Tag Archives: silver

Medal Memories: “My Great Grandfather’s Collection”

Posted on by

By Susan Blumlein Amodeo

When looking through my great grandfather’s coin collection I discovered several medals. For those who are not familiar with me or my previous articles, my great grandfather was a bartender in Brooklyn, NY, around 1900. At that time, Ellis Island was admitting  people from all over the world, and thus, he took payment of different currencies. I’m sure he also traded and perhaps purchased items that led to a vast collection containing hundreds of coins and medals which hold stories of the past.

First, let’s address what is a medal. We know from winning a contest in school or watching the Olympics that medals can show achievement. We understand today that a gold medal is the most important, then silver and bronze (due to metal value). We know medals have been made throughout history as recognition, often depicting a person or event and can be minted for one person or for the masses. We see this today in the US mint where medals are sold to commemorate the 250th Anniversary of the United States of America.

Medals belong to the genre Exonumia, with medals serving as a major category of this classification. Medals fall into these subcategories: military medals, commemorative medals, souvenir medallions, and, at times, challenge coins.

They can also be contemporary and express social concerns. One of the top medal artists is sculptor Heidi Wastweet who also has served in the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee of the U.S. Mint. Here is one of her popular medals, “Abbreviated Liberty,” about the power of free speech and the muzzling thereof. Proxiblog publisher Michael Bugeja has the 1st of 40 strikes.

But what about historic medals? Why are they so special? First, expert engravers were needed to work by hand, and perfection was necessary. Second, as Betts notes “medals are original documents in metal.” They are story tellers and tangible connections to the past. They are art, but unlike a historic painting or sculpture in its original form, medals can be reproduced, although die deterioration (having been struck several times) will cause the quality of later medals to diminish. Some medals were only struck once, or a few times, so let’s talk about mine.

I came across this large 67mm, well struck bronze medal that captivated me with its beautiful details and size. After finding out (through the internet) that this was from the Netherlands, I found information was scarce. That is until I found a picture of my medal in gold on the website of Massachusetts Historical Society located in Boston. The website states “This gold medal was presented by the States-General of the United Provinces of Holland to John Adams upon his departure as minister on 6 March 1788. Adams was the first envoy to Holland from the United States. This medal is believed to be the only known 18th century diplomatic medal presented to a United States minister.”

As I examined the pictures, I could see the same engravers mark on my medal.

John Adams’ Gold Medal

Collection of The Massachusetts Historical Society

https://www.masshist.org/database/82

I eagerly contacted the Historical Society by phone and explained what I had. To my surprise, Susanna from MHS Library Reader Services, said they were interested in the history of mine, as they were identical apart from the metal. I was asked to send an email the details of my medal with pictures. I was delighted to get a response within a week from the Curator of Art & Artifacts, Anne, with information on the engraver and manufacturer, as well as other interesting articles and John Quincy Adams journal entries.

Details and Engraver

The medal’s engraver, Nicolaas van Swinderen, was born in November 1705 in The Hague. His work began in 1720 as a prominent engraver and medalist. He lived on The Lutherse Burgwal (Lutheran Canal/Street) in The Hague, specializing in engraving and cutting dies. His works were often struck in the workshops of other medalists.

Over one hundred of his medals are on display in the Rijksmusum, the Teylers museum, and  in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Although there are several medals like mine (and Adams), I could not find another identical. It is unknown when and who this medal was originally made for, however, you will see that his medal dies remained active even after his death in 1760. The Commemorative Medal given to John Adams was struck using dies from van Swinderen in 1788 by Willen de Koning, a manufacturing jeweler, as Swinderen had passed away 28 years earlier.

Details:

Size: 67 mm

The obverse shows the arms and supporters of the United Provinces (lion wild with sword in shield, surmounted by crown) with the motto, “CONCORDIA RES PARVÆ CRESCUNT”. This translates: “By concord small things increase” and signed “N VS” above PARVÆ.

