Alex in PA.

Enjoyed the OP's thoughts & others on this thread.
I bought this 1936 just because I liked the strike. It's only a PR65 because it's dark and has some hairlines.
I still like it.

Without the "W" it would be a $5,000 to $6,000 coin. With the defacement, possibly $2,500 at the most.
(This is one of those unusual situations where professional smoothing of the field and re-authentication might be desirable. It depends on the cost of high quality surface work compared to any increase in potential value. The authentication company would give it a details grade with a "repaired" notation, and you, as seller would be expected to fully inform any buyer of the repair including photos.)

Someone posted a nice crusty CBH ats and it reminded me of him. He sent me a nice VF30 CBH as a gift years ago and it still resides in my collection.  I'm not sure how to search for the last time someone posted or even look for a member anymore since the software changed a while back. Was just wondering if he was still around somewhere. 

I think it's like those lottery ads.....implies all you need to do is pick 6 numbers and you're rich.

Aside from the fact that no one reading that ad is going to have such rare and/or high grade coins, what's misleading about it?

Not entirely. The primary reason was because SF had different presses and needed dies cut to different lengths than Philadelphia. Some of this involved Carson until they acquired a new Ajax press which was identical to one at Philadelphia. New Orleans also wanted dies cut to a different length, but Philadelphia told them to cut hardened dies. (NO was not fully trusted when it cam back on-line after 1877. A reason commonly given to Congress was security -- hardening and tempering coinage dies was very exacting work and not undertaken by just anyone. Thus, stolen soft dies were less of a threat to the coinage.
Barber pushed for having all dies the same length in the 1890s and this was eventually followed in about 1897 (don't have an exact date, but by the only SF was left hardening their own.)
By policy and practice all coinage experiments were made at Philadelphia until Denver got permission to open their own die shop.

While NIST is certainly a trusted government location, so is the San Francisco mint. The reason the dies were sent unhardened was to alleviate fears of the dies being stolen in transport, correct? 
 
Is it possible the mint relaxed this policy so that they could experiment with the plating, thereby allowing some security concerns for the possibility of increased die longevity?

No, they forget their 'Sign In' names - they have so many.   

He's baaack!   

No, they forget their 'Sign In' names - they have so many.   

They sho’ nuff are purrrdy. Now comes the real controversy. Does the apparent destruction of records in the 1979-80 range make the coins “cease to exist”, as “Burdettian” thought processes require? Or do the coins truly “stand on their own” or “speak for themselves” as 1964 special coins are not allowed to? Sorry, but I just have to tweak noses over the fixation on documents. Am I enjoying being sarcastic about this? More than you could ever know. 

Gold looks smashing in that retro black holder, nice coin @Alex in PA.

I would love it Tables full of Archie Bunkers and Don Rickles .Now that would be F.U.N.

Have you ever been to a large coin show? It’s not for the easily upset. It’s cold, hard frankness on steroids. 

And it's silver!!  👍🏻  👍🏻

Very nice addition my friend. 

And the truth doesn’t need “padding” either. 

If they’re Millennials or Gen Z, the truth comes across to them as meanness and they have to go to a safe space and have themselves a good cry. If collecting ever does collapse as a hobby, THAT will be the proximate cause. It’s too mean. 

"I don't wear deodorant. I put a bay leaf under each arm. Doesn't stop me from sweating, but now I smell like soup."
 
George Carlin - back when he was funny.