EagleRJO

I'll give a more detailed explanation. For an MS-60 NGC values the coin slabbed as $85. The cost for NGC economy grading is $25 for a membership, $23 economy grading, $10 submission handling, plus shipping (without any attribution). That's getting close to the value of the coin, and if you sold the slabbed coin you would get very little as a net profit. If you just sold the coin raw you could likely get around $60 to $70 using UCoin as a guide. So you would be loosing money submitting it.

So far nobody has provided any compelling opinions with references that the Dan Carr overstrike/tokens would be considered counterfeits. However, I think there is compelling information that those overstrikes/tokens would not be considered counterfeits.

It doesn't look like it would be worth submitting based on the value of the coin, and you may actually end up losing money by submitting it due to the costs of grading. See the following link for values ...https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/germany-empire-20-pfennig-km-9.1-1887-common-date-cuid-1169398-duid-1313773

@Quintus Arriusyou were confused by my post which was in responce to JPM's post above about a missing Rooster. So, which Rooster is long lost for you?

They set that up after knock-offs or "counterfeits" of Carr's tokens started showing up. See attached. http://www.moonlightmint.com/fakes.htm http://www.moonlightmint.com/anacs.htm

Appears to be machine or "self" doubling which really doesn't add much value. You can verify that looking at the attached infogrsphic with the coin in hand. The doubled elements look like they are lower than the main elements It does not appear to be worth submitting the coin due to the grading costs, unless you have other reasons to do that

190i7 is another year where Carr produced a Lincoln Cent Overstrike. While the US mint had produced an Indian head small cent

I think it would help to post the attached also. Certified as a genuine tolken or "overstrike". I don't have my RB handy but I think 1908 was the Indian head small cent.

@SandonI didn't have the Red Book or my computer handy as I'm away, which is why I clarified it was just from a Google search and referenced the second set as where the nickel would likely come from for a PF coin just based on memory. I edited the post for clarity.

I would put precious metals in a traditional asset class as there are ETF's for those you can purchase on the open market, but not for sneakers,, etc.

No coin shows until Jan 2023 and LCS's are more than Ampex per a previous post. COL in NY hitting prices. Maybe in Jan/Feb prices vwill be better. And I'm gonna start looking for half eagles I think anyway.

JPM mentioned you were missing a long lost Rooster, which one are you missing?

I don't think bullion bars and coins would be an alternative asset class. Just an "asset class" which I think is how an article from the WSJ classified them, and why I asked. But I agree some sneakers as well as a rare box of cornflakes could be an "alternative asset class". 😜

I found the attached 1970 proof set from the San Fran mint on Google. So if the nickel came from that San Fran set I assume that would grade PF/PR [Edited to remove an incorrect proof set].

I'm guessing these rolls were from eBay or Etsy which right off the bat is a red flag as they are pretty much guaranteed to be a ripoff. You are lucky to get a refund.

I was looking for common Saint around $1,800 to $1,850 including a seller markup including the TPG slab, and the BP or dealer markup as previously noted. But they were going for alot more, so I passed and bought some Morgans. I will see where gold Saints or Indian head half eagles are at after the winter.

It's all good, just a friendly disagreement (so far), which is part of scientific evaluations. And I am not aware of any overstrikes/tokens by Carr with years/marks that were struck by the US mint, unless it's a more recent one and why I was asking ldhair about that. [P.S. a scientific evaluation of any technical issue includes looking at opposing views or data and determining if it's correct, plausible, implausible or incorrect]

Bernard von NotHaus was producing coins (e.g. Liberty Dollars) with years and marks resembling legal tender coins struck by the US mint, and actually in competition with the US Mint as alternate legal tender coins for Hawaii as I understand it. I agree that the original NotHaus coins were counterfeits, and they were later changed in concept to be some kind of private currency. I"m not sure if the new coins will be legit. But that is NOT what the Moonlight Mint Produces. The Moonlight Mint does NOT strike any coins produced by the US mint. I have a letter or email verifying that (I think from the Treasury Dept.) which I can post when I get my computer back. Also see the attached Coin Week article about the original NotHouse counterfeits, a recent article from that mint, snd a Moonlight Mint web page with some basic info. https://coinweek.com/coins/news/bernard-von-nothaus-sentenced-probation-liberty-dollar-conviction/ http://bernardvonnothaus.org/history-liberty-dollar/ http://www.moonlightmint.com/

If he cut it out of a 1970 "mint set" I think it would be graded MS, but if from a "proof set" it would be graded PF, or did they not have proof sets that year? Did the set you cut it out of look like the attached, which is a regular 1970 uncirculated "mint set"?

I was going based on this post, but I do remember an earlier post where you talked about the 3% difference that you can neglect.

It's not clear where you draw the line and why. That should be a straightforward question that I am just curious about. I have not looked at all his overstrikes/tokens, so I was mostly curious if Dan didn't follow what he did with earlier ones of only striking tokens that were never struck by the US mint, and would not "fool the average collector". Not to start a disagreement as I think my opinions above are clear. There would be no reason to go around in circles. I can respect opposing opinions even if I don't agree with them when done in a respectful way. I think that is a hallmark of using a scientific approach to evaluating issues related to coins.

Thanks. I was thinking a vet should write it up, but I could also do that if needed. Also how do I contact an Admin as I have never done that. If you think I should write it up I will post the proposed thread intro here to get some comments before I start the thread.

You were the one who was telling me to use the actual weight at 0.9685 oz of gold. It does look like prices are comming down and maybe after the winter it will be just right.

I don't think Harry ever updated this on the dime or the outcome with the challange to the NGC determination that the 1885 toning is questionable, or answered the questions posed about the rolls where the 1885 and 1886 came from.

@ldhairIm just curious which ones you think are legit and which are counterfeits.