Coinbuf

You are correct, NGC started to allow the CAC bean and gave those coins extra points in the registry scoring. Suddenly that just stopped with no warning or notice, one day you could add a CAC beaned coin and have the bean recognized the next you could not. Then; a bit later before the 2023 registry cutoff; all the extra CAC points were removed from each CAC approved coin under the explanation of fairness due to not being able to or not wanting to (who knows which). The NGC staff has been tight lipped on this so only they know where the disconnect between the NGC registry and CAC is and why, but it doesn't appear to be a top priority to fix, at least not imo.

Actually, I do not recall seeing any forum activity from member coin928, doesn't mean that he is not on the forum just that I don't remember the name. The one I did recognize is @Zebo who received a best classic set award.

I only recognized one name but congratulations to all the winners!!

Here is an overlay from Mad die clashes so you can see where the elements from each side can impact the other in the cases of clashing and/or indirect die transfer. As you can see there is nothing around the corner of the memorial that would cause what you are seeing on your coin. And the obv bust is not in the correct place for the anomaly under the columns, that largely rules out indirect die transfer or a clash. So, either an issue with the die (die gouge or large scrape) or occluded gas bubbles; possibly even both; are the likely culprit.

What he said ^

Welcome to the forum, hard to say for sure what happened to this coin, but it for sure didn't leave the mint in that condition. Aside from the chunks missing is spots it may have been subjected to a mild acid like muriatic pool acid or some other chemical. Damage can happen a million different ways; errors only happen at the time the coin is struck.

Several things can affect what you see or perceive as different, early strikes off fresh dies look different than middle or late stage die strikes. How a die is basined or lapped can also give a different look for the first few strikes. I would be surprised if your local dealer is an expert in such issues, but please do update us with your findings.

NGCX coins cannot be used in the NGC registry, it will be difficult for buyers to want to buy coins if using them in a registry is a part of the reason to buy. Also there is still time on both of those auctions, it is possible that the ending prices will be closer.

Welcome to the forum, this section of the forum is for members selling and buying coins, questions should be asked in the Newbie or US coin sections of the forum; I have flagged it for the mods to move this thread to the appropriate area. The most likely explanation is an end of roll blank which can result in a thin underweight planchet to start with. Then add in the wear and tear and any other abuse this might have happened in the past 100+ years and the low weight seems quite possible.

An encased cent is a very likely explanation for the look of this coin. As to the whole wrong planchet theory that will require you to spend some money on a metallurgical evaluation to sus out and prove. The more likely explanation is that it was a slightly thin, slightly underweight planchet to start with when combined with the loss of metal through wear gives you this weight.

Biased on todays melt value the Franklin half is worth $8.40 and the Ike is worth $1. No errors no extra value to either coin.

Just damaged. Blow torch or some type of heat was used to expand the clad layer, when it cooled this is what you get, not an error.

Guess that is why this all makes no sense, I have QA on ignore so I'm only seeing a tiny fraction of what has been said, thankfully. Figures, leave it to QA to dig up a thread by one of the good guys and attempt to use it for his own ego needs.

VV shows 6 DDO's for this date/mm, all are minor. But I think your coin is a match for DDO-002, I cannot tell from the photos which stage it might fall under.

I see nothing in your photos or in your description, including the weights, that would indicate this is anything but a normal coin.

The whole theory of 1964 SMS coins is one of much debate in the numismatic world. @RWB has opined that these are nothing special, just the first coins struck from the die pair and given to the mint director for some reason. If I remember correctly Roger has written that there are no mint records to prove the whole SMS theory. However, several other well respected members of the numismatic world who have seen and held at least one of the documented coins disagree and are quite emphatic that the coins have a completely different look to them than any other 1964 or even SMS coins from later years. And at least for now the TPG's have decided to certify those coins if they can be traced definitively to Eva Adams. I have no dog in the fight as I don't want one and don't care one way or the other, all I know is that these coins have a few distinctive die markers and quite often someone shows up here with a coin that displays one or several of those die markers and proclaims to have a 64 SMS. Spoiler alert, they never have one. This has also been explained away and as after the first strike coins were struck those same dies were used to strike coins for circulation. Only the people that were alive and in the press room when these were struck actually know for a fact what went on, and so far there do not appear to be any confessions on record that I know of.

So please enlighten me, why was this thread resurrected?

You don't, end of story. That may come across as harsh but the simple fact is that the only coins to be certified as 1964 SMS coins came from the estate of the mint director in 1964. If you don't have undisputed documentation to prove that your coin came from this source whatever you have will never be recognized as a 1964 SMS coin.

Nice magicians or novelty coin, fun find.

Die deterioration which causes some of the metal to seep under lettering of the die under pressure.

@Kerrykz I see what you are seeing on the G and the Y, yes at first blush it could look like a form of a DDO. But well worn coins can trick you and I think that is what is going on here. What I see is a coin that when struck had some mechanical doubling in the areas you see, however, after many years of wear and tear in commerce the primary lettering has worn down to the level of the mechanical doubling which is tricking you into seeing a DDO. When a die is created that has a true DDO or DDR the die is rotated slightly between the strikes that create the die resulting in the double image. But the die is not in multiple pieces so it can only rotate one direction, notice that what you see as doubling on the letter G is on the viewers right. But the area you circled on the letter Y of Liberty is on the viewers left, the two supposed rotations do not match. This is simple mechanical doubling which over time has worn down so that the primary lettering and the mechanical now appear to be on the same level. We tell everyone not to believe everything they read on the web, that is just as true here as we do, on very rare occasions, get it wrong. I suggest that you post this on the CONNECA forum for a review and answer there, those are that guys that would attribute a new variety or DDO. I am certain that they will see what I see but it never hurts to have another opinion.

Not an error, appears to be damage as greenstang correctly identified. As to your question the best thing to do is to is enjoy the coins as they are, there is no real significant value to this set other than the silver metal value. You could send the coins in to a TPG like NGC for grading but that would be a waste of money as it would cost you more to have them graded then they are worth.

As Dan already replied the L is for legacy and could be either a previously beaned N or P graded coin. I think what you have been reading are reports and thoughts that so far fewer PCGS beaned coins have been crossed over to CACG holders vs a higher number of NGC beaned coins. Only CACG has the true answer to this, but there are some, especially on the social media sites, that are pushing this narrative. This is causing an unnecessary reaction and a possible emotional reaction to devalue the CACG "L" designated coins. I think it's an irrational fear reaction from those PCGS only collectors that are concerned that their PCGS only collections will have the values significantly reduced. During the initial debate over the use of the L on the CAC forum it was clear that PCGS collectors were very worried that having NGC coins crossed and mixed with their PCGS crossed coins would dilute the value of their coins. Several wanted the L to be LN or LP to designate the former TPG, the fear is that great for some. I also think that is part of why we are seeing some of the hesitancy on the part of PCGS only collectors to cross PCGS coins that have a bean.

I also concur that damage is the cause of how your coin came to look like this.