Crawtomatic

Same as Bosshog. I meant to write an entry about my pursuit of the best in class circulated Buffalo Nickels set (which I had last year on a technicality then a heavy showed up this year and pretty much stepped into 1st place) lacking a '38. Which is understandable when you mention how pedestrian the coin can be coupled with the prolific availability in mint state grades. It'll probably be one of my last spots to fill with a raw submission (can I just grab a 62 and rub it between my fingers a few times to get a 58?) unless I luck upon one. I should check for ANACS holders of submissions by inexperienced graders thinking a circulated coin is more valuable than it is.

So I learned something new today. I tend to steer away from restrikes but didn't know the requirement for designation. Does that also mean the many "Thaler restrikes" should carry a different terminology? Considering that original dies are probably long gone and the modern "restrikes" have different obverse details than the original (2 or 3) versions. Precision of language is important so if they should be called differently I'll do so.

As a follow-up, here's a close up shot of the variety of the coin I had submitted. At the lower left of the 6 you can see the bottom of the 1 poking out. I used too much digital zoom on these pics, but you get the idea. Die cracks around the periphery of the obverse. Die polish marks across the reverse.

That's an interesting thought. I can see merit in that. It would even help differentiate market value and perhaps reduce some of the "market grading" that results in a higher score on eye appeal rather than technical merit. If a TPG instituted it then they could also see an uptick of resubmissions related.

We're off topic from the original post and I don't want to debate it much. But using a coin analogy, when a coin is struck through grease some, or most, of the details are lost but not all of them. That's how a mask works to slow the spread of a virus. The infected carrier's breath is the die, the mask is the grease, and the air in front of them is the coin. Be safe, buddy.

Do you have a better picture of IGWT? I'm not seeing the doubling. Refer to the VarietyPlus listing for a mint state example. https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/united-states/cents/lincoln-cents-memorial-reverse-1959-2008/815787/?minting-process=MS&page=1

On the 86-D I'd suspect misplaced metal due to a hit the coin took in circulation. The lower coin (can't make out the date), looks as if somebody pressed a washer into the obverse. But a better picture of it could help explain it further. Include a picture of the reverse in case there's signs of a clamp or vise grip that would've been used.

It's been 6 months, man. How have you not heard already that there usage is not to keep particles out of the air you breathe in? They're to prevent particles from spreading freely from the exhausted breath of a carrier.

If you went off the headlines alone I could see that interpretation. But reading the articles and crosschecking to other sources that's not the same conclusion I come to. “We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” the group’s envoy, Dr. David Nabarro, told world health leaders and media on Sunday. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.” There's no mention that they indicate masks are wrong. I think they're just stating that if you do the lockdown, you should come up with a plan of action and then implement it. In America we've had a lot of non-compliance with suggested actions (like wearing masks and limiting social gatherings) that works against the plan of action. Granted, we're a really big country. Virus spread in all areas aren't the same so a national policy would either come off as heavy-handed or unnecessary in certain areas but well appreciated in hot spots. So we've had a policy creation process that shifted responsibility down to the state, and even county, level. But with all the misinformation & different narratives people are either choosing to ignore the directives at their local level or believing the whole thing is blown out of proportion.

Found it in 10 seconds. Didn't even have to seach the dark web. https://www.govmint.com/2020-2-oz-silver-donald-trump-uhr-ngc-pf70-whl

Do these fall under US or World Coins for submission? Particularly Phillipines coins minted by the US Mints.

I mean, if the US Mint says coins are stamped and not minted I guess we can stop correcting all the newbies about correct terminology, eh? https://www.usmint.gov/learn/kids/games/coin-stamper?cm_mmc=ExactTarget-_-Campaign-_-20200831LTMCAugust-_-Making+Change&utm_source=Campaign&utm_medium=EMAIL&utm_content=Making+Change&utm_campaign=20200831LTMCAugust&cm_mmca1=Newsletter&cm_mmca2=LessonsThatMakeCents&cm_mmca3=August&cc= By the way, I'm just making fat stacks of coins with this. Got the auto-stamper machine upgrade and solving the coin shortage problem myself, y'all. Review: 2/5 Pretty lame game. But it's got coins.

I thought you stated earlier that any submitter for crossover of a lower tier TPG would be sorely disappointed if they didn't submit it raw? I feel like that statement implies a level of caring that this statement discredits.

If I submit a lower tier 3rd party holdered coin I leave it in the holder and let NGC crack it out. I know it'll be considered raw but since I don't crack out holders every day I leave that bit to somebody more experienced.

