Henri Charriere

I don't know that it was done wilfully or maliciously. Sometimes the answers come hard and fast in the beginning, and flatten out after a number of people weigh in. In a sense, the OP assumes the role of moderating posts and the thrusts that occur which may lead off to tangents. For me, a member spoke for me as his thought coincided with mine. The new scale with have no effect on me. I am done. What effect the new scale may have on others remains to be seen. I see the age of the collector and the coins sought as being factors.

"Very perspicacious of you," as Prof. Fowler put it in that old TZ episode, Changing of the Guard. Two things here: 1- I would not be inclined to complete any set I have diligently devoted myself to with, essentially, a hole-filler for all the reasons cited above. 2- And this is where I part ways with the numismatic community. I would decline to encapsulate any coin that could be conserved using the least intrusive but effective option available. [I would also elect to assume any real cost involved if the submitter were a YN.]

I would have picked, "Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot..." (1960) but your choice is more becoming...

This is interesting. "Big Five" is understood to mean Five Ounces? Fineness is .999? Is the edge milled? Reverse?

[Chomping at the bit, eh?]

🐓: I believe the gentleman is alluding to... Q.A.: No way! I am an intermittent, contributory lurker! I pay my dues! I've got rights! 🐓: And the 2008-P dime? Q.A.: No double-eye or doubled-eye; No doubled-die either. I do, however, see a suggestion, supported by the photographic evidence introduced, that the presumably non-mettalic, lower band holding the torch together appears to have been dissolving. How or why or exactly when, I do not know. Metallurgy is not my forte. Have I redeemed myself here, or what?

🐓: They're onto you, Q! Q.A.: I can see that.

Q.A.: I can take a hint... 🐓 : Not to worry. The devil is in the details: "Five hours," ... "Larry," ... We can do this Q! Time to vamoose! [I will divulge the answer in short order!] [Edit: Still digging an hour later... To the OP: Would it be a breach of national security to disclose the name of the "other forum" alluded to by another illustrious member so we can all go home tonite?]

Great coin! This [1876-CC] is the one I always wanted as a teen in the 1960's and just never got around to getting!

I know nothing about the composition of "cobs," but was there a standard finess to these coins, and if so, what was it?

[True, some scuffing, but overall a good strike with strong, well-defined features. And minted only a year before California's most famous gold rush.]

For my part, I was making light of the director's use of the stilted tongue common in that era. Perhaps Linderman was more accommodating to collectors...

Goatee? Maybe. Beard? You're pushing it!

I did not think I would ever see a 16-D mentioned in the same breath using this descriptor, but it is an apt analogy.

Oops! Here's the rev. side.

🐓: A special treat for gold-lovers everywhere... Behold! Q.A.'s FIRST gold coin acquisition! (eBay: Jan. 2019)

[ 🐓: How come nobody answers you? Q.A.: My reputation is in tatters. My credibility is shot! You didn't know that? Sheesh! ]

The secret of my success on the left coast is simple: I overbid, pure and simple.

[Note: old thread, ack'd.] I have no basis upon which to proceed with this assertion, but I believe most members reading this will allow that a TPGS is comprised of individuals bearing titles, grading finalizer, or jr/sr grading finalizer (or by whatever name locally used) whose activities can be reduced to a signature style. What your coin grades, at any interval along a time continuum, has as much to do with the TPGS to which it has been submitted as well as the TPG assigned to pore over its details. The entity, TPGS, and TPG, is overly broad for what essentially is a process involved in decision-making and rendering an opinion on behalf of a business. I believe when a dissatisfied customer re-submits a coin he is seeking an appraisal ideally from another individual. A reluctance to attribute proof coins as CAMs, and equivocation on those deemed high-level or borderline UCAMs may very well reflect, or be a consequence of either firm policy and/or an individual grader's stance on this particular issue. IMHO.

[Note: old thread, ack'd ] There is only one thing, in my estimation, that stands in the way of objective measures and standards being recognized and widely adopted by the numismatic community,, at large, and that is "financialization" (as it is generally defined by @World Colonial). Take that one factor out and you're left with wholesome science. IMHO.

I would be curious to know how much of a disparity in price would be sufficient to dissuade someone from buying a Saint, say, that 1922 in OGP you cited, a few posts up, that ultimately went for $2,140. in MS-62. Hard to specify the next collector's threshold, but are we talking dollars, or percentages, like 15% or 20%?

Formal Letter, 1888: "... you are authorized to cause to be coined ..." Cell call, 2022: "... gimme ten lahdge on the boids, across-duh-bawhd; fiver on the gelt pee-wees, hold the mayo..."

My sentiments exactly. Besides, there are enough people around who recall, the nuts-and-bolts grades first formulated in prehistoric times (G, VG, F, etc.) irrespective of collector/owner status... and IQ.

An hour ago I could tell you. Now, in light of the foregoing, I am going to have to scratch my prior knowledge. I too have always thought of those Indians when "incuse" is mentioned. Clearly, the dates are incised, they have no relief. You learn something new every day!

Cuticles denticles... I love 'em all. But I am not prepared to go the PMD route, just yet. There is no accounting what can occur behind the closed doors of an unlicensed makeshift mobile mint. (Too bad Ol'hoop ain' aroun' to offer up an authoritative finding.)