James_OldeTowne

That's a delightful 1835 bust quarter, as-depicted. VF-20 to VF-30 range.

It does not blatantly appear fake to me. It most definitely should be sent in for certification.

It "real"ly is fake....

I agree - PMD.

Count me in the "melt value" crowd.

From the photos, it appears to be an unusually nice 1934-S. That coin took me the longest time to find (to my satisfaction) for my set. Congratulations!

A surface graze like that could derive from innumerable possible causes, including being stored in a (mint) bag, or just sliding oddly across another object. It appears gradeable to me (if that's the point of the question).

It appears to me that the subject photos just depict common damaged coins.

Laminations show up with some frequency on wartime nickels, but that's a particularly dramatic one. Great find!

From different mints, no less!

Subject coin exhibits damage, not "die polish".

Replica, perhaps? Show us a photo or two.

Yep, I believe this would get a "counting machine damage" disclaimer on a slab.

They retail for about $3.35 right now, but good luck getting that much. Wholesale: $2.40, which is more realistic in that low of a grade.

There was a time when Heritage images were very poor, given that they used to scan so many coins, but that was years ago. Back then, GC competed well against them. However, GC does not seem to have upgraded their imaging technology in a very long time (in internet terms) and I feel like that Heritage has, which means photos today are generally substantially better. One of my critical factors is: Can I attribute a die-marriage or variety off the image? The Heritage photos offer better resolution overall.

Looks like random faked "errors" to me.

It looks like it's been run over a few times, but I see no evidence of a mint error.

It's just toning.

Looks like it might be a previously damaged "good luck" cent.

Be aware that there are 1894 dimes out there with an added "S". It's MUCH MUCH more likely you would have something like that (perhaps a coin that someone started to "chase" the mintmark on) than some sort of new discovery "faint S" variety.

My best friend worked at Heritage for quite some time, so I have a bit of "insider information". I have purchased a boatload of coins at Heritage over the last twenty years, but have been much more careful in recent years because I'm a little unsure as to their current policies in bidding on their own coins. (I mean, their practical policies, not what's stated in the "small print".) I have also sold some through Heritage, but my last consignment (a few years ago) was almost certainly my last. It was 100% unreserved, and I was quite dissatisfied with the net results. But that's only my personal experience - I know many collectors who have been happy both directions.

I agree. Dies in the 1960s (and other eras of course) seem to have been indifferently used up to and beyond end-of-life and that kind of doubling is really common.

Your statement doesn't work for me, or it's at least confusing. Do you love NUMISMATICS - the pursuit and study of collectable coins? Or do you love INVESTMENTS? They are not the same! As a collector, all too many times, I have made a poor "investment" in a coin, simply because I had been looking for it for a long time and was ready to pony up. While the commercial return on my "investment" might be poor, the pleasure of owning it as a "numismatic" pursuit has repaid me many times over. Based on your statements, I think you should step way back for a moment and figure out what you're truly interested in.

It appears to be a tiny ding, and I see no evidence of an actual mintmark.

I have only gotten to see two (I think?) 1894-S dimes in-hand at major auctions (a true privilege - one of my favorite coins that I can never own). To my recollection, they do not suffer from weak mintmarks. What you showed in your photo seems more likely to be an artifact of lighting, or digitizing the image. I would definitely not use that as the basis for asserting there a "weak S" variety exists for the 1894-S.