RWB

OK. A large proportion of people posting "errors" etc. do so after watching U-Tube videos with extravagant claims about error coins and their values.

From the fuzzy photos, it appears to be intentional damage. Not a US Mint error. Now, please stop watching those click-bait U-Tube videos about get-rich-quick-from-pocket-change schemes.

Junk slab. Ignore anything on the label. If you like the coin, buy it for its FMV -- Only (in this case, offer 5-cents with prepaid postage).

The piece was graded MS 64 by PCGS before I bought it. But the real challenge for anyone grading this kind of item is reconciling flat, almost 2-dimensional relief, broad unstruck planchet areas, and crude mechanical inscriptions. Some of these are also problems in grading Indian $2.50 and $5 coins, certain classic commemoratives, and territorial gold pieces. Relief --- Raised design elements are flat on the top surface of the eagle (rev) and will clearly show every tiny scratch, nick or ding. Where there are recessed details there is very little transition between top and bottom. Obverse lettering is barely rounded on top, but only slightly canted to facilitate release from the die. How does a grader evaluate this kind of surface. Planchet --- Except for relief and the depressed areas surrounding obv letters, the planchet is largely untouched. That is, the original planchet with all its scratches and marks is clear and obvious. The grader has to separate marks that were on the planchet to start (as struck) with damage acquired in shipping or use. This is analogous to the field on Indian $2.50 and $5. Mechanical inscriptions --- Reverse hubs were cut with a cheap mechanical cutter, the the standard Janvier reducing lathe. There was no plaster or bronze model. Digits were punched with items from the cutter set. So, a grader has to separate pre-strike marks, from post-strike marks, then assess their severity and visual impact, and finally determine the overall quality. That's a tough job on these pieces and similar coin and medal designs. Give it a try and see what you come up with. Then try your skill at grading some of those Indian QE and HE.

This was posted on another forum by member Zoins. https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1089903/the-roger-burdette-collection It's a fun thread (and a surprise to see!), but I mention it because of the good reference to NGC's authenticity comments about these, and the completely inaccurate history of the gold pieces. (Check the links in the post.) The incorrect history originated with a short US Mint press release, a brief listing in the US Mint publication Domestic and Foreign Coin Made at U.S. Mints, and an article written by Harry X. Boosel. The article combined the two sources with speculation, guesses, rumors, and some incomplete history of ARAMCO. At the time, there was so little information available that ANY attempt to tell the story behind these gold discs was condemned to be wrong. I can't really fault Boosel or the hobby for "adopting" the fake story -- it was, from a simple view, plausible. Plus the Treasury Dept./Mint did nothing to present what actually occurred. Anyone who'd like an interesting experience, or who might question the numismatic value of good factual research, should compare Mr. Boosel's article, with the chapter on this subject in my new book Saudi Gold and other Tales from the Mint.

An on-line search will pull up several types and manufacturers. Only look for "optical" or "non contact" profilometers. I have used a Keyence, as in the "mushy details" thread -- but they are very expensive...even to rent (I don't own one). A university, college or materials research facility might run some tests for you.

The late Johnson wrote a lot about specific collectors, and there is an on-line source called numismatic biographies. You can also search for sources on NNP.

RE: "State quarter on an experimental planchette." ...and how did you determine this? Who did you consult for this definitive pronouncement?

Greed must never be ANA's creed.

If its mechanical doubling, why aren't the digits affected? All are close together and all are raised.

Just turn it around -- it'll be OK.

The ANA exists to benefit collectors and numismatic knowledge. Those ideals exclude most who are in the coin business for the money.

Autographed copies are available on request. There is no extra charge. Include the request with your order. [NOTE: This also applies to any of my books sold through Wizard Coin Supply.]

ANA does not need more coin dealers on the Board.

Accurately graded approx EF-45, but with several rim cuts that might preclude putting in a plastic slab.

It's not a coin struck from a doubled die. Please stop watching those stupid U-Tube videos. They are misleading you to sell advertising.

Nope. Better halves are available in original bags...and there are a lot of 'em. It's worth about melt.

Eagle's chest, head and upper wing have ordinary abrasion, not bag or contact damage.

1968 cents originated with a very badly deteriorated master die made in 1916 (not hub) that had been in use far too long. A new master die was first used in 1969. The 1942-dated hub was used to make about half of that year's working dies, and a different hub for the remainder. It is impossible to make coins of normal and high relief from the same hub.

Looks nice, Mark. I'd also favor a somewhat larger image of the 500 Won, and also visually centering your name under the image. Roadbike has conveyed some very useful information not only for authors and readers, but for those who prepare and judge educational exhibits.

Unusual circulation find even in a bank...Too bad there is no "S" mintmark!

Stacking sharp, high resolution images can be very useful in identifying repunched characters and the oblique version creates an interesting way to improve visual examination of field-to-relief intersections. But, proof comes from empirical measurements, not someone "assuming" one image is exactly 10 micrometers different in altitude from another. This is simply identifies an absences of scientific rigor on the part of the camera user and any sponsoring entity. (PS: The relief of every die made from the same hub are not necessarily identical. Slight difference in metal hardness, pressure, metal flow, etc. cause small variations. I suggest, but have not tested, that if one takes 25 new 1942-P cents all from the same hub, they will all have differing relief. The range might easily encompass sufficient to include any claims of discovery of a "high relief" coin from normal hub. It is physically impossible.)

The following link takes you to a neat thread, "Results with new camera and objective lens," on PCGS concerning high quality detail images accomplished by stacking. There are a lot of uses for these. (They were initially popularized by Dr. Mark Goodman in his book on coin photography.) https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1089671/results-with-new-camera-and-objective-lens There is one false claim in the original post: "I was also able to prove that a 1942 Pattern Cent was in fact a high-relief strike, the only one known for the Lincoln Cent series. To do these renderings, I need to take images at small increments, typically 10 micrometers. This gives me the ability to measure the heights of the features, and I was able to show that the Pattern Cent had higher relief than either the Business Strike or Proof from same year. That study was published in the Numismatist a few years back." The claim is false because selection and layer separation are manually approximated; that is, not accurately measured by standard technology. Thus, the claimed results are not repeatable. Also, all of the versions come from the same hub, which cannot produce both normal and high relief. A standard profilometer (such as a Keyence 3D) can make such measurements and provide empirical results, but when challenged several years ago this was refused. (PS: The coin in question is NOT a PATTERN - it is an experimental piece correctly described and illustrated in my book of WW-II Pattern and Experimental Pieces.)

It's also the right person. It is a contemporary portrait of Anna ("Nanny") Williams.

Counterfeits turn up in mint correspondence as ways to defraud the public on the face value of a coin versus it's legal metal content of gold and silver. Many of these involved removing precious metal from authentic coins: sweating, drilling, tumbling, vertical edge shaving, etc. The proportion of complete counterfeits seems smaller -- possibly 30 percent? For minor coins, nickels and 3-cent CuNi were commonly complete replacement counterfeits. In the 1930s alterations were very uncommon and complete fakes dominated. Coin popularizes like Mehl also informed crooks about coins that required simple alterations to boost value. During and after WW-II counterfeit gold pieces were made in an attempt to skim profit from widely exchanged coin types. Few collector counterfeits show up until the mid-1950s when prices on collectors coins began to increase. Among 19th century coin collectors and dealers, the concerns focused on counterfeits of known rarities, electrotypes deliberately sold as genuine, and invented ancient coin types. Many counterfeits from the 19th and 20th centuries can be identified by elemental analysis.