Henri Charriere

Submit it and post the results. All else is conjecture. [Never in my entire life have I seen a cerified coin, whose lettering reads E PLU--BUS UNUM -- the R and I completely oblierated, bestowed with the lofty, Mint State-66 grade. You live, you learn.]

What you are experiencing is commonly called a visceral "what if" anticipatory retaliatory act. You have nothing to fear, but fear ltself. I would submit the coin and allow it to stand alone on its own merits. (Incidentally, the lilac and gold toning, per se, are not grading considerations.) While difficult to tell, I see stronger attributes in your coin (strike, preservation) and eye appeal. Also, in the future, it's best when eliciting feedback to produce a photo depicting both sides, at a minimum.

Talk about new changes... The latest innovation, ground-breakimg for NGC, is "New High-Security Holograms with Unique QR Codes." Way to go NGC!

[Actually, "patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels," as attributed to Samuel Johnson in 1775.]

[Oddly, any range of from AU-55 to MS-62 falls squarely within the Angleterre's grading standard, XF /EF. Clearly, if it is a chance at a higher-sounding grade the O.P. seeks, he would do well to consider submitting his Half Crown stateside.]

Welcome to the Forum. Unfortunately, making matters murkier is the apparent fact our newly-minted member does not know what he has: what he seeks is positive ID... Is there anyone in the house who knows exactly what this coin is and whether its value outweighs the cost of submission?

I am going to refer to errors of this type as "karaokees". Everybody will understand. 🤣

It seems many members are reluctant to use the four-letter word, wear, opting for abrasion instead. When a child scrapes his knee, even to the point of drawing blood, that's abrasion. This is a question of wear and, as such, in the strictest sense of the word it effectively disqualifies this coin from MS consideration. [This does not mean it will not grade as such if submitted.] In all other respects, its detailed surface ornamentation -- and age, has enough going for it to make its owner proud.

The thing with eBay is it's basically one big marketplace. We know very little about the individual sellers. Their ages, their educational backgrounds... their motives. They could very well be well- educated people, whose principal interests lie elsewhere, who were left a small inheritance of which they know little or nothing about. It would not surprise me to learn that some, not internet-savvy, relegate the task of selling to a younger, more knowledgeable family member or friend. I don't view your activity as sniping. The simple truth is bargains can be found at auctions of cars, the contents of safety deposit boxes and storage units. It is perfectly safe to draw an inference about those who frequent pawnshops: They want to get something, anything, for the item(s) they bring in, for quick cash, while those looking to buy, like you, are looking for something that's too good of a deal to pass up. It's nothing more complicated than that. A real-time display of supply and demand at work for all to see. I believe you've done very well for yourself.

Considering we have all seen Mint State coins with keg marks, surface chatter suggesting the moraine left by a receding glacier, and worse; and mindful the numismatic term Mint State lies between XF/EF and UNC by the British standard, I will award this Half Crown a grade of EF++/MS. (U.S. equivalent: a mythical AU-59-1/2+., and do so with great misgivings.)

In a publicized Notice printed in the daily papers of the time, the New York Assay Office -- identified on period maps, like Hagstrom's as a sub-Treasury, was a designated place for Silver Certificate redemptions. Each customer who did so, my brother and I were two, received a clear plastic bag of silver granules secured, if memory serves, with a ticket indicated the precise weight in troy ounces. The office was authorized in 1853, in operation by the following year. I thought the last date for redemption was June 24, 1967. I only recently learned employees received a certificate of recognition for their work issued by the then Secretary of the Treasury in a press release dated 12 Noon, September 1, 1970. [Edit: the Assay Office, one of seven in the United States, closed its doors in 1982.] [My apologies to the the OP for this extended reply.]

I have just had the great misfortune of seeing a photo of the very first coin encapsulated by [an acronym a prominent member has chosen to dismissively refer to as "that four-letter word."] I believe the site coinnews.net, or some such, and the coin was a Washington quarter. (I didn't loiter long enough to find out because I sensed Dena's presence) And guess what? The TPGS' very first coin was entombed, in 1985, sideways. SIDEWAYS! If anyone can summon up the intestinal fortitude to justify that, with a straight face, I am all ears.

Now that we've been apprised of the premium values these old holders command, the worn-out refrain, "Buy the coin and not the holder," has been turned on its head. Holders... what a bunch of hooey!

If the Topic, regarding a collection assembled and displayed on another TPGS' Set Registry by "Tangible Investments," reduced here to a lede may be of interest to collectors, you may wish to make Booth # 210 at the ANA World's Fair of Money scheduled to be held in Pittsburg, PA from Tuesday, Aug 8 through Saturday Aug. 12, a part of your itinerary.

Who knows, maybe you'll stumble onto one of those Henning nickels you once said you wanted. All the best!

