RWB

The depth of field will remain the same if aperture and magnification remain the same. Please check some good photography books, or maybe study this web site for help. The explanations are simple and there are good illustrations. Everything there applies equally to coins, although magnification plays a greater role than in normal snapshot conditions. https://digital-photography-school.com/understanding-depth-field-beginners/

RE: " I think they've only "objectively defined" MS70 -- perfect, no marks of ANY kind." I recall reading that the major TPGs don't even agree on that definition. Mark can clarify that.

The planchet annotations seem to refer to specifications for the upsetting machine, not a rinse of some sort. Equipment differences at each mint often required slight adjustments of planchet diameter, upset height, angle and edge. The only purpose of a planchet rinse would be to add or remove oils form the surface, or to "whiten" the planchet so a struck coin is as bright as possible.

Familiar with the claims. Bologna. Completely false and unsubstantiated. Start with the basics: ALL development and experimental work was done at the Philadelphia Mint. Mintmarks were never applied to experimental pieces - they were only used for production dies once Philadelphia's die shop had certified master dies and hubs. Evidently, the folks at the unmentioned company do not know any of that. The list of failures could go on and on.... Ratzie33, you're simply picking up nonsense from the internet and gluing it to whatever is handy. Your Ike dollar does not even rise to the level of lunch meat. I realize that sounds harsh, but you've been presenting nothing but fakes and damaged coins for several months. When will you begin to learn from members here and elsewhere who are much more experienced than you?

Possibly brazed together with others then twisted apart...?

"MS65 is the lowest of Gem Mint State." I understand what is meant; however, "MS65" is not objectively defined. Ergo, nothing based on that term can be independently verified.

RE: "I don't see that Congressional action makes any difference. I also don't see that the ANA will have significantly more influence even if changes its' priorities." A Federal charter adds immensely to an organization's potential for meaningful influence. This would be very helpful in prosecuting counterfeiters, establishing enforceable standards to protect consumers, and veracity of commercial promotional statements (a bit like the UL Seal). The present ANA does nothing, so it is hardly the force it was a couple of generations ago when exposure of fakes, HPA, and independent authentication were meaningful ANA projects.

The graphs are cute but rendered almost meaningless - the "grades" are just letters and numbers not associated with any defined standard. Derivation of the red line is not evident from the other two lines. The relationship should be Coin Price : Gold Price. (I assume the "gold content" really means "gold spot value of gold content.")

Physics-Fan3.14 hit an important point: Most do not actively enter and remain in the hobby until they have a settled adult life. Children and teens no longer have the resource of collecting from circulation, and that reduces the reward-pleasure-repeat cycle that existed before the mid-1960s. ANA leadership and management do not seem to understand this, or incorporate new ideas into targeted education. They also fail to understand that ANA was once a leader in hobby policy, but has rendered itself impotent by abrogating collector authority to commercial entities. Congress is not going to charter any more ANA-type organizations. So ANA can either take charge or drift into oblivion.

Ratzie33 - Try to look at coins you find objectively and without attempting to assign causes for their appearance. When you have a coin that looks different or unusual, post a good sharp photo, describe what you see, and let members offer their comments. They are more experienced than you, and will help guide you toward understanding the differences between errors and common damage.

Prototype? Drill marks? Damaged. Nothing more. Can the OP explain what is mean by "prototype" ...especially for a coin struck at San Francisco? Why would anyone use a drill on a coin die?

Don't give up. Most will do a lot to help new collectors if they can.

Vocabulary and context are the key points to learn.

Actually, gripes came from across the "political spectrum." The bill I prepared early this year required rounding up or down for cash, and no rounding for electronic or account transactions. The mean gain or loss was about 4-cents per year if only the cent was eliminated and 5-cents per year if both cent and nickel were abolished. Cost of implementation was expected to be trivial for all involved, with a possible slight reduction in cash counting overhead for high-cash users such as convenience stores. (No one checked Nevada brothels.) CoVID-19 got in the way of this. As the BBC article notes, unless required to be fair to customers, businesses usually round upward.

Books are excellent too - but one has to get the basics someplace, and frankly my little tomes are not aimed at new collectors. The book plug is appreciated, but the general market "Coin Collecting for Peoples" books are better. (And the Guide Book of US Coins as a reference.)

Emphasizing some detail by altering the lighting or tilting a coin is a legitimate approach. But it also distorts geometry. Depth of field is as described previously.

Overall contact marks, yes. But once in a bag all marks would be random. Coins were reviewed before counting and bagging, thus mixing orientation. As struck, the coins were essentially "perfect." Abrasions are indicators of subsequent handling. The only place for preferential abrasion is in falling from press to receiving box, and related jostling prior to dumping on the reviewing tables. While I agree that the smooth portrait on coins show damage more readily than detailed reverse designs, careful sampling of marks on both sides shows that there are really more on the obverse. That is, it is not merely a visibility issue but an actual difference in the number of marks. As for this not being limited to large US coins, that is because until the mid-1960s, all the major world mints used Uhlorn-type toggle presses. The common thread was that the obverse design was the most important and that this die should be in the upper position, which was supposed to better bring up the portrait. Press and coin design similarities meant that large coins ended up with more obverse contact marks, just like US Morgan dollars. (The switch to horizontal coin presses eliminated obverse bias.)

The silver alloy coins ('62, '63 quarters, '66 half) have metal value, but the others have no collector value. Modern US coins have to be in truly superior condition for them to have enough premium to justify the $25+ cost of authentication and grading. Some collectors use a minimum value of $200 before submitting a coin.

The reason why Morgan dollars often have an excellent reverse, and scraped and marked obverse was just posted. Might be just a little bit some will enjoy knowing about.

This thread, and especially the two obverse photos, reminded me that few know why to obverse of Morgan dollars is often scraped and marred while the reverse can be nearly perfect. Here's why. At US Mints in the 19th century the vertical toggle presses had a fixed post for the reverse die on the bottom and the obverse was set into a moveable die chuck - kind of like a drill press. When a planchet was fed between the dies, they produced a coin with the obverse facing upward. The coin remained in this position as it was slid off the press and down a chute into a wooden box. As coins fell from the chute, most landed obverse up (since that's the way they started). The next coin did the same, and this meant that as coins fell and slid over each other, most of the hard contact from the edge of falling coins was taken by the obverse of coins in the receiving box. The common result were many coins similar to the 1884-CC in the linked post: nearly flawless reverse, scraped and marked obverse.

Please reconsider. Most coin collectors are affable folks who enjoy being helpful. There are exceptions, but you can ignore them....

There is no point; and Tridmn is right - everyone had to start and learn and ask "stupid" questions, etc. Experienced members would enhance the hobby by giving direct, useful advice. But mocking someone or telling them to have a coin worth face value authenticated and graded is unproductive. I hope Tridmn will continue to ask questions and learn more about US coins and collecting them.

From the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20201012-the-problem-with-abolishing-coins "...coins could soon become a thing of the past – at least if various governments have their way. Campaigns to draw down production of new coins regularly crop up in countries across the globe." Read more at the link, above.

It's an ugly medal of some sort. Engraved by a 10-year old. Might be large enough to plug a mouse hole.

It has no numismatic value at all....I doubt anyone would bid postage cost. It's disappointing, but pulling a nice coin from circulation, one with a little added collector value, is almost impossible now. Many of today's older collectors started when a variety of nice album coins were still circulating, and the occasional AU WL half would make an appearance. Now? Zip. Just gray lifeless stuff.