Conder101

I would have difficulty buying the "overheated in annealing" theory. There shouldn't be that much expansion until the metal reached at least the "plastic" stage and that temperature should be well above what would be needed for simple annealing. The second explanation is more likely and is the typical explanation used today. So I'd say the stuck die is the more probable explanation

And that wasn't enough so + grades were added.`

I've never seen toilet paper that was more than two ply. Two ply should work, and you can always separate the plys they aren't usually fastened together that well.

I wouldn't bother with wax for sandblasting or laser, Wax would be for acid etching. And I mentioned how to remove the wax afterward. And a brief boil in water will remove enough of the wax that you would probably need a scanning electron microscope to find traces in the grooves.

Which is the same as sending in raw, not a crossover. A crossover means that if it it won't cross at the same grade or better it gets returned in the original holder. The permission to crackout means it can't comeback in the original holder. So if it is treated like a crossover that would mean that you send it in in a slab and if it doesn't cross it comes back raw. Even those opinions get overturned, including Supreme Court decisions

You don't have toilet paper?

But production is still based on orders from the Federal Reserve. If the Fed doesn't order them, the mint won't make them. Back in 2009 when there was a glut of coins available it was the Fed informing the mint that they had a very large supply of dimes and nickels and they were wouldn't be needing more that cause the mint to end production. It wasn't a decision of the mint on their own. Congress authorizes, but it is the Federal Reserve that decides what circulation production will be.

Warning, unlike todays proof sets, that set was NOT designed to be opened and reclosed. Opening it will most likely destroy the holder so be ready to put all the coins in new protective holders.

No, when I popped in here earlier it took me to the first unread post which was her post of the small date. I thought that was the first post in the thread and didn't see the "overweight" large date. So yes most likely the scale is off.

Slab will not affect the tissue test. Even though the slab doesn't say silver I don't think it would be safe to just assume they are all silver. If I was buying it I would want confirmation of what the compositions actually are. The set has five coins. If the 2000 is silver then it is the same type as the 64, but if it is clad then you have five coins, five types. If I was a dealer putting together a bulk group of these sets, I would go with the five coins five types approach. Otherwise I'd have just used four coin sets rather than duplicate a type.

Or just put a layer of wax on the edge before you give it the acid treatment. Then a little bit of very hot water to remove the wax and you're done, etched faces with a pristine edge. Another way to do it might be with a laser. We already know they use a laser to make the matte frosted devices on proof dies, but you could also just do the entire face of the coin. The laser is perpendicular to the face of the coin so it will never touch the edge. And of course as mentioned earlier sand or bead blasting. The blaster is also perpendicular to the face so it will not touch the edges either.

They always bring premiums no matter what gold prices are. But the higher gold rises, especially if it rises quickly, the smaller the premium becomes.

Which would than bring up the question, what kind of bids would they receive? And of course as mentioned earlier, it would be interesting to send the now certified as genuine coins back to the first company for cross over just to see what happens.

OK, I was wrong, it IS a type 1

Environmental discoloration that is now wearing through to the normal coppernickel color on the high points.

The photo in the first post DOES appear to show an 82 D small date weighing 3.01 grams. If that is true, then yes the next step will be to spend the money to send it to one of the Third Party Graders, PCGS, NGC, ANACS or ICG. Most would recommend one of the first two.

I concur, MD and 1 to 2 cents.

MAY be a grease fill, but really hard to tell anything.

Yes, they have been studying that problem for 8 years now. Still trying to find some metal they can use for the cent where its cost added to the 1.1 cent manufacturing cost will add up to less than 1 cent. They just need to find a metal that costs negative .3 cents. It's up to the Federal Reserve, they don't order any. the Mint won't make any. The cent will still be an authorized coin, but just because it is authorized doesn't mean you have to make it. And if the mint makes them without orders from the Federal Reserve they will just pile up in storage at the Mint.

Actually at least three of the coins are silver (franklin, 64 Kennedy. the 69 S is 40% silver) the other two might be silver the bicentennial came as either coppernickel clad or 40% silver, the 2000 same as either coppernickel or 90% silver. Easiest way to tell is what is called the tissue test. Lay a single layer of tissue over the coins (either facial or toilet tissue). The silver coins will look very white through the tissue, the 40% a little less white, if the bicentennial or 2000 are coppernickel they will be a dull gray through the tissue)

I think it is a type 2, but I can tell better from the reverse.

Die adjustment marks? Do you mean adjustment marks to the planchet? Those disappeared in the early 19th century. (They still adjusted the planchets but rather than stroking the file across the face of the planchet they rolled the edge of the planchet against the file so the marks wouldn't be visible post strike.)

The radial lines between RTY are flowlines, the vertical lines coming down from the T look like scratches.

Sorry Jgrinz, that doesn't look like a 72 S DDO

Sure you can sell it if you can find someone willing to buy it. But it is still just a brass counter of some kind, not a coin.