The reverse depicts the arms of the House of Orange-Nassau, surrounded by seven provinces, entwined with leaves and orange fruit. The motto, “DISCORDIA MAXIMÆ DILABUNTUR” translates to “By discord great things are destroyed”.

Edge: Plain, raised with integral suspension loop. Assay stamp on loop (Betts)

John Adams

(americanacorner.com)

John Adams retired from 2nd Continental Congress in November 1777 and soon went overseas. After spending time in Britain and France, Adams sought American Diplomacy in the Netherlands to secure recognition of American independence. Adams also had the job of obtaining a loan which would provide much needed assistance to the financially strapped colonies and help establish credit for the young nation.

During the 1700’s the Dutch Republic had internal political stress, but it maintained peace. The Stadholder (Dutch: Hoog-Mogenden) referred to the States-General of the United Netherlands. The Princes of Orange held this office and were referred to as “their Mighty Mightiness”. The Hague served as administrative seat of government for the Dutch Republic. Until 1810, when Amsterdam officially became capital. (Britanica)

On October 8, 1782, Adams and Dutch representatives successfully concluded the Dutch American Treaty of Amity and Commerce, primarily dealing with trade, shipping, and other commercial ventures. Adams had also made a successful application for a three-million-guilder (Dutch currency) loan. This would help fund the American Revolution.

In 1787 Adams requested to close his commission and return to America. The president of the assembly (De Wassenaar Caywyke) brought this to their High Mightiness (William V) who granted this resolution. The following is an excerpt from an account regarding the medal:

Whereupon, it having been considered, it seemed good, and was hereby ordered, that leave be taken of the said Mr. Adams, at the same time declaring that his person and conduct have been agreeable to their High Mightiness, and that the usual present of a chain and medal of gold, of the value of thirteen hundred florins, be transmitted to him; the jeweler de Koning having it in charge to prepare the same forthwith.

Passing Down Adams Medal – John Quincy Adams Diary Entries

John Quincy Adams, the son of John Adams, had quite an extensive collection of diaries. The following are excerpts regarding John Adams passing his medal down to his grandson:

27 Sept. 1819: [My father (President John Adams) called me and my son John, who was going away, into his bedchamber,] and gave him a gold medal and chain, which at the close of his Mission to the Netherlands was presented to him by the then existing States-General. My father told my son John, and directed me to remember and witness that he gave him this, rather than his gold-watch, which was a trinket, for the sake of his name; because it was John Adams; and that it should be disposed of for his benefit according to my directions.

Oct. 1819: I told John what I proposed to do with the medal and chain given him by his grandfather. Which is to keep the medal as a memorial of the giver, and to send the chain to the Mint, and have its proceeds vested in Stocks yielding interest, till he shall come of age: with this arrangement, John said he should be satisfied.

In Conclusion

Historical coins, tokens, and medals are fascinating in the history they hold and stories they tell. Although I will never know for whom my bronze medal was struck or where it came from, it led me down a path to history. I certainty did not expect that my research would lead to John Adams and his family, who had a tremendous impact on Early America. I found working with The Massachusetts Historical Society to be a wonderful experience. I will continue to dig further into this medal because I would love to know the origin.

References

“#7 Johnny Goes Dutch.” Hollandsociety.org, 2024, hollandsociety.org/2024/01/7-johnny-goes-dutch/.

“Adams Papers Digital Edition – Massachusetts Historical Society.” Masshist.org, www.masshist.org/publications/adamspapers/index.php/volume/PJA16/pageid/PJA16p265.

Betts, Charles Wyllys. American Colonial History Illustrated by Contemporary Medals. New York: Scott Stamp and Coin, 1894, pp. 275–276.

C.F.A.; Ed. The Works of John Adams. Vol. VIII, Boston, Mass, Little Brown and Co., 1853, pp. 482–483.

