RWB

And to me, that "weedle" interpretation is a large part of the modern counterfeiting problem. A crook makes (or imports) something that looks like a coin or acts like a coin. They label it "Replica" accompanied with all the implied innocence and try to convince others that it is OK; while raking in the cash from selling counterfeit coins. Anything that looks or acts like a coin is a counterfeit. Production is itself intent to defraud. Modern law allows a generous exception by adding the word COPY to the item.

Actually, it is a counterfeit and should be destroyed and the perpetrators, importer, sellers, etc. should be prosecuted. Let's cease the "niceties" and call this modern trash by its correct name: Counterfeit.

The only negative publicity occurred when some coin collector group complained about unfair treatment, or the Mint not following its own policies. I recall a few minor objections, but most concern was about coin collecting being taken over by for-profit dealers, and the pestering of Philadelphia Mint staff for special treatment such as restrikes of circulation and pattern pieces, off-metal pieces and the like. There was incessant complain through at least 1889 against profiteering. Most of the low mintage silver in the 1880s was actually an attempt to create enough to satisfy collectors and keep dealers from profiting. There was one letter, I recall, where a buyer of proof sets was "cut off" because he bought too many appeared to be selling them at a profit. Here's a short letter from 1888 where orders are given for coining additional gold pieces to prevent speculation (and likely holiday gift use). There are others along the same lines well into the 1930s. There were certainly abuses at different times and under several administrations. But there are very, very few contemporary statements about exactly which Mint officers were involved. I have reliable documents/information about several people, but publication will have to await my book about Circulation Restrikes and Patterns. The research already done clearly shows that the past generations assumptions are mostly hot air or distortions to cover ignorance.

Anything along the false lines suggested is "possible" so it can not be disproved. But is any of it plausible given facts available? No.

Thanks for the update.

Thanks for your response. I understand the situation. Yes, please suggest to management that using black text, and a larger font as the system default would improve visual contrast. Also, remember that a large proportion of coin collectors are older men, with less-than ideal vision. RWB

Vapor and soot contamination among others. Annealing was done in copper caskets or later in long ovens. The purpose was to get the entire strip to the same uniform temperature. Furnaces were equipped with muffles that helped isolate the metal being melted from refractory gas from the heating source, but contamination continued until adoption of electric induction furnaces. When simply meting gold or silver, the crucibles were equipped with a lid to exclude outside gas and a flux was normally used on the surface to absorb impurities. (See the descriptions and illustrations in From Mine to Mint.

There is sparse data on re-strikings and underground Mint activities, and Bowers' book presents almost none of it. As with the Liberty DE thread, it's copy and repeat.

Anecdotal reports on hobby message boards say "No."

Typical of confusion, assumptions and baseless guesses. The author was simply being a parrot on someone's shoulder thoughtlessly repeating what was heard.

That is speculation, and not based on fact. Until well into the 20th century no one knew which DE were "rare." Plus, it's not certain that anyone actually collected DE by date or date/mint. Lastly, dated dies were routinely destroyed at the end of each year.

Maybe not objectively, but to the owner of a coin that looks perfect, but comes back "altered" it is critical.

Yes, and that would be nice to have, but no TPG will support that financially or technically. The best is, in my view, to put enough to inform the owner/future owner on the label.

RE: "Here's what I call a "maxed out" slab. There's not much room left for anything, at least keeping it to a size where it would be useful." There's a lot of available territory. Here's the same label with a few minor adjustments. Everything is organized, left-justified and not cluttered at all. Lots of white space.

NGC Staff, I am dealing with a very gradual case of cataracts and would like to increase the size and contrast of chat board text. Is there a way for me to change only my default settings to make the text black (instead of gray) and increase size from 14pt to 18 pt? Thanks Roger Burdette

There is lots of room on a "details" slab insert. Simply the word Cleaned, Tooled, Sat on by Kardasian, Damaged Rev., and so forth. Once the useless stuff is given it's proper place, there is room for a lot of meaningful words inside the slab. PS: Having to go to a "LQQK-UP" page someplace only impedes utility, rather than encourage it.

There's lots of room on a body bag. The label might state "Relief coated to resemble natural frosting," or "Left wing tooled near tip to strengthen details."

Most of us have likely submitted a coin to a "grading" company, only to have it returned in a body bag labeled "cleaned," "tooled," "altered," "tan lines," or some other deflating term. Invariably, this is all the information given to customers for their money. Should all "grading" companies be more specific about body bag labels such as stating where the defect is, or what kind of cleaning, or where the alteration is located?

Shhhhh....that's the great secret of the "All-Seeing Eye" on your dollar bill.

