Woods020

I’ve never heard of a RIDB? Die breaks are retained. Do you mean a retained lamination? This is a die break. Recent dimes are littered with breaks, die erosion, etc.. They are bad if you look under magnification.

The 28D appears uncirculated, but it isn’t full bands. It took a hit on the middle band that would prevent that and I can’t tell for sure on the top bands. Without full bands it’s still a collectible and somewhat valuable coin. Clearer pictures of it would be very helpful also. It has some areas that may be an issue but need to see it better. Can I ask how you came about these coins? And what made you think these two “felt special”? I’m wondering how out of stack you picked these two?

You probably already know this but be gentle when taking pictures. Don’t slide it around and hold it by the rim

Can you post more of the 16D? Clear and focused? That one is more than a little intriguing. Let’s get a better look and go from there.

This is one I recently had a discussion with myself about. You have to simply be ok saying what needs saying and move on. Even if that means letting them seemingly recuse their ignorance. Now if I will just listen to what I told me in that stern talking to all will be well 😂

This is exactly the purpose of the ANA and similar organizations. Individually we won’t be able to do much, but in an organized fashion the dues could be put to good use. And while the internet is full of misinformation it is here to stay as a primary tool for knowledge like it or not. So the ANA should be highly focused on putting out good information. Part of their mission should also be to point out that information should only be trusted by reputable sources. Some sort of campaign to that effect like learn facts not fiction but with a much better catch phrase. Second I think there needs to be credentials in some way that mean something. I recently asked about the ANA diploma program and it doesn’t seem widely utilized. However, I think there is benefit to having credentials such as “certified numismatist” and even additional credentials demonstrating mastery. This would achieve three goals in one in my opinion: 1. Anyone that wants to take this hobby seriously would be forced to study factual information and demonstrate proficiency. 2. If someone wants to just be a hobbyist no worries, but if you want to be in a position to be a dealer or give information as an “expert” you have something to back it up. Then those seeking information will seek it out from someone with the right skill set to give it. 3. Some sort of oversight. If a credentialed individual puts out blatant misinformation there is recourse to getting stripped of those credentials.

The 64 quarter and half appear untouched and nicely toned. They aren’t all damaged. But I agree let them be in the frames. They are probably worth more as art than numismatics.

Welcome to the forum Vitally. Someone soon will come along that is proficient in ancients. @JKK is extremely knowledgeable and never ceases to amaze me in his ability to identify these coins

It’s better than it was 6 months ago for sure. Not sure if they still are, but before I left Philly WaWa was offering free subs if you brought in a roll of coins. Seems like the major coin shortage has subsided as things start back up.

I recently on a whim bid on a few coins from an auction by gold standard auctions. The pictures were horrible and I knew better, but I rolled the dice. 2 of the 3 are just as described surprisingly. One, an 1834 bust half, is counterfeit. As soon as I saw it I knew it was trouble. I weighed it and it’s a gram light so not horrible, but it doesn’t register as silver on my sigma metalytics. Also the look is just off. I called them now and get this it has to be deemed a counterfeit by a TPG. They will not accept anything else other than that for a return. I even asked so if I send it to NGC and spend $60 on grading and shipping you will reimburse me for that just for them to tell you it’s counterfeit? And they said they will. I guess I’m stuck getting it body bagged and hoping they do what they said and then reimburse me.

JP, Most of the auctions have a buyers premium. It will differ from auction houses to auction house or even from one auction to another. Usually in the 10%-15% range. Read the fine print to find out for a specific item. Also I know you had asked recently about pricing. If you look up sold prices most of the time it will be the realized price including buyers premium. However it may not from time to time so when looking at prices realized see if it included it or not.

Now I will say I have a different opinion on SOME of Carr’s work than you. Only on his overstrikes. The other stuff is just private mint stuff. But we will go down a completely different rabbit hole there and muddy the issue at hand. Each case is unique.

If you find one anywhere around here let me know. I was never into numismatics when I lived here, and now that I am back I quickly realized there isn’t much going on in this area of the country.

