RWB

Have you ever examined an authentic Master Coin from the 1830s? Please tell us what you observed.

Until the 1920s the 1894 silver dollar generated the most inquiries about any specific date on modern dollar. Dollars dated 1799 and 1795 were the most commonly asked about, overall.

Inquiries about 1894-S dimes were among the most common questions received by the Mint Bureau from 1896-about 1920.

That's OK. Most collectors look at their 2x2 boxes and slabs or gold and silver; I look at a bookshelf and see where mine went.

One hopes this will save someone time and money. Thanks for posting it!

From 1-cent to 10-cents is more realistic... Also, what is your meaning of "after mint marks" ?

At their discretion....

Public corporations are required to report certain information. Private entities - as are most in numismatics - have no such responsibility.

Same as the other one.

Mechanical doubling. If you can find a 2nd, identical coin, then more investigation would be in order.

Do you mean Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto? See my JNR issue 2013 with these two lengthy factual articles, not the Not-Quite-History Channel bologna: Saving Manila’s Golden Treasure Silver Divers of Corregidor, 1942

There are scattered data for this, but nothing comprehensive. There is a detailed table of gold dollars by date/mint and abrasion. Active circulation can be estimated from a combination of bank coin orders, and coin hoards - especially of low denomination pieces. There is also an article I wrote in the upcoming ANS Journal titled "Circulation of Foreign Gold and Silver Coins in the United States – 1826," which examines contemporary survey data for pistareens to Eagles. Lastly, there will be a detailed chapter in Mine to Mint 2 titled "Issuance and Distribution of Coinage," which explains how US Mint coins actually entered circulation and the various methods used until the FRB era. Copper and minor coin circulation might be estimated by looking at extant coin distribution and bank orders by locality/region and quantities. Some letters also mention local shortages or excesses. (For example, the southern states in the 1830s wanted half dimes and dimes, but Treasury Dept wanted to show "big" numbers so they pushed halves.) Regional circulation patterns depended on local agricultural cycles and Atlantic trade routes with Europe (and a little with Asia). These are poorly documented and understood only on the macro level. Detailed analysis of old records from Riggs Bank (Washington DC) and a few others could help for some localities, but would involve a huge investment in time and talent. Wish I could be more specific, but this kind of info is widely scattered.

Excellent set of questions involving several denominations. They pop up unexpectedly in a wide variety of articles and auction comments. The answers are likely just as varied. The following column, "Reasons for Low Mintage Coins – 1879-1890," will soon appear in CoinWeek (or might have already been published - submitted July 13). It should answer some of your questions. Here's the closing paragraph: "If correct, Fox’ and Kimball’s comments explain most of the very small circulating coin mintages from Philadelphia – gold, silver and minor – during the later 1870s and 1880s. It might also help us understand use of proof dies to make circulating coins, and the consequent difficulty in telling a proof 1889 quarter from a circulation 1889 quarter."

1. No one has ever demonstrated that 1917 matte proof cents were made. The order to end all proof coins came in October 1916. There would have been no purpose to making proofs in 1917 and there was no master die or hub change that year. (PS: I've examined 1917 quarters that have spectacular detail, but they are documented from the source, T. Louis Comparette, as early coins off new dies -- part of the normal range of coinage.) 2. As with 1917 proof claims, this has never been demonstrated. Entirely new master dies and hubs were made for latter 1909, following removal of the initials. The new reverse had different relief than the original with initials. No dies with initials were retained for any purpose. (Grinding VDB off the rev hub was considered but rejected as being an incomplete solution.) 3. Matte proof dies for Lincoln and Buffalo proofs were made by sandblasting normal, new working dies. These were used in a high-pressure medal press to make the matte proof coins. Excess pressure limited die life and sharpness, and some condemned proof dies might have been used in normal toggle presses - but we have no records one way or another. Additionally, no scientific examination has ever been made. (There is ALWAYS a range of detail in coins made under "identical" circumstances due to die wear, planchet hardness, and mechanical inconsistencies -- enough to confuse ordinary visual clues.)

Go away, "Quintus."

I should have added "meaningful" questions.....

Damaged and worn coin. Worth only its silver value. (The first photo was better.)

Possible research ideas....

Any thoughts from members?

Hoghead515 is piling up the correct answers ! Great work!

Yes, very lightly struck --- so much that it's invisible....

Coinbuf answered your question just fine. Circulation abrasion is also smoother in appearance because it is of lower pressure than deliberate cleaning and is random.

The scratches and other marks are present, your photos merely make them more easily visible. An experienced collector will easily spot them without help. As for color, the combination of texture and color is not natural; however, your photos do not seem to show typical chloride or sulfide commonly seen on acid "dipped" coins.

Nice !

Nice EF condition but, like the 1903 quarter, scrubbed into limited desirability.