RE: "Major Mistrike" I looked up Major Mistake in old Army records (not CDs -- real vinyl records). He was with the 3rd Armored Division of the 2nd Cavalry and served in the Mexican War in 1847 under Gen. Scott. He was with the Catering Corps so he mostly served beans and salt pork belly. I guess that's pretty close to today's canned "Pork & Beans." In one incident he was awarded the Flaming Flame Thrower tin star with bumblebee cluster for extinguishing a fire that erupted in a tent housing a dozen solders. The various privates had eaten 2nd helpings of the Major's signature dish. Methane gas built up in the closed tent, and a spark from a passing lightning bug set off an explosion and fire. Most of the soldiers were saved, but one horse was lost -- and later found in the General's tent. I don't know who to obtain more information about Major Mistake. Could someone try getting a job at one of those Pork&Bean sorting places where they put coins into rolls -- and biscuits...?

Your photos served their purpose, so they are OK in that respect. Be very cautious about "having coins graded." The process takes time and costs the fees plus postage both ways. Any coin with a wholesale value under about $300 is probably not worth the time and expense. Look for a local coin club whose members might be able to help you evaluate any coin you consider submitting. Coinbuf's comment, "Junk silver Morgan dollars are selling for about $30-$35 and a graded MS60 sells for $70-$75" really means that after subtracting the cost of grading, a MS-60 Morgan dollar is worth the same as a "junk" coin -- about $35. You are always welcome to come here and ask questions or opinions. It's free and nobody among the members will deliberately mislead.

Yes.

The valuable "No S" dime is a proof coin, not the normal dimes made for circulation, Your coin was struck for circulation and is worth 10-cents.

On the other side of the tracks there is an interesting thread about tiny medals with religious inscriptions made by William Barber and George Soley at their home-based medal business. https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1086459/a-very-tiny-medal-1877-lords-prayer-medal Here is a letter, one of several, relating to this business. (Apologies for the awful text parsing -- this site does not hand pasted text very well.) Mint of the United States, Philadelphia, January 10, 1876 Hon. H.R. Linderman. Director of the Mint. Washington D.C. Sir: Your letter of the 6th inst in relation to the price of medals and the manufacture of private dies by Meyers, Soley, and Barber and Son, has been received. As regards the cost of the various public medals, and medals struck for societies and individuals, I believe from frequent and careful estimates, the price fixed, is as nearly in accordance with the rule you state, and upon which we base our calculations, as possible. The cost or price depends, to some extent, upon the quantity or number ordered, and this we consider in the calculation. Our prices have generally been fixed by me, with the approval of the Director, as the 8th rule relating to medals requires. I will however, as soon as possible, reexamine the prices as you suggest and modify the same according to the fact. I also carefully examined the allegations in reference to the machine made by Mr. Soley after the pattern of the Hill Engraving machine. The facts are these. Mr. Soley invented and made for himself a small machine for preparing medal dies, which is not after the pattern of the Hill Engraving machine, and does not infringe on said patent. Mr. Soley’s machine is ingenious, so small that it can be carried with ease under the arm, and he assures me the design is his own, and no part of the patent of the Hill machine has been infringed. He has made but few dies himself, and none in the Mint – all at his own house, and out of Mint hours. The Hill Engraving machine has not been used by him or Mr. Barber in the manufacture of private medal dies. I may say here, that this machine is, and has been for some years, “under the control of the Engraver in subordination to myself,” and no original dies are or shall be prepared thereon without the sanction of your office. My orders, in accordance with law and regulations, to the Engraver, Soley and all others are imperitive [sic], that no dies or work for private parties are to be made in the Mint; neither during working hours or on Mint machinery. I have also examined into the allegations against Mr. Barber & Son. Mr. Barber has made a number of dies for outside parties, but as I have already said, he has not used the Hill Engraving machine to aid him in their manufacture. He, or his son, may have, in a leisure hour, worked at some of his dies in the Mint, during Mint hours, but this he assures me has not often occurred. I have peremptorily ordered a discontinuance of the practice, first, last and all the time. The great trouble, as you suggest, and as charged by outside parties, is that he has in his possession the old engraving machine which was superseded by the Hill Engraving machine, and uses this, with improvements made by himself, in preparing dies. It was removed to his rooms in 1867 or 8, or about that time. I have no knowledge of the circumstances or terms under which it was removed. This machine, however, still belongs to the Mint, and I have directed him to return it at once, as suggested in your letter, or purchase the same, as he should do, if retained by him. He says he will make an offer for it. As to the mode of selling it, whether by addressing letter to Artists and inviting bids, or taking the offer he may make, will be submitted to you for your action. If the sale of the machine is not advisable it should be returned and retained here. There is the usual jealousy prevailing among artists, and I believe that the charges made by outside parties against Messrs. Barber and Soley, are, as you say, greatly exaggerated. So far as I am able to enforce the rules all causes of complaint shall at once be removed. The orders have been given, and will be obeyed. Very Respectfully, Jas. Pollock Sup (Superintendent)

Your local hardware store sells copper pipe and sheets a lot cheaper than in 1-oz (Troy or Avoirdupois?) stamped pieces of indescribable ugliness.