I don't do paper so I'm generally clueless on the subject. However, I must say I think that 1891 $1 is cool looking even without the solid serial...
Those are sweet little things.
No, wait! According to CoinFacts, there IS a 1914/3-D overdate that was discovered in 2000. Check the diagnostics listed on that page.
Here's the full list of dates and varieties on the Numismedia page.
Hmm. Interesting, but as far as I know, the 1914/3 overdates are Philadelphia coins, which wouldn't have the "D" mintmark like yours does. I am...
[ATTACH]
This is not an error coin. It is a better date. It's better than just any 1914 Buffalo nickel, since it bears the "D" mintmark of Denver at the...
All I have is this emoji thing. :rolleyes:
For the price of junk silver, I don't see how you can possibly go wrong here.
Neat stuff! They obviously saw extensive circulation. Contemporary counterfeits, while usually not pretty, are almost always interesting, aren't...
That sort of sweeping generalization is meaningless when applied to 1.4 billion people. Sure, there are thousands upon thousands of shady...
Time for another cob. Presently the only other one I've owned, besides the one at the top of this page. I want a gold one someday. Or to dig...
It was probably struck at a mint in Wales. [ATTACH]
I do love Seleucid stuff. [ATTACH]
Not to rub salt in your wounds, but that was a nice one that got away. Mind you, I'm a "Magpie" collector who mostly collects from aesthetics,...
Sextus Pompey aureus. *coff* *choke* *gasp* That coin is so ... Sexty. :greedy::greedy::greedy:
Dunno. I agree that it looks like mint damage versus PMD, but I'm far from a specialist in that stuff. "Lamination" was my first ready answer,...
Separate names with a comma.
