I have several but they're scattered, I also have a 51 proof set. I don't have the manual dexterity these days, but if you get no other replies I'll try and look a couple out.
Your attachment isn't.
Nor is the link to PCGS world coin forum.
FWIW I have not seen any real difference, but is this the proof you're talking about? It could be a heavily processed image.
Yes, I have that one - a very sobering read! It recognises the 'key dates' of the time, but none of the (e.g.) scarce 50s cupro-nickel which, IIRC, emerged later in the same year as CYC was published.
Yes, that's the book I meant. The actual Check Your Change hasn't existed since predec days, though I believe Chris did borrow the title for the first few years of his decimals book?
It's possible that perhaps one was produced but never used at the time? Remember that in 1858, having unexpectedly found they needed to continue copper for a while longer than previously thought, they must have been scrabbling around for old dies to use up which would explain the huge number of varieties for the year.
Yes, I was only being strict and technical. I've even received coins in change from a shop that I'd personally class as BU. However, I'd still rate banks as the best bet.
Technically, a coin is 'circulated' as soon as it leaves the conveyor belt and shovelled into a Mint bag for distribution to the banks. However, banks are the place to ask about coins that have just been taken from a Mint bag.
Very very nice!
Your picture problem would be resolved in an instant if you crop out all that unnecessary background - it must be using well over half the image size. This took me a few seconds:
Yes, the more important thing is the lighting, and the stand, than the precise camera - having said that, digital zoom isn't brilliant so you need to have your phone sufficiently near to the coin.
Apologies for raining on your parade Mike, but that obverse is barely VF (too much wear on the hair, and generally). The reverse is better but I wouldn't rate it much higher than VF.