Glynn K.

I had long wanted a denarius of Tiberius, known as the "tribute penny," though some scholars think it might have been a coin other than a denarius that Jesus held up in that famous encounter where he was asked "Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?" But that status as a Tribute penny made those things a bit pricey. Still, a coin from AD 14 to AD 37? Silver? About the size of a modern dime but representing a day's wages at the time? And the source of the "d" that GB used to denote penny? I had another denarius or two not from the era of Tiberius, and those are a good bit cheaper. Now I wonder if they're legit, too. In their case, I didn't pay all that much for them and I bought them from what I hope was a more reputable source. This denarius of Tiberius I got from an eBay seller in Australia about 20 years ago for $97 best I recall. At the time similar coins sold for a few multiples of that. It did kind of put me on the alert but what the heck. It's only money. I finally sent it NGC and just got it back in a nice holder, not slabbed, with "NOT GENUINE." Well, I plan to describe it as a genuine, modern counterfeit of an ancient coin. I have a few other counterfeits that I bought knowing they were counterfeit and priced accordingly - not ancients. I regret having sold a counterfeit peso, late 1800's, of Mexico. It was a pretty good one, but when you dropped it you could tell it just didn't "ring true." Plus, the counterfeiter, on purpose, put a clue on it that it was not real. Where the mintmark goes he put a letter, I don't remember what letter, that was never used as a mintmark on any Mexican coin. So there he was, making what looked like a pretty good real peso, but when he got to where the mintmark goes, he did not use the mintmark on the coin he was copying. Ego? I seem to recall that some counterfeiters do that. They'll put a clue on the coin they make - I read of a pretty good $20 gold piece that was done that way. But I don't do gold, real or counterfeit. Pics of my mistake:

Here's what a fellow at CONECA wrote: Hello cpagak, To me at first glance yes it looks like it was layed in a tub of acid and let soak for a long time. Post mint damage. Question: is the rim also this color orange? I don't need to see a photo of that. Just an answer. If it is then it is definately PMD. Hope this helps, Eric And the rim is the same color orange. But it seems to me it would be the same color as the "meat in the sandwich" acid bath or not. The fellow who responded responds to a lot of the stuff in that part of CONECA forum so I have no doubt he knows what he's talking about.

Sorry about the coin confusion. 3.218 is the weight of the quarter I am calling a "planchet error." The original quarter posted. I just now added the weight and diameter of it to the CONECA Services part. There has been no comment on it since I posted it originally, but now that I've added the weight and diameter of it maybe there will be. Thanks for your continued interest.

my new toy came in. The calibrated scale says it weighs 3.218, but it also says the test "real" quarter I used (circulated) weighs 5.553. Using a mm ruler, a real quarter is a bit over 24 mm and using that same ruler the subject quarter is a bit under 24 mm. Using the eyeball method, I would go with 23.8987 mm on the subject quarter and 24.3 on the real quarter. The real quarter should weigh 5.67 but I guess a difference of .117 could be due to circulation wear? The scale came with a 50g weight that weighed 50.04 on the scale, which I figured was close enough, but that would mean it weighed both coins a tad heavier than they really were, not lighter. Also, here is a better pic of the teeny old coin. One side only - the other side just isn't clear enough to photograph. The coin looks just a tad concave too. There were two in the acquisition but one is basically slick. Here's what I wrote on the holder at the time I got them: 2 planchets acq 3/87 in 1 lb bag of coins. design on one appears to be Mesopotamian (Iraq) or Turkey (mid 1800's) 12 mm I kind of wonder if it even has anything struck on the other side. The darn thing is so thin I don't see how it could possibly have something struck on both sides, and the blurry side my just the negative of the non-blurry side.

4 Henning nickels found in one roll would is, in a word, mind-blowing. As to value, I found one place that said up to $90 but that depended on condition and I don't know how old that info was. Collectors of counterfeits are out there - I have a few but to my regret once let go of a counterfeit Mexican coin. Like this Henning nickel, the counterfeiter made an error (but in this case, it had to be purposeful). He copied an original but where the mintmark goes, he put a letter that has never shown as a mintmark on any Mexican coin. Sometimes counterfeiters do that as an ego thing. There is a $20 gold piece counterfeit that has something on it from the counterfeiter for the same reason. If I weren't so old and out of the acquisition phase, I would pay as much as $25 for one in the condition of the one pictured. I bet a real collector of counterfeits who didn't already have one would pay more than that.story of the henning nickels

thanks for the info on Portland. I found that thin coin? I told you about. It was actually 2 - same size, one worn just about smooth, the other with something on each side. I had no Idea how to orient them for photoraphy, which is another thing I learned how to do since becoming a member of this and CONECA. I found a nice, average circulated, 1953 D Roosy, probably a coinstar find, to put in the pic for perspective on size. The two objects came in the same 1 lb bag of foreign coins I bought on impulse in March of 1987. edited to add - pretty crummy pics now that I look at the post. Maybe I didn't learn photography as well as I thought!