I was completely unaware of this gentleman or Liberty dollars. So if nothing else this was good fuel for reading and learning something new. I have no dog in this fight per se, but I will give my two cents (you can choose US currency or Liberty dollars the decision is yours on which two cents). I think it would be a reach to call this man a counterfeiter. His coins are not any more convincing than any other silver round on the market, many of which copy historic designs exactly. Further his notes were nothing more than private Silver certificates no different than buying silver futures. It equates to buying silver for a current price with the promise taking possession of the silver in the future at that price. So I don’t think anyone can accuse him of counterfeiting and pass the red face test. Just another flavor of widely accepted practices. The issue, in my opinion, has more to do with how one interprets both of the following: 1. “intended for use as current money” in Title 18 Chapter 25 Sec 486 2. Constitutional powers of government. Issue 1 - intended for use as current money. While his actions weren’t intended to deceive anyone with counterfeit money in my opinion, it is intended to be used as legal tinder. The following is an excerpt copied from the existing Liberty Dollar website: ”US dollar backed only by government debt is bad for everyone! That's why I created the Liberty Dollar. If someone gave you a choice between a stack of ordinary ten-dollar bills and a stack of ten-dollar bills that were printed on the back with a coupon for 5 gallons of gasoline, good at any gas station in the country, which would you choose? The first stack is just dollar bills. The second stack is also dollar bills, or if gas prices go up, you can use the back of the bills and fill your tank. You'd have to be crazy to take the first stack! Right? Why not get the benefits of a negotiable currency coupled with the redeemability for a useful commodity, in this case, gasoline? If gas prices go up, you win while everyone else complains about the high cost of gas! If prices don't rise, you still have your ten-dollar bills! On the other hand, when you hold US dollars, you own debt that you will eventually have to repay. When you give US dollars to someone as payment, they now have debt. Ouch!” This seemingly does point to his intent to make an alternate form of money to be used in commerce today despite his explicit comments to the contrary This now brings us to issue two - constitutional powers. Does the government have a monopoly on issuing tender for commerce? Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically gives Congress power to "borrow money" and also power to "coin money and regulate the value" of both U.S. and foreign coins, and regulate interstate commerce, but does not explicitly and unambiguously grant Congress the power to print paper money or make it legal tender. Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution explicitly forbids the states from issuing "bills of credit" (promissory notes) or making anything but gold and silver coin legal "tender". Many legal scholars have argued both the intent and the spirit of this legislation and how it should be applied in a multitude of ways. The judge in the NORFED case held that because the Constitution prohibits the states from issuing money, it should be inferred that the drafters also meant to forbid private parties from doing so. This is a big inference in my mind. To further complicate this I do agree with Kurt in that this should be evaluated under the same lens as crypto currency. It is also intended to replace US government tender with other instruments. Intent may differ whereby NORFEDs goal was to back specie with PMs to hedge inflation while some crypto’s have the goal of alluding oversight. In summary my opinion, and it’s just that an opinion, is: 1. He isn’t counterfeiting any more than silver rounds or silver futures are counterfeiting. 2. The underlying issue is was this attempting to replace current money, and if so is that illegal or constitutionally allowed? 3. The counterfeiting charge served as a proxy for concerns over replacing current money under the relevant statute. 4. While I don’t right now have my mind made up as to whether constitutionally the founders intended solely for the federal government to issue tender for commerce or not, I do think that this situation isn’t unique. If this is deemed unlawful then so should silver rounds and silver futures. I do think it is interesting that the constitution makes allowance for states to set silver and gold as tender specifically and seemingly has more concern over Un-backed notes. A very long winded way of laying out the facts needed to form an opinion, and not a firm opinion of right or wrong. Made for some good reading on the beach this morning.

“Now that we have all of those other pesky bidders out of the way, let’s talk price”

I recently added this beauty. My only proof Buffalo.

This is ingenious. Why didn’t I think about that before. Win the bid then negotiate it was too high. @MarkFelddo you think Heritage would let me go back and retroactively say some of the coins I have won in recent auctions were simply too high because others bid too much?? 😂 I give this guy credit he has some stones. I would have thought it was a joke.

This is exactly the bad side of numismatics that turns so many people away. Please don’t post this for sale as an error coin and make any wild claims. Someone who doesn’t know better will waste their hard earned money on it only to find out later it’s junk. And then they are turned off from the hobby forever because they got burned. eBay and Etsy are chock full of these so called errors that are someone’s imagination. Don’t add to it.

Me4it, You are getting lead on a wild goose chase by a newbie who is let’s just say erratic in his thoughts. JustBob I would listen to clearly. Based on all of your pictures you have a badly worn and environmentally damaged Indian penny worth its weight in copper. Someone might give you a dollar perhaps for the date to fill a slot. I see no hidden variety and it’s sure not the sought after overdate. I don’t mean to be harsh but I am afraid you are getting your time wasted unbeknownst to you and I don’t want to see anyone new go through that. Lots of great advice on this forum but not all.

One of the good ones!

It’s a beauty MrBill. As others have said it’s a generic silver round, but they chose one of the all time best and most iconic designs in my eyes. Standing Liberty Type 1. That lady has her top off.

1982 was a good vintage. Some great people born that year, and then there was me 😂