RWB

1. Nope. 2. Using normal procedures, he would have put the 43 pieces with the 1932 coins, probably in the Cashier's vault. That would bring the number of 1932 cons produced up to the reported quantity at the end of the year 1932. That is, for all purposes, the 43 coins were dated "1932" in the record books. This matter was investigated, nothing resolved and Congress appropriated money to cover the loss. That was the end. Hoover and FDR policies both came down hard on hoarders - not ordinary people. It was Hoover who started tracking gold withdrawals and deposits and taking names of those making withdrawals -- FDR's people did not do that, although they made limited use of the Hoover "hit lists."

"Insights" like the one above, tend to occur when we test the boundaries of "accepted wisdom." Also, when we look at the complete coinage operation and consequences of the mechanical functions and equipment, we can begin to solve many of the mysteries that baffled past writers. That is: "Learn then Look" (A little more background... For a long time it was assumed that new dies were "polished" before being put into service. That assumption created a cascade of incorrect speculations which then metastasized into "official pronouncements from Experts." What I did was to go into the original records and asked "How were dies made and put into use? How did proof-like coins originate?" What the original letters said was that the final step in preparing a working die was to temper it, then dip the face into weak acid to remove any "fire scale" or surface oxide. After this dip they went into service.... The rest was mentioned earlier in the thread. A similar approach was taken toward luster, and sandblast/satin proofs, and so forth.) Hope this does not sound boastful (I don't want it to be...) -- the information has been there for a long time, just nobody looked -- or maybe bothered to challenge the "Experts," or maybe I was just lucky.

Your mean the billionaire and owner of the NY Jets football team? (Interesting that the thread was edited to remove all Russian text and responses....)

Please don't start multiple threads on the same subject....there are now 4 of these things.

The materials relating to 1933 DE are somewhat scattered between NARA Philadelphia and College Park, and also within the Entry group boxes and folders. I don't think much of it is on-line at NNP and none is digitized at NARA. I have images of much of the material but not all - and do not plan to distribute it until the complete files are ready. There's nothing especially exciting that isn't already known. The main "take away" is that Philadelphia Mint Officers knew much more than was presented in the 1947 trial, and made no effort to release everything to Counsel. The Coiner in 1945, Bartholomew, was Coiner in 1933 and knew exactly what was done in manufacturing the coins. The real "black hole" is who removed the coins from the Mint and when. Mr. Switt had no access.

I got one of those Purdue "Superbirds" at the grocery a while back. Marinated it in cheap whiskey herbs and spices, salt and paprika. Slow roasted it over a political debate....Almost over done! But yummy.

OK...Twice as many letters for the same money! Photos?

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?