Henri Charriere

I am a firm believer in denticle insurance for both coins which sport them and classic buildings which incorporate them as appropriate in their facades awash with architectural details.

4 minutes ago, bsshog40 said:

Yea I would imagine a possible detector find. Still pretty cool though. If ya want, I can steal your pics and post it ats to help ya out. Here's my 1805 It's suppose to be an S-268 R-3.

 

Nice early find!

51 minutes ago, ldhair said:

There is absolutely nothing I do not like about this coin. There is a strong suggestion of Mint State-ishness but to what tenth of a degree, I don't know.  One side rates a solid + in my book. You really do love your Lincolns!

I may be into Roosters now but I have always liked copper.  I can't tell you what variety it is -- I will leave that for the experts but you've got yourself one helluva early piece there and the date and legends appear to be legible.

56 minutes ago, Abuelo's Collection said:

@Quintus Arrius you have a point, but the odds of finding a much better Second Republic 50 centavos are very slim. And even if you do, they are so rare that is hard to believe the few gem examples that exist will drop in value. Cheers!

You are right.  I don't know what I am so worried about. I do not know whether TPGS is catching on in Mexico, but they are definitely catching on in Europe. Only time will tell.  Your coins, incidentally, are true masterpieces of the engravers' art!

54 minutes ago, RWB said:

Go to the three little dots at upper right. When you click them, a small drop down menu will appear including "Edit."

Well, I'll be...

Who'd've thunk?

I didn't know because I'd been emasculated.  All I could do up until fairly recently was sit and watch helplessly while duplicate comments were spawned in attempting to clear, i.e., edit earlier ones. Sometimes it's hard determining who is responding to what.

Ever since that disable cookies incident thrust me into the Twilight Zone, I've been afraid to touch anything. (Now Google is informing me an email address I abandoned years ago has been compromised in a series of security alerts -- all day long.) Mystery cleared. Thanks much!

59 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

Perfection, period.

9 hours ago, leeg said:

Nice

 

9 hours ago, leeg said:

Nice

 

If God created anything better, He kept it for himself.

9 hours ago, leeg said:

Attn: VKurtB.  Surely you cannot find anything truly objectionable with the comparatively mild toning of this Denver example?  (No one denies the scuff mark on the right ear of the wheat stalk is unfortunate.)

4 hours ago, Zebo said:

I was hoping for a bit more participation. I've decided to end the poll a bit earlier than planned to not keep some of the regulars in suspense. My next poll may be on the coinage of the Isle of Man. I cannot see who scored the best - so grade yourself. Thanks for participating - I hope you had fun.

1) What was the most comprehensive collection of sovereigns that has gone to auction?

Hemisphere, Quartermaster, Park House, Bentley, George

Correct answer: the Bentley Collection auctioned by Baldwins in three parts.

2) What is the main difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Sydney sovereigns?

Obverse, Reverse, Alloy Used, Weight, Legend

Correct answer: the Obverse. Type one (1855-1856) included a portrait of Queen Victoria that closely resembled the ones being minted in London at the time. The Type two (1857-1870) incorporated a sprig of Australia’s native flower, the banksia, in the Queen’s hair - a unique Australian portrait.

3) How many sovereigns are known to have been melted by the Bank of England in 1930 and 1931?

None, 24,335,000, 52,000,000, 71,900,000, 84,665,000, 100,441,000

Correct answer: 100,441,00. The number was originally thought to be a bit less.

4) In what year did the Royal Mint stop minting the shield reverse?

1817, 1823, 1853, 1874, 1933

Correct answer is 1874. The Australian mints continued to issue the shield along with the St. George reverse until 1887. I do not count the commemorative issues minted in 1989 for the five hundredth anniversary of the sovereign or the 2002 special issue for the Queen's golden Jubilee.

5) In what year did the so called "Modern Sovereign" come into existence?

1817, 1823, 1853, 1874, 1933

Correct answer is 1817.

[These are British Gold Sovereigns all.  Excuse my impertinent tone and language, but I demand to see VKurtB's scores on this thus far!] 😉

12 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

As to the opening comment, that is a cold shot. Guidelines prohibit me from elaborating further. Maybe Just Bob will break with tradition and chime in with a simple, I don't know what you're talking about, or, That may have been true at one time but no longer is. Who doesn't trust Just Bob?

***

I have deleted this; see above. Now that the giant "express scroll to the top arrow ha been restored (with a member who evidently has juice) I am prepared to make a very attractive offer to anyone who can provide the underlying rationale and supporting legislative history for the elimination of the EDIT button.

6 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

As to the opening comment, that is a cold shot. Guidelines prohibit me from elaborating further. Maybe Just Bob will break with tradition and chime in with a simple, I don't know what you're talking about, or, That may have been true at one time but no longer is. Who doesn't trust Just Bob?

This comment block effectively supersedes the entry which precedes is as non-applicable as I am quoting the wrong member. My apologies...

14 hours ago, RWB said:

Sure, everyone gets an equal vote -- this is not Mississippi.

Maybe some day I'll consign it to a TPG and then to Heritage.

As to the opening comment, that is a cold shot. Guidelines prohibit me from elaborating further. Maybe Just Bob will break with tradition and chime in with a simple, I don't know what you're talking about, or, That may have been true at one time but no longer is. Who doesn't trust Just Bob?

As to the final comment, two things... a). we, the collector community will be very curious as to whom you entrust your treasures to, and b). no one reading this will feel confident either some form of nepotism or favoritism will not be involved.  To avoid the appearance of impropriety, I would look elsewhere.  I wonder where our VKurtB, personalities aside, stands on this.

