kbbpll

4 hours ago, Alex in PA. said:

Yet here you are.  Walking among the ghosts.

Old thread reopened by spambot, curiously in Spanish.

3 hours ago, Crruisercharlie said:

So how do they prove "first day of issue" certs?

https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-grading/designations/

Expand + next to First Day of Issue.

I just use the Ignore User feature for this problem. I wish it would hide entire threads or new posts, but it works well enough. Part of the problem, recently anyway, is continuing to respond to the nonsense, and I'm guilty of that too. I've decided to no longer respond when I see it happening again. These people are only here for attention, so just don't give it to them. Sure, it makes for a less active forum, but who needs that kind of "activity"? There's other stuff to respond to, and more appreciative new members. I'll admit that I've gravitated towards CT lately, mostly just to read. And I always check CCF as well, without saying much. I posted a lot there for years, but got sick of a certain "bedrock" member who was constantly Mr. Know-It-All tossing backhanded insults at people.

3 minutes ago, RWB said:

I was thinking of a 6x9-inch B&W booklet with facing variety comparison pages. It would be a way of getting the basic information into the hands of many who would never pay attention to a forum or website. Also, what about the Barber collectors society?

Just trying to think outside the "mask" a little....

BCCS is aware of course - I recently got 2nd place in their annual article awards. As something they would publish, it seems a bit too long but maybe I could trim it to the essentials. They have a centerfold "featured collection" with just images in every issue, so that could be an option. I'll ask John Frost. By the way, there is an excellent article by John Reynolds in the Fall 2017 issue that documents the 1901-1905 SF varieties; our respective census work on the relative scarcity lines up fairly well.

9 minutes ago, RWB said:

This might also be good information for the authentication companies to have - could help when examining really good fakes whose manufacturers don't know the subtle differences in hubs.

Which is how I ended up finding the third reverse type. Most pre-1901 counterfeits I've seen have post-1900 obverse and reverse types. They're all pretty cheesy anyway though.

17 minutes ago, Zebo said:

I've skimmed through it and it is very well done and informative - I like it a lot. I haven't had the chance to really go through it, however. I will - sometime in the next couple of weeks .

Thanks. Skimming through it is a valid option - it's mostly to show off an oddball way to collect Barbers. You can do it with quarters and halves too (transition varieties).

14 hours ago, RWB said:

Have you considered having some printed to pass out at coin shows?

That could be another venue, good suggestion. As I said above, to me it seems like the best method is a slide show because you can flip back and forth with your eye focused on a specific marker, and see how it changes from one type to another. Perhaps I've made it too difficult on here. From the lack of feedback it doesn't seem like anyone has looked at it. It's easy to interpret that as "not interested". As such, I don't know that I could justify the expense of printing something. I"ll try posting on another forum.

If you followed any of my 'latest acquisition" posts, you know that I've been collecting the less common varieties of Barber dimes. I wanted to put them all together and show them off, and decided on a slideshow format. Then I figured I should define the markers for the varieties, and then of course I had to start going blah blah blah. Now I'm not sure if this supposed to be a coin show presentation, a "scholarly" article, a book, a registry set where there is no category, or what. So, just look at the pictures I guess.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hOo3bxNVxZ8y9JvZJZSNgdn93vz9NQE6/view?usp=sharing

You should be able to open from Google drive. If you have a Google account, log in, then you can select "Open with Google slides", and then "Present". If not, download and then open with Powerpoint or Open Office and run the show. I think it works best as a slideshow, because you can flip back and forth between slides and see the design changes easily that way. On a phone it's not going to present well.

Comments and suggestions welcome - it's still a work in progress.

Much of this is repetition of the articles I've already posted on here, but again, the inspiration was showing off the collection. Many of them are not in great condition, but my objective was to spend less than $300 on each coin. I have two kids going to college soon!

@Insider, this is content you will find nowhere else! Make this forum go viral!!

Q: Why did the blonde have a bruised bellybutton?

A: Her boyfriend is blonde.

Coin is Russia 2 kopecks. https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces22423.html. Looks like Ekaterinburg Mint (E.M.), which had the largest mintage (15 million). Looks real enough to me but I'm no expert. The other thing seems to be some sort of tag, not a coin.

5 hours ago, Shirbini said:

Hi Kbbpll, interesting. We tried magnet to find out if it's made of iron; we found that it's not. More likely a scarab. Amulets usually have a hole or a piece to hang on

I thought amulet because that blob on the reverse looked like maybe something was mounted there to hang it from, but of course it would have the wrong orientation.

