Coinbuf

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.

How was your 2023 from a numismatic standpoint? if you had any goals were you able to achieve them? If not why not? Did you find yourself buying more or less than you thought you would? For myself it was a very good year, I acquired some important, even bucket list items in a couple of cases. One such item is the NGC generation two holder that I bought during the ANA show in Phx this past spring. That is a slab generation that I have had opportunities to buy before but passed up for one reason or another, but that is one of the bucket list items that I am happy to cross off the list. I really only had one goal which was to keep my number one ranking for my 1940 year set, I was able to do that, and it will continue to be a goal for me in the years ahead. As I look back, I bought more than I had planned to both in quantity and dollars, I decided late in the year to add some coins to my circulated 19th century type set, not sure what spurred me to do that actually. But most of those were very inexpensive coins so while adding some bulk to my collection they were not overly pricey items. I doubt that I will keep up that same pace going forward into 2024, but I do have a couple of coins that I would like to procure during the coming year so I guess I will just have to see what comes my way in 2024. I hope that everyone has a prosperous and happy new year both in their numismatic ventures and life/family in general. I will leave you with a few highlights from my 2023 purchases.

Welcome to the forum, I also have no idea what a rom is, and I also think it is very possible that your coin may exhibit the D over horizontal D RPM that @sandon noted in the reply above. Very cool find although not very much value as your coin appears to be in a low circulated condition which reduces the value/demand for such an RPM.

The hobby/business of numismatics is fraught with what many would consider unethical behavior, almost as bad as politics and politicians. I only know a handful of names of the CACG investors, but as I recall there were 150 in total. These were the individuals and/or companies that were allowed to submit to CACG for a few months prior to the authorized CAC members both dealers and collectors (like myself) being allowed to submit to CACG. I do not know how many graders in total and only know the names of two, both were graders at other TPG's prior to working for CACG. JA has been very clear that his goal is not to be as big or do the grading volume that N or P do. That doesn't preclude that from happening down the road, just that it is not the goal at this time. And to correct you (once again) CACG does grade moderns.

My guess would be for registry reasons, PCGS registry only accepts PCGS graded coins. If world registry sets become the new hot thing to do for PCGS registry collectors, then you are only seeing the tip of the iceberg on world coin crossovers.

@$hawnAs you should have figured out by now your coin is just damaged; value one cent.

Slabs are not airtight, that is clearly spelled out on both the NGC and PCGS websites and there are well documented cases where coins have been "gassed" while inside the holder to produce toning. It has been a while but a well respected member of the PCGS forum did this with a group of Morgan dollars in rattler holders many years ago. He was caught and lost all credibility and good standing that he had with members of that forum. And it is well known that certain holders are known for toning coins due to the sulfur content in the label or the plastic itself. So yes it is wise to be concerned about the materials used in the construction of or placed inside a slab. The adhesive on a sticker placed on the outside of a holder has a very VERY minor opportunity to affect the coin inside. You can doubt me all you want, the information is all out there on the web if you take the time to read it. And no not a reversal with regards to C coins, Dan in the thread ats has already addressed your misconception on this. Yes he has changed his stance on forming a TPG, that is not a sin. As I said earlier everyone can, and many should, adjust course in light of new information or as changes are necessary, only a fool plods ahead not able to or accepting new information as it is discovered; change is the only constant. And if you cannot accept that there are a number of perfectly valid reasons why a TPG MS65 graded coin (without a bean) will not cross at grade to a CACG MS65 then you have much to learn grasshopper. I actually think you are confusing crossovers and raw grading, any raw coin that is sent to CACG that the graders feel meets their standards for the grade of MS65 will indeed get graded as MS65. But gradeflation has let a ton of over graded and coins with rub/friction and other surface problems receive high (even gem) grades at both N and P. CACG will either decline to cross or downgrade those coins if submitted, and when submitted as cross at any grade.

I don't think anything has changed, I think his choice of words in that interview you keep referring to were carefully chosen. It would not be wise to off the people that get back unstickered coins by saying that those unstickered coins are the dreck. His goal was to not place a scarlet letter on those coins that failed, that is why CAC does not disclose the cert numbers of coins that fail. So, by saying the many are ok but just not up to CAC standards is a way of providing a soft landing and not upsetting the entire apple cart, so to speak; I think you need to read between the lines just a bit and not take every word so literally. But the real truth is that if a coin fails to sticker there is a reason, JA may feel it is over graded, it may have surface issues that the TPG missed or decided were acceptable to them, these and other reasons are why a coin that failed to receive a sticker are and will likely be graded lower at CACG than at P or N. I see you popped into the thread ats (and were quickly corrected there on your misunderstanding of this) and if you read that thread and look at the coins posted to it you should have a clear understanding of why an N or P graded coin might not cross at grade. There are very good reasons that coins which have failed for a sticker will in most cases be graded lower if submitted for crossover at any grade. However, the submitter can avoid this problem, just as at N or P the submitter has the option to choose on the submission form to cross at any grade or choose the grade he/she is willing to accept from CACG. Personally, I think crossovers are a waste of money and I have no plans at this time to cross any of my coins to CACG holders, stickered or not. For at least a decade or longer collectors have been crossing NGC coins to PCGS (many times happily taking a downgrade in grade) because they have been brainwashed to think that coin will be worth more in the P plastic. This has become a self-fulling prophecy as in most cases and series PCGS coins do sell at a premium over like graded NGC coins. But now you have CACG on the scene and already people that screamed to get collectors to cross to PCGS are now screaming to cross all N and P coins to CACG. Laura at Legend is a prime example of this, she has been a PCGS or nothing dealer for as long as I can remember, but now she is pushing that everyone should cross all those coins into CACG holders. It is important to remember that she is one of the investors at CACG.

No one can provide you with any advice without seeing the coins and with accurate information including weight to two decimal places. But the odds are that as someone new to collecting that you are mistaken, there are only a couple small date copper composition coins known the odds do not favor you finding two more.

From the link you supplied instructions on how to be placed on the wait list; once you are on the waitlist it is taking about two to three months from what I have seen to be accepted: Edited to add: I just saw a post the PCGS forum where a member said he is #734 on the waitlist, I was not aware that the list had grown that much as last I heard folks were around 300 on the waitlist. So my earlier comment of a couple months wait is likely much longer now.

Not a doubled die coin from what I see in your photos.