RWB

Members were simply replying with the information they have, and since you question that information, it is your task to post evidence of your position. Just because someone informs you of the accepted name for a variety, and adds that few collect this coin, and it's only known as a proof, you appear to have labeled the "forum" as rude (to you). You only posted your question a few hours ago, so I doubt anyone is expecting to see photo quite that soon.... But don't get annoyed when members are skeptical of your claims. (There are technical responses for this -- but let's wait and see your photos...OK?) And we can all reset the angst.

That is complete nonsense.! The NGC comment is better, but remember that lint, like most other "struck through" items is soft and transient. Rather, I suspect a small steel fragment landed on the reverse die (in the bottom position for proofs), and stuck to the die for enough blows to deform metal, before falling off. [This should have produced 1-5 coin with an incuse defect identical to most strike though impressions. Once the fragment fell off the die, the defect would be raised on the coins made from that die.]

Then you're fortunate. Many clashed dies don't get mentioned for their most prominent feature.

Как это оказалось?

To make sure we're all using the same meaning -- a "luster break" is an abrupt change in the original surface often caused by light handling of a coin. I think this applies to any individual coin. Early strikes off new dies will have little or no luster; overused dies will have such advanced luster that it's given it's own name - "starburst" which is considered a serious defect. "Luster" is a result of metal flow under intermittent pressure, and develops during die use. So...maybe what you're seeing is the result of $3 dies being used to strike a relatively small quantity of coins; prominent luster never has the time to develop.

Personally, I'm interested in most parts of numismatics -- the main exclusion being buying and selling. To me, value is deeper than dollars. Regarding VAM die varieties, I see a specialty that could be if interest to a greater number of collectors than are currently involved. It offers an enjoyable way to approach coins already held by many collectors. Think of digging into the back of the bank box for coins last touched 15 years ago! The evident difficulty for silver dollars is that there is no simple, easily accessed group of starting points. Nothing that explains the extra lines on your Peace dollar, or connects it to known varieties. It's made more confusing because the traditional "VAM" varieties sometimes completely ignore obvious clashes, or other differences, etc. -- which are exactly the kinds of clear die varieties collectors first notice. These kinds of problems discourage people from getting their feet wet in what could be an interesting part of the hobby. Yeah, I know -- to you I'm "lecturing." Someone else reading this post might have a different reaction. So be it. If something can be improved, then do it.

Both of those halves are in excellent company!

Another excellent half dollar! Can't guess the condition based on the photo. It might be AU based on disturbed luster in the fields, but could be Unc. The label might say "MS-64" --- but, I'll have to pass on this one.

Beautiful EF !

It is possible that most of the coins you are looking at are EF, and not really 'AU." As others have said, the TPGs have screwed with the designation AU and have now extended it to cover EF coins. The only standard definition of an AU coin is: A trace of abrasion on the highest points and/or disturbance of original luster in the fields. (This is similar to the lie of labeling a circulated coin as "MS62".)

Striking pressure should eliminate most surface defects on a planchet; how did the dies get grainy?

H-1B is a visa type. But no visa includes citizenship. That is a separate process with multiple requirements.

I was attempting to explain why there might not be any help because of the way VAM varieties are determined. Looks like it didn't work.

The quantity and obscurity of modern Mn/bras dollar coin edge imprinting obviates any extensive interest beyond that mentioned above.

It's another meaningless religious token. No coinage value.

Taiwan and S Korea have lots of animation resources. But bsshog40 has a good question for you !

True, But we don't have a 3rd-world economy. Our smallest denomination coins have almost no purchasing power. Additionally, both cost the government money to make and distribute. The 2019 GAO report mentions that, but the US Mint's reports on this have a lot more detail. Alternative compositions for any of the coins are difficult to find....dimes, and quarters in clad composition are profitable, as are the Mn/brass dollars. The almost nil circulation of halves reinforces public dislike for larger size coins (that issue goes back to the 1870s with dollars !), and excessively small coins (Which goes back to 1849 and 1852). The pragmatic approach is to answer the question: "Which coins and paper currency best serve the present economy and monetary transactions?"

Unfortunately the "top 50" and other named groupings are not the things new collectors ask about. New people find visually prominent or unusual things. Where are the introductory lists and explanations to help answer their questions -- and possibly draw them into that specialty?

Miss Liberty might consider changing her underarm antiperspirant / deodorant....

You'll find a lot of clashes missing or not mentiond in VAM listings. It's an idiosyncratic product of VAM collecting, and I feel, a 'turn off' to new collectors who want to know about what they see on silver dollars.

Cents and nickels should be eliminated. They serve now only as tokens for retail sales tax payment on cash, only, transactions. They can be easily replaced by automatic rounding in cash registers based on simple over/under/split changes to individual state sales tax laws. At present, I no longer see the utility of higher value coins, either. Paper works well for cash $5 and $10 purchases.

This is one of the areas that raises concern about the utility of this and other parts of the 2019 report: Although the cost per note for processing has remained the same—$0.003 per note, based on Federal Reserve data—the number of notes processed in 2017 was about 1.6 billion less per year than at the time of our 2011 analysis. According to Federal Reserve officials, the public may be handling and using $1 notes less and holding on to them longer. This could cause notes to circulate less frequently, reducing the number of notes processed. Here and elsewhere GAO appears to ignore the strong increase in electric transactions, especially at places were coin and paper currency have been traditional payments. This trend was obvious at least as early as 2010, and it was only necessary to ask the GSA study team to describe their own, personal experiences to get an indicator of electronic replacement of paper and metal currency. If notes are not used as much, they will last longer, the need will be reduced, note processing will decline, and the economic support for coin vs paper will erode. (By 2010, street vendors of hotdogs, etc. in Washington DC were accepting credit/debit cards--just personal experience.)

Maybe---but that was 40 years later than the initial purpose. Also, the comment omitted part of GAO's response "the first time GAO has found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in a net loss." GAO's analysis found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would likely result in a net loss to the government over 30 years. GAO found the government would incur a loss of about $611 million if notes were actively replaced and about $2.6 billion if $1 notes were replaced gradually (see figure). These simulations represent the first time GAO has found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in a net loss to the government rather than a net benefit. GAO's estimates are based on current data and economic projections, which have changed over time. For example, the lifespan of the $1 note has more than doubled since a 2011 GAO analysis, from 3.3 years to 7.9 years, largely due to changes in note processing technology. Stakeholders generally identified few benefits from replacing $1 notes with $1 coins. Seven of 10 stakeholders GAO met with said that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in additional costs. For example, armored carriers told GAO that their transportation costs would increase because coins weigh more than notes.

Technically, the word COPY is too small to comply with HPA.

Counterfeit. Actually a replica sold to tourists in many places, especially at Gettysburg PA, Stone Mountain, and other Civil War battlefields. These have been around for a long time. They have no numismatic value.