A United States coin design extremely wanted by collectors is the topic of this evaluation. The coin, initially minted from 1878 to 1904, and once more briefly in 1921, holds a distinguished place in numismatic historical past because of its silver content material and iconic design. The required 12 months, nonetheless, presents an anomaly.
The importance of those cash lies of their historic context, reflecting the silver mining increase of the late nineteenth century. Authentic mintages contained 90% silver, contributing to their intrinsic worth. Nevertheless, the 12 months 1964 is especially noteworthy as a result of no cash of this design had been formally struck throughout that 12 months by the USA Mint. Due to this fact, gadgets bearing this mix of traits require cautious scrutiny to find out authenticity and origin. Any purported coin with that date would seemingly be both a counterfeit, altered coin, or novelty merchandise.
The next sections will additional discover the the reason why no genuine examples exist, delve into potential counterfeit identification strategies, and study the broader market worth and collectibility of comparable, genuinely minted, examples of this coin sequence.
1. Non-existent official mintage
The phrase “Non-existent official mintage” is basically linked to “morgan silver greenback 1964” as a result of it establishes the core purpose why the latter is sort of all the time a misrepresentation. The USA Mint didn’t produce the design in 1964. Official information unequivocally affirm that the manufacturing of that design ceased in 1921 and was not resumed till a restricted run in 2021, to commemorate the a centesimal anniversary of the transition from the design to the Peace Greenback. This absence of official manufacturing is just not a matter of debate however a documented reality, primarily based on official mint information.
The implications of this non-existent mintage are vital. It instantly raises crimson flags when encountering an merchandise labeled as such. In sensible phrases, it necessitates speedy skepticism and rigorous authentication. For example, a novice collector may come throughout this purported instance at a flea market or on-line public sale. With out understanding that no real cash of this sort had been created in that 12 months, they might be simply deceived. Consciousness of the non-existent official mintage is, subsequently, the primary line of protection towards fraudulent gross sales.
In abstract, the dearth of official mintage for the desired 12 months is just not merely an obscure element. It’s the defining attribute that makes its existence extremely inconceivable. This understanding serves as a pivotal piece of information for collectors, traders, and anybody interacting with numismatic gadgets to stop misidentification, fraud, and monetary loss. The connection between the 2 ideas is, subsequently, not simply an affiliation however a foundational facet of understanding the potential fallacy of the merchandise.
2. Seemingly counterfeit identification
The phrase “Seemingly counterfeit identification” is intrinsically linked to the idea of “morgan silver greenback 1964” as a result of absence of formally minted examples from that 12 months. As no genuine cash of this sort had been produced in 1964, any coin bearing that date is, by definition, a counterfeit or altered merchandise. The method of figuring out such a counterfeit entails a number of key aspects.
-
Date Alteration Detection
One main technique of counterfeit identification entails scrutinizing the date itself. Counterfeiters could alter the date on real cash from different years. Inspecting the font, spacing, and alignment of the numerals can reveal inconsistencies. For instance, a coin initially minted in 1904 might need the “0” modified to resemble a “6.” Microscopic examination typically reveals software marks or disruptions within the coin’s floor the place the alteration occurred. Such manipulations are telltale indicators of a counterfeit and are essential in verifying the authenticity of any alleged “morgan silver greenback 1964”.
-
Metallic Composition Evaluation
Genuine examples of the design are comprised of 90% silver and 10% copper. Counterfeit cash typically use cheaper metals or completely different alloys. Conducting a particular gravity take a look at or X-ray fluorescence (XRF) evaluation can decide the coin’s composition. A counterfeit could exhibit a decrease silver content material than a real coin, indicating its inauthenticity. The burden and metallic resonance of the coin may also present clues; nonetheless, these checks are much less definitive than compositional evaluation.
-
Die Traits Discrepancies
Every mint used particular dies to strike cash, and these dies typically exhibit distinctive traits. Counterfeiters could use completely different dies, leading to discrepancies within the coin’s design particulars. Inspecting the sharpness of the small print, the position of design components, and the presence of particular die markers (e.g., clashed dies or die cracks) can reveal variations between a real coin and a counterfeit. On-line databases and reference supplies detailing die traits are invaluable assets for this sort of evaluation.
