Anyone know of a coin shop / bullion dealer with an XRF machine in the Dallas metro? 1 1

[l.cutler]

On 10/25/2022 at 7:04 PM, VKurtB said:

Copper ALSO tones in the presence of sulfur. And the surfaces of the coin are 75% copper. 

Yep, any collector of copper knows what sulfur can do!

[RWB]

Counterfeits of other Kennedy halves have been fabricated in Colorado. Maybe this is just another fake....? Or maybe the OP is.... So hard to tell.

[RWB]

Certain alloys inhibit tarnishing, and corrosion so having 75% copper is irrelevant.

Edited October 27, 2022 by RWB

[EagleRJO]

On 10/22/2022 at 6:43 AM, Taylor7 said:

... silver clad vs cu-no clad SG is not a useful test because of the unknown thickness of the layers

Just couldn't let this slide. Absolutely dead wrong again. The US Mint has very tight quality controls on planchets, and for 40% Ag vs Cu-Ni coins there are distinctly different specific gravity values with very small tolerances or variations from established and published SG values (3 significant figures for those who understand scientific methods). Specific gravity tests have been the standard for identifying various coin materials for ages before XRF and other technologies became common and are still used.

Just another excuse to list a $0.50 value coin for $13,700.

On 10/26/2022 at 11:09 AM, RWB said:

Counterfeits of other Kennedy halves have been fabricated in Colorado.

It's not possible that this 1971-D Cu-Ni coin came from that private Colorado mint as they only produce fantasy coins that were not struck by the US Mint, and which would "not fool the average coin collector" like a 1975 Kennedy half dollar which was never a regular circulation strike issue. I think this is well known, and who would fake a regular circulation strike 1971-D Cu-Ni coin worth $0.50, so maybe just baiting the op?

Edited October 31, 2022 by EagleRJO

[MarkFeld]

On 10/27/2022 at 12:55 PM, EagleRJO said:

Just couldn't let this slide. Absolutely dead wrong again. The US Mint has very tight quality controls on planchets, and for 40% Ag vs Cu-Ni coins there are distinctly different specific gravity values with very small tolerances or variations from established and published SG values (3 significant figures for those who understand scientific methods). Specific gravity tests have been the standard for identifying various coin materials for ages before XRF and other technologies became common and are still used.

Just another excuse to try and scam someone by listing a $0.50 value coin for $13,700.

It's not possible that this 1971-D Cu-Ni coin came from that private Colorado mint as they only produce fantasy coins that were not struck by the US Mint, and which would "not fool the average coin collector" like a 1975 Kennedy half dollar which was never a regular circulation strike issue. I think this is well known, and who would fake a regular circulation strike 1971-D Cu-Ni coin worth $0.50, so maybe just baiting the op?

I don’t think it was baiting the OP, as much as it was taking yet another shot at Mr. Carr.

[VKurtB]

On 10/27/2022 at 1:30 PM, MarkFeld said:

I don’t think it was baiting the OP, as much as it was taking yet another shot at Mr. Carr.

No!!! You don’t say!!! Not the eminently virtuous Mr. Burdette taking yet another undeserved cheap potshot at Mr. Carr! Say it ain’t so!!! I’m shocked!!

Edited October 27, 2022 by VKurtB

[RWB]

On 10/27/2022 at 1:55 PM, EagleRJO said:

It's not possible that this 1971-D Cu-Ni coin came from that private Colorado mint as they only produce fantasy coins that were not struck by the US Mint, and which would "not fool the average coin collector" like a 1975 Kennedy half dollar which was never a regular circulation strike issue. I think this is well known, and who would fake a regular circulation strike 1971-D Cu-Ni coin worth $0.50, so maybe just baiting the op?

Read the law on counterfeit coins. There no distinction of the kind you mention. As Josep Stalin and a fool named Trump said: "The perpetrators and buyers should be given a trail, convicted and tossed in jail."

[EagleRJO]

On 10/27/2022 at 6:55 PM, RWB said:

Read the law on counterfeit coins

I have, and it is very clear. 18 US §485 and 15 US §2101-2106 [or the "Hobby Protection Act" and 16 CFR §304 which is a federal advisory restatement of that Act] provides it has to be "in resemblance of" coinage of the mint or an "imitation numismatic item" or coin with the "intent to defraud" which federal courts have interpreted to mean it was struck or altered to "fool the average collector" for coins. Neither of these conditions apply to the 1963 or 1975 Kennedy half dollars struck at said mint as those coins were not struck by the US mint [1963 was still the Franklin, not the Kennedy and 1975 was the bicentennial] and the average collector would know that.

[However, for those who counterfeit actual coins struck by the US mint that collectors seek I agree with what Stalin and Trump said about the perpetrators, but not necessarily the buyers who may just be unknowingly fleeced. If that happened more often to actual counterfeiters or re-sellers who know it's a fake but are holding these coins out as genuine maybe the proliferation of these true counterfeits may subside.]

Edited October 30, 2022 by EagleRJO

[VKurtB]

On 10/27/2022 at 5:55 PM, RWB said:

Read the law on counterfeit coins. They’re no distinction of the kind you mention. As Josep Stalin and a fool named Trump said: "The perpetrators and buyers should be given a trail, convicted and tossed in jail."