On 3/2/2021 at 8:03 PM, RWB said:

The earlier post with little blue and red arrows was an attempt to help members identify well-struck (detailed) examples when buying. However, a couple of folks have asked to see the coin with out distractions, so here it is. Also, a recent thread ATS features a nicely struck 1921, and members are encouraged to compare the two coins.

Whattaguy! Whattaguy!

Very considerate of Zebo to re-state the questions before providing the answers (to eliminate unnecessary scrolling.) My score? You already know the answer. That's why I am a rank amateur.  Illuminating, nonetheless!

1 minute ago, Quintus Arrius said:

 

Spoiler

Deleted by author

 

Just now, Quintus Arrius said:

Tentatively.  I have a 1903 French 20-franc gold rooster, one of 4.4 million minted.  But where are they?  When I lst checked, only 1 was graded a modest MS-64 by NGC (and in the Twilight Zone of the numismatic universe, two were similarly graded by PCGS.) None were graded higher by either.

So where does this leave us? Unassailable logic indicates our finds are not going to increase in value as more and more mint state examples come to market.

Killer combination indubitably, but subject to change in an eye blink.

1 hour ago, Abuelo's Collection said:

Low mintage (165,000) and gem grade. A killer combination! It is not that much of a rarity like my previous coin, but is a magnificent specimen. 

 

 

Tentatively.  I have a French 20-franc gold rooster, one of 4.4 million minted.  But where are they?  When I lst checked, only 1 was graded a modest MS-64 by NGC (and in the Twilight Zone of the numismatic universe, two were similarly graded by PCGS.) None were graded higher by euther.

So where does this leave us? Unassailable logic indicates our finds are not going to increase in value as more and more mint state examples come to market.

Killer combination indubitably, but subject to change in an eye blink.

2 hours ago, Hoghead515 said:

Just renewed my membership to yesterday. Good luck on the roosters my friend. 

Probably not the nicest way to put it but I am in so deep there is no way up except through upgrades. 

On 3/2/2021 at 5:28 PM, Ray, USMC said:

Gorgeous coin.

I nominate this coin for a complimentary grading by a grading service -- on the arm -- free/gratis, to drum up interest for the benefit of all parties... the common man, the collector, the numismatist and TPGS that recognizes an opportunity to promote the hobby.

17 hours ago, Conder101 said:

First thing I would do it double check the accuracy of the scales because those weight figures are seriously high.  The Pollock pieces would most likely have been proofs which these are not, but if the weights are confirmed they would be rolled thick planchet errors and these would be far enough off (around 4 grams) to definitely be worth a premium.

Interesting observation.

On 3/2/2021 at 5:42 PM, RWB said:

OK. Get out your graver and start scratchin'. That's you job for the next 7,000 years.

Seriously, it's getting awfully tiring hearing so many people concerned about rounding up and down.  This is a ploy to cut losses as mass melting of mixed alloys will only produce a coin best described as zombie clads. The Lincoln Cent, subsidized or not by other coin lines, is unsustainable in its present form and composition.

21 hours ago, Just Bob said:

Henry Gorham Lowery (1901-1963) came to Mississippi from Missouri, and established a cotton plantation near Indianola, MS. His brother and part owner, John J., lived in Michigan, and eventually sold his part of the plantation to H.G. This token was used in the plantation commissary. 

 

To me Indianola, MS. will forever conjure the remarkable elocution of fellow Ole Miss student (nee Gayle Gresham) who first taught me the intricacies of the English language and the proper way to answer the telephone: "This is (s)he." What an education! Very nice high-denomination token.

23 hours ago, Mr_Spud said:

It’s the same coin. Here’s another example of the same token with a little more info and it’s easier to read both sides of the token https://www.ancientcoinsandcollectibles.com/shop/exonomia-tokens/ny-whitehall-athertons-pills-ny-985-a/

(Minor perhaps to you, but more than memorable to be, the site you refer fellow members to when soliciting your email carries the re-assuring banner I have never before encountered: "No Spam Guarantee." Many thanks for the link, and your lovely tokens as shared and showcased here.) 

8 minutes ago, Mr_Spud said:

Okay, in the center of the bottom view, it says:

"F. W. HALL. WHITEHALL. N.Y."

Along the rim, at top, it says,

"TO PURIFY THE BLOOD

and along the bottom rim,

USE ATHERTON'S PILLS."

(provided as an aid to those whose magnification ability is either insufficient or lacking.)

Interesting find; hard to believe the obverse and reverse are one and the same coin.

On 2/23/2021 at 8:32 PM, Hoghead515 said:

Figured it was time to purty up a bit. Lol

I had no choice. I knew my fiancee's wife did not approve of it -- then 18" long -- and neither did five of her eight sisters. Thing is, my wife is psychologically disabled and standing there in "City Hall" eying me warily, clean-shaven, I had this fleeting thought, when asked by the marriage clerk, she would echo the old Popeye cartoon and say, " I DO...NOT!!!  (I guess it would be the same as marrying a dark-haired woman who suddenly dyed her hair blonde.) That was July 4, 2016. (Actually the 5th, because all city offices are closed, but the 4th sounds better and is easier to remember. In 2020, the traditional heat wave of August came a month earlier. I cut it off in 3 stages so as not to cause her trauma.  Her family was ecstatic. You look good Hog!  It gets tiring having to hold your beard in to eat soup and spaghetti.  One thing I learned, if someone asks you why you've grown one, they don't like it.