Moxie15

the doubling you are showing is flat and shelf-like indicating it is not a double die. The coin is a 2020 so classic doubling of the die is not possible as the hub is only pressed into the die steel once. These two observations lead me to say this is not a doubled die.

Well, first I believe nothing. Second, I have never seen a post that was "CLEARLY OUT OF BOUNDS" as was stated Third I have noticed that some who post here have appointed themselves as watchers who look to report others for anything they see as transgressions. Last, I do not know of any time when I have implied in any way that I think those who think differently than me are thought police. Please send a PM informing me of when you noticed such actions.

I have yet to see one, But I have seen a poster or two that sees them all over the place.

why use it at all? Unless, of course, one has a desire to become a member of the thought police.

I think that calling these coins 1964 Special Mint Set coins is a serious misnomer and a disservice to the hobby. This 'name' is causing the belief among inexperienced collectors that they can find examples of them out in the world. 1964 Special Mint Sets do not exist and never existed. The coins, at the very best. are Specimen strikes, but no one has been able to say exactly what was done differently to the dies or the planchets. The best I have been able to get out of anyone is a Justice Potter Stewart imitation of "I know it when I see it!" It could be they were test strikes for the SMS to come in 1965, BUT THERE IS ZERO DOCUMENTATION OF THIS, it is just an idea of mine that would make sense. I think they are most likely first or early strikes on new dies, that MAY or MAY NOT have been struck with different pressure, that were kept by Ms. Adams in here personal collections. I would presume she would have paid face value for them to keep things legal. One of the things that people willingly forget is that claims need to be backed up. Claims with no proof are prevalent in numismatics. This causes much confusion and unnecessary frustration and sometimes takes generations to straighten out. In every other professional historical research all claims need to be verified. Just as an example my wife has. through a popular .com has traced her ancestry back to 1608 and found in 1640 something her 6th or 7th great grandfather married an original Fille du Roi. She can join a group similar to Daughters of the Revolution when she proves her lineage by accepted research, they do not accept the popular internet company as they are not known to be, shall we say, accurate in their conclusions. The blind following of numismatists who are accepted as experts has caused enough problems that we should know better.

...I thought nice guys always finished last! Congrats Bob

It looks like corrosion, with the coin in such a rough condition it has many 'ghosts' of images.

red brown

why don't you leave instructions in the will? Or with you heirs. Help them help themselves

Okay Krisferr, you think you found the mother lode. So you did your research and looked for die markers, that is good. You took a picture of it and showed it here, not bad. You get all childish at the first person who disagrees not good. Your coin looks like a heavily damaged 1946 or 1948 to me. I guess the next step is to send to ngc so they can tell you the bad news

old thread, new post. In many ways I would like grading to be like this all the time, but I know it is not going to happen

That looks like machine doubling to my eye

in 1881 that must have been the same as getting 3 million or more today. Cant imaging going down to the bank and walking out with that much cash

I guess this will be my entry. Does a random number generator truly generate random numbers? All the numbers generated by a specific random number generator would be in the subset 'Numbers generated by this random number generator' so therefore are not truly random. To me that is little more than a sick joke but I am sure somewhere there is a theoretical physicist covered in chalk dust feverishly working on non random, random numbers

it is only worth face value as it is damage. It happens quite often, and do not be surprised if members line up claiming it is a dryer coin.

The bubble pattern and the abrupt color changes

Well, you missed the boat on this one @MAULEMALL The thread is about several members not accepting a time honored teaching and testing method used by some members. I think that anyone of the members who complain about 'white balance' and close up pictures of partial coin surfaces would easily answer the related question if they were not fixated on the minor technical issues of presentation. As I mentioned in the OP I have taken important and potentially life altering exams with far worse pictures and illustrations.

that is machine doubling, sorry but it has no premium

well I am ready for another of @Insider 's quizzes Complete with close ups and incorrect 'white balance'

whoooah!

It looks to be a type of jeweler's metal which is a nickel alloy and has no intrinsic value. In my opinion this should be kept in the family. Any item that has been in the family for generations deserves a little space in the next generation's world.

I forget to set my clocks but according to my goats and cows I am always late to work so it didn't help

My question was rhetorical, I find it fascinating that knowledgeable numismatists find a common and accepted teaching method so distasteful.

that is up to you. I would not. but, that is just me