RWB

Huh ....? Not understood.

The annual reports have some of this data. ...a large proportion in scissel remaining from cutting blanks. This went back to M&R for recasting.

funnylady444 --- The nickel you pictured is extremely common and has no complete steps at all. The reverse steps must be entirely separated for their length, and not connected by damage. Your coin fails both tests, and is worth all of five-cents. Also, as others have mentioned, "NMM" is gibberish (picked up from some fool on a video?) that merely obscures the inaccurate description. Try going to a local coin club meeting or two, or even try one of the American Numismatic Association (ANA) on-line classes in basic coin collecting.

The "value operated on" begins with refined gold, which is melted and alloyed with copper, then cast into coinage ingots. These were rolled into strips suitable for cutting blanks of correct diameter, thickness, and weight for the scheduled coin denomination. Most waste occurred here: small amounts in each mechanical or melting step, and a large proportion in scissel remaining from cutting blanks. The "amount of coin produced" includes only coin accepted and delivered by the Coiner. This excludes underweight, or damaged pieces, plus good pieces withheld to make a delivery in even dollars (simplified calculations). (Alternatively, using preformed blanks has a low rate of wastage - almost all of which is mechanical byproduct. There were lots of laws. Enforcement & apprehension were difficult, but courts were usually quick. In mining areas the miners normally formed extra-judicial "associations" to enforce behavior and punish offenders. These lasted only until there was sufficient permanent population to support a more regular government. The least law abiding region was the old south, where plantation owners did as they pleased, actively suppressed the "Horatio Alger" idea self advancement through industry, supported a caste system, and answered to no one.

This note from 1882 illustrates the inefficiency of coining at the Philadelphia Mint. The other mints were worse except for SF double eagles. Tabu;ations similar to this appear in some of the Annual Reports.

A subsurface theme running through internal Mint correspondence was a desire to replace the seated design with something much better. This appears in the early 1840s ( ! ) and continues through the failed 1891 design fiasco. [The figure of Liberty, which is after a design of Sully, has much merit, but I need not tell you that it has also many faults. The eagle, on the reverse, has given us infinite trouble. We had at one time a flying eagle, without any heraldic appendages to it; but it did not satisfy the public, and was abandoned. I am inclined to think, now, that since we must abandon nature, and have an eagle with a shield nailed to its breast, and branches and arrows in its claws, it would be best to go still further, and adopt for our reverse the arms of the United States, as prescribed by law for the great seal. I should hope, that by a proper [xxxxide] of taste, something of this kind could be designed that would be satisfactory.] RG104 Entry 23 Peale Papers. November 25, 1842 to Horatio Greenough from Robert Patterson. Fundamentally, the design culture for coinage was stuck on a phony Greco-Roman portrait style which produced nothing but imitations. (Compare with our current commercial- coin style -- we had to go back to L. Fraser's 1931 Washington bust to get a fresh portrait for the quarter. Why? )

Looked at the site (as far as allowed without joining), but don't see much that would be useful for the parts of coin collecting with which I interact. It appears to be a restatement of what other sites offer, although being new it lacks the slimy scams and crooks commonplace elsewhere, but the presence to profit-greedy sellers sets it on that well-worn path. There is little sign of site integration which makes finding anything a painful time waster. Things like this require thoughtful concept and design beyond what already exists.

Try Julian Leidman at Bonanza Coins, Silver Spring, MD. juliancoin.com (301) 585-1480 940 Wayne Ave, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-4428,

He received the largest fees of any artist in America, and rarely kept to a deadline.

Yes. 1 for gold and 1 for the cent, These ended up on the DE and E, with the E rev from the inaugural medal SG designed.

Nice coins. The design is, in my opinion, "disagreeably ugly."

Good to hear they you got reliable answers !

If these folks were really clever they would use selectively anodized titanium for the tokens and colors. This site will help readers get started. https://www.besttechnologyinc.com/surface-finishing/titanium-anodizing-equipment/ PS: I had suggested green anodized titanium for a $5 coin a couple of years ago in a bill that would have also ended cent and nickel production, but it wasn't "political" enough for some House members and got tabled out of boredom, I guess.

Wet, Dry or Dryer...it's still worthless.

Mint U.S. March 10, 1841 James T. Barker, Esq., First Comptroller Etc., etc. Sir, In your letter of the 8th inst., to the Treasurer of the Mint, respecting his accounts for the second quarter of the year 1840, you introduce the following item: “Robert B. Hughes’s bill for Figure of Liberty, suspended for explanation,” $75.00 I have, sxxx on this notice, to state, that the figure in question was a medallion for the “expression emblematic of Liberty” used on our coins, and was made for the purpose of being used as a pattern for casting in iron to be employed in a [particular] lathe by the operation of which the hubs for striking dies may be turned. The work ordered of Mr. Hughes was strictly for the regular business of the Mint. R. M. P., Director [RG104 E-1 Box 21]

I feel it's temporary - a bit like beanie babies and cabbage patch dolls and painted plates.

If you like them, buy them. Don't expect any coin collector to like them, Plan to lose everything you paid beyond the bullion value. Very few want altered coins in their collections, and that is what these items are. Would you buy a 1909 cent with an "S" glued or painted on it?

Thank you!

"MS-70" applies to each coin individually, so microscopic changes in dies would not be relevant. Is the "5x" approach: A) 5x magnification on the coin as struck, or B) 5x magnification on the coin as compared to some "perfect" definition, or C) is it 5x magnification with no discernible alteration of the surface regardless of cause? [Note that the original micro surface of a gold or silver coin is harder than the rest, so small movement against a metal chute or collar face, might not make any difference.]

Also, remember that PayPal is linked to a credit card, and you should also dispute the PayPal charge there. 另外，请记住 PayPal 与信用卡相关联，您还应对 PayPal 的收费提出异议

For this kind of dispute, it is often best to work with the payment company. The laws depend on your country of residence. If you used a credit card in the USA, you should dispute the charge immediately and in writing. 对于此类纠纷，往往最好与支付公司合作。法律取决于您的居住国家/地区。如果您在美国使用信用卡，您应该立即以书面形式对该费用提出异议。

A post on another forum asks this question. I pose it here because it begs understanding of old and modern minting practices, and is dependent on the definition of MS-70. The Sheldon definition of MS-70 is: exactly as it came from the dies, or "as struck." (This ignores defects of planchet or dies.) The TPG definition of MS-70 is, it appears: Perfect in all respects. (This is a little confusing because it implies we have a "perfect" example for comparison.) Anyway - what's your opinion on the question?

Damage, Nothing more.