RWB

Wrong again. That merely means it "looks red" to someone and the reference was copied. While many might agree it "looks red" (as in the pair posted earlier where one has a "reddish cast") that is not an objective determination. Lots of numismatics is screwed up by such casual and opinionated observations.

Nope. Individual vision is inconsistent and must never be used to make an assessment of absolute color value. We can say "It looks red" but not "It is red." Ever work in an office with fluorescent lighting where things look normal, then go outside at night and notice the office lights look green? "Authentication companies" are not pubic utilities. They can pick what they want to "grade" or omit.

Verbal descriptions such as 'red' or 'yellow' are neither accurate nor reliable. Also, men and women discriminate colors differently. Coin color can be objectively measured without resorting to XRF. (Back in the 1942 the US Bureau of Standards was using the Munsell color system to describe the colors of plastic experimental cents for the US Mint's research.)

Compare to these major varieties. https://www.m-dv.ru/en/monety-rossii-1700-1917/kid,7/mid,5/nid,24/types.html

The usual US gold coin color distinction is between yellow coin gold, with 90% gold and 5% each copper and silver, and orange (or "French") gold made with 90% gold and 10% copper. Color was also affected by the type of fuel used to anneal strips and blanks. Charcoal was traditional until the switch to natural gas in the 1890s. (The US never used more than 5% silver alloy because 10% made the color too light.)

I'm sure some will claim it is uncirculated or something else, but the reality is that there is clear wear in the fields on both sides, and on much of the design high points. The surfaces are peppered with tiny nicks and scrapes from contact with other coins during use, and the scratch on Liberty's face is very distracting. All together it's a higher end EF for wear, but is too unattractive to bring a better price. A crafty coin dealer might use it to bait people into looking at a "bargain" price then switch them to a better looking coin for more money. However, in all cases, it is your decision to make.

As shown by hoards and treasure finds, this was the common condition of new DE straight from a bag. "Condition rarity" is, in my opinion, nothing but a zero-sum greed game used to stretch the Unc coin population and milk the suckers or "boobs" as John Ford liked to call them. Where are the "Conditional Common" coins....I hear no seller hype of these/ I see no TV blab, blab, blab, blab "YES Folks! Here were have the choicest Condition Commonality coin ever to come into our TV studio..."

These were the hand picked Hollywood roles. There were also dinner biscuits and butter biscuits. Other west coast types just got rolls for their Rolls.

That's fine. Members will be happy to help. However, be aware that most of the coins posted as "errors" are either very common mechanical doubling, or damage. When you post photos, tell us a little more about what we are looking for. Here are the values of common pre-1965 US silver coins based ONLY on their precious metal content: Dime $1.76 Quarter $4.41 Half $8.82 Dollar $18.87

The coin you posted is a rather scruffy EF grade coin.It might retail for about $250, which makes the cost of authentication and TPG grading barely practical.

They seem to be ordinary 0.900 fine silver quarters. Tell us more about what you see.

Back in 1960 these were a "big deal" among coin collectors. East coast Elem and Jr High kids would buy rolls of new cents at banks, pick out the two date sizes and resell the solid roles to West coast mail-order coin dealers. (In one of his many books, Q. David Bowers mentions buying coins in the eastern US and reselling them in quantity to western coin dealers in the 1950s. At that time there was significant profit to be made in geographic flipping.)

To begin, on silver dollars designed by George Morgan (like the one you posted), the obverse (portrait side) has the date, and the reverse (eagle side) has a mintmark placed just below the wreath bow and above the letters "DO" in dollar. Mintmarks on coins dated from 1878-1904 might be S, O, or CC. "S" = San Francisco; "O" = New Orleans; and "CC" = Carson City. If the space in blank, the coin was struck at the Philadelphia Mint. Not all mints struck dollar coins in every year. In 1921 the same design was used and coins made only a S, D (Denver), and Philadelphia. The S and D mintmarks are in the same place as before, but are very small. Using this information, separate your silver dollars into piles by the date and mintmark. Let members know which coins you have and add a couple of photos of the best looking coins, or of coins dated/mintmarked: 1879-CC, 1889-CC, 1993-S, 1904-S, 1895 -O, S or none. That gives use a rough idea of what you have and members can then help estimate value. Common date Morgan dollars are worth from $25 to $35 each -- mostly for their silver content.

These are all common Type I 1908 DE in "straight from bag" condition. I value them all at $2,500 each. The "cost" does not matter - there is nothing special about any of them.

