Just Bob

What a great idea! 

I believe the impression was made by a Roosevelt dime.

Obviously not an error. Just glue, as the others have stated.

Judging by the Anthony Dollars that I have seen, anytime you can get a 67 on a business strike from '79 to '81, you've made a major coup. Even the ones I've seen in mint sets were baggy. Nice job.

On 12/15/2023 at 7:44 AM, EagleRJO said:

 

I was also surprised at the reference to the bright rainbow colored toning that some pay vast sums of money for as "terminal toning". 

Only that part which has gone past glossy black to dull black. On an album tone coined for example, that color is usually near the rim, since toning starts there and progresses toward the center of the coin. Do you have a picture of Sunnywood's toning progression scale? It explains color progression very well.

To the OP: sorry about getting your thread off topic. It just seemed like a good place to post some information that might be helpful to newbies who read this thread down the road.

Congrats! 

On 12/14/2023 at 8:30 AM, EagleRJO said:

If you have a link to something like that or a similar article I would be interested in checking that out as I have seen massively toned coins dipped in eZest and Bam almost good as new, but that stuff is super tricky and usually affects luster.  Although I have seen a number of heavily toned coins with just the tarnish removed come back straight graded.  So I wouldn't refer to those coins as "terminally toned".

Here is the thread

It is hard to follow with all of the off topic posts, but there is a link in the thread to a similar thread on CT that might be easier to keep up with.

"Means this is not real and not American Dollar"

You are correct. It is not an American dollar coin. It is a fake coin. There were no American coins minted in 1865 that looked like this.

On 12/14/2023 at 12:22 AM, EagleRJO said:

I was talking more about the use of the word "terminal" and "deterioration" related to the toning that they just learned about.  Sure toning will continue, we all know that, but I wouldn’t consider that "terminal deterioration" of the coin which makes it sound like the coin will be destroyed, and why I asked the op what they meant by using those terms.

Terminal toning etches the surface of the coin. So, while not necessarily destroyed, the coin is definitely damaged.

Skip Fazzari, who used to post as "Insider," showed pictures of a coin several years ago that had been dipped to remove terminal toning. The etching was very noticable.

Edit: I should clarify. It isn't actually the toning itself that causes damage to the coin. The contaminants on the surface caused the damage, and toning is just the evidence of the contamination.

Is it blank on the reverse like the 5 cent token?

If you found it in your car, it probably crawled in there to keep from getting beat up again.

If you will post a link to the auction I will report it, too. I'm sure others will, also. It may not help, but at least we can say we tried.

You should weigh it on a scale that reads to the nearest hundredth gram, and if/when it proves to be a brass plated zinc example, you can put it in a coin album or holder as one of the 7 regular types of cents coined that year by the mint, or spend it, whichever you see fit. It would not grade high enough to make it worth sending it in to be certified.

That's the kind of parking lot coin you want to find!

On 12/11/2023 at 12:49 PM, VKurtB said:

The point is that as long as there exists the bulk grading program for dealers and Elite members, one can NEVER KNOW the ACTUAL rate of 70 grades. The pop report can show 90% 70’s, but the 69 and lower grades from bulk orders NEVER ARE COUNTED into the pop report. 

Good point

I don't think your coin is genuine.

On 12/10/2023 at 11:40 AM, EagleRJO said:

The op's coin does look a little bit like a partially filled mintmark, where a piece of the inner part of the "D" may have chipped off the die or punch.  It's very minor so no added value.  Otherwise I agree with @Sandon

Let's keep it accurate here. A chip off the punch would likely show up as a raised area on the die, which would show up as an incuse area on the coin. A chip off the die would show up as a raised area on the coin.

On 12/11/2023 at 9:03 AM, Fitzon00 said:

 What’s more fat fetched a random two or a penny being made on a completely different metal??!!?

 

Actually, the random number theory is more far-fetched. Do some studying about how coins and dies were and are made, and you will understand why.

Start with this article: How dies are made

I sent the seller this short-but-to-the-point message < This coin is not rare. There were over 1.5 billion minted in 1967, none of which had a mint mark. They are still often found in circulation.> 

Ebay link click here

Nice find 

According to Variety Vista, RDV-007 was not introduced until 1992. RDV-005 is the normal reverse for 1988. RDV-006 is the "transitional" reverse.

It is a large date.

I agree with the others. The way you have them displayed now looks great. I particularly like that  acrylic riser that supports the dies in the rear. Did you make that yourself?

On 11/27/2023 at 7:25 PM, Rww said:

I was coin  roll hunting and came across a 1953 D penny that weighed  2.7 g not of the 3.1 g. NGC tested it came back 95% copper 5% zinc I had a third party test it and  came back 95% copper 5% of zinc. Not sure where to go from here any help would be much appreciated thank you

Did NGC encapsulate your coin when you sent it to them? Did they provide any other information or opinion other than the metal content?