RWB

Look on the back --- it says "ONE CENT." That's its value -- in AI or IA or even LA.

This is how malicious rumors begin....Let's end the matter immediately.

There was an eagle hanging out at the Philadelphia Mint, and his name was Peter. He was found with a damaged wing and could not fly. At some point he fell into the flywheel on a coinage or cutting press, and that was his end. He was stuffed and became a decoration around which an elaborate and false tale was concocted. Peter never modeled for any coin; and eagles (and other raptors) have been cultural/political symbols for thousands of years.

The cent is not deceptive, but can be more difficult for a novice to detect. Compare the photo to a real zinc coated steel 1943-S. Notice that all details on the "bronze" fake are soft, kind-of "mushy," and rather bloated looking. (Like classmates at a High School reunion...) On the reverse, the lack of detail is more noticeable, especially on the left wheat stalk and the O in one and P in the motto.

Seems very restrictive.... What I mean is, if you have to have once been a state governor before you can sit on the ANA board, doesn't that restrict the talent pool to a great extent? Maybe I misunderstood the answer....

Poor Jeff is reduced to a mere shadow of himself....

They wanted to verify numbers - most of which were OK - and have the source data to make it easier to respond to questions.

Red storks for cents, and blond storks (all named "Barbie") for gold.

These are excellent points that pertain more to post release than to actual manufacture. There are other, lesser known examples, such as melting of 1877 half dollars to meet urgent demand for dimes, and the condemnation of defective CC dollars followed by unrecorded production of replacements 2 years later. The published mintages are, for the most part, reasonably accurate - there are few instances where discrepancies are large enough to possibly affect initial availability. As for the table. This is part of a series covering proof coins 1873-1916 that I made for Whitman Publishing about a decade ago. They wanted to validate Guide Book quantities and identify data sources.

Sorry. Did not intend any harm nor to desecrate Quintus' memorial arch. (Others got it back on track very quickly !)

The source of mintage figures published in hobby books and on-line is a frequent collector question. We seem to presume that "if it's published, it's right" when some quantities are not really as accurate or reliable as once thought. Most mintage quantities after about 1862 were copied from official US Mint reports. Proof coin mintages come from a few contemporary documents and a list of gold, silver and minor proofs prepare by the Philadelphia Mint in 1939. Earlier mintage figures often require matching coin deliveries with availability of dies for the next calendar year to separate coin date from the year of manufacture. A further problem occurs when large deliveries of coins fail assay or weight tests and have to be destroyed - this melting was not always subtracted from reported mintages. Confusion can increase when we realize that mintage quantities are not necessarily all the pieces struck. Defective pieces were routinely subtracted, but the Coiner also had discretion in making his deliveries to the Director or Superintendent. He could hold back good coins for any reason - and not simply to make even-numbered deliveries to simplify accounting. In many years, proof coins were reported separately from circulation strikes, or were rolled up into a single number. Additionally, when coins were removed from Annual Assay or other testing, the quantities destroyed were not subtracted from published data. Over the past 20 years, there has been a considerable increase in access to original internal mint documents and coinage journals. These can be used to refine and validate mintage quantities from other sources. Below is a sample of a proof coin table for 1913. Normally, this would be accompanied by sources for every number in the table.

"Natural" or "original" tarnish occurs without intentional human intervention. Anything else, even if not augmented by human manipulation, is "artificial." The quandary is distinguishing one from the other - especially when it involves incidental circumstances. (I.e., silver coin wrapped in a napkin and given to you by Grandma for your birthday, and a silver coin wrapped in a napkin by a collector to enhance appearance. If both Grandma and collector are the same, well, have some warm gingerbread and let her 'splain it to you.)

Nah --- that's the pizza break.

Is this the old "Polish light bulb" joke? It doesn't matter how many people are involved in grading a coin. What counts is: repeatable accuracy in applying fixed standards without regard to any external factors.

Damaged. Nothing more.

Show members the auction listing and final price. Nothing you have posted is worth more than face value. Any of the inflated values are lies, or complete ignorant misunderstanding. If you are serious about learning about coins, then find a local coin club, attend meetings, and ask questions.

Please, listen to the folks here; and STOP watching those lying U-tube coin videos. This 1943-D cent, like the 1943 you posted, is worth 1-cent.

Notable for their collections and knowledge would count. "Big name" in some other field -- zippo.

Quite likely responses. If someone had read the 1905-1908 book, they would have a shot at identifying it. Corroboration would have to come from the US Mint since there are no photos known.

Thanks! We've finally gotten the 1907 and 1908 presscopy letters digitized and can now check for more information. Director Leach said in a March 1908 letter that "This work is very discredible to the service..." Have located the initial delivery and possible cause -- not related to the die.

This letter orders destruction of all 1908 pattern half eagles of both designs. It's curious that Dir Leach did not have one or two pieces saved for the Mint's Cabinet of Coins. No Saint-Gaudens half eagles survive and only 1 Indian half eagle pattern survives. This was the coin given to President Roosevelt who then presented it to William BIgelow. In turn, Bigelow donated the coin to the Boston Museum, who sold it - unattributed - as an ordinary coin when they deaccessioned their numismatic collection. The coin likely sits in some anonymous collection awaiting a keen-eyed numismatic discovery. (A description is in my book Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908, and the master hub is at the Philadelphia Mint.

Is anyone aware of aware of defective or odd 1907-O or 1908-O half dollars? Some newly located mint documents indicate that a complete delivery was ordered destroyed due to poor quality, but that the coins went out anyway.

This letter, written long before William Bigelow became involved in half eagle coin design, suggests that no Saint-Gaudens half eagles were struck for circulation because of Congress' debate about requiring "In God We Trust" on the new coin designs.

Don't know what it "would be," but it is Very Good grade with a lot of bumps and dings - A TPG would likely call it "details," or possibly "Fred," "Maury," or "Ermaline."

Finding an original that nice might be difficult.