FlyingAl

It is a heavily cleaned, damaged, entirely ordinary 1901 Morgan. There is no doubling of any kind anywhere, and it is not a Hot Lips VAM either.

Here's the link: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1075014/3-4-union-how-big-would-that-have-been#latest

Yes, that round circle is an O. There is no "S". I have never seen an S that has the geometric qualities of an O and can be described as "a round circle". If such a thing ever exists my entire understanding of the letters of the English alphabet is entirely wrong. I'm afraid you are looking so close you are willing something into existence that does not exist. You have a mid-AU $40 coin that is completely normal in every way imaginable.

The George H.W. Bush dollar was released as a reverse proof only in the coin and chronicles set, never as a regular finish proof. Uncirculated examples can be obtained from the Philadelphia and Denver mints in special mint offerings (not issued for circulation).

The nickel looks toned a golden color, no real added value but a cool coin, it would not be worth grading. The cent is a vice job, which means that someone took two Indian Head cents and pressed them together really hard in a vice. It results in the letters being reversed on one side of the coin just like it is seen on the second picture of this one. It is a form of damage after the coin left the mint. I do hope going through this gets you into the hobby, it is a very cool area once you get into it!

Now that I really look at the coin, I do have to agree with whizzed. It does have the raised metal at the tops of the letters commonly associated with a whizzing. Edit: I do still think the coin will be detailed for the scratch as well if submitted today. Not trying to rip on the coin, it is a rather nice example and a great giveaway. Thanks for sharing!

UNC Details Obverse Scratched was my first impression. Very nice coin and a great giveaway from ATS. I remember a discussion about this coin and the giveaway but I don't remember the grade.

I agree with the standpoint that it is both. There is an objective sense in that one has to be able to identify something like counterfeit or genuine, die polish vs. hairlines and such, but a lot (majority) of coin grading is subjective. It should also remain this way. For example, a computer cannot be easily programmed to identify the difference between positive and negative eye appeal. As such, there is really no way to eliminate human error as a human really does have to grade coins, and as such, the verdicts produced will have some degree of error.

Personally, the frost is there, but the mirrors aren't. A lot of what makes a CAM proof is that the mirrors have to be deep enough, and this die seems to have been polished somewhat poorly. If you look at the '56, you see that the mirrors have a "liquid" appearance while the '52's mirrors have a cartwheel effect going on. I too wish the TPGs adopted a true standard for CAM. I often find that if you run you finger above the surface of a proof coin (1-2 in.) and the devices don't reflect back any you while the mirrors do, the coin is a good candidate for CAM. Of course, the true standard of CAM must have to do with the frost created during die cleanup and preparation not being removed from the devices while the mirrors have a fully polished appearance.

It looks promising, especially the tails of the nines. I think true doubling there, best of luck!

On the news article you guys sent out, there is a discrepancy between how many awards of each category will be awarded. For example, on the website page, it says 6 sets will get a best presented award while the news article says ten sets will. Which source is true? Also, does the 75% of coins must be NGC rule still stand? It seemed a few of last years winners didn't follow this. I'm not complaining at all if this is true, I would actually prefer this rule be dropped and if it has good for you guys, that's great. Thanks!

As stated, your proof cent has mechanical doubling, created oftentimes when the planchet is not fully in the coining chamber when the coin is struck, leading to the die dragging across the surface of the coin as it is struck and resulting in what you see there. No premium is associated with MD.

New purchase I got in. NGC 65RD, looks CAM to me.

This is truly too bad. I had the absolute pleasure to view the collection twice, and I can fully attest that I will likely never see such an amazing group of coins together again. It's a double edged sword because the proceeds will go to a good cause, but I do wish they could keep the collection together and on display.

It is because the die was literally falling apart. It lasted for maybe a hundred more strikes with the crack before the press operators pulled it or it shattered. Your proof die cracks would have lasted for a few thousand more coins, and aren't harder to find at all. How do I know this? In the last two days you've posted upwards of three different proof coins with die cracks, and I have never seen any Scarface Morgan ever posted on any coin forum. Rarity?

