I've added these coins to my inventory: • [coin:b18e5500-0d83-11ef-a77a-060e37a4c43f] • [coin:b18eb5e0-0d83-11ef-a77a-060e37a4c43f] For sale

PCGS, NGC, CACG, ANACS, or raw? Why? Also, if you liked ICG, PCI, INS, SEGS, or AccuGrade, or the old British TPG based on 100 point scale (which seems more stringent in the upper grades, and to exceed ms70 with various FDC grades), or something else, comment below. Anyone want to see a return of separate grading for each side?

Won this lot of 1900 Dominion of Canada 25c notes (shinplaster). I got outbid on the 1923 25c notes lot the same seller had going yesterday.

I've added these coins to my inventory: • [coin:9c4026d0-eaa9-11ee-9c64-060e37a4c43f] • [coin:9c405b2b-eaa9-11ee-9c64-060e37a4c43f]

Anyone looking for a collection of Red Books, this lot has a good start to the full set. https://www.ebay.com/itm/256090113790

https://blog.money.org/coin-collecting/history-of-the-1792-disme

Someone on reddit may have a raw DDO 1955 Cent. Claims to have had the coin in their possession for 15 years. This site blocks reddit, it seems, but it's in r/coins if interested in checking it out, and throwing in an opinion if you have one (i don't, not anything i have expertise in).

https://www.reddit.com/r/coins/comments/1bdddnh/i_know_of_this_coins_whereabouts_for_the_last_15/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

2024 AWQ Clad Proofs going on sale in a few minutes https://catalog.usmint.gov/american-women-quarters-2024-proof-set-24WP.html

Wow, A-Mark is taking mcm, and lpm, wonder if they'll get govmint too, which was owned by same people as mcm and lpm. Had no idea pinehurst was under a-mark, knew about the others listed in the article. a-mark has damn near a monopoly at this point.

Does this look like a lamination flaw, under the raised arm? #error

Eventually I'd like to have the full Edward VII 1902-1910 florin run, including the 1902 matte proof. So far my pocket has afforded me two AU examples. One of my favorite coin designs, alongside the British Trade Dollar, both the work of engraver George William de Saulles. That 1905 is a bit of a key, though most are a bit tough, frankly, especially in upper conditions.

Is anyone familiar with this token? I'm interested in tracking one down, tentatively, but price would largely dictate that. I was previously unaware of its existence, but it being SOHO Mint, and a possible first Conder, my interest in piqued. I couldn't find any for sale, so not even sure what ballpark a piece like this will cost in any condition. Didn't look like any claimed owners among numista users, for what ever that's worth. "Possibly the first coin minted at the Soho mint, Birmingham. Copper, 34mm, 16g. Arms of the Earls of Peterborough with supporters. HALSALL / D (penny). Engrailed edge (Lancashire D&H 1). The first Conder Token, minted to pay the workers at Colonel Mordaunt’s cotton mill in Lancashire. It spawned hundreds of similar tokens that took over Britain’s coinage in the 1790s." (Cited from: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-problem-of-small-change-was-george-iii-responsible.394052/)

Anyone else think it's bad practice for NGC to give out 'top pop' to instances like seen in my photo, and attribute more points for it (top pop bonus), all for a subgroup of all the exact same date/mintmark? Not just for the different set releases, but also the early release vs first release vs FDOI designation for each set/release (or not). In this instance i apparently have a top pop, but it's rather disingenuous, imo, and also allows unctuous sellers (esp on ebay) to promote it as top pop, when realistically it's not materially different from any other coin of the same date/mintmark. I wasn't misinformed/conned by buying this, i just hate how this muddies the waters, imo, and some buyers could be tricked by this. I believe they all should be treated according to the main group's top pop, even if they track subdivisions as these.