RWB

Just another problem created by a lack of standards and absence of any recognized "authority" for those standards. (Wake up ANA....!)

Counterfeit. Might have been made in China or Colorado....although workmanship suggests China.

Look in the JNR Issue #1. It has the Janvier patent and drawings. Also an 1896 toggle coin press patent.

Descriptions of errors on US coins are very scarce in archival correspondence. Here is a letter from 1889 and the Philadelphia Mint's response. Notice that the writer - who happens to avoid punctuation - specifically identifies himself as a coin collector. St. Louis, Mo. August 10, 1889 Daniel M. Fox, Esq. Dear Sir: I have an 1819 quarter the 25¢ on the reverse is struck thus 25 c double 5. Is this simply a slip of the die or was this an authorized strike. I also have an 18X5 quarter which I am told is an overstrike. Was there any overstrike this late? Can you let me know the record of 1823 and 1827 quarter coined? I have tried to obtain above information from dealers from whom I have bought coins, but have been referred to you. If you will answer above question you will greatly oblige. Yours truly, C. Chambers. Collector of Rare American Coins Jefferson Avenue & Carr St. St. Louis, MO. [Ed. – Reply from Robert McClure, Curator of Mint Cabinet.] The double 5 on the 25-cent piece of 1819 as described was caused by a slip of the die. The latest overstrikes were about 1824. 16,450 quarter dollars were coined in 1823, and 4,000 were coined in 1827. Mc.

Yep! Heck, I'd offer 10x that much...maybe a little more! The extra $1 and $3 were evidently assumed to be proofs since the price included the extra charge for proof coins.

n.s.p.f = "not specially provided for." As in duty and tariff rates. This might apply to certain coins or coinage metals. Might also refer to "National Swimming Pool Foundation."

Did you include postage?

FYI -- Original 1889 gold proof coin order from Byron Reed.

Anecdotes and quotations of the sort mentioned have a place. The difficulty is in verifying the comments. Other than Burdette G. Johnson, I'm not sure there is any old-time dealer who could be trusted for truthful coin source information.

You will need to post larger, much sharper photos of a few coins, before members can help. The reason for the $800 examination estimate is due to the time it would take a coin dealer to review the coins. Select 2 or 3 coins, then post obverse and reverse of each.

There also appears to be staining, haze or discoloration, further reducing the desirability of your 1964 half. You might be able to buy one already graded for less than the total grading and coin cost.

No. The process described uses a magnetic field - heat is only a byproduct. Running the coin near your neighborhood black hole might work, too.....?

If there are hairlines, nothing higher than 64, but getting rid of the surface scum will show what's really there.

It's a long parade with everyone out of step. The drum major is marching sideways in circles and there's a tuba player over in a flower garden. Unfortunately, the OP has a history of posting counterfeits, unfounded claims, and other rubbish as if grand discoveries were being made weekly. Most members have grown (maybe "groan" is better) numb to this. Folks might be more tolerant if the OP simply posted a coin he liked and asked for feedback.

Footnotes/endnotes were once very scarce in numismatic books. I've been accused/credited with encouraging the use of accurate source citations and rigorous quotation beginning with the Renaissance of American Coinage books. For me, the use of footnotes was not only a normal research practice, but was my reaction to the frustration of reading something and finding the source was "National Archives," or some other massive archive - or finding no source at all. How could anyone find the original....it was like being told that Sunset Boulevard was "west of St. Louis." Mr. Lange, at NGC, and a few others, probably started the trend of questioning the "sacred wisdom" so many experts like to quote. I've pushed for a more empirical approach to coin examination and demanding historically valid explanations for things like early proofs, "branch mint proofs," "specimens" and others. How many will choose to continue this more rigorous approach will depend on the requirements of publishers, and the will of authors and collectors to demand verifiable information. Some younger writers seem to be on board, but others are not.

Some of Breen's research was good and some was not. His earlier work is reliable for the period in which it was written, but even back then he had a tendency to invent answers rather than look in original sources. In later years - especially from the Encyclopedia days and FCI, he blatantly lied, invented "facts," and falsified information. Portions of the Encyclopedia are now recognized as fabrication and lies; other portions have been verified as accurate; and yet other parts are under examination by various specialists. It is impossible to assemble a comprehensive errata table because it is impossible to separate fiction from honest error or reporting gaps. The fashion of not accurately citing sources of information further complicates the situation relative to Breen, Taxay, and others. Personally, I have seen notes by Don Taxay and Dorothy Paschal among archival letters, but only one indirect item relating to Breen. Further, the content of Breen's publications on Saint-Gaudens coins and others of that era, proof coins and processes, and other subjects indicate that he did not research original materials, but copied and aggregated both information and hearsay of others. While associated with John Ford, Jr., he seems to have written what Ford wanted and not the truth. Eric Newman's papers have examples of this. Traditionally, American numismatics has been dominated by rumor, insinuation, blind anecdote and self-serving lies. When challenged about a statement, the common response is something like, "Oh, I'm not supposed to tell anyone," or "But so-and-so 'expert' said that," or some defensive variant. The "UK hoard" tale, is typical. To be blunt, and these are my research opinions, only: Taxay is usually truthful, but entirely superficial. At least he did some original research. Breen is not trustworthy in any respect. This is because so much of his published material is patently false. In research, I aim to build as complete a picture as possible from original sources. I then use public and published materials to corroborate and fill in gaps or background. (For example in RAC 1905-1908 I used high quality biographies, newspapers and private letters to fill in the background for the Roosevelt & Saint-Gaudens coins and medals.)

I vaguely recall these being packaged at the San Francisco Mint...Mr. Lange will have to correct me on that.

Lee, thanks for the support, but it's OK --- questions are part of the feedback from readers. I also use it to help me understand if I have written something that does not make sense to readers. It's too easy to get trapped into one's own thoughts and not realize that the written words fail to actually explain the subject. In a way, I treat questions as a kind of "peer review" so that the next article or book can be clearer and better. BTW - I really wish I could convince Whitman or someone with the resources to publish your Classic Commemorative book. It is so far beyond anything in print in accuracy, comprehensive treatment, and contextual interest, that keeping it from readers is incomprehensible. But the hobby of money runs on money of the hobby.

Almost-nearly-kinda-semi-sorta-maybe-proof-like, etc., etc. This is the progression of rubbish that builds on a lack of clear standards maintained by a recognized authority or collector organization. (Hint: Wake up ANA.)

And the more pictures are posted the more reproachable it becomes....

Oh.....I see.....I misread the posts.....These are PayPal medals.....now it makes sense.... That might be a bit too cynical, but I am having difficulty imagining how to authenticate the medals. There are, however, many papal coin and medal collectors in Europe. Try posting on a European SIG or coin message board.

Well....if you add a slice of "pasteurized process cheese food" and a slice of bread you'll have a bologna 'n' cheeze sandwich....sorta. The half is just a normal coin.

...and maybe that's all it is. It is highly unlikely that any of these are originals except the modern ones. Seventeenth and 18th century medals were not mass produced then stored in a Vatican vault for future distribution. Frankly, I'd check the "poke" (box) they came in and see if there's a papal pig hiding there, ready to fly away....

"PL" is not a grade -- it is a description of appearance just like "shiny." Grading (condition determination) should be entirely free of this type of description, with the "PL" tag added. That is, the coin should grade the same whether it was PL or not.

For gold coins, the Philadelphia Mint collected samples from the light weight gold transferred from sub-Treasuries and banks. These were washed and then arranged by date/mint and then individually weighed to approximate the loss of mass due to circulation. This was repeated about one every 15 to 20 years usually in response to a question from Congress.