“Dutch Republic | History & Facts.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2019, http://www.britannica.com/place/Dutch-Republic.

“Massachusetts Historical Society.” Masshist.org, 2019, http://www.masshist.org/.

“Nicolaas van Swinderen – Numista.” Numista.com, Numista, 2026, en.numista.com/catalogue/artist.php?id=2330.

“The Hague – Eurocities.” Eurocities.eu, 6 Aug. 2020, eurocities.eu/cities/the-hague/.

www.americanacorner.com/blog/john-adams-ambassador.

Common Mercury Dime Counterfeits

Posted on by

Key date coins are commonly counterfeited and should be viewed with scrutiny. This subject example of a 1916-D Mercury Dime surfaced and what many would call a “one glance” counterfeit.

The mintmark punch for the 1916-D is easily recognizable, along with 4 mintmark positions for genuine coins. This clearly isn’t a genuine mintmark and as one can tell by the surface quality the coin itself is a counterfeit.

This is one seen routinely through various Facebook groups, you would be hard pressed not to see one of these shared weekly. It isn’t just the key dates targeted (although that is the primary targets). Image comparison of a 1916-D, 1921-D, and 1939-D pictured below. A common reverse with a “bad” mintmark and small surface lump to the right of E.

Common markers in Red:

  • Surface lump to the right of E of ONE
  • Deformed mintmark shape and placement

Markers In Green indicate features not present on all examples. In this case two cracks running though U in “UNITED” and the A in “STATES”.

If you would like to know more about 1916-D markers, click here.

If you like posts like this, please go to our counterfeit archive with reports from Jack Riley, Jack D. Young, John Lorenzo and Michael Bugeja. Also, please subscribe so you be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

Double Denomination/Struck Coin

Posted on by

Double denomination coins are genuine errors struck on a previously struck planchet of a different denomination (e.g., a cent on a dime). Double struck coins are struck twice with the same dies, often overlapping. 

Let’s investigate these genuine error coins and distinguish them from post mint damage (vise and glue coins).

Double Denomination

A double denomination error happens when a previously struck coin, often a smaller denomination like a dime, is fed into a press for a larger denomination like a cent. Because there are two denominations, struck over each other, the error is known by this name. Typically, this happens when struck coin bounces or falls into the wrong hopper or is jammed in the machine, coming loose during striking of another coin.

Technically, this is a machine error. But unlike machine doubling, double denomination coins are rare and highly sought after. The strike also usually ends up misaligned on the planchet.

The most frequent holdered examples include the so-called “11-cent coin”–a cent on a dime. Often a Roosevelt dime is struck with a Lincoln cent. One way to tell is identifying the reeded edge from the dime. Replicas and fakes often do not include this identifying aspect.

Other denominations include a 15c Coin, or Jefferson Nickel on a Cent; 35c Coin, or Quarter on a Dime; and a $1.05 Coin Sacagawea Dollar on a Nickel.

Also, the dates of these double struck coins do not have to match. Two different dates usually occur with machine-jammed coins that come loose during striking of another, as in this example:

Double Struck

This error happens when a struck coin did not eject from the coining chamber and gets struck again, or several times. The result is an overlapping and distorted design with one strike flattening the other. Some double-struck coins have a date; others, as in the above example, do not.

There are different types of double struck coins. The most common is a coin struck correctly that doesn’t eject with the second strike off center. Another type happens with a second image struck over the first. Less common are multiple strikes,

You can see the various examples on the PCGS website. Here’s a double struck off center cent from that site:

The most common double strikes include Lincoln Cents (1959-2008) and clad Jefferson Nickels, Roosevelt Dimes and Modern Washington Quarters.

Vise and Glue Coins

A “vise job” is evidence of post mint damage. It is not an error. Someone squeezed one coin atop another using a vise, hammer or pliers so that it resembles a double struck or denomination coin.

You can spot a vise job when letters or the date appeal backward or the design is sunken into one rather than raised as would be a genuine error.

