u/CoinsOftheGens

So, this Morgan 1921(-P) was a family hand-me-down, almost certainly in a drawer/box/etc since late 1940s. It had quite a bit of organic/sticky gunk, and I got it to this point with a 3 hr soak in 100% acetone with a distilled water rinse. No other treatment of the coin since 1940s

My Question: There is still some schmutz in the obverse legend from 1:00 to slightly past the "1" in the date. And a bit in the field left of Liberty's nose and in the cap's dimple. I think it is the same organic material.

My very limited question is whether collectors who appreciate eye-appeal would STOP NOW or try to remove the traces.

NO NEED to express views on value or "grade", I do not care in the least.

Thanks!

Amusing rapid tilt in my casual US 20th Century side-collecting. As a lifelong New York resident, most common circulating coins I find are Philadelphia, and I had found and kept 3x 1943 -P Zinc/Steel "Steelies" cents. (Steelies are very common.) So, talking to a neighbor, and she said, "Thanks for [a chore I did], Dad had these, I know you like coins!" and gave me an envelope with 10 Steelies -- 4xD and 6xS . We rarely see 20th Century D and especially S in New York. Turns out she had lived in Central California in early 60s as a kid. So, my casual set-aside Steelie set now covers all the mints just for taking out a heavy garbage bag! Now the challenge of picking best 3 examples for flips! None are great.

Just for fun, I picked up a 1973 "Blue Ike" in the standard blue envelope and cello, with the usual Mint info/disclaimer card (not useless "COA" back then).

My question is narrow: the cello seems to be embossed "Packaged by United States Mint", which I have not noticed before on other Mint Sets. And, oddly, it only reads from the Reverse (unlike Proof set lenses, where the plastic is front-labelled). Frustratingly, this embossing is hard to see in online photos of Blue Ikes listed as OGP, some of which seem also to have a narrower margin on the cello. Is this embossing standard for "Blue Ikes" in OGP? (I am not thinking "rare & valuable", just more like "the Mint did it for a few months, then the embosser broke...").

As requested by a redditor in another thread, here is the AR medal that accompanied my set of the Best of the Mint "1916" AV Standing Liberty Quarter replica. The booklet calls it, "1916 Standing Liberty Quarter Dollar-Inspired Silver Medal", designed by Esao Andrews, with engraving by Joseph Menna (obv) and Darla Jackson (rev). Andrews notes it is a continuous dynamic reimagining of the scene on the prototype. The wall is now more like a pedestal/altar, with another in background, and the 1916 Eagle did not carry anything. (The prototype wall always puzzled me, seeming more like a garden gate than a fort, but there are grounds for saying Liberty is guarding domestic tranquility, which is certainly how the USA viewed itself.) Key diff I note: Medal Liberty is re-draped, neither showing one boob as in the Type 1 SLQ prototype, nor wearing the Type 2 cuirass. (IMHO, this dynamic scene is much more successful for a medal than the comicbook violence dynamic of the medal for the Merc Dime set.)

So, my reluctantly-ordered Best of Mint SLQ set, with AV Standing Liberty Quarter 1916[-W] reproduction and AR medal [N/D -P] arrived. In my view, both pieces are well-executed. The AV SLQ has all of the features that make it an appealing design, although the strike is slightly softer than the website images (which are probably not a real specimen). Liberty's shield and nipple* (*yes, kiddos) are less distinct than a MS69 prototype.

The AR medal is a more crisp strike, aided by the relatively greater number of straighter lines and the metal. For example, the Rx Eagle wing feathers are deeply incised. Clever use of superimposition of the elements over the legends on the medal, too.

The packaging, I can only say, must be sponsored by the TPGs to drive slab submissions. The insert is a highly friable plastic foam, not even the faux-velour of usual commemoratives. I had to wipe black dust off the capsules several times just to be sure the specks were not marks on the coins or dust inside the capsules. This stuff will be adhering to the capsules in a few years. It's odd because they went through the bother of including an info booklet, much longer than the usual bifold COA, with an elastic strap to hold the booklet in the lid. Images are capsule post-wipings and the foam insert.

Due to habit developed from my Ancients collecting, I generally keep all records of my US coins, even if the item was a show/LCS raw coin with just an ordinary BU/AU dealer grade. That includes slicing off the white layer of a flip's notes when I repack and re-tag into my preferred Saflips. (photo) I am not sure why I bother other than a vague sense that were I to sell, I might go first to a dealer I bought from, who might recognize their work. Also, I suppose, it is a bit of a check as to the dealer's grading skills if I get opportunities to compare. Some old-school dealers are better skilled than the TPG drones. Perhaps a bit of over-kill, but do any of you do this? I am also puzzled why more US dealers don't use their own tickets, which is standard with Ancients, or even a rubber stamp.

Ok, we all know the 1916-17 Standing Liberty Quarter is famous for the one-boob-out drapery. Notably, the "Best of the Mint" gold repro chose the Type 1, not the armored Type 2. That said, I have noticed that some dies of 1917 P seem to have a noticable belly-button under the drapery. I do not think these are contact marks, as even the BoM 2026 repro has a similar mark well above any centering point. From a quick review, the Type 2 also seem to have less distinct belly-buttons, consistent with wearing a cuirass. But I have not read any discussion of this. (You can thank me for research inspiration... but I think I am not imagining the mark.) Here is my bad photo of my 1917 type 1 (which has a scrape on the soon-to-be replaced mylar at 2:00) and the 2026/1916 AV BoM piece. I have not distinctly seen this with Type 2, although I may not have seen enough examples since I noticed it.

The Mint continues to impress with its commitment to fake info and support of Big Tech and SlabCo profits. Government money spent to hype a long sold-out, double-priced "product".