-
Weight and Diameter Irregularities
Genuine cash of the design have particular weight and diameter tolerances. Counterfeit cash typically deviate from these specs. Using a exact scale and caliper can assist decide if the coin falls throughout the anticipated vary. Vital deviations in weight or diameter are robust indicators of a counterfeit. Nevertheless, slight variations can happen in real cash because of put on or harm, so this take a look at must be used along side different strategies.
In conclusion, the identification of a counterfeit “morgan silver greenback 1964” depends on a mixture of strategies, together with date alteration detection, metallic composition evaluation, die attribute discrepancies, and weight/diameter irregularities. The appliance of those strategies is crucial to guard collectors from fraudulent gadgets and preserve the integrity of the numismatic market. The absence of real cash from that 12 months makes counterfeit identification a very essential talent on this context.
3. Novelty merchandise potentialities
The intersection of “Novelty merchandise potentialities” and “morgan silver greenback 1964” arises from the inherent demand for numismatic collectibles coupled with the non-existence of formally minted cash from that particular 12 months. This void creates a market alternative for producers to provide gadgets that mimic the looks of the unique design for ornamental or memento functions. These shouldn’t be confused with genuine cash.
-
Duplicate Manufacturing for Souvenirs
Producers create replicas of the design, typically with the fictional “1964” date, supposed as souvenirs or ornamental items. These things could also be bought at vacationer outlets, reward shops, or on-line marketplaces. Sometimes, these replicas are fabricated from base metals, comparable to zinc or copper, and could also be plated with a skinny layer of silver to reinforce their resemblance to the unique. The design particulars are sometimes much less refined than on real cash, and the load and dimensions could deviate considerably. An instance consists of mass-produced replicas bought as “commemorative tokens” at historic websites or coin exhibits. Such gadgets capitalize on the recognition of the design with none pretense of being real forex.
-
Fantasy Situation Cash for Collectors
Sure personal mints produce “fantasy points,” that are cash or medals that resemble official coinage however usually are not approved by any authorities. These fantasy points could incorporate the “1964” date on the design, interesting to collectors curious about distinctive or uncommon gadgets. These usually are not meant to deceive, however somewhat add to the broader numismatic panorama. For example, a personal mint may produce a silver spherical with the design and the desired date, clearly marked as a “fantasy situation” to tell apart it from genuine forex. These things typically have a restricted mintage, rising their collectibility amongst area of interest audiences.
-
Medallic Artwork with Historic Themes
Artists and medalists could create medallic artwork that includes the design, typically incorporating historic themes or commemorating particular occasions. These medals could bear the “1964” date as a part of the design, referencing a major 12 months in American historical past. The first focus is on creative expression somewhat than numismatic accuracy. An instance entails a medal commemorating the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that includes the design as an emblem of American heritage. These medals are sometimes fabricated from silver, bronze, or different metals and are marketed to collectors of medallic artwork and historic memorabilia.
In abstract, the “Novelty merchandise potentialities” associated to “morgan silver greenback 1964” embody a spread of merchandise, from cheap souvenirs to rigorously crafted fantasy points and medallic artwork. These things cater to numerous audiences, together with vacationers, informal collectors, and artwork fans. The important thing distinction is that these things usually are not supposed to deceive as genuine forex, however somewhat function ornamental, commemorative, or creative representations of a basic design. The prevalence of such novelty gadgets underscores the enduring reputation and cultural significance of the unique sequence.
4. Altered coin origins
The subject of “Altered coin origins” is basically intertwined with any dialogue of “morgan silver greenback 1964” as a result of absence of formally minted examples from that 12 months. The prevalence of cash falsely bearing the date necessitates an intensive understanding of the strategies and motives behind such alterations.
-
Date Manipulation Methods
The commonest type of alteration entails bodily modifying the date on a real coin from a distinct 12 months. This course of sometimes entails eradicating or reshaping numerals utilizing instruments comparable to gravers or micro-drills. For instance, a “0” within the date “1904” is likely to be altered to resemble a “6,” thus making a false “1964” date. Microscopic examination typically reveals software marks, scratches, or inconsistencies within the floor texture across the altered numerals. Expert counterfeiters could try to mix these alterations to match the encircling metallic, making detection more difficult. The motivation behind this observe lies within the perceived elevated worth of a coin with the non-existent date, exploiting the ignorance of unsuspecting consumers.