Note the backward spelling of “America” on this coin:

You can also do similarly with glue. These often appear like double strikes with a ghost image seemingly stuck to a regular strike. Upon inspection, you should see a foreign raised substance. A person uses glue to get an imprint of one coin and then layers it on another. If the raised area looks shiny, you probably have a glue coin.

As the glue dries, however, it may turn darker rather than transparent, looking like metal as below:

If in the market to purchase a double denomination or double struck coin, and are unsure how to identify replicas and forgeries, make sure that it is in a reputable holder. Keep in mind that China has been exporting these fakes. Here’s some examples from Etsy, all selling for under $30.

If you are interested in the various coin conditions like double denomination and double struck, be sure to visit our illustrated coin glossary, the largest on the web, with close to 300 entries.

If you like posts like this, subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and other social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about types, varieties, errors, grading, bidding and buying in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider buying or gifting the work for a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist blog. Thank you.

QUICK TAKE: Remove and Block Hijackers

Posted on by

Have you noticed that people, often from different countries, hijack Facebook coin group posts and show their own coins rather than commenting or answering questions? Here’s an example:

The above hijackers were responding to this post:

To many, this is just a nuisance. But it also can be hazardous as many such posters have malicious intentions including scamming you, phishing your email or Facebook site, and worse–algorithmic manipulation.

Let’s define that: Algorithmic manipulation is the intentional use of computer data to exploit your vulnerabilities or pull information from and about you, often via a bot or program to scrape data.

They also might appear on a FB post that solicits lots of comments–like the post above about the 1982-D Small Date Cent.

These scammers might have stolen or fake accounts. They hijack posts and show coins that they do not own, trying to get you to engage them about buying. Or they just might want your personal data for some other spurious reason.

Some cannot get a legitimate FB account and so use “likes” or engagement as a ruse to operate without being blocked.

If you are the target of a scammer, file a report with the group moderator. Many people do not know how to do this. Here’s a video about this with easy instructions:

You can also use Facebook’s contact form to report impostor.

If you like posts like this, please subscribe so you can get our weekly newsletter and be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentaries, click here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

eBay Seller’s comments to “Your Baby’s Ugly”

Posted on by

By Jack D. Young

Proxiblog asked me to consider doing an article on “how eBay sellers react when we report their coins as fake? I know some take down the lots. Others don’t.” I was intrigued by the thought and decided to write the following!

When I explain a Bay listing is counterfeit sellers can react a number of ways–in disbelieve, argumentatively (Grandpa owned it), accepting and thankful, combative (I’ll meet you in a parking lot dude…) or just “crickets.”. In my experience the larger the seller the higher the probability of crickets.

So, moving on I will not lower our standards here and report the combative ones but several of recent experiences I have had of the other types of reactions.

Let’s start with an interesting Trade dollar. This example just caught my eye, and the images led me to believe the coin was not genuine. The images in the listing were not definitive, and I asked the seller for better ones. He agreed and that was all it took! The common reverse used for a family of fakes I nicknamed the “notched R.” I wrote an article on these published in a recent LSCC Gobrecht Journal. I actually own one returned to a seller by NGC as counterfeit, so well versed on these:

eBay recent listing

So, I asked the seller about the coin and that I had concerns about its authenticity. He responded that he looked up the cert and the “PCGS verification”.

I responded there were no images on the on-line cert, so no help there. I included images from my coin and article and that I was sure it was counterfeit.

And he responded with a thank you and that he would remove the listing immediately, which he did!

So, a win, except who knows were the coin ends up, as he responded he is taking it back to the previous seller… And then another listing and another message:

Seller actually had two bad Morgans in fake PCGS slabs listed:

As he stated in his message, he ended both!

So, two with likely the best results we could hope for. And then this one:

Another counterfeit coin in a counterfeit slab, this one gets a little complicated if you really evaluate this one properly.

