RWB

It's a small, but interesting die break. Little added value for a circulated coin, but a nice conversation piece.

Or...maybe ..."Conquest of Covid" ? Will sales "go viral?" or be merely "transmissible?" Possibly a Janus bust with one face masked and the other not; or one face masked and the other dead...?

Try this one. It's a little tougher to read the date (start on the reverse at 12:00 and read to the right). [GERMANY, Aachen (Stadt). AR Groschen (24mm, 1.90 g, 10h). Dated 1420 in mixed spelled-out and Roman numerals. · SCS : KΛROL : mΛ G : IPЄRΛTO’ * (double annulet stops), crowned half-length bust of Karl der Große (Charlemagne) facing slightly right, wearing mantum and holding city model and imperial orb; coat-of-arms below / + ΛnnO : DOmInI : mILЄSImO : CCCC : XX/+ MOnЄTΛ : VRB : ΛQVS’ (double annulet stops), small cross pattée. Levinson I-15. Good VF, toned. Well struck. CNG photos and description.]

First post-WW-I double eagle. [Photo by Heritage Auctions.]

Writers lacking experience in local and national cultures and icons, often do not bother to research. They then impose their own assumptions on descriptions, which quickly become "divine guidance."

Nice middle-of-the-road 1795 EF. What about the bump at 2:00, also? Neither seemed to bother the "grading" company.

To me "great" implies a creative and evocative design, well executed, and produced with the highest technical quality. This has little in common with assumed rarity, cost, metal, origin, or economic importance. As for NCLT it is "legal tender" even if it's tough as nails... That's just the reality of manufacturing coins for revenue and not for commerce.

The "Congkak board" description is correct. Krause used a combination of press releases, descriptions from others, and guesses in identifying designs on world coins. In this case, their identification appears to be a guess.

I'll have to disagree with Mr. Lange on this one, and feel it is starburst from metal fatigue in the die. A second identical coin would confirm or refute this opinion. Lubricants were and are used on planchets to prevent sticking together, and in the hoppers and feeding mechanism. The effect is called "wring" in production of precision gauge blocks, etc. However, this is an extremely thin irregular coating and cannot produce ripples or radiating marks. Dies are not lubricated - they get all that is necessary from the planchets.

Ask a reliable (!) coin dealer (or two or three) if it is genuine. Third party "grading" will likely not result in sufficient increase in sale value to justify the cost.

In some jurisdictions - mostly in southern and border states - moonshiners and law enforcement had a cozy agreement. The shiners paid a "tax" to the Sheriff in exchange for warnings about state or Federal raids. This is similar to the money drug cartels pay to several Central and South American law enforcement departments today....but not nearly so violent. Although both the above are bribes, the Sheriffs used the money to supplement miserable officer salaries and buy radios and other equipment to help with other law enforcement activities. BUT -- much of this is anecdotal....FBI and USSS files contain limited full investigations and case files.

Might be best to contact NGC Customer Service. If you send an email, include a photo of the holder and of your order form.

Alcohol and drug abuse evidently increased during "Prohibition." As did disregard for law, violent criminal gangs, discrimination of all descriptions, and private donations to charities. Reporting of criminal and social statistics was not highly reliable, either, so there is a lot of anecdotal "evidence" in the record books.

The visual effect changes with the size of grit used and experience of the worker applying it. A single pass with the compressed air sprayer has the most striking effect. Additional passes break up the sharp facets and produce a less dramatic, but more uniform surface. Note: Modern sandblasting uses glass beads. The visual effect they produce is not comparable to using real crushed quartz.

The missing bag of 1928 DE was in a different cage than the 1933 coins. The Mints had a drug problem - it was rampant excessive alcohol use. There are several archive letters regarding dismissal of employees for being drunk on the job. Here's a typical example:

It did alter the surface. The grit was ground mineral - mostly quartz - that was sifted through screens of various hold sizes and otherwise processed to achieve a uniform particle size. With proper technique, the loss of detail was slight. This is the same process applied to many medals. If placed side by side a normal gold coin, a satin proof and a sandblast proof will present different details and sharpness, in addition to the surface treatment. A satin proof will, on average, have much greater and sharper detail than a circulation coin. A sandblast proof, being nothing more than a satin proof, will have less detail due to mechanical abrasion from the sand - but the surface will sparkle due to light reflection off the tiny facets created by the sand.

Damage...or maybe bird shot pellet.

Please follow Mark's advice. Very few coins that have been "damaged and repaired" are a bargain.

I don't prepare labels, so have no control over what they might say.

Only two coin types were ever made in "matte proof" - Lincoln cents and Buffalo nickels. For these proofs, normal dies were sandblasted before hardening. This allowed hundreds or thousands of piece to be struck without the problems associated with sandblasting each coin individually. "Sandblast proof" Saint-Gaudens gold, some proof Peace dollars and proof commemoratives, were made from normal dies in a medal press. After striking the coins were considered "satin proofs" - which collectors thought were too much like normal circulation pieces. The solution was to sandblast each coin. Because it was a manual process, performed possibly by different people over the span of a year, every sandblast proof was potentially unique.

Parts of the above are false....Repetition of old assumptions not based on fact and typical for internet searches. A few examples: Dies for brilliant proof coins were normal except for careful polishing to a mirror-like finish before hardening. Polishing was manual work using emery and rouge charged polishing sticks and friskets. All planchets were given a short tumble with abrasive to remove fire scale and polish them. Too much tumbling time would abrade the planchets and make them under weight, and thus unusable. Proofs were struck once on a large screw press until 1894 when a new hydraulic press was used. No branch mint had either of these. Specially struck coins from polished dies were called "Master Coins" until the mid-1850s when the term "Proof Coins" came into occasional use. The term was finally adopted about 1863, although both are found into the 1870s. 1894-S dimes are not proof - they were struck from hurriedly polished dies which rapidly deteriorated as the 24 pieces were struck. There is very little objective and factual information about so-called "branch mint proofs." Having completed more direct archival research and published more primary source research than probably anyone in numismatics, with the notable exception of J W Julian, two observations come to mind. 1) Proof or master coins are not mentioned in relation to any US Mint except Philadelphia; 2) Creation of quality control sample coins at Philadelphia for other mint is mentioned on at least two occasions.

That's a difficult question. Nearly everything written about "branch mint proofs" is ancient speculation going back at least to S & H Chapman in 1888, through Wally Breen's "alternative facts," and modern catalog listings. Jeff Garret has a nice summary of these coins, but almost everything else in the article is incorrect assimilation from wishful thinking and sale-promotion nonsense.

Maybe I misunderstood.... what do you mean by "label?"

There is a small section near the back of FMTM listing some of the notable defalcations from U.S. Mints. Most thefts were of a few coins by a workman. Punishment was handled administratively - typically restitution and dismissal without a reference letter. Even the suspicion of theft was grounds for dismissal - and the only appear was to the Director or Secretary of Treasury. Neither was likely to overturn a Mint Superintendent's decision. Treasury always maintained a pubic face of impregnability of mints and treasury facilities. However, until the early 20th century, our mints could have been easily overwhelmed by a small band (maybe Duran Duran with accordions?) of careful thieves. As far as I've seen, no US citizen was put to death for embezzling from the Mint or Treasury. when prosecuted, jail terms of 5 to 15 years seem prevalent. Some thieves took their gains and left the country before USSS could find them.

The Saint-Gaudens coin came from the Mint Cabinet on instruction for President Roosevelt. Augusta paid $20, face value, for it.