1917

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

seems a bit late, but the "6" in the date are different.... the one has a loop that nearly touches the circular bit, while the other is at least a mm or two away

On 7/3/2020 at 10:54 AM, Conrad57 said:

Eye appeal?  Doesn't have any eye appeal.....well, to me.  And the guy wants $2450 for it.

 

 

that's because it's a 1921 high relief... pretty rare coin in the Peace Dollar series... anyhow I'm out of ideas for why it's such a high grade...

appears to be a typical Jefferson.... probably worth more in filling a hole in a coin board or introducing a kid into the hobby than for sale value...

1 hour ago, Just Bob said:

"some cornbread?"

probably a nicer way of saying a word the moderators of this forum might frown upon... that or some very personalized slang... or it's 1917-style messing up of common figures of speech (seriously, I doubt I've ever said a figure of speech without totally screwing it up...)

22 hours ago, cowbaby said:

I would say the coin has been whizzed (improperly cleaned). The mint luster looks to be about gone. Its kind of a shame too because the coin looks to be about a higher AU otherwise. I say that without seeing the chest feathers on the high spot in the back to make sure both sides are about the same. Morgans are popular though and it should be no problem getting a couple of bucks over spot for one in an otherwise decent shape.

Morgan Dollar have a funny distinction of being immensely popular after they LEFT circulation. People didn't like them and thought they were bulky and nicknamed them cartwheels. Then Vegas casinos started using them for poker chips and the rest is history. Now people love them as do I, I think they are a beautiful coin. Must have been awesome to slap one of those bad boys on a bar to order a shot of red eye and tell the bartender to leave the bottle.

I have sold bunches for a little over melt in worse shape than that. The mint mark is on the reverse which I also can't see if it has one but I think that year is pretty common so no added bonus there. I personally would not take less than 25 dollars for any Morgan other than a cull. To easy to sell, But that's just me. JMHO your results may vary..

 

oh my goodness, does that mean all this junk the mint is spewing at us will be uber popular future times! oh, wait, they never change their coin designs nowadays, so it can leave to become popular... phew....

On 7/4/2020 at 12:13 PM, olympicsos said:

Regarding the HOF coin, I remember that Cassie McFarland was one designer that plenty of hobbyists were curious about, a little more so than John Mercanti, Joe Menna or Elizabeth Jones.

Perhaps maybe the mint should go back to the 1960s and 1970s where the only coins they sell are proof and mint sets? 

at least for a little while... we need a break... can you imagine the headache for future collectors of commemoratives and related mint products? There will have to be like three volumes of a specialized redbook for it

we missed a flying eagle; Glenna Goodacre's reverse for the original Sacajawea dollar (probably the best modern design in the US for a circulating coin, being that it is the closest to the golden era of coin design... which is probably why the mint swiftly changed it...) I don't know that it is top dog per say, but I do think it is certainly a strong middle of the pack type.

also, one thing to remember is while a coin may have wear, and thus be an AU, it can have better eye appeal than MS coins at times

10 minutes ago, Conrad57 said:

                                         I understand, even though I'm kinda new to serious collecting, that coin grading is subjective. I was looking on ebay for a 1921 Peace Dollar. I ran across this coin (pictured), and I am wondering how this is an MS 65+. I just had a few Peace dollars graded and my 1928 came back graded as a AU 55 with far more detail than this 1921 MS-65+? My coin reference for the subject coin is 5895487-001. I'm not upset, but I am very curious. Thanks for your input; Frank

the image is rather small, so when I blow it up, it looks blurry; could you provide a bigger image? perhaps post it in an individual post in this thread...

secondly, yes, grading is subjective. That's why you can "challenge" the grade of slabbed coins by resubmitting them for review. Check out NGC's various tiers; there is an option for seeing if the grade is to high, and if it is too low. I don't know how often they actually change the grade, but obviously it can happen

18 hours ago, gmarguli said:

Check out a Krause Standard Catalog of World Coins 2001-Date and look at the designs of other countries. There are tons that blow away what our mint is doing. Very beautiful and detailed work.

And I personally find the Baseball HOF coin very uninspiring. It's not a bad design or bad looking, but a ball and glove doesn't exactly have a wow factor.

we've imported artists before, why not do so again?...

Also, definitely agree with you on the HOF coin....

@Ratzie33 it may be proof like, but it doesn't appear to have been minted the way a proof is. A nice ms toned coin though

I'm confused, are you sharing a find, or selling an item, or asking a question, or what?

5 hours ago, olympicsos said:

Here's how I see it, the US Mint is a business that needs to make money. American coin collectors generally are attracted to classic pre-1965 coins and many believe that pretty much all post-1964 coins are junk. When the US Mint comes out with a new design, it gets lamented as being modern computer generated junk; when the US Mint goes back and uses a classic design, there are too many classic designs and we need new designs. The US Mint isn't going to make the entire coin collecting hobby happy regardless of what it does. 

Here's a crazy idea for the mint.... Listen to the hobbyists, and make something new that is classical, artistic style.... Why the mint should feel it's only options are to remake past designs, or modern garbage is rather confusing... If it was possible to make nice stuff 100 years ago, it is possible to do it again....

I think they should just start focusing on the upcoming 250th aniversary of our nation's founding... maybe make something decent for once...

I generally prefer to avoid buying online (although if things keep on going this way, I may very well soon have no choice), but I have noticed that prices have gone up. Probably people looking to move investments from a currently less-than-ideal stock market to something "safe"

still, they make a nice coversational piece. Now, if you found a normal copper 1943, that would be super rare if it is authentic

out of my price range... pretty coin though

Just now, VKurtB said:

Certainly that huge field does not help.

true

I've always wondered why they shoved Jefferson into the corner on the current design...

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

True ‘nuff, but what is your theory on why nickels usually come out looking worse than other denominations, both smaller and larger?

perhaps it has to do with the composition of the coin; the metal might lend itself to be easier to be damaged. granted, I am no chemist.

That, or perhaps it's something to do with perception; the design of the nickel might better highlight the damage than design of another coin

I've been tracking my submissions, thus far one has reached "grading/quality control", while the other two are at "received" (While I sent them in together, and am having them shipped back to me together, they are in different tiers, hence the different status's). When is it NGC's policy to collect payment? (In this case the payment is in the form of a check which was sent with the submission)

three voters so far; let's see some more!

probably a good idea to get it graded...

various questions for which is supreme in intriguing sectors of numismatics

2 hours ago, RWB said:

"Strange discussion...."

What "strange discussion?" Seems entirely normal - at least for the present.

very true....