physics-fan3.14

The video shows that there *is* reflectiveness, better than an image can. But I guess it is not conveying the depth of reflectiveness as well as I would want. In hand, you would have no question that this is fully PL.

There has been much speculation about "presentation strikes" throughout the years. The fact is, there is just no documentation to suggest anything special about these coins. There are so many prooflikes on so many series throughout the years that there is no way that these are "presentation strikes." Polishing a die was done if there was a defect or a flaw in the die, or in preparation of putting a new die in service. Roger can explain more about that, I'm sure. On the PCGS boards, there were a few old-timers who talked about buying boxes of Ikes and claim that they found numerous PLs across several dates. It isn't a specimen - it's just a happy accident.

Yes, that's what I meant - the rim of the earth that appears as a raised circle. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Sure. The key indicator here, for those not familiar with die polish, is that the scratches appear to go *under* the rim of the earth. You can see the scratches on the right side of the globe (in the Atlantic), and in the fields - but there are no scratches on the actual relief of the globe (the rim). Similarly, the scratches appear to go under the eagle's head - but are not actually visible on the eagle's head. If they were scratches from cleaning or post mint damage, they would go across the top of the eagle.

Yes, all of the 1971S Uncirculate Ikes are Silver, and were issued in the blue paks. The "scuffing" above the eagle's head is actually die polish.

That is correct. It doesn't actually have to be raw - they will crack it for me. But they treat it as raw.

Well, here's a coin I never thought I'd own. Those of you who know me know that I have been working on a Prooflike Type set for about 10 years now. One of the many show-stoppers is the Eisenhower Dollar. Throughout the entire series, NGC has designated 4 Bicentennial Ike's as PL (3 of which are currently on Ebay), and a single non-Bicentennial (a 1971D). The Bicentennials have been on Ebay for several years, and their asking price ranges around $2500 (which is, I'm sure, why they have not sold). In the 7070 Type Set (which is what the NGC Registry set is based on), there are 3 Ike's required. The first is the regular clad version, the second is the Silver issue, and the third is the Bicentennial. NGC has not designated any Silver issues as PL. Well, I was trolling Ebay, as I often do, and this beauty appeared in my search. Long before NGC started designating PL's, old ANACS did. I've had mixed success with the small white holders regarding PL - some of the coins I've bought have been incredibly strong PLs, some of them did not cross to NGC as a PL. Either way, this one looked good so I put in a pretty strong bid. Lucky me, I won! So, I present to you my newest Prooflike: a 1971 S (silver issue) graded ANACS MS-64 PL. In hand, the mirrors are definitely full and strong. There are a few marks which limit the grade (64 is probably right, but I wouldn't be surprised with a 65 when I send it to NGC eventually). But, it is unquestionably a PL. Tell me what you think! I've included a video so that you can see how the mirrors behave in the light. YouTube Video of PL Ike

Bill has bigger issues with corporate NGC that are unresolved. I haven't really figured out what those issues are, yet, but my understanding is that he feels extremely slighted by them. He's in self-exile at the time, until the issues are resolved. No idea what that will take.

.

Honestly... you won't get much info here. Post this question on cointalk.com and you'll get the info you need. And, I only see 2 pictures (two obverses). You'll need reverse pics to get useful information.

Roger has answered direct questions on CoinTalk, and when I've asked him to respond and settle a dispute he's been willing to weigh in on occasion. One of the biggest losses of the NGC forums was when Bill Jones left this place, although he is active now on CoinTalk (under another name, and I'm not sure how many know he's the same person).

I think there is a perception that smaller coins are graded more harshly than larger coins. But, I think this is a misconception. Think about a 1mm mark on the cheek of a coin. If the coin is a 17.9 mm dime, that's a significant mark compared to the size of the coin. Compare that to a 38 mm dollar.... the same size and placement of mark looks much less significant. It isn't that the grading standard is different - its that the size of the coin makes the same size mark appear relatively more significant on smaller coins.

