Fenntucky Mike

I kind of like that the fields are very large on the obv, really makes the Statue of Liberty stand out and gives it an added level of gravitas and meaning to me. Kind of a gutsy design choice but would have made finding one of these that looked good in circulation a real difficult task. The reverses on the Innovation Dollars haven't been that good for the most part, the one in the OP is ok but I would have rather seen a McCormick mechanical reaper or thresher, the Mint was probably correct in keeping the design simple though. I tend to associate steel plows or bottom plows with TX, OK, and the dust bowl.

Agree, after I clicked submit reply and took another look at the pics I didn't like what I wrote. I was looking at "RICA" and the rim by it, which look weak, a typical die crack will not effect the die enough to cause an effect like this and I was trying to think of an additional descriptor, or different one other than die crack, for this. Partially collapsed/sunken reverse die would have maybe been better. EDIT TO ADD: I took a look over at error-ref and I think the die crack on this coin closely matches the description of a what they call a Bi-level die crack.

Adjectivally graded coins can be added to registry sets but at the lowest grade in the assigned adjectival grade's range, in this case 60, it would have to be regraded and assigned a straight grade to be placed in a higher slot in a registry set. I'm assuming that the price difference between 60, 61, 62, 63 coins is miniscule at best, another reason to adjectivally grade this coin in a bulk submission. Minimal investment for a bulk submitter to have a coin like this adjectivally graded in hopes of finding someone with "SRS" or someone who wanted an authenticated piece for whatever reason.

Possible shattered die with retained cud, could you post pics of the entire coin obverse and reverse please. Welcome to the Forum.

I'd put it at a 62 maybe a little higher, pics aren't the best.

Those are always popular and damn nice looking coins. What is the medal in the set this year?

Looks more like it was hit by a Mack Truck. I don't see any obvious signs of heat damage, usually you'll see areas that look like someone popped a chewing gum bubble or discoloration. Could have been exposed to heat at some point but when a coin gets to this stage who knows or cares. The most important thing to know is that none of this happened while the coin was being produced.

Could be MB-269. Ok, below is a link to the CNS book where you can download a .pdf. https://www.academia.edu/26698446/Vladimír_Hanibal_Emil_Novák_Malé_groše_Small_Groschen_Kleine_Groschen The MB#'s are from Krause (The Standard Catalog of World Coins) and stand for Mishler-Bruce who were the catalogers of such pieces, I believe one or both had worked at Krause. At one point Krause was back-building catalogs, first to 1701 then to 1601-1700, but never completed a Standard Catalog for 1501-1600 even though a substantial amount of cataloging had been done. The MB#'s seem to mostly consist of coins who's existence predates 1601 and which were included in the last edition of the SCWC 1601-1700 as work was stopped on the 1501-1600 catalog. Not really helpful to your cause but I found it interesting and thought I'd post it for others to see. There is a viewable copy of the SCWC 1601-1700 which includes MB#'s, you can find it HERE. Krause is good, Numista is better but you have to take all of the information with a grain of salt, both are imperfect and neither contain all available info for every coin.I also just noticed that there is a notation for some of the MB#'s stating "Varieties Exist", if you really want to dive deep into these you're going to have to find more specialized references and don't be surprised if most and/or the best are in another language but I think you're close with the MB-269 so you might not have to delve too much more deeply. Good luck.

Looks real, worth 10¢ U.S.. How about posting the 6 pence?

Welcome to the forum. Could you post some pictures of the coin please.

Are there any specific coins that you'll be looking for?

If you know someone who specializes or is extremely familiar with these I would definitely take it to them. If you're talking about having this authenticated by a TPG that is also a good option if you're relatively certain it's authentic. If you lived near a TPG and could hand deliver it I'd say it'd be a no brainer, put a low dollar value on it and let them decide if it's real. If you're looking to sell it then you could talk with some of the major auction houses to see what they think.

Mark, I haven't had a chance to look into these more but if I can find some time this morning before the games start I'll poke around post what I find here.

I believe Roger was talking about the die trial coins in the RM auction, HERE, and not the Pyx coins but he'll have to speak to that. I agree that the die trial pieces are a bit contrived but trial pieces they are none the less, it says so right on them. Image of one of the die trial coins being auction by the RM.

Yep, maybe not in all circumstances depending on the type of packaging and capabilities of the mint they were produced at but from what I've seen the proofs get placed into the same or similar grey tray then the tray goes onto a cart and rolled over to the packaging line where the process is automated. I'm not saying that what appears to be a mark on the OP's coin was absolutely caused by a suction cup used during packaging, but it's possible. I wouldn't think that the cup would be rigid enough to displace metal but it might leave a smudge or deposit some debris, something along those lines. Below is a video of proof sets being packaged in San Fran.

If I need a scope to see doubling then it just ain't worth looking at in the first place. It was nice to see the close up of the MM in the other thread though.

The mint mark took a hard hit which scraped the metal off the top and deposited it at the base, your image says it better than I ever could. Looks like there maybe a die chip in the MM, a curiosity but of no added value.

