| Author |
 Replies: 23 / Views: 3,065 |
|
New Member
United States
37 Posts |
Hi Everyone, Could you please help me figure out what is the difference between these two coins? The first one looks like a regular silver, but the second is throwing me off.. It looks like a proof or SMS? But it has a D mint mark. A bit filled in also, but I do not know why it is so shiny all around. Any ideas? P.S. Both these coins where cherry picked out of mint sets. Thank you in Advance.   Edited by Freedom77
06/20/2021 7:59 pm
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2869 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10038 Posts |
Not easy to tell from pics. Possibly plated?
How much squash could a Sasquatch squash if a Sasquatch would squash squash? Download and read: Grading the graders Costly TPG ineptitude and No FG Kennedy halveshttps://ln5.sync.com/dl/7ca91bdd0/w...i3b-rbj9fir2 |
|
New Member
 United States
37 Posts |
I do not know if this helps, but the coin on the right is the extra shiny one.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
One of my favorite proof set it is the 1968. On those photos I do not see a proof if I compare with mines. Sorry.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
To bad it is plated. It may have been a doubled die? (second set of images)
Edited by coop
06/20/2021 10:22 pm
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2668 Posts |
Plated!? I can sorta see it...  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10635 Posts |
Quote:
Both these coins where cherry picked out of mint sets. I don't see either one of these coins as "cherry picked out of mint sets, as they both have lots of marks and fingerprints. I agree, the one coin looks plated, but then, why was it in a mint set?  |
|
New Member
United States
17 Posts |
I can see 3 reasons, the first and most likely one is that it has been polished, in which case, it is now worth face value. The second reason is that it may have been plated, and that isn't too bad, I actually collect plated coins (from circulation, not from Littleton or whatnot.) The 3rd and least likely reason is that it was an early strike with the die. I just don't see that many characteristics that would show that this is a early strike.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
@PineCreek (I like the name). If you want to collect the early die strike coins, I congrat you. This it is one of the most sensitive side of collecting. It is possible I know but very hard to identified and collect. I hope you can brink together as much is possible. For me will be a pleasure to see a such collection. All my best.
|
|
New Member
United States
37 Posts |
http://goccf.com/t/402732#3443878With all due respect, I have no reason to lie. I am not here to waste anyone's time. I bought a number of mint sets, and these were both cut out of two of those sets. Because I am new here and to collecting, I ask these questions,that are sometimes embarrassing because I truly do not know as much as many collectors here do. I genuinely do want to know if this is something I should explore further? Because they both came out of mint sets, and one looks so different from all the ones I have that are 40% silver, I figured it is an error coin or something. I was hoping someone could confirm that or not? 
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
While the 40% silver sets look like silver ones, the edges have a hint of something going on with them:  SMS were only 1965-1967. 40% were from 1965-1970-D. (1970-D was only available in mint sets) The one I view as plated was the one on the left on the edge view. There were proof half dollars that year, but they were San Francisco mints. Yours are both Denver mints. 1968-S DDO's  Try taking another image of the second coin without so much glare? That may be making us suspicious of plating. Also allow the light to flow across the motto devices. Variety Vista lists three DDO's. Wexler lists none for that year? (Seems strange to me) http://www.varietyvista.com/12%20Ke...201968-S.htmYou might need diffuse you light. Things that can cut glare is paper or even plastic grocery bags. Make a way to make the light pass through these materials with out touching the bulb. Then take a look to see it that removes the glare issue?   |
|
Valued Member
United States
392 Posts |
I'm no expert, but I have another theory. Rather than the second coin being too shiny, is it possible that the first coin has some PVC haze? There is little or no luster. I recently bought a 1968 mint set that had PVC haze on several coins. This might explain the difference between the two.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
|
|
Moderator
 United States
96477 Posts |
Well I can say for certain that they are not a proof or SMS coin. SMS were only made for the public in 1965, 66, and 67 And then any coins minted during those years did not have any Mint marks to prevent hoarding. In 1968 only San Francisco carrying an 'S' mint mark made proof coins, not Denver. your coins are business strike coins. Whether from Mint sets or from normal circulation is the question. They both look a tiny bit banged up, but who knows how they were treated after they left the mint.
I for one would like to see better pictures - full coin both sides. and with better lighting - try to reduce any glare.
|
|
New Member
United States
37 Posts |
Coop, thank you so much for the advise on the lighting. I have the Celestron USB microscope 5MP and the light source is tiny little bulbs that make a circle outside of the lens. I covered the little bulbs with paper, but there is still glare I think (please see picture below). Have not had much time to play around with it enough to get it right, but will keep trying. Thank you Parnelli917, also. It may be. But in person, the coin that is shiny, is not just shiny, but mirror like. The reflection on it is similar to that of a proof coin. I found that weird because it had a D mint mark. When I think I got better shots, less glare, I will post them in this thread. Thank you all again for your input. I truly appreciate it.  |
| |
Replies: 23 / Views: 3,065 |
Posted 06/20/2021 8:02 pm
