kbbpll

I fail to understand why you feel the need to inject this garbage into every thread. This is a coin forum.

Too often it comes off as trying to prove how smart you are. If all the evidence is presented and somebody knowledgeable guesses right away, that's OK. Somebody else still learns something. It's like a forensic science class where all you get is a close up of part of a head wound and everybody is guessing various murder instruments, and then you finally get to see the body at the bottom of a 300 foot cliff. Yes, that's a teaching moment, it teaches you to ask the right questions. But if, all along, the instructor is acting like you're an insufficiently_thoughtful_person, the lesson gets lost.

Why not. I don't actually have a nice _Bison_ nickel even though I think it's one of the best coin designs.

I can't add anything except to observe, but it seems like the effect is also repeated along the bottom edge of the bust. I wonder if it's something about the planchet that got struck out on the rest of the coin, or something related to strike pressure or temperature. The rim stuff has kind of a molten appearance.

Yes, I did try to contribute something useful after a couple weeks of not logging in. As I mentioned in another thread, "ignore" doesn't do anything if you don't log in, and I make the mistake of reading. This person follows you around because they got all butt-hurt over something, and can't wait to pounce with more paragraphs of useless blather. If we want to make this forum anything other than Sleepy Hollow, the moderators need to step up and step in. I for one have had enough of this garbage, and will not be returning any time soon.

I fail to understand the need to inject your poison into every forum thread. This thread is about mint marks. Got anything useful to contribute? Paragraph after paragraph of flowery language and it's all drivel. Go find a forum for "people who need attention".

Roger or somebody will have to correct me, but I'm not aware that during the period when mint marks were punched into working dies, that it was ever done at a branch mint. Philadelphia tightly controlled the making and shipping of dies, including punching the MMs. So scenarios such as D/S I've always believed were that the mint worker just grabs the wrong punch and then corrects it, or possibly the die is returned and reused from a different branch mint. There are a lot of "reserved for future use" in the die destruction records, but I haven't read anything about how exactly these may have been used later.

I don't want to hijack the thread but you asked. Here is the O behind the ear, followed by overlay from maddieclashes. There's also clashing through the ribbon, under chin, and between 2 and bust could be clash or die chips. I've seen others on Heritage with O behind the ear but I'd have to dig around to find them again. Overlay: Here is clashing in the island on a 1946 Canada dollar. Similar clashing is found in other years. These aren't the deepest parts of the dies, but they're still on the relief.

You stated that "die clashes don't come on the relief - the deep part of the die". My response was just to make sure nobody misinterpreted this as fact because they "read it on the internet". Die clashes can and do occur on the relief. My reply had nothing to do with encasement - the "O" on mine and other Barber dimes I have seen is just a straight-up die clash from the reverse into the obverse relief (the "deep part of the die"). The encasement process described by the OP is an interesting explanation for this particular coin though.

It may not be common, but it does happen. I have an 1892 10c with O from ONE clashed behind Liberty's ear, and there are numerous Canadian George VI "hearing aid" varieties with clashes inside George's ear, among other examples.

Ignore doesn't work unless you log in. I had to log in after 10 days to say that. Honestly, I'm disenchanted with the whole thing. Not just here. Post some coins instead of all this blah blah blah.

"more are still believed to be out there that have not been attributed yet." - so... get rich from pocket change I guess??? Look carefully at the poster child coin on that link. Look at the rim, all the way around. This was a "specially made" strike? One rim 3x wider on one side than the other side? A clown like me busted a major TPG on #6 above and it has forever jaded me on all this hype BS. A cynical, beer-infused me says it's all about whatever lines your pockets. I suppose (sober me) the US Mint doesn't help any of this, by not being more transparent about what goes on in there. "The fields are usually well struck, very clean and tend to come without any major nicks or scratches. " - uh, and that's what makes it a "special strike"? I guess I align with RWB on this one.

Just search "coin community forum" and it's probably your first hit. There are 5 Canadian sub-forums. Edit: as far as "Been thinking about buying more to submit", there was a rumor over there that a lot of coins from the Cook collection (graded ATS and auctioned by Heritage last year) were snapped up by dealers to crack out and resubmit into ICCS holders. Some presumably because they were "details" and they thought they would straight-grade at ICCS, but I could not get anyone on the forum to be specific about why. Lots of dealers hang out over there and they kind of go wink-wink at each other. But that's a case of the resubmit game in the other direction, opposite of your original question.

