Oldhoopster

Sorry, but it's the common large date

On 10/30/2022 at 4:16 PM, VKurtB said:

What does hacking an XRF even MEAN??? He has written some things that have a whiff of a paranoid disorder. 

What does it mean?  It means he has no idea how a handheld XRF works.  Comments like that absolutely kills any credibility the guy might have had. 

BTW, if the OP is Still reading this thread, I have been using XRF data for process control and product development for 30+ years. We used XRF data to maintain the compositions of 3 500,000 lb glass tanks each pulling 50-70,000 lbs a day.  Letting it get out of spec was 1-3 days of downtime at $20k/day.  I've even operated lab XRFs years ago. What are your XRF qualifications?

The XRD info he previously posted (he said it showed Cu-Ni but didn't believe it because somebody hacked into the equipment ) and the edge picture showing the copper core is all the proof needed to show it's not 40% silver.  Trying to sell this on BST with solid data proving it's not what you claim should be reported to the moderators as a scam

This member is either completely ignorant of the science and testing methods he claims as his proof, or he is scamming/trolling this board.  I don't think anyone can be so clueless as to make these claims with the information provided, so he must be trolling/scamming the members.  His posts are being reported to the moderators and I hope the take appropriate action.

If it's a plating defect, that is likely even less desirable than a die chip on a proof coin. If you like it, keep it and move on.    It's rare that something that's hard to see with the naked eye has much value or interest

On 10/29/2022 at 9:38 PM, tj96 said:

What exactly are you talking about?

If you can figure him out, please let the rest of us know 

(At QA.  You can owe me a slam for that)

Extraordinary claims and no pics (of the counterfeits) = no proof = you don't have it.  Simple enough

You did say you'd get some pics of the 00-S CAM when you get the proper equipment.  OK, we'll wait.  The WAM you posted earlier (no date given) appears to be a WAM so you may be able to ID them correctly.  

You can't pop on these boards, make extraordinary claims, not provide proof, and expect to get instant credibility.  Sorry you feel insulted, but you were told what you need to do back up your claims, but you have yet to do so. 

You also need to remember that just because a coin dealer sells coins, doesn't mean they are an expert in all areas of numismatics, especially errors and counterfeits.  Maybe your dealer is A true numismatist, and maybe he's just a coin seller.  

I think its time to let you go and add you to my "Do Not Respond" list.  I tried to help but you seem to have an abundant supply of excuses.  To much nonsense to deal with.  Best of luck with your rolls of rare proof CAMs

On 10/26/2022 at 5:17 PM, pigeonman333rd said:

Here is the coin I found in change with the questionable mint mark. I think somebody just scratched out the D looks like it was done with a nail or something. I got 2 1922's but no need to take a picture of the other one it has a d. The lincoln cent source says their was a weak d though I dought this is it worth a looksie.  

Looks like a 22 weak D but sometimes it's hard to distinguish if it's weak or Normal D since the dies were overused by the Denver mint.  

A) If you want to talk about a different coin, START A NEW THREAD.  Look at the title of this thread.  Does it have anything to do with the CAM WAM discussion or the other random coins you posted?  NO. When people see the title of the thread, they might say, "oh, this is a old thread about a 1983 cent.  Skip it".  You'll get more looks if you start a new thread to discuss a new topic.  

B) it is very unusual to find a counterfeit roll searching, yet you claim to have numerous examples.  There are some contemporary examples from the 20s and 30s (usually quarters), but they are easy to spot.  You need to confirm, are they struck or cast?  Does the weight fall within the mint tolerance? Do the letters and numbers match the correct font and placement (compare to coins on pcgs coin facts).  Just because it looks different doesn't mean it's counterfeit.  Start a new thread with some clear, focused pics of the obverse and rev of 1 or 2 of your counterfeits and you'll get good, accurate feedback.

