RWB

Overlaying three-cent nickels was an internal Treasury and political argument. One group, including Director Pollock, felt that except for the cent and expedient 2-cent, all base metal coins were temporary substitutes for existing silver coins. Once specie was reintroduced, base metal coins would be abandoned and replaced with 3-cent silver and 5-cent half dimes. The contrary view, by Snowden and others, was that the dime (or even quarter) should be the lowest denomination silver coins, and that base metal pieces offered advantages in convenient size, resistance to abrasion, and seigniorage over silver. Further, Joseph Wharton felt that base metal convenience in size would outweigh the inconvenience of tiny silver coins for small denominations. Three cent CuNi coins proved to be more popular than 3-cent silver, and the public used them as replacements, not temporary substitutes. A 5-cent CuNi received the same reception. This led to elimination of half dimes and 3-cent silver in the Act of 1873.

This should be an interesting topic that is unfamiliar to many. The following might help with the overall approach and its origin.

[The one on the left looks like it has already been through the "maggot" test...and failed.]

Damage and normal abuse. The cent was 95% copper in 1944 and easily discolored.

Because you have evidently already gone through the coins, posted some of these coins for sale on "Etsy," and assigned ridiculous prices, it's difficult to know how members can help without becoming involved in your selling operation. Since that is not the purpose of this message board, consider offering your coins, accompanied by GOOD photos, on the Coin Marketplace forum. (Personally, I don't feel you are being completely forthright in your comment "getting ready to sort through." Seems you've done that.)

This is funny..... https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-66379987 Police dog after sniffing laundered money....?

Counterfeit.

The companies are targeting vulnerable populations. The FTC has limited resources.

#1 & #14 (top) seems to be Khosrow II, Sasanian Empire ca. 590–628 CE. #4 & #5 from the top, Kidara (Bactria and northwestern India) gold stater ca. 350-385 CE. #10 & #11 counting from the top image, matches Khosrow IV, a claimant to the Sasanian throne who ruled the city of Susa and surrounding area from ca. 630 to 636 CE. Out of time to check any more....

The first Spanish-American coin seems to be a 4 reales and the second is a 2 reales. The fragment....?

The Washington Post for Monday July 31 has a lengthy article (pages 1 and 18) about how companies selling gold coins cheat people, especially those addicted to certain genre of TV and cable programs. NOTE: The article includes politically-linked consumer behavior/exploitation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/07/25/gold-ira-conservative-media/

Hammersred -- It is damaged by either a coin counting or coin roll wrapping machine. It is not a mint error and has no value.

Nope. There has been nothing new added to the Mint archives. When that happens, I'll check, but the chances of finding anything useful to you and very slim.

Extremely Fine for wear, but badly polished, cleaned and with considerable damage/roughness in the obverse field. If this was bought from "a trusted collector with thousands of trusted buyers," then your faith (and theirs ) has been placed in a charlatan. If your coin is typical of what this "trusted collector" as been delivering to "thousands of trusted buyers" then ALL of you have been scammed. You are a victim of this so-called "trusted collector." Absolutely demand a refund. The coin, as pictured, is not saleable to any legitimate bust half collector, and no major grading company (ANACS, PCGS, NGC) will slab it with a grade.

"1851" over inverted "185_." ...

"AU" means it is circulated -- even a tiny bit. "MS" means uncirculated -- no evident wear. There is no range that encompasses both...if one is right the other is wrong. Barely AU -- abrasion on the face and rev high points. .

Abdulah. There's absolutely nothing of value or interest to coin collectors in the items you posted.

The errors shown are so trivial as to be worthless, as are nearly all of those touted by on-line swindlers.

No such critter. It must be "space aliens" paying astronomical prices for pocket change (if they have pockets). Please - stop watching the stupid U-Tube videos. They are out for your money and will claim anything to swindle you.

The master die (called "mother die" by 19rth century mint workers), was used to prepare an annual master hub into which was impressed the full date. In turn this produced one or more annual master dies, and from these were pressed the annual working hubs and working dies. Typically, 2 or 3 (or more) annual working hubs were consumed each year for high mintage coins such as cents. There were commonly very slight differences between the annual working hubs and also between working dies. During the year, stress, steel differences, minor damage, and overall wear produced additional very slight differences in normal coins. It is these the OP is seeing. They occur to some extent with every denomination and every die. (In all but the most specific technical discussions, we merely speak of master die, master hub and working die.)

Added ---- Back in the early 1960s, when sandblast 1921 and 1922 HR proof Peace dollars become more widely known, unscrupulous people sandblasted a few well struck 1921s and normal low relief 1922s for the purpose of selling them as legitimate proofs. Treat any certification from that period as rubbish. All 1922 HR and 1922 MR coins, except proofs, were from manufacturing tests made on normal toggle presses. They should be designated as such and not merely as "special strikes" or other nebulous terms.

The NYAO was the only one that did refining, and was mostly an adjunct to the Philadelphia Mint. The other assay offices, including those which were converted from mints (Carson, New Orleans, Charlotte) were government receiving offices for gold and silver. The Assayer in Charge and staff accepted and assayed mining deposits, melted the metal into bars, and shipped the bars to the nearest mint. Miners were pain in coin, currency, or check. They continued to receive miner's deposits until commercial businesses were able to supply the same services. US Assay Offices were intended to keep US (and Canadian) gold in the USA by paying full value for deposits, and maintaining reputation of accuracy and integrity, Most deposit and payment records still exist, although unredeemed deposits were eventually turned over to the Treasury general fund. But payment remains available at the original rates, if someone comes forward with a valid receipt.

Most of the US Mint archive is like that. With the exceptions of few well-known letters and reports, almost everything is untouched from within a few days of its date to the present. Every box and volume could hold answers to long stranding questions, or raise new questions.

AI merely organizes and selects from sources to which it has access. Garbage in, garbage out.

PCGS has some of it wrong. Maybe they can't read, or are trying to co-opt the original research of others, or maybe they are merely joking. None of the Peace dollars mentioned below were intended for public distribution. A satin proof was made by using new dies in a medal press. That's it. No further treatment. A sandblast proof was made by using new dies in a medal press (like a satin proof), and then sandblasting the coin much as was done with medals. There are NO matte Peace dollars. (Matte refers to sandblasted dies used to make proof Lincoln and Buffalo early proofs.) Some 1921, 1922 HR and 1922 MR circulation pieces were antiqued like medals. These are not "Special Strikes," but were given special medallic treatment in an attempt to display the design to it's optimum artistic effect for Treasury and Mint officials.