First, the obverse barcode scans as a 1989 $10 gold eagle. Then, the images of the genuine example for the cert# on the PCGS site are a completely different coin. And third, the interesting twist for this one is fakes of this type typically have a reverse QR code that scans to the genuine PCGS cert site in CHINA (cnpcgs), BUT this one scans to pcgseurope! A separate article on this one in the works.

So, I notified the owner, but he is in denial, and his response and then silence:

Silent until this😎:

So, good luck to all eBayer’s with that one!

And now the crickets; my friend Jack Riley posted the next example in our Face Book group:

Pretty bad counterfeit in a counterfeit slab again, the surprise was it is a large well respected Bay coin seller. Several of us sent messages to the seller with no response, so I took a risk and purchased it with the intention of asking for a return for it being a counterfeit.

Refund granted, never heard from the seller…

And eBay removed the listing:

Shortly thereafter my eBay account was permanently suspended.

If you like posts like this, you can read more articles on counterfeit coins by Jack D. Young, Jack Riley and Michael Bugeja at this URL. Also, please subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and other venues. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

3 Types of Doubling

Posted on by

With the popularity of coin microscopes, hobbyists are finding all manner of doubled dies, but only one really is valuable. Nevertheless, it is important to identify the three main types so that you can tell whether you have a valuable or face value coin.

Types of doubling covered in this article:

  • Hub doubling.
  • Machine doubling.
  • Die deterioration doubling.

By becoming familiar with the various types of doubling, you not only will be able to increase your knowledge of numismatics but also can help others with their finds.

Hub Doubling

This is the most important kind of doubling, always valuable because most kinds have a decent spread of letters, numbers and devices. You usually do not need a microscope. You can see these with a loupe or naked eye.

This type of doubling is produced by a misaligned hub that engraves the defect directly into the working die, meaning the image will be evident in every coin struck by that working die. That is why the result is called a variety, and not an error.

Here is the most famous doubled die resulting from a misaligned working die:

Some 40,000 of the 1955 DDO were initially struck, with about half of the run caught and destroyed, leaving about 24,000 that made it into circulation.

The key distinction of hub doubling is separated, raised and rounded doubling. Older coins typically have this kind of doubling. In the 1990s, the US Mint introduced what is called a Single Squeeze Process, reducing the number of doubled dies with less of a spread and with doubling occurring more toward the middle of the coin.

If you want to learn more about hub doubling and the minting process, see “How Does Hub Doubling Happen.”

Machine Doubling

Machine doubling occurs when the die moves slightly during the striking process, distinguishing it from hub doubling, which is associated with the working die.

Because machine doubling happens during a strike, its “double” image is flat and shelf-like and not raised enveloping the letter or number like hub doubling,

Compare the two in this comparison image:

Machine doubling, which often requires a microscope to see, is common because the Mint uses extraordinarily high-speed machinery whose vibration often causes the working die to bounce on impact.

Machine doubling typically is caused by a single strike, meaning not all coins of that run will have the same impression, as happens with hub doubling. That is why machine doubling is a mechanical error and not a variety.

It also has no collector value.

Die Deterioration Doubling (DDD)

Like any manufacturing facility, the US Mint uses its equipment on a cost-saving basis, meaning working dies are used until they begin to deteriorate. The striking process is high-speed and powerful. When a die is overused, some of the lettering, numbering or devices begin to erode slightly with metal flows entering the degraded areas.

That’s why die deterioration doubling is common, without value, even though at times this mechanical error looks stretched rather than flat. This is how you distinguish between machine doubling and DDD. (Also, die deterioration appears to be a weak strike.)

When the US Mint started producing copper-plated zinc coins with pressure to produce billions of them each year, mint operators over-extended the lives of working dies, producing millions of DDDs.

