Fenntucky Mike

Agree, the coin looks wiped or worse, still, better than mine which was harshly cleaned by me! 🙄

Try project 2013B. Post this over at PMG and I'll give you more info.

Would not make a decision based on one side, I'll check out both sides of the coins tomorrow on NGC, if they have pics of both on their verify. Availability/scarcity is a factor, as previously mentioned, but buy what you like.

Awesome find. 👏 I wish your friend was my friend. 😆

Absolutely correct, the rivets compress the two layers of mylar, or whatever the composit polymer is, together so that they are touching, the coin is obviously thicker than the two layers of poly and will never come close to the rivet as long as the upper and lower surfaces of the rivet are not radically different from one another, the thickness of the coin is a factor in the differential between the two parts of the rivet before a coin may contact one of the segments but it's late and I'll have to think about it more when I have time. I wouldn't call the "packaging" a novelty, it's pretty common for some world coins. The coins are essentially "slabbed" as far as world coins go. One of my favorite designs, I'm putting together a set from '58 to '68. Looking for quality pieces with lavender/purple rim toning, just picked up two more that meet those qualifications.

Fake-a-roo.

As well as unfounded optimism and motive. According to my handy dandy Star Trek warp speed calculator, at warp 7.15 you can travel one light-year in 24hrs. So, one a day? I have a feeling @GoldFinger1969 may have something to say about this.

Immaculate Inscription.

Bees.

Look better than the CGI renderings in the other post. The animals are a little too cartoonish looking for me to really like the designs but much better than I was led to believe.

Freebie.

I like how they included the name of the dealer on them. I'm debating whether or not to remove the coins and place them in 2-1/2 x 2-1/2 flips. I probably will, the rivets won't jive well with other coins.

1961 1964

I'd rather have the book myself. Regardless, it's fantastic that you've made arrangements so that your research can be accessed by all collectors free of charge. I've greatly enjoyed your posts on U.S. commemoratives over the last handful of years.

I'm assuming that you bought these direct from the mint when they were first released then sent them in the OGP for grading and if that's the case I am surprised by the results, they speak to the quality of product from the U.S. mint more than anything. Pick a similar NCLT piece from any world mint and I expect the results would be dramatically different.

Post as much as you like @Hinkle, I don't think anyone here has any issue with your posts. Keep'em coming bud. Doesn't look like a RPM to me.

I think they charge $10 if they agree to look at it? This coin is worth no where near that but the OP may get a more definitive answer if they decide to look into CONECA. Heck, they might shoot him back the same responses that were given here for free on their forum. Personally I would recommend that the OP stop spending time looking for errors or the unusual, chuck this in the ol' change jar and start looking for quality. Better yet, define their collecting goals or area/s of interest, study, then start looking for pieces.

They're ok, I like the look of the £1 & £2 coins and the theme.

CONECA might take a look at it. I think you have to post some pictures on the forum first before they'll agree to examining the coin. https://conecaonline.org/examination-services/

Is that the token/medal Pobjoy was including with all purchases made this year?

Interesting, it's a little odd that some pieces will show these tool marks and others don't. Strange that low mintage pieces would have such variance. I was a bit thrown off with the tool marks on the two pieces in the OP as they didn't make sense to me as a lifelong tradesman, machine builder and woodworker. I don't know the intricacies of engraving but a tool mark that is continuous over devices and fields, and that did not follow the contours of the design made no sense to me, especially if you gave a rat's arse about the final product. Sometimes I just need to talk things out with others for it to sink in. Good ol' Pobjoy, I'll be looking for a good book on engraving and die making next, just picked up the Maklouf biography and I think that will be my next read.

I went back over my collection of these and I found another example of that design used for the 1986 circulation strikes, the other examples posted have been designated proofs, not that I agree with that, I don't, and I hadn't looked at the BU pieces. I think the '85's are good just sloppy workmanship.

Haven't ruled out counterfeit. The tool marks on the 2014 are more inline with the design details, where the tool marks on the 1985 go across details and don't flow with the design nearly as much. I've seen this same design on another 1985 1/10 angel but with ANA privy mark, that one didn't seem to have tooling marks but that's based on an image, and not a very good one. I thought that one was counterfeit until I saw these.

It's over. The last piece minted was this one.