@Errorists This. Both I and @Oldhoopster brought this up multiple times. You dodged and avoided the question, and it seems you view the Scarface as a "minor" die crack. It's not, when compared to the minor cracks you constantly post about this die was practically falling apart. The value of the Scarface goes up drastically based on how dramatic the crack is. I don't know why you dodge every right answer given with a diversion, but I suggest you give up the fight. Many people here told you you were wrong, and I agree.

I have nothing against die varieties. I made a statement that is adjusted based on YOUR logic. Do you have something against die varieties? Or is your logic just plain wrong? Also, @Oldhoopster, I just checked CoinFacts and recently sold Scarface Morgans. The early die state is not valued any more, in fact, the closer that die was to falling apart in the press, the more value the coin has. Who knows where this idea that the minor crack was worth more came from.

If you don't know how VAMs are attributed and you don't even know what they are, I severely doubt you have any grasp at all what the market says. There are people who study the market for decades and still don't get it at points. I would almost guarantee that no VAM collector in their right mind would pay more for a more minor die crack. That would mean that all of your die crack coins are worthless because I want to pay more for coins without them (the most minor crack of all- none!). Do you think that's true?

You seem to have no interest in listening to the very valid, clear, and respectful opinions of those here. You are arguing a moot point and it's doing nothing to help. With all due respect, it seems to me you've hit rock bottom in this discussion and you've just kept digging. Take the correct answers that the members here have given and stop arguing that two men (one now dead, RIP) were wrong. The best thing you can do in this hobby is listen to those who know more than you and more importantly, recognize when someone does know more than you. Best of luck in your collecting.

If this is true, then you have no doubling. True die doubling will appear on multiple coins and you should have several other examples in the "tens of thousands" you've went through. I doubt such a coin like the one you claim you have truly exists. Your coin is only a straight G to my eyes.

My opinions on these coins are that they are no more special than any coin struck form new dies, the only exception being that they were saved after striking, and as such, those that were saved were traceable to the Adam's estate. It's by chance that there is documentation to track these to Eva Adams. As such, I do not think that there is a need for documentation to exist if there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a coin is indeed special (I think there are a few early proofs out there that are clearly proofs but have no official documentation). These 1964 coins, however, are not even close to sufficient in surface quality and distinguishability to satisfy that need. They are not a "SMS" strike. However, should these truly be "SMS" coins, and I think they are not, I believe there would be reason for the Secret Service to go after them as they should not have left the mint. In theory, they should not have existed at all if these were "SMS" coins, and as such the lack of Secret Service intervention further proves that these are nothing like what many articles/videos make them out to be. A bit of critical thinking and looking at images makes it clear that these were never trial strikes for the SMS coins of 1965-1967. NGC also seems to share my view on these.

I'll take a random guess at MS64.

None are known in AU condition. The price guides state around $16,000 for the low 60s (60-61), but there's no way I can even get close to that on a YN budget .

Exactly. If there were that many that liked the proofs enough to buy them, there have to be more interested in the regular circulation coins. Personally, I love the Satin proof double eagles of '09 and '10. If I could have any coin, it would be one of those. I have no idea why the collectors of the time hated the coins so much, but I think many collectors today wish more of those coins existed. Too bad the mint switched to the Sandblast proofs in '11 because I do agree with the collectors of the time in that those were just horrid. Too much detail was washed out during the post strike sandblast IMO. It does seem like there would be more collectors listed, particularly those that purchased the gold proofs anyways.

Goldfinger, I would assume that there were at least 50 double eagle collectors in 1909 due to the purchase of the proof double eagle. There were 67 reported minted, and I took out 17 to account for collectors purchasing multiple, but I doubt many did due to how unpopular these were in the early 20th century. Of course, it's all speculation.