No personal opinion on the coin but here's an article by NGC about counterfeit detection of the Pilgrim published in 2016. https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/5579/counterfeit-1920-pilgrim-tercentenary-commemorative/

If that's rim damage from 4 o'clock to 6 o'clock on the reverse that'll eliminate a straight grade as well. Hard to tell if it's just a picture cropping issue though.

That would be my presumption as well, that you'd need a specimen map for each date/mint. That approach would apply if you're talking about the ultrasound mapping, photograding, or in hand grading, correct?

Now to really hijack this thread and focus more on the seller. I sell on eBay, others here as well, but I don't juice up images or make claims about the coins I list. I don't need that type of stress in my life. But based on this thread on coin community from September 2019 he had 6,279 positive reviews/stars. So in less than a year he's received positive rating on an additional 6,302 items (currently sits at 12,581 stars). Where he has 46 pages of "As a Buyer feedback" there's 1,099 "As a Seller". https://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=354987 There's items in his shop I'd buy but most I'd scroll right past. I can't knock him too bad. He's obviously putting in the work. And is it really his fault a fool and his money are soon parted?

@VKurtB would be happy to know they're on YouTube too You have to wait for the music to really kick in, though.

Good digging. I'm sure eBay would not side with the seller in this case but this is an awfully Red Flag type of policy to have in your listing. WE OFFER A GENEROUS 30 DAY RETURN POLICY. IF YOU CHOOSE TO SEND AN ITEM TO A THIRD PARTY GRADING SERVICE YOU FORFEIT THE RIGHT TO RETURN THE ITEM FOR A REFUND. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH OUR POLICY PLEASE DO NOT PLACE ANY BIDS ON OUR ITEMS!

I like this approach for a new perspective. Instead of focusing on how to take a picture of a coin then program a machine to grade that picture we instead measure & map a coin and base the grade on that result. There's a couple of methods available to measure reflectivity which could be used for PL, DPL designation I presume. What about luster? Is that a lower range of reflectivity? Or a measure of diffused reflectivity? One gate could be needing a specimen coin for each series, year, mintmark on which subsequent coins are compared. This may not always be possible with the early series. As more "specimen" coins are mapped for a series you can identify standard deviations, revise the standard, and measure deviation from the standard. Sub-grading: strike, luster, a Prooflike scale, etc...

Forgive me, but I was only thinking of it's use from the perspective of a TPG to automate their grading process prior to encapsulation. Or to provide that post-grading QA phase like Big Nub referred to. For the record, I've always preferred two-pass blind verification systems in data capture processes - as if y'all cared. But as an application outside of the TPG environment is tempting. Like a tabletop box that could be used to grade a coin whether to sell it raw or determine likelihood of TPG results. I use an HP G4050 scanner at home currently which is about 20x14x5. The lighting is awful for coins but great for high quality photo & stamp renderings (4800x9600 dpi). It's older tech and soooo slow on the highest setting. If a coin grading box was created it'd have to be quicker and deeper to accommodate the multiple light sources - but not nearly as long or wide. Then you'd have the created issue that while you could patent the technology you couldn't guarantee that these same end users decide to use it to slab coins themselves with the grades the coin box comes to. Unless perhaps it's an enterprise application only and there's a user agreement where could they white label it. "Craw's Grading MS-67, powered by Bernard's CoinBOX". I mean, that's a whole other thread I didn't even consider. Dang. Well, I'm off to open a shipment of coins I just got back today so I'll be pondering this. Thanks, man!

The issue with the date is interesting. I feel like you could approach it from 2 angles, 1. the date is simply a design element (device) and should be graded as such, the machine doesn't need to "read" the date, or 2. the date determines the library of imagery to reference and grading parameters to work within, so the date needs to be read by the machine (or input by operator) to start the grading process. If we approached the date as a design element then the grading across a whole series becomes standardized. But I feel like that's not the case in practice, high 90s % feeling. I know the Buffalo Nickel series best and the strike quality across years varies. Some year & mintmark combinations, 1925-S for instance, anecdotally get better grade results while lacking in overall strike depth/crispness. I believe I read a similar take on the Peace dollar series with the 1921 issue. Now, I get that in practice that means we're taking into account the quality of dies used for these YYYY/MM combos. With a worn die the outcome is going to have a lower ceiling. Or maybe it was a mechanical setting that year that lowered the pressure in the press. I get it. But that certainly makes it harder to explain to a novice, or machine, why a MS-63 for one YYYY/MM does not share the same attributes as another YYYY/MM in the same series. Or I could be wrong. Not the first time.