-
Base Metallic Substitutions and Plating
In some instances, counterfeiters could create completely new cash from base metals, comparable to copper or zinc, after which plate them with a skinny layer of silver to imitate the looks of the unique. These cash lack the intrinsic silver content material of real examples, making them simply distinguishable by way of weight and particular gravity checks. For example, a coin represented as “morgan silver greenback 1964” may weigh considerably lower than the usual weight of 26.73 grams or fail the precise gravity take a look at because of its non-silver composition. The motivation for this sort of alteration is solely financial, as the price of supplies is considerably decrease than that of real silver cash. The standard of plating can fluctuate extensively, however even well-executed plating can typically be detected by way of microscopic examination, revealing the underlying base metallic.
-
Re-engraving and Counterfeit Dies
Extra refined counterfeiters could make use of re-engraving strategies or create completely new dies to strike cash with the false date. Re-engraving entails rigorously altering the present design on a real coin to include the “1964” date, whereas counterfeit dies are used to provide a number of cash with an identical traits. These strategies require appreciable talent and gear, however the ensuing counterfeits might be extremely misleading. For instance, a re-engraved coin may exhibit delicate variations within the font or spacing of the numerals in comparison with real examples, whereas a coin struck from a counterfeit die could have minor variations within the design particulars. Detecting a majority of these alterations typically requires knowledgeable data of die varieties and a complete understanding of the coin’s design traits.
-
Altered Mint Marks and Floor Therapies
Along with altering the date, counterfeiters may additionally manipulate the mint mark or apply floor therapies to reinforce the coin’s look. Mint marks might be added, eliminated, or altered to create a extra fascinating selection, whereas floor therapies comparable to synthetic firming or cleansing can be utilized to hide imperfections or improve the coin’s luster. For example, a typical coin might need its mint mark altered to resemble a uncommon selection, or a cleaned coin is likely to be artificially toned to simulate pure growing older. These alterations are supposed to deceive potential consumers and inflate the coin’s perceived worth. Detecting such manipulations requires cautious examination beneath magnification and an intensive understanding of the coin’s bodily traits.
The potential for “Altered coin origins” in gadgets presupposed to be “morgan silver greenback 1964” underscores the significance of rigorous authentication and due diligence. The absence of official examples from that 12 months implies that any such coin should be subjected to thorough scrutiny to find out its true nature and stop monetary loss because of fraud or misrepresentation.
5. Numismatic misinformation
The convergence of “Numismatic misinformation” and “morgan silver greenback 1964” is important as a result of the non-existence of formally minted cash from that 12 months creates a fertile floor for the unfold of inaccurate and deceptive info. This misinformation can take numerous kinds, exploiting the lack of expertise amongst novice collectors and most people, resulting in monetary losses and a skewed understanding of numismatic historical past.
-
False Attribution and Misidentification
Misinformation typically manifests because the false attribution of a coin to the desired 12 months, no matter its precise date or origin. This will likely contain incorrectly labeling altered or counterfeit cash as genuine examples, main consumers to consider they’re buying a uncommon and helpful merchandise. For example, a person may unknowingly buy a coin that has had its date altered from “1904” to “1964,” believing it to be a real instance. Such misidentification can happen at coin exhibits, on-line auctions, and even by way of personal gross sales, highlighting the necessity for cautious examination and authentication.
-
Exaggerated Rarity and Worth Claims
One other widespread type of numismatic misinformation entails exaggerating the rarity and worth of cash bearing the inaccurate date. Sellers could falsely declare that these cash are distinctive errors or uncommon variations, commanding exorbitant costs from unsuspecting consumers. For instance, a vendor may promote a coin with the non-existent date as a “one-of-a-kind” error, trying to justify a value far exceeding its precise price as a base metallic duplicate. The proliferation of on-line marketplaces and public sale websites has made it simpler for such claims to unfold, requiring consumers to train warning and search knowledgeable recommendation.
-
Deceptive Historic Narratives
Numismatic misinformation may also lengthen to deceptive historic narratives surrounding the non-existent coin. This may contain concocting tales about secret mintages, particular editions, or hidden caches of those cash, fueling hypothesis and driving up demand. For example, a web based discussion board may flow into a narrative a few clandestine mintage of the design in 1964, prompting collectors to seek for these elusive cash. These narratives, although baseless, can acquire traction by way of word-of-mouth and social media, contributing to the general confusion and perpetuating false beliefs.