First things first, is it a counterfeit? According to NGC this is the 9th most counterfeited coin.! It looks like it has the "die lump" in the right place and the details seem sharp, idk, the obv seems flat and lifeless. I'm leaning towards it not being authentic, just doesn't look quite right to me. Others will jump in soon. Hope I'm wrong.

I don't know what reference the MB #'s are used in (presumably Krause?), that being said the table I posted is from a book published by the Czech Numismatic Society so I'm pretty sure that it will not cross to which ever reference the MB#'s are in. Again, it wouldn't surprise me if several varieties are lumped under one MB# as those seem to be base on where the coins were produced. I'll take a look at Krause when I get a min later tonight and if I can find it again I'll post the link for the CNS book, it's available to download. I think your piece is most likely MB-240 due to the similarity of the MM to one used in Prague and the date. I don't think the MM on your piece resembles the one used by Hans Spiess but you have the coin in hand and, as I said, the dies were made by hand and some artistic license taken.

Whatever cachet the RM had flew the coop a while ago, probably around decimalization time and the move to Llantrisant. The RM is suppling these trinkets.

Looks like it is probably MB-240 to me. I think the MB #'s are broke down by mint for these, MB-240 being Prague, and are identified by the mintmaster's mark of which there can be several. The MM most closely resembles that of Tobias Gebhardt but on your coin the MM is not within a shield, not necessarily a deal breaker but I'd do some more research on that. Your coin does not need to exactly match another MB-240 coin, there will be differences, varieties, within these groupings based on what I'm seeing. I believe each die was handmade at the time and no two will be exact. Below is a list of legend varieties for Maley Groschen during the time of Rudolf II, published by the Czech Numismatic Society. If google translate is correct, your coin is a match for 6a which puts it at either Prague or Kuttenberg (MB-250) based on the date, which looks like 1580.? Hard to tell in the pics. Hopefully this gives you a path forward and that someone more familiar with these will jump in. 1) bez o p isu (Č .S.162) 2) RVD.II.D.G.R.I.S.A.G.H.B.REX (Č .S.183) 3) RVD .II.D.G.R.I.A.G.H.B.REX (K u p fe r ta b . 17/4) 4) R VDO .II.D .G .R .I.S .A .G .H .B .R . (K u p fe r ta b . 17/8) 5) R VDO L .II.D .G .I.S .A .G .H .B .R E (sb írka H a n .) 6a) RVDOL .II.D.G.R.I.S.A .H.B.R (Č .S.186) 6b) RVDOL.II.D.G.R.I.S.A.H.B.RE (Č .S.187) 6c) RVDOL.II.D.G.R.I.S.A.H.B.REX (Č .S.189) 6d ) RVDOL .II.D .G .R .I.S .A .H .BO .R E (sb írka H a n .) 6e) R VDO L .II.D .G .R .I.S .A .H .BO .R FX (Č .S.193) 6f) RVDOL.II.D.G.R.I.S.A.HV.B.REX (sb írka H a n .) 6g) RVDOL .II.D .G .R .I.S .A .H V .BO .R E (sbírka H a n .) 7a) R VDO L .II.D .G .R .I.S .A .G .H .B .R (Č .S.150) 7b) R VDOL .II.D.G.R.I.S .A.G .H .B .RE (Č .S.155) 7c) RVDOL.II.D.G.R.I.S .A.G .H .B .RE X (Č .S.148) 7d) R V D O L .II.D .G .R .I.S .A .G .H .BO .R (sb írka N o vá k ) 7e) R VDOL .II.D.G.R.I.S .A.G E.H .B.R (Č .S.159) 7f) R V D O L .II.D .G .RO .I.S .A .G .H .B .R (Č .S.164) 7g) R V D O L .II.D .G .R O .I.S .A .G .H .BO .R (sbírka H a n .) 8) RVDOL .II.D.G.R.I.S.G.H.B.REX (D o n . 1664) 9) RVDOL.II.D.G.R.I.S.G.B.REX (D o n . 1690) 10) RVDOL .II.D .G .R .I.A .H .B .R (D o n .1728)

The coins are so beat up from handling I wonder why they bother to wear gloves. I believe SB/NGC gave all of the coins adjectival grades due to condition. Who wants a PF60 coin when you can own a "Brilliant Proof" coin? It will be interesting to see what some of these go for since most, if not all, of the coins are ruined. Below are images from the SB website of one of the Pyx coins.

The Royal Mint has been dumping a lot of "specialized" material onto the market over the last few years, even holding their own auctions and looking for consignments. The RM currently has a trial piece auction open for bidding, HERE, and 2023 Trial of the Pyx coins consigned to SB with auction ending in February, HERE. What if the U.S. Mint could or did behave similarly, selling canceled dies, trial/test pieces, canceled coins, errors, coins from their archive or museum (if the Mint has one), etc., would collectors and the general public see this as a positive or negative. If the Mint donated such items to an institution to auction would collectors view that differently? Video from SB on the Pyx coins.

Nice! The '53 no fold is a looker.