There are two other types of doubling, “Split Plate Doubling” and “Reduction Lathe Doubling.” The former also is associated with copper-plated zinc cents with the plating eroding in what looks like doubling, especially on mintmarks that people confuse with repunched mintmarks (RPMs).

The final type is “Reduction Lathe Doubling,” really a production issue that happens when a design is transferred to a master hub by a lathe vibrating slightly. The doubling is subtle and again, not valuable. It looks like machine doubling and really is just a category of it.

If you would like to learn more about the minting process, click here.

If you like posts like this, subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups and across social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about types, varieties, errors, grading, bidding and buying in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider buying or gifting the work for a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist blog. Thank you.

Counterfeit 1881-S Morgan Dollars

Posted on by

A recent eBay listing of a counterfeit 1909-S VDB cent sparked me to look at the rest of this particular seller’s offerings. They had nearly half of a dozen 1881-S Morgan Dollars along with a few counterfeits of other series. The 1881-S is a relatively common coin and easily found in high mint state grades; one wouldn’t expect to stumble across a counterfeit. The first image is of one of the represented coins.

A comparison of three of the coins tells the tale. Given the scratches, dings and random “circulation” marks, this isn’t a mix up of images. There are three separate coins.

Anyone who does a lot of variety attributions of Morgan Dollars will know that 1881-S is a difficult year to attribute and generally won’t be done just by a glance like some dates. All examples from this eBay seller exhibit the same repeated contact marks.

Notable obverse marks:

  • Line through S
  • Surface scratch left of U
  • Small surface mark between right star 5 and 6

Notable reverse marks:

  • Small scratch below the base of S
  • Field dot between U-N and above U
  • Minute surface flaws between E-D

If you like posts like this, you can read more articles on counterfeit coins by Jack D. Young, Jack Riley and Michael Bugeja at this URL. Also, please subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and other venues. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

Difference between dryer and spooned coins

Posted on by

Everyday on Facebook coin groups, Reddit and eBay, dryer and spooned coins appear with their owners believing they have found valuable errors. Let’s look closely at both examples of post mint damage in this article so you can identify what you have if you found examples in pocket change (literally) and rolls.

Also, this article showcases examples of sellers claiming dryer and spooned coins are valuable errors. They are not. They have no collector value.

Dryer Coin

A coin left in a home dryer or, more probably, a commercial dryer at a laundromat is known in numismatics as a “dryer coin,” dramatically changing dimensions so that it appears vastly different than the denomination.

The coin typically remains in a person’s pocket after being washed and tumbled and then falls out of the clothing and is exposed to high heat in a dryer. Sometimes it falls into the gap between the rotating inner drum and the stationary outer frame of a commercial dryer where it suffers even more damage due to grinding, friction and heat.

If you put the phrase “dryer coin” into a search engine, you get dozens of examples on Facebook and Reddit.

Dryer coins undergo these transformations: a flattening and widening of the edge, losing any reeding in the process. The heat pushes from the center outward resulting in a state that often resembles a bicycle tire with enhanced rim. The diameter becomes smaller.

Also, the result is a “mushy” discolored surface with devices literally melting away, as in the above coin. That is not a grease strike. It is a cent that was exposed to high heat in a commercial dryer. Compare:

It is important to distinguish between dryer coins and spooned ones. While both are considered damage, there are distinct differences.

Spooned

A spooned coin often looks like a dryer coin. In this case, however, the edge of a coin is intentionally hammered or pressed with the back of a spoon, eventually flattening and widening it.

The process is used to make a coin ring, as in this example:

The process of tooling the coin varies from a kitchen spoon to a handy person’s tool box and machinery. Basically, the coin is secured on a hard surface so that the person can use the back of a metal spoon, tapping, rotating and rubbing the coin over a long period (we’re talking days or even weeks).

Eventually the coin starts to mushroom toward the edge, developing an extended ring-like edge as in the above coin. At that point what remains of the coin is punched or drilled out, leaving the ring, which eventually is polished.