-
Misleading Advertising Practices
Misleading advertising practices are continuously employed to advertise the sale of cash incorrectly dated as “morgan silver greenback 1964.” These practices could embrace utilizing deceptive terminology, using misleading imagery, or failing to reveal the true nature of the coin. For instance, a vendor may use phrases comparable to “duplicate,” “commemorative,” or “fantasy situation” with out explicitly stating that the coin is just not a real United States forex. These techniques are designed to obfuscate the info and capitalize on the lack of expertise amongst potential consumers, making it important for customers to be vigilant and knowledgeable.
These aspects spotlight the pervasive nature of numismatic misinformation surrounding the desired coin and the desired date. The absence of formally minted cash from that 12 months creates a vacuum that’s typically stuffed with false attributions, exaggerated claims, and misleading advertising practices. Combating this misinformation requires a concerted effort from numismatists, educators, and the numismatic neighborhood to advertise correct info, encourage essential considering, and defend collectors from fraud and misrepresentation. An absence of skepticism and willingness to authenticate purchases is usually the basis reason behind succumbing to numismatic fallacies.
6. Misleading gross sales practices
The absence of real cash dated “morgan silver greenback 1964” creates a major atmosphere for misleading gross sales practices. Unscrupulous sellers exploit the will for uncommon and helpful cash, coupled with a lack of expertise amongst potential consumers, to market misrepresented or fraudulent gadgets. These practices vary from delicate misdirection to outright fraud, necessitating vigilance and knowledgeable decision-making.
-
Deceptive Terminology and Descriptions
One widespread tactic entails the usage of deceptive terminology in product listings or commercials. Sellers could use phrases comparable to “duplicate,” “commemorative,” or “fantasy situation” with out clearly stating that the merchandise is just not a real United States coin. The intention is to create ambiguity and obfuscate the true nature of the product. For example, a vendor may promote a “1964 Morgan Greenback Commemorative” with out explicitly mentioning that it isn’t a federally issued coin, main consumers to imagine it’s a official rarity. Such ambiguity exploits the customer’s lack of expertise and will increase the chance of a sale.
-
Inflated Pricing Based mostly on False Rarity
Misleading sellers typically inflate the value of things falsely bearing the date, claiming they’re uncommon errors or distinctive varieties. The absence of genuine examples from that 12 months permits these sellers to create a story of outstanding shortage, justifying exorbitant costs. A vendor may checklist an altered coin for a number of thousand {dollars}, citing its “one-of-a-kind” standing as justification. This tactic preys on the customer’s want for a helpful collectible and their ignorance of the coin’s true origins. The inflated value bears no relation to the coin’s precise intrinsic or collectible worth.
-
Altered Coin Disguise and Concealment
Sellers could deliberately disguise alterations made to the coin, obscuring the indicators of manipulation or harm. This may contain making use of synthetic firming, cleansing the coin to take away telltale marks, or utilizing misleading images to hide imperfections. For instance, a vendor may artificially tone an altered coin to cover the scratches and power marks across the date. These strategies are designed to make the coin seem extra genuine and improve its market enchantment, deceiving potential consumers and masking the fraudulent nature of the alteration.
-
Lack of Transparency and Disclosure
A key ingredient of misleading gross sales is the dearth of transparency and disclosure relating to the coin’s historical past and authenticity. Sellers could fail to offer detailed descriptions, omit details about alterations, or refuse to offer provenance documentation. For example, a vendor may merely checklist a coin as “1964 Morgan Greenback” with out mentioning its altered date or non-authentic standing. This lack of transparency prevents consumers from making knowledgeable choices and will increase the danger of buying a misrepresented merchandise. Moral sellers present detailed info and welcome scrutiny to make sure purchaser confidence.
The array of misleading gross sales practices surrounding the “morgan silver greenback 1964” underscores the necessity for warning and knowledgeable decision-making within the numismatic market. Patrons should train due diligence, search knowledgeable opinions, and thoroughly scrutinize product listings to keep away from falling sufferer to those unethical techniques. The absence of official cash from that 12 months serves as a relentless reminder of the potential for fraud and misrepresentation on this context.
