RWB

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."

Nothing was reported missing either 1933 DE or bullion from melting them (the records exist), no investigation was made either internal to the Mint or via the USSS, there were no complaints. If one follows strict accounting using the US Mint's records, there is a surplus of gold equal to the number of 1933 destroyed in the 1950s or taken by court action in 2011. $20 was a full week's pay for most--- and a full week's living expenses.

Ike didn't have that much hair....

Looks like we need another hint. Here's a photo of a normal bicentennial half dollar, same magnification.

Well......That wasn't the reason for bringing back proofs in 1936 but it was for making mirror proofs. The technical reason was that by 1936 all the renaissance designs had been altered to have uniform basins -- these could be polished easily.

The artists objected to shiny, polished baubles. The approved other types of medallic finishes and treatments, including sandblasting and antiquing (as seen on some 1921 Peace dollars).

I'm not really sure how a scale can grade coins....Scales are used mainly to keep fish warm and measure weight. Hmmmmm...?

One hint: The "S"s and and "C" are from different fonts. Likewise the two "R"s --- but those are not the obvious things. Keep looking...

A more precise question might be : "What didn't happen to this coin?"

Thanks for the history, but can anyone spot the variety or "error?"

I see it! I see the error !!!! It's a biggie, too ! "Quarter" is misspelled on this "1989 Quater error." Great find! Should sell for thousands! (I'll bid 29 Quatloos !)

This is also seen in better resolution in "progress sets" for medals.

Can anyone identify this Bicen half variety?

No question is "stupid" when asked honestly. Ask away!

Wide variability - not enough was known about the details of stress on steel alloy to make useful predictions at the high pressures used in making proofs. At lower coining pressures, 250,000 was common for dollars -- but available die life lists also show dies lasting 1,000 or fewer, too.

That's a reasonable explanation. We know that considerable testing was done before the initial release in 1938, and that was only in the 2nd half of the year. Surviving engravers' notebooks detail many changes to all denominations -- things too tiny for us to see in most instances: shave a 1/10,000th here add some there, make some test dies, fail, start over. Are there differences between the nickels Ross sent to a few officials and proof or circulation pieces? I think there are.

However --- it remains parking lot junk.

I think "fin rim" is meant.....

An aside comment: The sawdust referred to was from basswood and was actually made at the Philadelphia Mint ! Here's an excerpt from a September 1885 inventory of equipment: "One circular saw built by the Rollingstone Manufacturing Co." "One circular saw and screen for making sawdust for Coiner’s uses." (The full machinery/equipment list will be in More Mint to Mint.) Here's a letter confirming the use of basswood for sawdust: May 21, 1892 Superintendent, Mint U.S. Philadelphia, Penna Sir: Referring to your letter of April 2nd, in explanation of the entry in your statement of earnings and expenditures for the quarter ended December 31, 1891, of eleven dollars and ninety cents ($11.90), for sawdust furnished the Carson Mint, you are informed that this amount should not appear in this statement. As the amount was to reimburse you for the basswood and labor in converting the same into sawdust, you are informed that it should have been deposited in the Treasury as proceeds of material sold. In order to reimburse your appropriation, the proper way would have been for your to have rendered a bill to the Department when an account would have been stated, and the amount transferred on the book of the Department from the appropriation for the Carson Mint to those of your Mint. It will therefore be necessary for you to deposit this amount in the Treasury as proceeds of material sold. Respectfully yours. Robert E. Preston, Acting Director of the Mint

Treasury reports show that nearly all extant gold - coin and bar - was in Treasury vaults. There was also demand for increased supplies of gold certs. This suggests to me that exchange of certificates for physical gold was a small proportion of total stock and not subject to draw-down. In 1933-34 the "gold" returned to banks was overwhelmingly in certificates, not physical coin. (This is in the book -- someplace.)