Some finished rings are lovely, as in this example:

Of course the finished ring looks nothing like a dryer coin. The confusion happens when the person abandons the spooning process and leaves the coin with a large ring-like edge but with the remaining devices of the coin still visible without the mushy appearance of a dryer coin.

That’s how you tell the difference between a spooned and dryer coin. Compare:

As you might expect, unknowledgeable people sell dryer and half-spooned coins as valuable error. Here’s an example of a dryer coin offered for $150.

Here’s an example of a spooned quarter misidentified as an error for $500.

Proxiblog has the largest illustrated glossary on the web. Click here. You can compare dryer and spooned coins to sunken dies and heat damage. Study all the examples so that you, too, can become a coin expert.

If you like posts like this, subscribe to Proxiblog so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about types, varieties, errors, grading, bidding and buying in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider buying or gifting the work for a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist blog. Thank you.

Family of Fake Lincoln Cents

Posted on by

By Jack Riley

Prompting this article is a 1914-D cent that a friend shared in a large Facebook coin group. After I explained that this was not genuine, I received additional closeup images for analysis.

A closeup image of the date and mintmark shows this coin is not a genuine 1914-D. The shape and placement of the mintmark is incorrect. This, however, is not the case of an altered date or an added mintmark; the entire coin is counterfeit.

This 1931-S had surfaced on eBay within the last few months. Comparing both reverses it is clear these were produced from the same makers and related to a large “family” of counterfeits. I’m calling this family “Notched O.” More on that momentarily.

The image quality of the 1931-S is subpar, leaving blurry images, yet enough to discern the repeating marks.

“Common marks” highlighted in Red:

  • Depression in O
  • Dent in “N” as well as the “O” in the word OF
  • Small indent of the “E”

At this writing I’ve only seen this on both 1914-D and 1931-S. Likely this exists on many key and semi key dates as well.

To check if your coin may belong to this “fugazi” (i.e. “fake”), look for those common marks highlighted above in red.

If you like posts like this, you can read more articles on counterfeit coins by Jack D. Young, Jack Riley and Michael Bugeja at this URL. Also, please subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and other venues. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

 

1969/70-P and 70-D Dime Varieties

Posted on by

No one is exactly sure how this variety happened, but the US Mint–under pressure then to produce billions of coins–mistakenly used the reverse of a 1968-S Proof Dime for the reverse of 1969-P, 1970-P and 1970-D Roosevelt business strikes. The official variety is known as 1969 rev. of 1968, 1970 rev. of 1968 and 1970-D rev. of 1968 (FS-901).

The FS-901 refers to a catalog number identified by Bill Fivaz and J.T. Stanton, co-authors of the Cherrypickers’ Guide to Rare Die Varieties of United States Coins.

“Reverse of 1968” on these three dimes is a numismatic variety recognized by all major holdering companies. The 1968 reverse shows two distinct, well-defined, and sharp valleys in the torch flame, whereas the business strike reverse has a less defined, blurry flame.


The 1969-P FS-901 is generally considered the rarest of the three with about 15 holdered by PCGS. 1970-D FS-901 is the most common with about 30 holdered by PCGS. About 20 for the 1970 rev. of 68.

All of these varieties can be found in rolls, although they are very scarce.

While this is a rare variety by population data, PCGS values remain low, ranging from $50-100.

You can find the variety on eBay selling about the same or higher, although the coins are unholdered, as in these examples:

If you are a dime roll hunter, keep your eyes peeled for other Roosevelt dime varieties:

1946 DDO FS-101

1946 DDO FS-102

1982 No Mintmark – Weak

1982 No Mintmark – Strong

As you can see, there are not many varieties for Roosevelt dimes, but click the links above and go to Proxiblog for articles explaining die markers.

If you like posts like this, subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and other social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about types, varieties, errors, grading, bidding and buying in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider buying or gifting the work for a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist blog. Thank you.