I was kind of being glib when I said microns. I use that term with "upper management" when she asks me if a picture is centered above something. I'll sy move a few microns right and when she does just a little I'll say TOO MUCH. I usually deal in TADS and MICROTADS. I dunno why tokens are interesting to me. Brain damage, I guess.

thanks. wish I had taken a pic, but I wanted to get it slabbed. I am reasonably sure it is, though I bought it cheap enough at the time I kind of wondered. Not really into ancients much, but I do have a few. I pretty much have to take the word of the seller as to what it is, but usually they're cheap enough I can't go too wrong. I did get a really thin, ancient looking thing in a bag of coins once. If I find it, I might post a pic of it. It appears to me to be silver but it is incredibly thin for an ancient coin. Though it looks crudely made enough to qualify. And has an aura of "age" about it. Off topic, but Portland used to be a great place. Is it really as bad now as some make it out to be? 'Course I assumed Oregon, but there's lots of Portlands. I'll get a caliper. A man can't have too many toys.

I am really enoying and appreciating all this interest in this topic. I have pretty much given up coin shows and local coin clubs because, at my age, I am pretty much out of the acquisition phase (except for cheap stuff, like the occasional sales tax token I might find at a flea market) and that's about all that happens at our local coin clubs. I did about a ten minute presentation one time years ago on a topic I thought was cool (might have been sales tax tokens, even, on which I also did an exhibit at the Miss. Numismatic Association state meeting - won first place but it was the only entrant) and it was mostly considered a delay of proceedings. I will get a weight, but there is absolutely zero doubt it weighs a good bit less than a regular quarter and zero doubt it's at least a few microns smaller in diameter. The diameter is something I just noticed after starting this discussion. I would opine that if you took the finest point pencil or pen you could find and drew it around this coin it would make a circle a tad bigger, and by tad I mean a micro tad, than a regular quarter. I don't think I have a way to measure it accurately in such small increments. This topic is on CONECA, too. I have had more fun on these discussion boards than I have had with numismatics in years. Who says dweebs are not fun to be around??? I had my phone resting on two bowl edges above the coin as stable as it could be and then gently took the pics. Thanks again for all the interest. /s/ maybe not the oldest numismadweeb in the bunch, but definitely in the top 5% PS I also sent two coins to NGC yesterday - a denarius of Tiberius (I hope) and what I think might be a MS65 Hard Times Token. Had both for years.

not to ramble, but speaking of foreign coins minted in the united states, this is a pic of a book I bought probably about the year it came out - 1965. I used it as the basis for my set of foreign coins minted in the united states. cool book. just saw a used copy for sale on Amazon for $145. back to the quarter, dang. I was hoping to have my pic on the front page of Numismatic News.

Sorry I am so inept at pic taking and thanks for the continued input. I'll get better at this even if I am an old fart. Here are two better, I hope, pics:

I definitely remember Spadone's book. Have it still. I'm a lot closer to dropping dead now, too. Hope not too soon.

I think a good title for this "error" would be "Sally Hemings climbing out the window to avoid Thomas's advances one night when he was hammered and seeking attention."

I never expected to make any money on them for sure. Just fun stuff. I think I have enough I can make a roll of circulated wheaties but just haven't done it. But when you get right down to it, even errors that pass muster with the experts really are just quality control issues, aren't they?

fellow numismatists - here are (I hope) some better pics of the 1978 quarter, obverse, reverse, and edge (with edge compared to regular quarter), and obverse of another quarter I got from change that shows a cracked planchet. The edge of the 1978 does have reeding all the way around. Taking this picture, though, I notice the diameter of the 1978 is a hair shy of the diameter of the regular quarter. Never noticed that before. You can see how thin the 1978 is compared to the regular quarter, too. I did not have it weighed yet - I took another poster's advice and ordered a digital scale for about $16. A man can't have too many toys. It should be here in a few days and I will post the weight then. I appreciate any and all input, including the occasional snark.