65..that nick really hurts its beauty.
66, thanks for sharing.
one of the reasone it's so expensive because it was the last year for the state quarters. Remember 09 sets are U.S. terrorities not states.
66
wrong picture...I would call them to clarify.
http://www.harlanjberk.com/unitedstatesco/text.asp?title=Proof+Set&inventorygroup=us has proof sets at a pretty reasonable price and really havent...
I agree with many others that this coin is a 64
they all looked like they have been cleaned/dipped and worth about 1 cent each...that "D" in 1957 looks like its PMD
I dont think it's larger than the first, however the first seem ot appear to be at a slight angle..Something does seem off about it.
it looks something like this http://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.php?LotID=860786&AucID=637&Lot=3813&Val=05070926aaec77fc09afd13f108c3043
99.9% of the time its MD...that year ifI recall correctly produced some poor quality nickels..as a matter of fact I have seen and have MANY of...
brooklyngallery.com is good. I have ordered several Dansco albums and they arrive w/in days after ordering. I think 2 albums were almost 9 dollars...
probably got a 66 knowing RLM however I believe it should get a 64.
66 in my mind.
the mintage of 50-s 20,440,000 and actually the 49-s has less: 13,510,000. Maybe the 50-s is not as big of a key date as one may think? no, I am...
going to be the odd ball 61. though it may be along the lines of a 62..
Dick, is the left wheat stalk complete or am i seeing something on the slab (looks like the left side of the stalk are starting to blend...
dont know anything about them..hard to find?
I have one B05734101 and B05430043 and B04284474
Another feature to tell the difference in the large/small dates is look at the word LIBERTY [IMG][IMG] [IMG][IMG]
Separate names with a comma.
