Just Bob

It is an odd color, but then silver reacts with chemicals in the environment to form all kinds of colored toning. At least it isn't black.

That puts it right at the upper limit of weight tolerance, so not really considered an error, weight-wise.

It's a spender.

The RedBook gives a standard composition of 95% copper and 5% zinc and tin. I am not sure if a 2% variance is enough to constitute an error or not, but my gut says no. Again, one of the experts, such as DW Lange or Conder101 would probably know the answer to that question, as well.

Your Philadelphia cent is a small date bronze.

The listed weight is 3.11 grams, with a tolerance of .13 grams. I would think a cent would need to be off by a bit more than that tolerance to be slabbed as an error, but you could send them an email or repost in the "Ask NGC" forum to get a definite answer from them. 

Those older albums could produce some really nice toning on silver coins.

CAM= close AM

WAM= wide AM

I just clicked on a dozen random raw Morgans, and that link was not on any of the screens.

Edit: Just tried a few on my Android phone - same results.

You have it right. It is environmental damage.

There is really no way to know if anyone has ever had another coin just like that one. Chances are good that more exist, or at least have existed in the past, but you have to remember that in the 40s and 50s when this coin circulated, there were no books telling people to search their pocket change for rare errors, and no internet videos claiming that people could get rich off of common coins. This error is so small, it would have gone unnoticed by most people and any cent that had such an error would have continued to circulate until it was lost, worn, or destroyed.

Either the lower stem of the "T" was removed by damage, and the evidence of that damage has been worn away, or the recess in the die that would have formed the lower stem was filled with grease or some other substance, preventing the metal from flowing into the recess and forming that part of the letter.

I just noticed that one of the members was using this service as a selling aid for a raw Morgan he has for sale on Ebay. I never considered using it in that way.

I could not find a picture of a 1953 Proof, but looking at a picture of a 1962 Proof 1/2 Balboa, it appears to be very much like a US proof coin - polished fields and frosted devices. That, and the fact that your coin would have to be one of only 5 estimated examples in proof, gives me reason to suspect that your coin is a business strike.

1 hour ago, DWLange said:

Silver dimes were coined right through 1965, as were 1964-dated cents, so it is possible for a 1964 cent to be struck on clad dime planchet, though the coin illustrated appears to be a normal cent with environmental damage.

I knew that the silver dimes were minted after 1964, but I was not aware that '64 cents were also minted later. Thanks for that info.

Good luck. 

2001 cents are supposed to have the "close AM."

Also, the doubling that you see on the reverse is not from a doubled die. It is mechanical doubling.

Don't forget: pictures of the entire coin - obverse and reverse- help us to form more informed opinions. 

That said, I believe that a combination of wear, slight damage,  and die wear are responsible for the condition of your coin, including the date and mint mark.That is, assuming the reverse shows comparable wear to the obverse.

It has definitely been mangled. And it happened after it was minted, so PMD.

It appears to be. What is the date?

1 hour ago, Conder101 said:

Looks like a nice MS coin, not sure why they called it Specimen.  Must be more to it than the images are showing.

Bowers says, "This issue varies, but some are highly prooflike and have been certified as Proofs. At the very least they are special strikings." (sic) He gives a footnote which reads, "Andy Lustig, communication, May 27, 2015".

I don't know if that means that Andy is calling them special strikings, and if so, what evidence he has.

Looks like something stuck to the surface of the coin.

Looks beat up, from what I can see. Any doubling that you might see appears to be from damage and not from Hub doubling.

Considering how roughly these coins were treated, a 67 is a really nice score.

This will be a great opportunity to work on honing your grading skills. You have examples of three different grades, so you can compare the amount of surface marks, luster, strike, and eye appeal of each coin, and get some nice practice using these coins to help grade others that you find. Just remember to be consistent with your lighting and magnification. 

You are welcome.