Bronze & Copper Collector

All of the above: The YOLK is on us....

I don't think he was all he was cracked up to be....

On both of the previous overstrikes the underlying P is clear, albeit on the F-282, being more worn, it is less obvious. I did have one or two dubious F/P's which were clearly flattened serifs upon closer examination. If I find them again or images, I'll post them for comparison.

The F over P from my F-282 (7 & g)

The F over P from my F-277 (6 & g)

Much scarcer than the 6 & g HALP penny.

A lovely specimen

I think that this is the link. Link to Thread with Images

I've found the A to the RIGHT of the lighthouse to be the scarcest followed by the B. Die letter A appears to me to the most common in either of the letter positions to the LEFT of the lighthouse. Die letter C follows with same observation regarding either of its two letter positions. Die letter B is next scarcest followed the die letter A to right of the lighthouse. Years ago I had posted images of these in the forum. Can't seem to find them now. Probably using incorrect search parameters.

That works as well. It's a matter if personal preference. Some collectors like to view the coin through the flip, others prefer the envelopes with which the argument that it "protects the enclosed coin from light" could be made as well. So long as there is NO ACID NOR PVC it is better for the coin, ESPECIALLY PROOFS!!

2nd specimen, not as good, but is a HAIF penny without the end of the leg of the L showing.

For comparison 2 different obverse 2 HAIF pennies. First specimen is an earlier die state with the end of the leg of the L showing (ie: HAI.F)

If using flips, you need the stiffer PVC FREE type. More subject to cracking, but safer for the coin

Best answer so far......

!?!?!?!?!?@#$$$%!?!?!?

Open 3

Lovely example. F-69????

A Brief History (and Explanation) of the Coin Grading Scale When you were going to school and received a grade of 70, that was barely passing. But when a coin receives a grade of 70 from PCGS, NGC, etc. that means it is absolutely perfect. How come? We have Dr. William Herbert Sheldon, Jr. (1898 - 1977) to blame for that. In 1948, Dr. Sheldon published “Early American Cents” which contained a novel numerical equivalency system for grades, upon which one could supposedly determine the monetary worth of the coins. In developing his system, Dr. Sheldon was attempting to find multipliers of a base value for each grade, with a coin in “Poor” condition assigned a base value of “1.” Thus a coin in Fair condition was assigned a multiplying value of 2, and was therefore thought to be worth twice the value of a coin in Poor condition. Similarly, Sheldon decided that a Fine coin was worth 12 times the value of a Poor example, and so on up to a perfect Mint State specimen, which Sheldon decided was worth 70 times the value of the same coin in Poor quality. So, actually, the Sheldon numbers were not meant to define the quality of coins—but rather to indicate the dollar-value in various grades. Using the original Sheldon system, if a particular year and variety of a Large Cent had a retail value of $50 in Poor quality, it should be worth $600 in Fine or $3,500 in perfect MS-70. Above from Coin World: A Brief History (and Explanation) of the Coin Grading Scale also interesting: Sheldon coin grading scale - Wikipedia

Essentially it is a matter of speaking 2 different languages with identical words with similar yet different meanings. You must know how to translate from one to the other. Not much different from the English language used on either side of the pond. And let us not get into the degradation of the language itself.

Understood. I suppose it much would depend upon the degree of latitude allowed by the term 'about'. A Scenario: One could, under extreme conditions, be permitted to say a coin is about Uncirculated. The coin was removed directly from a mint set and accidentally dropped in the street. It was run over by a multitude of vehicles and flattened by a bulldozer. The coin NEVER circulated. Is the coin in question UNCIRCULATED with Post Mint Damage? Or is it ALMOST UNCIRCULATED inasmuch as it never truly circulated and indeed does display indications of not being in the condition it was in when it left the mint? I suppose that a TPG would probably simply entomb it as 'GENUINE with DAMAGE' and thereby be within its rights to collect its fee. I am somewhat reminded of the stamp collector that insisted upon his acquisitions being never hinged. He would then mount them in his collection WITH hinges and label them as 'UNHINGED BEFORE HINGING'. Apropos of misuse of the English language is the (mis)use and overuse of the term 'UNIQUE'. UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES UNIQUE EVENT etc.

Just commenting and/or observing and nothing else. This can be applied to any similar instance as well. Firstly, this was a US TPG grading a non-US coin. Secondly, most of the criticising comes from collectors who specialize in their own countries coinage and have become accustomed to their native countries grading standards and terminology. Neither is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT nor ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. Aside from nuanced grading being somewhat subjective, it also signifies the importance of buying the coin and not the slab (or the number on said slab). Too many buyers (investors) purchase the number and NOT the coin. Collectors mostly will purchase the coin and not the number. This was given the LOWEST of the four AU grades. Those being AU-50, AU-53, AU-55, and AU-58. Additionally, although ANACS is highly rated and considered to be amongst the top three TPG's, it not as well regarded as PCGS or NGC. For what it's worth, I prefer my raw specimen to the stabbed example for eye appeal. Again though, this is strictly subjective to my thoughts. Truly, after all is said and done, "Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder".

Duplicate post

ANACS specimen