THIS gentleman is correct and Mr. Burdette is dead wrong on this subject. There are TWO relevant sections of the counterfeit law. One deals with fully fake coins. The OTHER deals with altered coins. The one dealing with altered coins requires intent to deceive. The “regular” one does not. Carr creates altered coins. 

Edited October 27, 2022 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

On 10/26/2022 at 4:10 PM, RWB said:

Certain alloys inhibit tarnishing, and corrosion so having 75% copper is irrelevant.

75/25 Cu/Ni tones upon exposure to sulfur. 

[VKurtB]

On 10/27/2022 at 6:14 PM, EagleRJO said:

I have, and it is very clear. 18 US §485 and 15 US 2101-2106 provides it has to be "in resemblance of" coinage of the mint or an "imitation numismatic" item/coin with the "intent to defraud" which federal courts have interpreted to mean it would "fool the average collector" for coins. Neither of these conditions apply to the 1963 or 1975 Kennedy half dollars struck at said mint as those coins were not struck by the US mint [1963 was still the Franklin, not the Kennedy and 1975 was the bicentennial] and the average collector would know that.

Don’t expect Mr. Burdette’s intentional campaign to disinform and misinform collectors on this topic to abate. It never has. 

Edited October 27, 2022 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

From a criminal law website:

Stephen L

Verified lawyer

In summary, the issue is counterfeiting.  Products that are meant to depict or imitate actual items of value need to indicate clearly to the purchaser that they are no genuine.  So long as the item is not pretending to be real or it is reasonably understood that the product being offered is a novelty or a satire, it would not be illegal to be sold under the code.

[EagleRJO]

I think that is a lawyer's interpretation (even though I agree and think it's the intent of the law), which is why I tried to keep my quotes to actual law or federal court interpretations.

[VKurtB]

On 10/27/2022 at 7:22 PM, EagleRJO said:

I think that is a lawyer's interpretation (even though I agree and think it's the intent of the law), which is why I tried to keep my quotes to actual law or federal court interpretations.

Statute law is NOT the only law. Many things are law, without being statutes. We even have a system where people can CREATE valid law on their own, and violating those self-made laws will result in court penalties. We call these laws contracts. Even lawyers sometimes create law, such as counsel for a legislative committee. Until and unless someone challenges those “opinions” in a court of competent jurisdiction, they remain “the law”. Now YOU obviously know these things, but most coin people do not. They think their own reading of statute is all that matters. In fact, nothing could ever matter less. 
 

Now I am NOT a lawyer, but language I wrote is in the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, Title 18, PLUS a section in the Judiciary and Judicial Conduct Code, specifically requiring judges to include in their ongoing legal education content on recognizing and effectively dealing with defendants before them who are suffering from a mental health or substance related event. 

Edited October 28, 2022 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

Of course, there is also the Hobby Protection Act to consider. However, nothing that Mr. Carr produces falls under the HPA, because nothing he produces “purports to be” a genuine numismatic item.

[EagleRJO]

On 10/27/2022 at 11:13 PM, VKurtB said:

Of course, there is also the Hobby Protection Act to consider

Yes, part of my quotes above were from that law [I clarified my comments with an edit identifying that act].

Legal jeopardy is an immensely complicated topic, and I don't think It really applies to the basic issue, so for now I am trying to just stick with quoting federal statues/interpretations or the CFR.

Edited October 28, 2022 by EagleRJO

[Taylor7]

On 10/27/2022 at 12:55 PM, EagleRJO said:

Just couldn't let this slide. Absolutely dead wrong again. The US Mint has very tight quality controls on planchets, and for 40% Ag vs Cu-Ni coins there are distinctly different specific gravity values with very small tolerances or variations from established and published SG values (3 significant figures for those who understand scientific methods). Specific gravity tests have been the standard for identifying various coin materials for ages before XRF and other technologies became common and are still used.

Just another excuse to try and scam someone by listing a $0.50 value coin for $13,700.

Please, do link me to a procedure for performing a specific gravity test to three sig figs, and stop slandering me with accusations of fraud when I came here to discuss the possible ways of testing. As I said in the WTS thread, I'm fine with mods deleting it. I'm fine with restricting or monitoring my DMs. I'm not interested in selling it until it can be proven one way or the other. 

[Hoghead515]

On 10/28/2022 at 2:50 AM, Taylor7 said:

Please, do link me to a procedure for performing a specific gravity test to three sig figs, and stop slandering me with accusations of fraud when I came here to discuss the possible ways of testing. As I said in the WTS thread, I'm fine with mods deleting it. I'm fine with restricting or monitoring my DMs. I'm not interested in selling it until it can be proven one way or the other. 

Why would you post it in the market place for thousands of dollars before you knew you didnt have anything?  Thats why everyone is saying fraud and scammer.  If someone came to you that same day would you take the money? Or would you tell them, "I gotta make sure thats what it is first."  I would hope you would do the right thing. 

