1968-S Lincoln

I could have sworn I posted a link to a MS65RD photo. Are we not allowed to post PCGS photos on this forum?

Not a good idea to reuse images, but posting a text link to another website is no problem.

Cents below melt? Hmm, it's illegal to melt them anyway. Plus, are you taking the weight of the cents and transposing it directly to the price of copper by the pound? That won't work...

Cents are 95% copper, 5% zinc. Smelting the zinc out of the brass alloy is expensive, and they charge you directly for that. You have to account for that, even if you could melt them.

The way they calculate everything is correct, but they don't include the smelter's fees for separating the metals. I would think there is still a chance of profit in it, but the profit would only add up if you're into the hundreds of pounds of metal.

One thing that MUST be rememebered here is that EVERY coin is unique in its own way. Grading is a sujective thing, and there are a number of graders at each different service. This is bound to provide some minor inconsistency. Using images of a graded coin to compare your coin is at least a little misleading, if not a lot misleading. The one big thing you are completely missing with this is an explanation FROM the grader who assigned the grade as to WHY the coin graded what it did. Another thing that's missing is the fact that the coin, especially copper, will change in appearance with time, and it really matters WHEN the coin was graded and how much time lapsed between the grading and the photograph. Taking a group of slabbed coins and photographing them according to what's on the label would be a BIG mistake and a disservice to the community at large. I know this isn't what happened in this case, I'm just saying it while I'm ont he subject.

Using sample grade images to argue the grade of another coin works sometimes, but it does not and cannot apply to all cases across the board. Similar marks or stains in different areas can greatly affect the grade of a coin in very different ways, and an understanding of this is VERY important if you want to be a red copper grader. A gash on the steps of a memorial matters FAR less than the same gash right in front of Lincoln's nose. There's a lot that goes into grading, and using sample images of graded coins to argue a point about a different coin is just useless to tell the truth.

I'm not trying to be crass or harsh here, but it seems that you have argued your grading opinions with images of coins from different sources. It really takes a knowledge of a number of coins graded by the different sources and some experience viewing hundreds of graded coins to be able to get a feel for what another coin would grade. This method simply will not work, as was the case with the MS68 graded coin that had to have turned in the holder. That image is a terrible example of an MS68 graded coin. The buyer of that coin was buying a label, not a coin. Using the picture to argue what an MS68 coin looks like shows a certain level of misunderstanding of how grading is done. And like I said, again, I don't mean to sound harsh at all. We all have learning to do and I'm trying to help here.

I'm not going to melt. Copper cents have intrinsic value just like any other metallic coin. If it was illegal to melt silver, would you be willing to sell your BU roll of 1964 dimes at less than melt?

I have noticed when roll searching Lincoln cents that many of the coins from 68-73 are AU.Does anyone know why you seem to find more of these in that range of years then others?

For a circulated coin there are many that I come across that are in great shape.

I agree with that BadThad but you would think that there would be other dates turning up in the same grade. I seem to find more from the 60-70 cents.

Are you serious? you violate the rules by posting to yourself so you can try and get to the BST forums and you have the nerve to call the Mods out for deleting the posts?