Coinbuf

Make that four cuds to go.

@RWB is correct that all these special first strike this and first day that is almost all just hyperbole used to sell to the uneducated QVC type buyers. It all means nothing, just marketing and a way for dealers to sell multiple examples of the very same thing to the very same customers. From what I've said some may think that I'm "dumping" on or that I consider the buyers of these labels insufficiently_thoughtful_persons, that is not true at all. I have no issue with anyone that buys these coins, I just want them to be educated about what they are buying so that they are not paying a premium price for non premium goods. It is not that dissimilar to the use of the term "error coins" most of which are not errors at all but rather just damaged, mangled, coins which if the mint had good quality controls would be retrieved and melted for scrap. But it is much easier for a dealer to sell a coin called an error than a coin which is referred to as damaged, thus the market for what (in my opinion) is damaged junk was born. Unfortunately the hobby is, and always has been, full of traps, pitfalls, hype, and outright boldface lies. That is why education about how coins are made is so valuable to collectors, if you know how something is made you can then be in the position to know when your leg is being pulled.

@GBrad @Woods020 and others are on point, as usual, the 1993 in your op looks to be just a normal coin with a touch of strike doubling and a well placed nick on the ear. The second coin you posted, the 58-D, may have a bit of strike doubling also, would need to see the whole coin to say. It is never a good idea to focus in on one single tiny area without seeing the whole coin, the forest for the trees type of analogy. Something to keep in mind when you are looking at coins, you need to understand the minting process used at the time each coin was minted. The first coin you posted was made using the single squeeze method, this tends to produce doubling close to the center of the coin like the earlobe. Conversely the 58-D was minted when the mint used the double squeeze method, which led to the doubling being more often on the outer portion of the coin like is seen with the 55/55 or 72/72. So when looking at older coins it is less likely to see much if any hub doubling seen towards the center of the coin vs toward the rim; and just the opposite for newer coins. Certainly this is not foolproof but a good general rule of thumb to keep in mind.

From these photos I would grade the 1903-S as XF and the 1913 as AU58. Neither coin is really valuable enough to need to be certified but having them certified would make them more liquid when selling to collectors or on some auction sites as gold coins are often counterfeited.

I have used the op photo to show the three feathers. My understanding is that in some years and with some dies when the dies were lapped to remove die clashes the small third feather detail would be lost and thus you would only see two feathers. This is not a big thing for me but there are some collectors that have begun to collect these and were able to get the TPG's to call these varieties. Because these are not something that I collect or look for I do not know all the PUP's (pick up points) used to identify the known/recognized varieties, as I said some two feather varieties will still have some of the third feather visible but can be attributed as a two feather from the PUPs.

I'm not that familiar with 2 feather varieties but I can clearly see the third feather. Having said that I have seen coins called 2 feather when the third is visible if the correct markers are there.

I'm not seeing any pattern in your photos, the reverse looks like a grease strike thru the obverse appears to have post mint damage.

Polished or plated for sure.

Thanks for the overlay, I 'm just not seeing the letters lining up right. My opinion is like you have heard before some die chips and a couple of minor die breaks, die breaks under the bust are somewhat common on the Lincoln series.

Perhaps a strike thru or a random die scratch, not sure from these photos.

Generally speaking "pretty close" is usually not close enough. You said you did the overlay would you please provide that photo.

And now back to the coins. 1959 D/D/D

I see no errors or any sort of true hub doubling in your photos; what I do see is MD, environmental damage, stained and cleaned coins. In my opinion it would be a waste of your money to submit any of these; however it is your money and you are certainly free to do so.

Remember that it is possible to have both MD and an RPM together; so while it does somewhat resemble RPM-015 the placement of the MM does not look correct from your photo in the op. In your photo the MM looks tilted and closer to the 9 and 5; and on VV it looks flat and slightly lower. However that photo was taken with the coin in the 2X2 and the plastic window may be altering the way it looks in the photo. Also due to the glare in the photo I cannot confirm if there are the die scratches pup to match up with RPM-015. Knowing that there is MD for sure and not being able to line up the MM position from your photo or confirm the die line pup I'm still going with just MD; but you have the coin in hand so its your call.

The second one looks like damage from a bezel or some other type of holder the coin was pressed into.

Looks to just be MD, but check the link to be sure.

Do you have questions about these?

The PCGS number you pulled is for an MS70 not a PF70, you have to choose which at the top of the table on the PCGS site. Both NGC and PCGS show $1,000 guide price for a PF70.

Maybe, but as your coin has been in circulation it is much more difficult to tell. Here is a link to a discussion from coin talk where Fred Weinberg describes how to tell a true improper annealed coin from simple environmentally damage. IA discussion From that link I am leaning not for your coin because of the "look" of the coin; but again that may be due to the circulation wear. Edited to add: I am far from an expert on this so my thoughts should not be considered as gospel, perhaps if you can you might attempt to reach out to Fred and see if he is willing to review your photos. I do not know if he will but it would not hurt to ask.

Can you split the holder at all in any spot? The sonic sealer does indeed melt the plastic halves together so what I see in the photo is not all that unusual. But a side view would be needed to say for sure.

To be fair the 1927 Lincoln may be DDO-002, however more photos are needed to verify the PUPS. The Mercury dime appears to be the popular overdate 1942/1, however from that limited photo the coin looks to have some environmental damage. I agree with you that all the others look to be simple strike doubling or in the case of the zinc Lincolns some split plate doubling. @BTolley3, thanks for the photos. However to be of any use you need to provide nice cropped in focus photos (just like the first photo of the 1984) of both sides of the coin, a description of the coin, and any variety you feel the coin is. Then you can provide the closeups to verify that you have the correct attribution.

Actually I think that he is still posting here under a new assumed name.

It is worth $100 to me you pay the shipping. I guess to someone that likes to collect serial # notes it might have a small premium.

An olive oil soak will not hurt the coin, but it is very unlikely to be of any help given the problems this coin has. Check it in 3 months, by then I doubt that you will see any change but the oil may have started to go rancid and need to be changed.

If the thread has not already gotten to the tipping point I will reply if I think I have some useful information to add. Once the thread has devolved into useless drivel and petty BS I try and stay away and ignore the drama, sometimes I am successful in doing so and sometimes not.