RWB

Tokens were among the earliest numismatic items subjected to study and cataloging. The fad moved from England and the continent to America.

RE: "The Case For $3,000 Gold" The case looks like one of these:

They will add the new privy mark -- a flying pig wearing lipstick.

This means it was hit by a cable car full of tourists, rather than struck at the San Francisco Mint building.

The assorted VAM lists are individual compilations - the titles are personal descriptions and not decided based on popularity, visibility or cause. EagleRJOs comment about visibility is entirely accurate - readily visible varieties appeal to a wider scope of collector.

Is not a counterfeit a "variety" of some sort, by definition? The fake clearly identifies itself as a legal U.S. coin. It would, absolutely, be accepted in payment at any retail business. Complaining about the date on this or any other fake is simply a red herring -- and excuse to redirect away from the piece's total falsehood and illegality. People have confidence in the validity of money in circulation. Counterfeit coins and currency damage public confidence and create real, persistent problems. The number of people who would reject this fake as counterfeit is trivial - and that includes most coin collectors.

Awww......I won't even ask......

Thanks to all who tried to figure this one out. It is a frustrating example of what easily happens when confronted with counterfeit coins. This piece is devoid of any indication it is not a legal tender of the United States -- even though that is required by Federal law. Nearly all posters quickly identified some of the primary indicators of counterfeits: poor definition and sharpness, sloppy lettering, positional errors, rim and edge overrun, missing or irregular details. That bodes well for members' ability to identify common characteristics of fakes from China or almost any other place. But, it also emphasizes the difficulty in taking the next step by calling this (or any other fake) what it really is -- and doing so without regard to its origin. That might come from a scarcity of caution when examining a common coin design, a willingness to "believe" accumulated narrative, or possibly a form of justification of counterfeiting merely because it "looks OK." This example was produced and sold to the unwary by an American company in Colorado. Here's a photo taken directly from the company website: That it fooled everyone here who looked at the reverse photo is clear indication of the danger of counterfeiting, and of hobby organizations that retain those engaged in such activities as members. I won't start any similar threads. Just be careful and aware.

Very good in its day, and still useful. However, 40 years out of date for identifying modern fakes and those who make them.

0.859375 (412.50 grains). 1.50 grains tolerance (+/-) - Min legal weight 411.0 grains 26.72955 grams. 0.097198 grams tolerance. Min legal weight 26.6324 grams. 900 fineness, 003 tolerance (+/-) [silver = 0.897 to 0.903, no range for copper] Density of alloy = 10.337 g/cm^3

The infidelity of TPGs now makes "AU" just another fuzzy label....another opportunity for shysters to send off their EF coins (bought at EF offers) for relabeling as some version of "AU." This produces a huge asking price increase for no change in coin quality. Consumers get LESS than they paid for. A legitimate "AU" coin shows only the slightest trace of abrasion and/or luster disturbance, Imagine a bank clerk pulling new quarters from a bag in 1900, counting out $10 and dropping them into a paper wrapper. That afternoon, one coin is slipped across a marble counter to a customer. That could be a real "AU" coin. Any additional abrasion or handling results in some form of EF or lower grade until it bottoms out as a "slick" identifiable as silver alloy about the diameter of a US quarter.

Yes. Anyone could make their request through a member of Congress or the Executive branch. Business people were often members. Treasury wanted people of high repute and prominent if different parts of the country. This enhanced credibility in the Commission and thus in American silver and gold coinage.

The commission was for a cent and double eagle/all gold coins. The DE remained largely as designed in 1906. The cent obverse became the Eagle obverse and the private inaugural medal reverse (A.S-G and Weinman) became the Eagle reverse - both at President Roosevelt's insistence. Dies and pattern half eagles using the DE design were made, but the coins were destroyed after TR accepted sunk relief touted by Bigelow. The HE dies are at the Philadelphia Mint die vault #2.

I caught only the last half of the 1932 Eagle sales show (thanks for the date correction!), but I noticed the use of ebay prices, too - there was also a disclaimer about them (in red) at the bottom of the screen. As for the book, I appreciate knowing what he used it for. It's published material so referenced quotes are OK. I'll check this week and see if sales went up. None of them sounded familiar, but they are verbal claims in the same category as "rare" and the fuzz about "MS-62" being something special when it isn't. This part is completely unknowable since no tracking by date was done, and the quantity of gold coins has been persistently confused with combined coins and gold certificates. (My DE book has the quantities divided - most existing gold coin was in Treasury vaults.)

Just after the double overtime Army-Navy game, I happened to tune in to the Rare Coin TV show selling 1932 Eagles. I was surprised to see my book, Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908, prominently displayed standing upright next to some of the coins being sold. I missed any reference to the book, but seeing my very own little tome on TV was an interesting experience. Here's the book cover:

Eventually they will be used, just a UNC was once only 60-63-65-67

An old term you might come across: "Benton's Mint Drops." This is a pun on patent medicine and Jackson's "hard money" cure for the economic depression his policies started.

....and another.

A poster asked about membership on the Annual Assay Commission. Here's Dir. Leech's view.

Just invert the "6" into a "9" -- all done.

NGCX appears to copy the present 60-70 uncirculated coin range into its 90-100 range. Then, it spreads circulated coins currently occupying 1-58, into zero to 89 (or maybe 1 to 89). The result is to give sellers more tiny increments in which to confuse and price gouge collectors. For the TPGs, it opens lots of "necessary" regrading submissions, thus increasing revenue by re-doing decades of paid grading events. The small increment grading of circulated coins merely adds confusion and inconsistency to an already messed-up system. Almost every coin will have to be accompanied by an explanation of why it is "graded" 5.2 and not 5.3, and when combined with the absurdity of subjective/opinion in grades, the whole thing becomes a useless mess. (Well, more of a useless mess than it already is.) Coin grading demands: 1) stability, 2) objectivity, 3) empirical data standards, and 4) consistency. This is something ANA tried to do in the 1980s, but then they got "spinus dissolvus" and sold out.

Well, if no one spots the major variety by Sunday evening I'll post the answer. (I thought this one would be easy; it's highly relevant.)

The post titled "Support the ANA" https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1084655/support-the-ana is by a former employee, and offers comments of potential interest to members here.

I deal with some of the 1936 complaints in the proof coin book - there were others too numerous to print. Collectors forced the change for the base metal coins and also pushed for better brilliant proof quality for silver. Sinnock and the engraving dept had to learn how do to things all over. The old proof coin makers were dead.

There are really two "bins" of data. Circulated, where there is a true continuum based on measurable wear, and Uncirculated, where there is a continuum only of surface marks and not the base coin itself. These imply there should be 2 ratings with one beginning is "identifiable" and ending with "About uncirculated" (real not the phony TPGs now tout), and "uncirculated" beginning with lots of marks scrapes, etc. and ending with "Perfect - as it came from the dies."