I have quite a few ICCS coins (George VI buying spree many years ago), but have never resubmitted any. If you go to the Canadian forums on CCF there are lots of ICCS versus another TPG discussions. There seems to be a belief that the "old" ICCS was a lot stricter than the US graders, but that they sometimes ignore issues that would "detail" a coin in the US. Some also think that if you're selling in the Canadian market, it's better to leave it in the ICCS flip, i.e. they prefer it, because it's "more Canadian" I guess. If you follow the grading forum over there, it seems true that they (Canadian collectors) are stricter in general - I see a lot of stuff where everyone throws out VF grades that to me are high EF or even AU. There is some noise about newer ICCS grades being looser or more inconsistent. I have several old-graded MS60 coins that I think would get 62 or even 63 from NGC or ATS. Best to evaluate the individual coin, or maybe post images of an example here for opinions.

But you asked if it's a doubled die obverse. How can anybody form an opinion about a doubled die obverse when you don't show the entire obverse? Perhaps you can understand the reaction you got. Clearly "DDO OR NO?" implies that you're asking for a specific diagnosis. Personally, I also don't find very useful these pictures of a computer screen of a 50-100x zoom of a tiny area of a coin, without showing anything else.

I'm not knowledgeable about this at all, but it sounds like you have it about right. It seems like the farther into the future we get, the more value these things might have because so many will have been trashed when the coins move on. On the other hand, brown box Ikes in the original boxes are still common as dirt, and it's been 50 years. I think it's funny that I have a pristine Matchbox car box from the 1960s and it's worth more than the car that came in it. So you never know. I wonder if selling all the brochures and mint mailings together separately would be better than along with each set.

6. 1942 pattern cent "high relief" (the designation lasted about a month or two, but the hype remains on their website) Lots of fertilizer out there.

Probably need MS-58 too then.

Yeah, 500+mb is not something I'll download. I notice they are bmp files, so in addition to reducing the resolution, save them as jpg. I'd still recommend trying to use a camera instead. Doesn't your scanner allow selecting DPI and file format?

For some coins, maybe. For the NE threepence mentioned, if it's real, no grading scale would really matter anyway.

What YouTube hogwash have you been watching now? Genuinely curious.

The AU range is 50-58, for example on this page. https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-explorer/gold-commemoratives-1903-1926-pscid-72/1915-s-g1-panama-pacific-ms-coinid-17449 There's probably a better reference but the Sheldon scale is described in more detail here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_coin_grading_scale Great photos! Edit: oops I see that they are scans. In my experience, scans make coins look circulated when they might not be.

Speaking of which, has anyone been following the thread over at CCF regarding a NE threepence found in an old coin cabinet in the Netherlands? It's been discussed since May. Apparently it was sent to Paris about a month ago for authentication, and if real, will be auctioned in the US at some point. The images, weight, dimensions, and XRF all look good. There is only one other example, in the Massachusetts Historical Society. There was one in the Yale collection, stolen in 1965 and never resurfaced.

Sounds like Cat Bath is referring to this page https://www.ngccoin.com/resources/counterfeit-detection/top/united-states/22/ There are example images of the tooling marks. One on a "stock edge" used on multiple counterfeit years. Since it seems like similar marks would be found on real ones across years if the collar was still good, the implication to me is that specific marks are found on coins already known to be counterfeit, and that's why they are pointed out. They were "worth the crook's time", according to the link, because they were produced to get around the ban on owning gold, not for the numismatic value.

What kind of phone is it? You can take decent pictures of coin with a phone, even in plastic. It takes practice. Try natural light. Put the coin on a window sill but not in direct sun. Find your camera's focus sweet spot. On mine, if I zoom in about 30% and hold the phone farther away, I get much better focus. Take images directly over the coin, but adjust the angle a little in various directions so reflections etc are not inside the coin's circle. Take a bunch of pictures. Go thru them and zoom way in, looking for sharp focus. I bet you can get some good images for us. The problem with these is too much reflection from a harsh light source. I then pull up my images in Paint on my desktop and crop them. I personally don't care if people on here do that or not - I can save off the image myself and zoom in or rotate it.