Moderation on CT can be characterized as random and sometimes petty, dominated by an over-bearing voice who stopped collecting decades ago and doesn't know what he's talking about half the time. Moderation here can be characterized as completely hands-off, unwilling to intervene even if their boards burn to the ground. However, I can honestly say I didn't like you on either forum.

Ancients are a very complicated and difficult subject. There is *so* much to know - and people tend towards a specialty. Thus, you need a fairly large collector base of knowledgeable posters to make an ancients forum vibrant. CoinTalk has that, and has a very vibrant ancient forum (honestly, the ancients forum is the highest consistent quality on that forum). I don't know what they did to attract that collector base. Here, there are a couple of people who dabble in ancients, but not nearly enough to make a vibrant discussion group. For me, the biggest draw of this forum is RWB. He pretty much only posts here, and his wealth of knowledge makes this forum worth it even if there are only a couple of posters. However, Roger can't carry the entire weight of the forum on his shoulders alone.

The views counted are not unique views. Each time I open the post to read a new reply, that counts as a new view. So, this thread has 15 views currently - but it's entirely plausible that the 3 of us who have posted account for all of those views. A better figure would be "unique views" of a thread, which is probably a statistic the forum administrators have but we don't.

Are you just trying to figure out how many active posters there are? I'd say your guess in another recent thread of 20-30 is probably generous but accurate. I do think there are more people who read threads but don't post - and then are discouraged from posting by reading the threads.

A strike through or planchet flaw seem the most likely on this one for me. Giving the long, streaked appearance, some sort of lamination/delamination error was my first instinct on this coin.

Recent threads seem to be dominated by a pair of trolls intent on destroying everything in an attempt to make themselves look good. One of them was kicked off CoinTalk for similar behavior, and the other has a penchant for rambling nonsensically. They seem to have no care or regard for actually discussing and learning, and that's a shame. These boards have seemed to have had a bit of a revival lately - but the "activity" is mostly comprised of these two going back and forth. Its really annoying, and I wish they would stop.

If the engraver was trying to make something look classical, they would use a V in the inscription instead of the U. This is because in Latin, they did not have a symbol for U - they used the V symbol.

I think this thread had potential to be useful, informative, and interesting. Instead, I think it turned into pointless bickering and appendage measuring by some very strong willed and opinionated people. Can we try again, but maybe more useful?

Roger, have you ever written about the 64 SMS coins? Either proving or dis-proving their existence? I can't recall any concrete information from you either way - but I highly respect your research, in spite of traditional numismatic "knowledge." Perhaps start a new thread and make a case for/against their existence? I think my general approach is: if there is no evidence to prove it exists, I have to doubt it's existence. Some can claim that "it looks different" or that "it must have been prepared specially" - but without evidence that proves it, its just speculation. This applies, for example, to the so-called specimen 1794 dollar. That same approach applies to things closer to what I collect - the 1949S Franklin dollar in Prooflike was once conjectured to be a special presentation piece prepared for the ANA show. However, the people who claimed that had no knowledge of the PL pieces from the S mint in the 40's. They were unusual, but not unheard of. They weren't special presentation pieces, even though they had a special (prooflike) appearance. It was just a happy accident. As for several of the other examples listed in the op (struck on nail, struck on canadian quarter) - those are just absolutely ridiculous and not physically possible without intervention from a mint worker. To me, they are forgeries akin to the 1913 Liberty nickel, and not really worth anything.

The strike is good. The coin has AU details. However, it's been harshly polished and cleaned. This reduces the value significantly. If submitted it would receive an "AU details, harshly cleaned" grade.

Insider - I bet if you showed us a picture of the whole coin, many more people would get the answer easily. The pic on the nose almost looks like its a lead core with copper plating which is faking off. Unusual, unless its a rare date and an old counterfeit. The first pics looked like lead encrustations. However, the details here look soft and mushy. I'm also not sure what to make of the fields in front of her nose in these last pics.

Green on copper: verdigris or corrosion. Lead: either solder (ex-jewelry) or possibly some remnant of a counterfeiting process.

If you read the minutes from the 1915 ANA convention, they had a speaker who said literally the exact same thing. Over a hundred years ago. I'm not worried.