The only way you are going to believe the coin is a common 50 cent coin is to submit it. Some of the best numismatic experts in the world have told you its a common coin. You can clearly see the copper core plain as day in the picture you posted. Send it in to NGC and get it certified. I actually dont think you would believe them if they told you it wasnt silver neither. 

[EagleRJO]

This guy is ...

Edited October 31, 2022 by EagleRJO

[EagleRJO]

On 10/28/2022 at 2:50 AM, Taylor7 said:

As I said in the WTS thread, I'm fine with mods deleting it ... I'm not interested in selling it until it can be proven one way or the other. 

You don't need mods to change all the text in that listing to "[Deleted]" so people will stop calling you a scammer (which you are as long as the coin is listed there) and then you can submit the coin to a TPG if you don't believe your own eyes looking at the edge.

[jessvc1859]

Edited October 29, 2022 by jessvc1859

[Henri Charriere]

On 10/11/2022 at 5:48 PM, Taylor7 said:

.... XRF is a rather new development, like grading, ....

[Henri Charriere]

On 10/23/2022 at 4:27 AM, Taylor7 said:

The coin is special, as it is silver.... what do I need to do to convince you that it is silver, and what do I need to do to convince you the silver is not a post minting modification? 

🐓:  May I, Q?

Q.A.:  Go ahead!

🐓:  Submit it.

Q.A.:  Well done, Ricky. Very well done!

[EagleRJO]

🐓:  Wait, Taylor before you submit it, did you look at the edge?

Taylor: Yes I did, why?

🐓:  It clearly shows it's a Cu-Ni clad coin worth $0.50

Taylor: Yea, but I don't believe my own eyes!

🐓:  Well then, knock yourself out and submit it.

Taylor: But then how can I list the coin for $13,700 before I submit it and without people calling me a scammer?

🐓:  That Taylor is the right question. Program terminated.

Q.A.: Very smart rooster

[ @Quintus ArriusI couldn't resist with a little I-Robot spin 😜]

Edited October 31, 2022 by EagleRJO

[Hoghead515]

That rooster makes a good point. 

[VKurtB]

There’s only two things needed: my eyesight and 59 years of experience in numismatics. 

[Hoghead515]

On 10/29/2022 at 8:48 PM, VKurtB said:

There’s only two things needed: my eyesight and 59 years of experience in numismatics. 

No longer time Ive been collecting I knew just as soon as I saw that edge picture it was a common half. I had a pretty good suspicion before he posted it and was first asking about it. But just as soon as I saw that edge picture it pretty much confirmed it. It was just like all the other hundreds Ive searched through. Dont need no fancy machine or test to confirm that one. Also Ive seen enough in this hobby to believe that you just dont find rare coins like that laying around everyday. It seems someone post on here every other day of common coins they find that they think is a rare one in a million find. All this garbage spewed on the internet and you tube makes people think your gonna get some back in change at the dollar store the day after you see their video. Im not saying it couldnt happen but I learned years ago if it seems to good to be true then it is. I just cant believe the lengths people go to try and convince experts in numismatics that they are the ones who are wrong when its very obvious they have nothing but common junk. Then some get offensive because you wont lie and tell them they do. I dont know why people cant just accept reality.  Then on top of it all try and sell it on the same forum to the ones telling them its nothing special. WOW. 

Edited October 30, 2022 by Hoghead515

[VKurtB]

On 10/29/2022 at 9:05 PM, Hoghead515 said:

No longer time Ive been collecting I knew just as soon as I saw that edge picture it was a common half. I had a pretty good suspicion before he posted it and was first asking about it. But just as soon as I saw that edge picture it pretty much confirmed it. It was just like all the other hundreds Ive searched through. Dont need no fancy machine or test to confirm that one. Also Ive seen enough in this hobby to believe that you just dont find rare coins like that laying around everyday. It seems someone post on here every other day of common coins they find that they think is a rare one in a million find. All this garbage spewed on the internet and you tube makes people think your gonna get some back in change at the dollar store the day after you see their video. Im not saying it couldnt happen but I learned years ago if it seems to good to be true then it is. I just cant believe the lengths people go to try and convince experts in numismatics that they are the ones who are wrong when its very obvious they have nothing but common junk. Then some get offensive because you wont lie and tell them they do. I dont know why people cant just accept reality.  

Because reality bites. 

[VKurtB]

https://blog.money.org/coin-collecting/5-coin-collecting-myths
 

This is a blog from the ANA. PLEASE see myth #4. Reading it should be newbie mandated reading. 

[EagleRJO]

On 10/27/2022 at 7:44 PM, VKurtB said:

75/25 Cu/Ni tones upon exposure to sulfur. 

@VKurtBI think you are getting sucked into this guy's worthless junk science "tests" which is pointless given the appearance of the coin edge.

On 10/11/2022 at 5:48 PM, Taylor7 said:

... XRF is a rather new development, like grading ...

I think the rooster that @Quintus Arrius has would disagree with the last part as grading and SG tests have been around since 1892 when Joseph Hooper published the first proposed grading standards. But I guess that is "a rather new development".  

Edited October 31, 2022 by EagleRJO