7. Misidentified peace {dollars}
The connection between “Misidentified peace {dollars}” and “morgan silver greenback 1964” stems from the potential for confusion arising from comparable designs and the time proximity of their minting durations. Whereas the design’s manufacturing ceased in 1921 and the Peace Greenback commenced that very same 12 months, people unfamiliar with numismatic particulars could erroneously affiliate the latter with the previous, significantly when encountering cash with altered or obscured dates. The Peace Greenback, designed by Anthony de Francisci, contains a completely different depiction of Liberty and an eagle, however superficial similarities can result in misidentification. That is significantly related when inspecting claims associated to the desired date, as any official silver greenback from 1964 can be a Peace Greenback, not the opposite design. An instance features a novice collector encountering a worn silver greenback and assuming it’s the earlier design from 1964, unaware that no such coin exists.
Additional contributing to this confusion is the prevalence of on-line marketplaces the place cash are sometimes bought with incomplete or inaccurate descriptions. A vendor may unintentionally or intentionally mislabel a Peace Greenback as being of the opposite design, significantly if the coin’s date is partially obscured or illegible. This misidentification might be compounded by the alteration of dates. For example, a Peace Greenback with {a partially} broken date is likely to be mistakenly assumed to be a “morgan silver greenback 1964” as a result of obscured numerals. Such cases underscore the significance of meticulous examination and authentication by skilled numismatists. The design variations, together with the depiction of Liberty and the eagle, present key indicators for correct identification.
In conclusion, the potential for misidentification between the 2 designs highlights the necessity for training and cautious examination when coping with silver {dollars}. The absence of the desired design from 1964 means any claims of its existence warrant excessive scrutiny. Recognizing the distinct options of each cash and understanding their respective minting durations is essential in stopping errors and making certain correct numismatic evaluation. The confusion between these cash serves as a reminder of the significance of correct info and knowledgeable session within the subject of numismatics.
8. Commemorative duplicate variations
The intersection of “Commemorative duplicate variations” and “morgan silver greenback 1964” highlights a market response to the demand for a non-existent coin. Since the USA Mint didn’t produce silver {dollars} of this design with that date, the demand is as an alternative fulfilled by replicas created for commemorative functions. These replicas fluctuate considerably in high quality, supplies, and supposed market. The trigger is the intrinsic enchantment of the design coupled with a historic hole. The impact is a proliferation of privately produced replicas, starting from cheap souvenirs to higher-quality collectibles, none of which maintain the identical numismatic worth as genuine, government-issued coinage. For instance, quite a few personal mints have issued silver rounds or medallions bearing a resemblance to the design and the desired date, marketed as commemoratives or tributes, typically containing one ounce of silver.
The significance of understanding these commemorative duplicate variations lies in discerning them from real cash. Misidentification can result in monetary loss for uninformed consumers. Commemorative replicas could also be fabricated from base metals and plated with silver, or they could include silver however lack the historic and numismatic significance of genuine cash. These variations typically function design alterations, comparable to including a commemorative inscription or modifying the unique design components. An instance is a commemorative duplicate produced for a particular anniversary or occasion, incorporating associated imagery alongside the basic design. Such alterations distinguish these replicas from the originals, but they will nonetheless deceive these unfamiliar with the subtleties of the design.
In conclusion, the existence of commemorative duplicate variations in relation to the desired coin and date underscores the necessity for warning and training within the numismatic market. Whereas these replicas can function reasonably priced alternate options for collectors or as commemorative gadgets, they shouldn’t be mistaken for genuine United States coinage. The problem lies in differentiating between real cash, altered cash, and privately produced replicas. The sensible significance of this understanding is the safety of consumers from fraud and misrepresentation, making certain that numismatic purchases are primarily based on correct info and knowledgeable choices. The broader theme is the intersection of demand, historic context, and market response within the subject of numismatics.
Steadily Requested Questions
The next questions and solutions deal with widespread inquiries and misconceptions relating to the existence and nature of silver {dollars} from the desired design and date. This info goals to make clear the historic info and supply steering for collectors and fans.
Query 1: Is there a real United States “morgan silver greenback 1964”?
No. The USA Mint didn’t produce silver {dollars} of this design in 1964. Manufacturing of this design ceased in 1921 and was not resumed till a restricted commemorative situation in 2021.
Query 2: If a coin is marked “morgan silver greenback 1964”, what’s it more likely to be?
Such a coin is more likely to be a counterfeit, an altered coin from one other 12 months, or a privately produced duplicate or novelty merchandise. Scrutinize rigorously.