Defalcation jokes are popping into my head.

Robberies are rampant on the US Mint website but that's another topic.

No one has said it, but the cert lookup checks out as well. There is no NGC picture associated with it, but that's common. The toning makes it looks like the coin is eaten away along the rim, but I can't tell if it's an optical illusion. I have a dime in a holder identical to yours but I don't keep up with all the different styles.

It looks like iron, which in ancient Egypt was called "metal from heaven" because it was harvested from meteorites. I thought that was interesting. Some kind of amulet or scarab, but it also looks like something you might find in a souvenir shop.

5 hours ago, Zebo said:

Interesting - who owns the minerals rights? I dig something up - it's mine.

If I publicized that I found $350000 in gold nuggets on my property, I would find out who owns the mineral rights real quick I think. The title documents to my property specifically state that mineral rights are not included. As a practical matter, somebody couldn't just come here and open a gravel pit or whatever, but what's under the ground isn't owned by me. Same if I go off panning for gold in some stream or river up in the mountains near here - all those mining rights are owned by somebody, and if I found gold, it's theirs, not mine. Which is why I'm curious what the situation is in Australia and those nuggets. I'm sure they wouldn't put themselves in the newspaper if they didn't already know they were good.

Here is an interesting case where the deciding factor is whether dinosaur fossils are minerals or not. https://phys.org/news/2020-05-court-dinosaur-fossils-worth-millions.html

There are counterfeit slabs and coins with cert numbers that point to real coins though. If that's what you're asking, it's best to post pictures.

I wonder what mining etc claims are like in Australia. If I found that on my own property it wouldn't be mine - I own the land but not the mineral rights.

That doesn't look like copper. How about pictures of both sides too.

5 hours ago, RWB said:

It appears that the authenticating company does not realize that all pre-production experimentation, testing, "prototyping" and related work is done at the Philadelphia Mint. There is no need for mintmarked dies.

To validate the "authentication company's" assessment, very strong evidence is REQUIRED.

Maybe they were prototyping the mint mark.

For some reason this reminds me of something but I'm not going down that rathole again.

I guess you could go through the 2000 of them on Heritage but it takes a lot of clicking to compare images of reverses. It is interesting how the crack gets worse while the feather definition gets better.

41 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

they have serious problems with honesty and transparency

I guess you haven't said that over there!

1 hour ago, Insider said:

I was given lots of rope to hang myself at ATS and several warnings.  Remember, we all post at the discretion of the company that provides this outlet for free expression and numismatic education.  I broke their rules.

I broke their "growing list of unwritten rules" and was banned on the spot with no warning or timeout. They were clearly lying in wait for me, as it had been my first post there in over a month. The whole thing was very immature and unprofessional, but you are correct - we all post at the discretion of the company hosting the site. You are of course free to rank them how you wish. This forum gets more than its share of crazies, but that keeps it entertaining.

I had no idea that they hand out trophies. Or that there's a "like" limit. Or points.

I don't know why anyone would give a #1 "best forum" to that other place. It's filled with sycophants, they intentionally delete evidence of their mistakes, and if you call them out on it, you get banned.

I'm confused. Why would you think that two coins in a roll couldn't be VF Cleaned just because the rest of the coins graded 61-64?

What's immediately "off" about it to me is that they made thousands, if not millions, of anything with 1776 on it, and sold them in souvenir shops for decades (maybe still do). I have one made into a tie clip. The chances that a real one is just laying around raw and not protected in a holder, after almost 250 years, is pretty close to zero.

1 hour ago, Just Bob said:

It is my understanding that Dr. Sheldon devised his scale to assign a value to large cents, based on their state of preservation. His theory, as you stated, was that if a "basal state" coin was worth "X," then a Vf30 was worth 30 times "X," an MS 60 was worth 60 times "X," etc. And, as we all know, it has been accepted and adapted by the coin community to include all coins. But, he was not assigning a grade based on the value of the coin. He was assigning a value, based on the grade. This is as it should be.

Thanks. It seems like a dog chasing its tail to me.

13 hours ago, Just Bob said:

Assigning a grade to a coin that is based on its perceived market value, rather than its technical merit, is, in my opinion, very detrimental to the hobby.

Wasn't the Sheldon scale originally based on a value computation? Something like a MS60 large cent is worth 10x a G6, but I can't remember where I read that and can't find a reference. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, or what I read was just wrong.