1917

according to relativists, he isn't even real (or something like that; when ur rule is there shall be no rules...)

do they really call it that? (I'm genuinely curious fyi)

it appears to be some sort of die chip or PMD

judging from the pictures, it appears you have a specimen of the genre of low grade coins. interesting type of coin to pursue... some very odd examples are out there...

Personally, I wouldn't pay more than like $500, but that's my opinion. Of course, it could be notable in that it involves multiple countries coins, so though micdoscopic, it is strange and rare. Then again, how much do ppl really want to pay for that sort of thing? Not key date money

Alright, where is the ANA insider here? I'm wondering when the ANA Registry is set to come out, specifically. Don't worry, I won't tell Ellsworth or Kiick

To be fair, it kinda makes sense for walkers... It is extremely hard to find a 67, much harder over a 65 than say, a 64 over 62 That said, I also am not into the registry game... Too expensive for me

Also, @Brian478, the error is supposed to be a proof. Is yours a proof? (I can't tell from pics)

The seller is mentioned in the article I linked above. It is a incorporated company

So I searched Google and found this article: https://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/rare-1970-quarter-defect/2016/06/09/id/733033/ Essentially, this is a coin that has raised questions, being a proof 1970 U.S. coin apparently stamped over a 1941 Canadian quarter, and has its legitimacy backed by our own NGC. Perhaps, after more review to be safe, you yourself @Brian478, should consider submitting this coin. What I want to know is, if it is legit, how did this error come to be? How did Canadian dies/quarters wind up on the production floor? Was it because some quarters got slipped in with the regular blanks? If so, then how? Why does this coin exist, if it's legit?

I think that it might make for a good few hours spent if you inquired to both companies why the said the coins were fake or legit. That, assuming you or the owner has the budget to do so, resubmit the coins to both companies for a second time... Although technically you could just accept the certification as legit b/c it was slabbed as such and move on...

yeah, still regretting that technical errror.... really thought for once I was operating the computer right, lol...does anyone know if it's possible to edit the polls after they are started

I got one that is pretty close, if not there, on my registry set (it's a 1936-P in MS64)

thank you for the replies, but I already had my question answered in the forum 'ask ngc' (or whatever the name is)

this is interesting... thus far the Buffalo nickel is not only tied for second, but it is leading in third as well...

also, the term Golden Era is used in reference to the artistic merit of the design, not the coin's ability to last in circulation (otherwise, we'd be voting on which C. Barber coin was best). Perhaps some may disagree, but I consider this to be the ideal time period of us coin design because nearly all, if not all, of the coins make a case for an very good coin. Thus, I'm not saying that one of these is the best all time, but that all six when put against six of other eras as a unit is better. This is even before one considers gold issues, for example, the stunning (and arguable one of the best if not the best us coin) St. Guaden's double eagle. Actually, that might make for an interesting poll; which era is the golden era? The only question is what is the best way to divide time periods. I would think they would go something like this: Early US (the very first us coins, plus large most large cents, 1804 dollar, etc.) , then mid-18th century (like seated liberty, flying eagle penny, Indian Head cent, the two cent, and three cent, etc.) , then late 18th (Morgan dollar, Trade dollar, 20 cent, V-nickel, etc.) , then early 20th (the coins in this poll), and finally modern (the stuff we got now, unless it were to be divided into two sections, modern, and modern current, if only because of stuff like Franklin halves, Ike dollars, etc.). I think the designs would be assigned eras based off of when the design was introduced. I would like to know, should the era's be divided by a general idea of when they are, or be assigned specific dates based off the general ideas?

as noted in above post in topic, there was a technical error. I had intended for all six coins to be in all six questions

that was, as noted in above post in this topic, merely a technical error. I intended for all six coins to be in all three questions

for some reason several of the options didn't come through for the "Best Coin" If the coin you wanted to select for that isn't there, my apologies, and please note which coin you would have selected in the comments

Ranking the Top Three coins of the early 20th century US coin designs

only b/c a coinvester showed up to defend the company...

I can't tell, but I usually struggle w/ dd's

I think to some extent even in areas where there may not be a coin shortage there is a sort of desire to avoid using them, because of covid...

wow, I've seen the all Philly version of this error, but you have the mint mix of 1983 from Denver! rumor has it that there usually is only three of these at any given time in the world

Is it possible to change the name of a journal? (not the name of a specific entry, but the journal as a whole)