SA Mint patterns look much like London or other major mint pattern pieces. None of the photos show pieces of similar fabric. (Merely being highly skeptical of "pattern piece" status.)

Why use an English language abbreviation on a French language coin? Shouldn't it read "ESSAI" or something similar -- if anything at all ?

That's the year for which Congress requested the data, and is the only set of data known. Even with that, we have less than half of the reports. Added to post ---- "Inquiries were sent to all nineteen Branch Offices of the Bank [of the United States] July 6 under the postal frank of Mint Treasurer Benjamin Rush. Other documents indicate letters were sent to large banks, such as Girard Bank, Bank of Michigan, or Bank of North America, Registers of Land Offices, and to Receivers’ of Public Moneys. We have complete or partial returns from fourteen locations:"

Also -- If the deposit was foreign coin or refined bars from established companies, the NYAO and Mints could waive the refining charges, etc. To confuse things even more, if the deposit was high in silver and looked like silver, even if over 50% gold, it might be entered in the books as a silver deposit for which there was no refining charge. That could take months to straighten out....

Hmmmm.....I think Sydney had gone to lunch when I wrote that so he didn't get mentioned. The various British crown mints followed the London/Bank of England approach toward mined gold. This was to accept only refined gold from depositors, thereby sticking the miner will all the expenses. In the US' mid- to latter-19th century approach, the Mint Bureau paid the full gold content (and silver when present) value less the actual cost of refining. Gold coinage was a government responsibility and expense. These "mint charges" were in constant flux because Congress did not want to be seen a profiting from refining, assaying, etc.

Keep asking questions. Most members here will try to help. (I agree that the fingers look disproportionate - but that is consistent with the Mint's current sloppy manufacturing/creative partnership.) [Experienced coin collectors on this type of forum can also become frustrated with the current deluge of people promoting false errors, and damaged coins as valuable collector's pieces, along with their persistent make-a-buck attitude. We hear from a lot of people who will not listen to truthful replies, and insist they are correct while also claiming to be "new collectors." A few members here and elsewhere have developed an angry, dismissive attitude --- as you've unfortunately experienced, ] RWB

RE: "1993 D Lincoln Penny Issue?" Yes, they were issued. Yours is one of them. It's worth 1-cent.

If there is no "Coin Union" can there be a "Strike Through" ? I've overheard some "big name" coin sellers refer to this stuff as "gullibies" to include "privy marks" and other trash.

Not really. Gratuitous coinage remained until the Act of 1873. US Treasury charged only a refining and alloy fee for coinage. (This was a messy and inconsistent approach, but minimized loss on the owner's deposit. The British/Canadian approach put all expense on the miner/bullion depositor, which is partially why Canadian miners preferred to send their bullion to US Assay Offices or Mints. Australians also found better deals in San Francisco than Perth, Melbourne, Kolkata, Mumbai, or South Africa.) 1826 coincided with Congress finally dropping the fiction of moving the Mint to Washington.

Excerpt.... After surviving multiple attempts to abolish the national mint, Congress finally accepted its broader responsibility, and began learning about the current circulating coin situation.[1] This offered the possibility of understanding how much American coinage was needed to fuel commercial enterprises, and what equipment and facilities would be required for the future. On May 9, 1826 the Senate approved a resolution of the Committee on Finance from Sen. Woodbury. " Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause an assay to be made of all the gold and silver coins of all foreign nations, whose coins are known to circulate, or be in use in any part of the United States; and to cause a report, distinguishing the respective dates of their coinage, to be made to Congress at their next session, of the actual weight of each of those coins; the fineness, alloy, and component parts of each; the current and nominal value of each; the actual value of each according to the standard and denomination of the coins of the United States, and the rate at which each might justly be made a legal tender.[2]" [1] Congress had long required routine assays of circulating gold coins and publication of intrinsic values. But these were made using samples from specie traders in Philadelphia and other Eastern cities. They were technically compliant but did not reflect in-situ values within local economies scattered across the nation. Here we find mint director Moore’s implied charter was to determine the local value of foreign gold and silver, and how much of it was in circulation, [2] Journal of the Senate of the United States, Vol 15, p113. May 9, 1826.

A "reverse proof" surface is part of the coin's metal and not something applied after the piece was struck, so there is nothing to "flake off." Any part of the surface can be damaged or have debris on it. That it likely what you are seeing. If the coin is not what you expected, get a refund.