On 10/26/2022 at 6:07 PM, pigeonman333rd said:

Oh so the certified coin is genuine I thought I bought another acid coin. Thanks

Determining when a coin has been exposed to acid is pretty basic once you've seen a few.  I would say that it's incredibly unlikely that a legitimate TPG would ever mistake an acid damage cent for a struck thin planchet. If you have a slabbed, struck thin planchet in a legit slab, its real.

there are a number of threads showing acid cents in the archives.  Search for them and then compare them to your slabbed coins.  It's good homework that will teach you a lot.  The number one rule of numismatic education is to look at a lot of coins.  It takes time and effort and there are no short cuts.  But that's why those members with decades of experience can quickly answer questions and can be right almost everytime.  When members suggest looking/study certain web sites, or searching archives for old threads, there is a lot of wisdom in those suggestions.  Blow them off at your own risk.

We've seen new collectors show up thinking they know everything then end up on the ignore lists or never come back because they didn't get the answers they wanted.  This site has top level coin authors/researchers, collectors with unbelievable collections as shown in the registry sets, high level dealers, and collectors with decades of experience.  They aren't the guys sitting the end of the local dive bar offering sketchy opinions. I would have killed to have easy access to this knowledge base when I started collecting 50+ years ago.

On 10/26/2022 at 3:58 PM, pigeonman333rd said:

Thanks VkurtB I will look to see if their is an fg on the reverse of the 2000 s proofs that are coming in the mail. I will be sure to wear gloves when I search that roll  

There IS an FG on ALL the Lincoln Memorial cents.  The FG on the CAM and WAM are different.  Did you look at the pics on the Lincoln Cent Resource site?  It may be easier to ID CAMs and WAMs from the initials than the A M spacing.  I said this in previous posts but it seems like your ignoring the information

Posting the pages is A waste of time.  How can we tell anything.  The close up does appear to be a WAM but the initials are too blurry for confirmation.  What date is it? 2000?  And do you have access to the 00-S proof CAMs?  Those are the coins of interest.  A pic of both the A M and initials is needed.

It IS NOT an altered coin.  

Not sure where you get your info, but it's incorrect.  There are damaged cents that are thin because the were soaked in acidic solutions or other environmental environments but that's Not what you have.  Look at the surfaces and see how the resemble a struck coin (maybe a little weak on the high points). Acid coins do not look like that

The first step in the coin making process is rolling an ingot to the proper thickness.  Blanks are punched from This long thin strip.  Occasionally the strip, or parts of it are rolled too thin and the blanks are thin and underweight.  That's what you have.  It's an error coin

Please crop your pics.  When nearly 50% of the pic is blue background, it doesn't help

On 10/25/2022 at 10:18 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

This whole albino Flying Eagle has been preying on my mind...

The OP's coin looks reminiscent of the 1863 Indian Head cent I once had. A noticeably blanched look, simply worn down, no "damage" in the non-numismatic use of that word.

Ones in "perfect" condition now command well over $10,000.

Your 1863 was also a "white cent" with a composition of 88% copper and 12% Nickel.  All flying eagles and Indians from 1859-1864 had this composition (some 1864 are the standard copper composition) 

I remember buying them when I was younger to fill my Indian Cent folder and always thought they were cool.

It sounds like a striking issue. A variety would have a missing insignia on the die which is unlikely. Striking issues are much more common and have less interest.  You'll see stuff like this or with  minor die chips on eBay with cute names to entice new collectors into thinking they are rare and valuable, when knowledgeable error collectors understand they are common and have minimal value

Post a pic if you want some accurate feedback

On 10/25/2022 at 12:15 PM, pigeonman333rd said:

Let me clearify things I checked the 1999's and they are close am's I bought as wide am's same with the 1998's I had my sister check the 2000 s proofs and she said their is definitly a space so they are 2000 s proofs wide am reverse and they are not rare but I bought those as just proofs so I didn't get ripped off their like the 1999 and 1998's. The 2000 wide am's though their real and I have about a roll and then some so they are least rare and I can take pictures of those. I don't pay much attention to my modern cents though because they will only be valuable in 100 years.