Query 3: How can a counterfeit “morgan silver greenback 1964” be recognized?
Study the date for indicators of alteration, confirm the metallic composition, examine the coin’s weight and diameter to official specs, and seek the advice of numismatic assets to test die traits.
Query 4: Why are there so many cash falsely labeled as “morgan silver greenback 1964” accessible on the market?
The absence of real cash from that 12 months creates a market alternative for counterfeiters and sellers of novelty gadgets. The design is in style, and plenty of novice collectors are unaware of the historic info.
Query 5: What’s the historic significance of the unique design silver greenback?
The unique design, minted from 1878 to 1904 and once more in 1921, displays the silver mining increase of the late nineteenth century and the USA’ efforts to monetize silver. It holds a distinguished place in numismatic historical past because of its silver content material and iconic design.
Query 6: Are all silver-colored cash from 1964 counterfeits?
Not essentially. Silver-colored cash, comparable to Kennedy half-dollars, had been minted in 1964 however are of a distinct design and denomination than the silver greenback mentioned right here.
The important thing takeaway is that any merchandise recognized as “morgan silver greenback 1964” must be approached with excessive skepticism. Rigorous authentication is essential to keep away from buying misrepresented or fraudulent gadgets.
The following part will delve into the authorized ramifications of manufacturing and promoting counterfeit cash.
Steering Relating to Claims of “morgan silver greenback 1964”
The next steering is introduced to help in evaluating claims associated to a coin of specified design bearing the date “1964”. This info goals to guard people from potential fraud and guarantee knowledgeable decision-making in numismatic pursuits.
Tip 1: Train Excessive Skepticism. Any merchandise purporting to be of the desired design and date must be approached with a excessive diploma of skepticism. The USA Mint didn’t produce cash of this design in 1964.
Tip 2: Scrutinize the Date. Study the numerals “1964” beneath magnification. Search for inconsistencies in font, spacing, or alignment that may point out date alteration. Examine the date to identified genuine examples from different years.
Tip 3: Assess Metallic Composition. Carry out particular gravity or X-ray fluorescence (XRF) evaluation to confirm the coin’s metallic composition. Genuine examples include 90% silver and 10% copper. Deviations could point out a counterfeit.
Tip 4: Confirm Weight and Diameter. Examine the coin’s weight and diameter to official specs for the design. Counterfeit cash typically deviate from these measurements. Use a exact scale and caliper for correct readings.
Tip 5: Seek the advice of Numismatic Specialists. Search opinions from respected numismatists or coin grading providers. These specialists possess the data and instruments to determine counterfeit cash and assess their authenticity.
Tip 6: Evaluation Vendor Popularity. Analysis the vendor’s status and suggestions. Transactions with sellers who’ve a historical past of misrepresenting cash or avoiding returns must be averted.
Tip 7: Demand Provenance Documentation. Request documentation from the vendor relating to the coin’s historical past and origin. An absence of transparency relating to provenance is a crimson flag.
Tip 8: Perceive the Authorized Ramifications. Remember that the manufacturing and sale of counterfeit cash is a federal crime. Report any suspected counterfeit exercise to the suitable authorities.
Adherence to those pointers can considerably cut back the danger of buying misrepresented or fraudulent gadgets when coping with claims of “morgan silver greenback 1964”. Vigilance and knowledgeable decision-making are important in defending numismatic investments.
The next dialogue will concentrate on the authorized penalties related to the creation and distribution of counterfeit coinage, including one other layer of understanding to the inherent dangers surrounding gadgets falsely recognized as the precise design and date.
Conclusion
The exploration of “morgan silver greenback 1964” reveals a panorama rife with potential for misinterpretation and deception. The absence of official cash bearing that date necessitates a essential and knowledgeable method. Information of historic minting information, authentication strategies, and misleading gross sales practices is paramount in navigating this space of numismatics. Understanding the excellence between real cash, altered gadgets, commemorative replicas, and outright counterfeits is essential for all collectors.
Due to this fact, vigilance and training function the first safeguards towards fraud and misinformation. The numismatic neighborhood should prioritize correct info dissemination and accountable buying and selling practices. Continued analysis and scrutiny are important to take care of the integrity of the market and defend the pursuits of collectors. The inherent impossibility of a real “morgan silver greenback 1964” ought to stay a guideline in all transactions and valuations.
