces were literally "engineering and materials experiments." Collectors' proofs were discontinued with 1942. The plan was to reintroduce them in 1947, but Congress got in the way, so ti took until 1950.

Your goal is understood, but not the method of establishing provenance.

Haven't heard of that commemorative coin -- but it sure sounds like one we could all use.

Glass was never actively considered. The Blue Ridge Glass Co. heard about the plastics experiments and "begged" to be allowed to try.

Contrary -- I've responded to all of your PMs and offered you the best, truthful comments within my measly capabilities. "Recognition" requires some elements of knowledgeable perceptions and willingness to learn - neither of which you have demonstrated. Further, it's also evident you don't understand or care to understand the information other members have provided. Everyone has been extremely patient, but you've created a situation where no one is likely to believe anything you might post. Had you taken the time to consult NGC, PCGS or Heritage data, available free on-line, you would fine good photos of authentic 1922 Low Relief Peace dollars. Just this simple step could have prevented your jumping off the 95th story ledge without a parachute. We also know when they were made, approximately how many were made, and the names of one or two purchasers - direct from the Mint. PS: Your personal religious beliefs are of no interest, so don;t go down that unpaved defensive side road.

Neither plastic nor glass could be "struck" with coinage dies. The pieces had to be cast or hot pressed (depending on material) much like buttons or plastic model airplane parts. As an aside --- because of manufacturing requirements for plastics or glass, none of the pieces could be called "proof" regardless of how shiny the surface. Differences in "grade" are attributable to manufacturing inconsistencies and post-casting handling/treatment.

Maybe he has a short attention span and "wants" frequent gratification? That could explain your frequent buy-upgrade-buy cycle observation.

Your "book" was examined - both cover and whatever interior that was posted. The coin is not a low relief proof - satin or sandblast. Every detail is wrong for deFrancisci's 1922 low relief design. If you do the real research before posting, you won't be so frequently disappointed