Did you confirm and your sister confirm by checking the designers initials.  Many times they are an  easier and more accurate marker for WAM and CAM than the A M spacing. The pics are on the Lincoln Cent Resource site

On 10/24/2022 at 10:45 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

@Tigerbait:  To paraphrase a phrase used at the Watergate hearings, What did @Tigerbaitknow, and when did he know it?  I am inclined to believe you have the real McCoy because it bears evidence of having gone thru the trials and tribulations of the past 139 years in circulation. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a certified party pooper!

D*na:  I'll allow it, but bear in mind every member is entitled to an opinion.

Fine, it's all good!  👍 

It's high grade, but doesn't have the added reeding to simulate a real $5 gold piece.  Is it contemporary or modern or somewhere in between, I don't think there is any good way to tell.  

Sorry to be a certified party pooper in your book, but that's my opinion.  By the way, if you know of an accurate way to determine the age of gold plating, please let us know.  I suppose you could do XRF, XRD , or SEM analysis of known plating dates and see if there is a statistical difference in the trace elements, but even that might be sketchy.  If you're just eyeballing it, well, I think that is a poor method unless you've examined lots of examples

On 10/24/2022 at 10:57 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

I see a more pragmatic problem. The last time anyone tried to corner the silver market, driving the spot price to nearly $50/oz., we know how that turned out [Hunt bros./1980].  And publicizing your strategy on a nationwide Forum before a live studio audience, well, it only takes one attentive member to muse, "Hey, wasn't that the passenger pigeon that flew the coop one day only to return and regale us with a similar tale?..."  🙄 

It's not whether he is trying to corner the market, it's whether he actually has them.  So far, no pics of any CAM or WAM.  The Lincoln Cent Resource site said the 2000-S CAM is "truly rare", yet this guy claims to have pages of them.  Without any pics, what do you think the odds of this guy having a large number of them, versus the guy can't accurately tell the difference between CAM and WAM.  I'm betting on the latter.

He was given the information and links to some great pics on Lincoln Cent Resource to identify CAM and WAM from both the spacing and initials. Now he disappeared after the story the coins are in another state.  Reminds me of the kid in Jr High that said he had a hot girlfriend who lived in another state.  Yeah, right.

So far, he has provided no evidence that he is capable of identifying CAMs and WAMs.  How many of his hoard do you think are misidentified?

Can you post some pics of your WAMs and especially the 2000-S proof CAM.  A closeup of the AM as well as the initials.  You may also want to contact Specialized sites like Lincoln Cent Resources to let them know what you have

On 10/23/2022 at 12:24 PM, pigeonman333rd said:

What about the 2000 s close am proof reverse? That link is a good resource but they don't mention the 2000 close am proof reverse. Further more I know their not rare that picture is a book that I have filled with mostly 2000 wide am cents but theirs a half a page of 1999's and a page of 1998s and two pages of 2000 close am proof reverses. The point is if they are all horded the population stays low. The value will go up in years time. The second coins I did this with are the 2009 copper satin cents. I bought in at .36 cents a piece and bought 5000. The problem with all of these is that they are modern cents and not many people collect them. If you find any information on 2000 S close am reverse cents it would be greatly appreciated.  

From the Lincoln Cent Resource link I posted.  They don't say much but if you had actually read the link, they do mention the 2000-S CAM.  

From the link you didn't read

Furthermore, discovering something like a 2000 S Close AM would be truly rare.  

On 10/23/2022 at 4:58 AM, pigeonman333rd said:

Ha Ha Ha What's up I was at work at 11pm. I've been trying to buy up all the rolls of unc 1998,1999, and 2000 wide am cents so less are certified because I got alot, in my mind their not rare if they can certify them all. I got to retire on something. 

What are we looking at in your pic? It's known that the 2000 WAM is the most common of these varieties with the 98 and 99 being common as well.. Here is some additional info on WAMs and CAMs http://lincolncentresource.com/wideams.html

@Taylor7

Your picture of the edge provided all the proof you need.   The good news is you just saved yourself $65+/- by not needing to send it in for attribution.