That's an interesting example. The obverse die has been polished down to the point that there is missing detail in the ear and a gap at the intersection of the nose/ upper lip and the lower hair curl is separated from the neck. It makes me wonder if this wasn't a fresh die but instead a freshened die. At any rate that thing is hammered. Congrats on owning what has to be the nicest non-proof example...
And congrats on getting the 3000th post in this thread. And to think I was one of the first to post. I remember when this thread was one page long.
I never thought I would come up with a thread that lasted this long. It certainly is a fun thread though.
I picked this one up today. I HAD to have it and once @Dave Waterstraat see's it, he will know why. It was in an NGC MS-63 Gen 9 holder. I cracked it out in order to better photograph it. The slab was pretty scratched up and my Meguiar's PlastX would not help it much. I paid $45.00 for it and it will be the subject of it's own thread, as I cannot seem to attribute a VAM to it and I think it might be a new one. Here's an image of it shot with axial lighting to show off the sunken dies on the obverse and reverse. The reverse really reminds my of an 1883-O VAM-1C. It's not as dramatic, but it is up there.
Of course I like this one! I looks like a far date with doubled ear lobe, possibly VAM-61 but I don't see a couple of die markers around the Y. Might be one to post on VW-2.0, Morgans like this one make me wonder if the mint exceeded the expected strike quantity or were the dies not hardened properly...
A few more of the new Franklins I picked up recently for $10/each: 1948 D 1949 S 1952 "Bugs Bunny" FS-401 1952 D
Picking up a Bugs Bunny for $10 is always a good day! I've found that searching through dealer's albums I can sometimes turn up a couple. Dealer's don't usually check for them except on the well-known 1955.
And sometimes, not even that one. Have even told them "This coin is a 1955 Bugs Bunny" and their response was, "Eh, I don't care." To each their own, I suppose; I'm happy to take it off their hands for them.
Thanks, I think out of the maybe ten or so 1949 S, this was the nicest. Also got this S/S in that batch as well: (Also just picked out a couple 1950 D DDR, which I didn't even know was at thing until this afternoon. Don't have those imaged yet.) (ALSO Also...I have a super cherrypick on its way now. Can't wait to share it here.)
It’s like the 3 1/2 legged buffaloes. Almost every collector knows that there is a 1937-D 3 legged Buffalo. Some collectors know that there is a 1936-D 3 1/2 buffalo that is even more valuable than the aformentioned 37-D. But what few collectors know is that 3 1/2 leg varieties exist on four other dates: 1916-D, 1917-D, 1926-D, and 1927-D. Was someone at the Denver Mint doing this on purpose? Here’s my 26-D 3.5: EDIT: Turns out the 52 Bugs Bunny is more valuable than the 55.
A pair of mercury dimes with similar coloration. The 45-S has some severe die wear on the obverse, with IN GOD WE TRUST very blurry. The reverse has a mint mark that looks inverted to my eyes, but apparently this is fairly common in the last several years of Mercuries and does not carry any noticeable premium value.