Upon reconsideration, "Is a new coin pulled straight from the press..." FULL STOP!!! It is the very wording of the question which lends itself, unwittingly perhaps, to unnecessary obfuscation with the operative term being "pulled." If my recollection is true having viewed old newsreel footage of the coin-making process posted on this very Forum in addition to a striking remark about "severed fingers" made by a fellow member in reference to his eyewitness observations of the Royal Mint operation, that all but constrains me to suggest a Time-Out. Why? Because coins minted for circulation fall after being struck whereas proof coins not intended for circulation are taken, or pulled from, the press. I still contend an MS-70, however unlikely and implausible as regarding circulation strikes, while possible in a technical sense, cannot beat the astronomical odds of emerging from a mechanical process involving tons of pressure and moving parts, unscathed. (If so much as a single member -- distinguished, seasoned veteran, newbie or guest/lurker/loiterer -- begs to disagree, I shall have no choice but to relinquish my honorary title, Rising Star, forthwith.)

Historical Note: The Seattle Assay Office was in operation from 1898 (a year before the letter to the Director of the U. S. Mint was written) to 1955. With the establishment of the San Francisco Mint in 1852, coinage operations were suspended in 1955 and it became an assay office -- possibly picking up where Seattle left off -- with that designation becoming official in 1962. Coinage operations were again authorized in 1965 and production continues to this day as the San Francisco branch of the U.S. Mint.

Very informed guess. I checked the grading standards and they are indeed British... to some extent. "Mint State" is limited to MS-63 and MS-64 followed by "UNC" which corresponds to any piece "from MS-65 to MS-70." NOW I know why Chard's in Blackpool was never able to accommodate me! I was just another meshuga American with set registry fever. 🤣

Historical clarification only serves to validate my position. This much-vaunted numismatic fraternity -- the one I cherish because it accepted me as a member -- experienced birthing pains and the brief burp alluded to was corrected and then followed by 37 years of stellar success. Man I love this place!

Consensus? (I think I liked it better when you dwelt on empirical, replicative stuff.) I recently wrote a seller to explain his version of the higher end of the Sheldon scale. Here, in substance, is what I got. There is no AU, but EF is followed by UNC, BU and Pf. I requested his definition of BU. He had the temerity to reply with a circuitous MS-60 to MS-70. I didn't bother to ask him exactly where in his convoluted scheme MS stood.. Theoretically, I suppose, MS-70, however unlikely, still technically falls squarely within the realm of possibility. If there were a consensus, a frequent-flyer among us would retire in the usual sense of the word. I purchased a TPGS' MS-67 MS-67, in part, when the seller gushed, "she is beautiful," where most collectors of high-end items located overseas would have declined in the absence of holding a loupe in one hand, coin [slab] in the other, and both boots on the ground.

One could have said the same thing about every coin I ever bought or bid on. Only thing is each and every one was properly holdered.

Active members, regular guests and itinerant lurkers who may be painfully aware my Set Registry compilations were comprised of acquisitions obtained almost exclusively from vendors affiliated with MA-SHOPS may be puzzled by my conspicuous silence in the wake of a member's distress regarding a recent transaction which may or may not have been resolved one way of the other. Unfortunately, ALL of my experiences with MA-SHOPS have gone swimmingly well and have exceeded my expectations. Accordingly, what, of substance, could I have contributed to the exchange? For those asleep at the switch who are unaware of a former member's comment who recoiled in amazement when I conceded I had disabled notifications from them, it was akin to blocking notifications from dozens of top numismatic concerns in the U.S. One example: I placed an order for a comparatively common "restrike" gold Rooster dated 1907, and received a 1911 instead -- the rarest by mintage of the "restrike" series. I immediately wrote them offering to make up the significant difference in price, the very least I could do, or at least alert them to a discrepancy in their inventory. They graciously declined despite the fact I had no objection as I happened to need the 1911. To no avail... Another: Buyers of coins from overseas must wait an interval for PayPal to convert wired USD into euros. I realized I had jumped the gun when eBay, in its characteristic manner, stated, YOU WON! PAY UP! The payment of €20 euros would have cost me $50. just to wire them. I placed €20 in an envelope instead, and mailed it to them. I was informed they disposed of the matter by declaring the balance due as a "global discount" and I prevailed on them to keep it "in the spirit of Christmas". Yet another error occurred from yet a different vendor who sent me a duplicate coin. No amount of insistence on my part could convince them otherwise. Unfortunately, had I experienced great misfortune as the OP of that topic did, I would have no choice but to deal with all the parties involved and document everything. One option you do not have is refuse to return the item. Note: When I stated some buyers required chaperones for negotiating the intricacies involved in buying on the internet, I was not alluding to children.

I cannot define perfection in the numismatic sense, but I know it when I see it and in my series, F20F GR, none have been so graded. But a rhetorical question comes to mind... should not a perfect Proof Jefferson Nickel, however one wishes to define that term, exhibit SIX FULL STEPS?

What better than a -66 (or better yet, a -66 with a suffix) to submit for an elevation in grade? Consider, too, the financialization involved. I have (or had) both a -66 and a -67. The price of the latter, quite coincidentally, was twice that of the former. It's nothing more complicated than that.

Someone involved must have seen the remark posted by the "Numismatist of the Year," above. 🤣