RWB

My article titled "Circulation of Foreign Gold and Silver Coins in the United States, 1826" is on pages 155-172 of the current issue of American Journal of Numismatics. This issue was just released. Copies are available from the American Numismatic Society in New York. Hope members will find it interesting.

Any facts to present?

FMV varies with the quality and quantity of information available. The sole "legal" 1933 DE has a fair market value equal to what the most recent buyer freely paid (including commissions). Just as in real estate, much depends on comparables, current market demand, unsold inventory.

The purposes of all the TPGs were to authenticate coins and medals, and to provide a uniform and consistent description of the condition of an item. The idea of "third party grader" (TPG) implies objectivity and an absence of financial opinion. That is, a TPG must have zero stake in a coin's condition or value. The concept of "value" or "price" is, as in most cases, best left to the free market where buyer and seller will negotiate. Does that make it clearer hr1704?

TPGs should never be involved in "pricing" a coin. That is not their job, and never was. It is the customer's responsibility to research the FMV of their coin, and report that for insurance purposes.

Members are trying to be gentle, however, you also should hear straight information in concentrated form. Your chances of doing anything more than wasting $250 are excellent. None of the coins you mention have any significant collector value. Here are the facts: Acid ruined cent - Value = 0 Cheerios cents -- Value = 15 cents total 1943 cent, minor delamination or crack -- $3 Total value $3.15. Total cost of service, about $250. Instead, why not take the wife to a really nice restaurant for dinner, wine and conversation about things she enjoys. You will earn lots of "points" and put your $250 to a meaningful purpose.

I've never been a cigarette or cigar smoker so I don't have any ash trays. (Used to make 'em in kindergarten, though.)

Absolutely correct. Further in the 19th century it was normal practice to put unsold proofs (and ones that failed inspection) into circulation at their face value. They were, after all, legal tender coins. Also, when families faced economic hardship, coin collections were among the first possessions to be sold or spent.

RE: "Came across this coin in an antique shop" Keep going....please.

Looks like a minor surface stain on a proof dime. Very common.

This quote from the NGC description is wrong. NO proof Columbian halves were ever made. The first 100 were struck on smoothed planchets with a toggle press operated manually, then placed in numbered envelopes. The first coin was sold to Remington Typewriter Co. for $10,000 -- that coin is #1 and should be "the best there is." Engraver Barber confirmed they were not proof coins. "The striking of these coins began with special proof issues on November 19th of 1892 to national fanfare."

The material is not "objectionable" of itself -- but it was attracting vermin.

Noe, it's not. Know that. No. Gno.

Very interesting insider letter on profiteering from commemorative coins.

...or enjoy them as they are and don't throw money at any TPG.

Nickel is often found with iron and cobalt, however refining removes all the cobalt which is then sold separately at a much higher price. Silicon (not 'silicone') does not mix with nickel in commercial use and would float to the surface as dross. Alloy mixing is critical for copper-nickel that will be cast and rolled, When not made into a homogeneous casting it cracks and is very brittle in irregular crystals and visible patterns. None of these produce black color except through surface oxidation -- which takes us back to annealing. It's nice to see that PCGS and NGC put the correct cause on their slabs. (I do not pay much attention to TPG drama, so I appreciate you letting me know!)

Here's an interesting discussion of the subject between the Mint Director and an encyclopedia company. March 22, 1894. Funk & Wagnalls Company, 18 & 20 Astor Place, New York, N.Y. Gentlemen: In answer to your letter of the 21st instant, in which you ask my opinion of the following definition of the “precious metals,” viz: “Usually gold and silver, but sometimes made to include mercury and the platinum metals.” I would say that I doubt if the words ever suggest to the mind of an English speaker or reader any metals but gold and silver. I am of the opinion that strictly speaking only the metals employed in the mintage of standard coins are properly called precious. It is their monetary use more than their value that entitles them to that designation; and it would seem that platinum has been sometimes called precious, mainly because it has carried between 1828 and 1845 in Russia There are at least eighteen metals more valuable, weight for weight, than gold; platinum is one of them, but mercury is not. Little defines the precious metals “Gold, silver, and platinum.” Brockhaus’ Conversatione Lexikon defines the precious metals, as follows: “Precious metals in the chemical sense are those metals which are not corroded by oxygen or water, and which may be fused from its combinations with oxygen by heat alone. Among these metals those which have served for the material of money from the beginning of our civilization, viz.; gold and silver, have a special politico-economic meaning.” Everything considered, perhaps a modification of Little’s definition would give a satisfactory one in your standard dictionary, thus: “Precious metals” Usually gold and silver; sometimes made to include platinum. Respectfully yours, R. E. Preston, Director of the Mint.

The following documents have been added to NNP to support numismatic research. Access and downloads are free. The folders labeled "Cashiers Daily" show day-to-day coin deliveries, storage and balances for each day of operation. These cover the New York Assay Office (NYAO); Philadelphia Mint (P); New Orleans Mint (O); and San Francisco Mint (S). These were copied from the full box files and placed in chronological order for convenience of users. Letters Sent from Mint Headquarters RG104 E-235 Vol 304 Sec Treas.pdf [January 4, 1899 – December 30, 1899] RG104 E-235 Vol 305 Misc Correspondence 1899.pdf [January 3, 1899 – December 29, 1899] RG104 E-235 Vol 306 P.pdf [January 3, 1899 – December 29, 1899] Letters Received by Mint Headquarters RG104 E-229 Box 78.pdf [October 8, 1898 – October 25, 1898] E-229 Box 78 Cashiers Daily RG104 E-229 Box 79.pdf [October 21, 1898 – November 11, 1898] E-229 Box 79 Cashiers Daily Correspondence with Branch Mints RG104 E-11 Box 40 1859-62 New Orleans RG104 E-11 Box 41 1879-91 New Orleans RG104 E-11 Box 42 1891-98 New Orleans RG104 E-11 Box 43 1850-53 San Francisco

Nice alliterative play on words !

That's right....they have not done the research "homework" to understand how and why this happens. The claim of "alloy mix error" is completely bogus for these things. It is an easily confirmed annealing mistake that allows oxygen to reach the mostly copper planchets, and form a film of the oxide CuO. These defective planchets should be detected before striking or after during inspection, but a few slip thorough. If this is found on a circulated coin it means the oxide was applied post-mint. The ANACS label is fine with its nickname. But cause given is false.

Keep asking questions here. You are learning. As for the other "places" you mentioned.....well, the non-off center, corroded cent in the photos has no collector value at all. It is worth not even a "couple of bucks, or a doe, or even a road-kill Bambi."

This letter explains a typical reason for low mintages of cents and nickels in certain years. Since just after introduction of CuNi coins in 1865, the Philadelphia Mint and Treasury operated a coin redemption and reissue program. The coins were more resilient than copper or silver pieces, but they discolored with use, and the public (esp the newspapers) thought they were dirty and filled with "germs." For this reason, lightly worn cents and nickels were washed, tumbled with corn cob scrap and given a quick acid dip to brighten them. These were reissued to banks and transit companies (aka "railroads") instead of striking new coins. The pubic was coolly receptive, but they still insisted on bright new coins around christmas and New Year. February 2, 1894 Superintendent Mint U.S. Philadelphia, Penna. Sir: On account of the redundancy of the five-cent nickel pieces, as shown by the amount presented to the Treasury for redemption, the Secretary has directed that the coinage of such pieces be suspended until otherwise instructed. You will, therefore, govern yourself accordingly. I will thank you to inform me how soon you will require another invoice of gold bullion from New York, as it is probable that it will be necessary to continue a heavy coinage of gold for the next two or three months. Respectfully yours, R. E. Preston, Director of the Mint.

This might also explain some "odd ball" pieces known to exist. January 6, 1894 C. P. Goss, Esqr., Scovill Manufacturing Company, Waterbury, Conn. Sir: In reply to your letter of the 3rd instant, I have to inform you that I will be unable to be in New York during the latter part of the coming week. The circulars inviting proposals for striking the medal of award of the Columbian Exposition have not yet been issued. I have delayed the matter until I could ascertain what prospect there would be of changing the medal to be awarded from bronze to aluminum, but as I find there would be great delay in having this done, and considerable opposition, I have decided not to attempt it, and will, therefore, issue a circular during the coming week inviting bids for striking the bronze medals. Respectfully yours, R. E. Preston, Director of the Mint.

Sinnock had sample commemorative halves sandblasted so they would look more medallic than "coiny." These were used for administrative approval of mint/Treasury officers and sometimes sponsors. The difference between sandblasting and acid pickling can be seen easily with 50x magnification. A sandblast piece has sharp, angular grains and tiny mirror-like grain faces (unless it has been dipped). The grains on a acid treated coin will always be slightly rounded and lack sharp angles. Acid attacks copper alloy first, then silver. (If a TPG fails to mention this in their "specimen" designation, they are saying that their designation is a guess without technical basis -- i.e., "bologna." The same applies to calling one of these a "proof" or something else.) [PS: Back in the 1920-30, real silica sand was used. Since the late 1940s the "sand" has really been uniform class beads. The beaded product makes a more acid-like finish.]

I was asked on another site about what was "routine" correspondence for mint directors and officers. Here are a couple of letters to the Philadelphia Mint superintendent as typical examples. These get reviewed during research but only a few are copied where they relate to dies, production and problems, or specific numismatic subjects. [RG104 E-235 Vol 70. page 69] November 27, 1893. Superintendent Mint U. S., Philadelphia, Penna. Sir: I have this day requested the Secretary of the Treasury to cause a transfer to be made from the Bullion Fund of your Mint to the Treasury of the United States the sum of $329,699.89, the same being the balance in treasury notes standing to your credit with the Assistant Treasurer of the United States at New York, which are no longer required to pay for silver purchases. I have also requested that a transfer be made from your Bullion Fund to the Treasury of the sum of $127,159.18, this being the balance of treasury notes now in your custody. Respectfully yours, R. E. Preston, Director of the Mint. --- November 27, 1893. O. C. Bosbyshell, Esqr., Supt. Mint U. S., Philadelphia, Pa. Sir: I have this day requested the Secretary of the Treasury to cause to be advanced you the sum of $10,000 from the appropriation for contingent expenses of your Mint to meet the unusual expenditure for transportation of gold bullion from New York, and for the purchase of copper for alloy purposes. The advance will be made special for these reasons. Respectfully yours, R. E. Preston, Director.