Coinbuf

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.

MD with a touch of MAD (misaligned die) on the obv.

Only the phantom knows.

Is there some reason that you are so interested in this "woody" look on Lincoln cents? I have been collecting Lincolns for 40+ years and while a nice woody can be attractive and interesting at some level, these are not widely or aggressively collected by most Lincoln collectors. I read your other thread and in fact I would consider that coin as a woody, much more so than I would this coin which appears to be stained as opposed to an improper alloy mixture which is what causes the visual look of a woody. Obviously if you enjoy this look there is nothing wrong with collecting them, but there is no real value to a coin with a woody appearance over the numismatic (or lack thereof) value of the coin. If this look is of interest to you, I suggest that you look at the early years, 1909 to around the late teens as those are the years where you will see this look most often.

Yes CAC is still accepting submissions for stickering in NJ, the grading and slabbing happens at the VA facility. No coins graded by CACG receive a bean in the form of a sticker applied to the outside of the slab. The bean you see on the label is printed on the label, think of this as a brand symbol just as you would the scales on an NGC label. JA was originally planning to use the same bean sticker on the label, but decided that there could be some concern about outgassing of the adhesive for the sticker and the decision was made to print the bean and treat it as a logo. You will be way ahead of the curve to not think of CACG graded coins in the A, B, C vernacular that you may have been accustomed to hearing with regard to CAC stickers. JA and Grader John Buttler have been very clear that there are no C coins in CACG holders. If you read my reply on the thread in the US coin section I think I did a good job of explaining this. This is incorrect, CAC is in fact accepting new members. If anyone desires to, they can go the CAC website, setup an account and will be placed on a wait list. From what I am hearing it is taking around two or three months from the time you are placed on the wait list to the time you receive your welcome letter. Obviously this fluctuates depending on how long the wait list is at any given time.

Looks to be the beginning of a clip as well, cool find.

Welcome to the forum, your first instinct was the correct one, this coin has led a hard life and what you see is just damage. As to how it became this damaged nobody knows, damage is just damage however it happens, it has no value over the face value of one cent.

No I'm not off, you need to listen again, JA has been very consistent in his approach overall. That does not mean that companies do not evolve or that a person may not change his mind or direction over time in response to new information or changes to the market, that interview was 16 years ago. You are applying what was said for CAC 16 years ago to CACG today, that is incorrect. I agree that CACG buyers do expect a CACG holdered coin to be at the level of a stickered A or B coin. That is because; and this has been thoroughly hashed out on the CAC forum in recent months; JA and John Buttler have made it clear that there are no "C" coins at CACG. Again the whole A, B, C thing was an easy way for the market to digest how JA approached the sticker business, the grading side of the business doesn't use that analogy when grading coins. However, because the market is used to the A, B, C line of reasoning, when a coin is graded as MS65 at CACG it is easier right now for the market to equate that to an A or B coin as the market understands the sticker side of the business with the standout A coins possibly getting a + grade. If a coin fails to meet the standard that CACG has set for the MS65 grade it will be graded lower, that does not make it a C coin just an A or B coin at a lower grade. For example, if you have a coin that has a CAC green bean it is almost guaranteed to cross into a CACG holder at the same grade. I say almost because it could upgrade, or in the case that the coin has changed or deteriorated in the TPG holder it may get declined as a cross at same grade. An easy to understand example of this could be where a previously red graded copper coin has mellowed and now looks more red brown. But if you have a coin that failed at CAC (stickering) in the past because it was thought to be in the C coin bucket, it can still be crossed but would be given a lower grade than the MS65 the previous TPG graded it, as a result there are no C coins. The concept is to end up with stellar and solid for the grade coins only for that grade in a CACG holder, period. Of course, over time because people are not perfect, and often opinions differ, there will be coins that some will consider as low end (or C coins if you like) for the grade in a CACG MS65 holder, it is inevitable.

That video was already posted on the PCGS forum, what a joke, I'll say the same thing I said there. "Ok here is what I took away from this video. First the guy doing the talking states he is not bashing, but he clearly is, even the video title is worded as bashing and click bait to get views. Second we have no idea who sent in those coins, but if he is actually a coin dealer he needs to find a new job; quickly. I only saw two or three of the coins that were shown that I would question the CAC grade, really the bigger question is why in the world would anyone submit coins that were already ugly and damaged pocket change to start with and/or have turned in the holder unless you hoped to game the system or to purposely bash CACG. Whoever sent those coins in deserved the grades he got, plain and simple. And the guy doing the talking just looks foolish defending those junk coins." Basically this video was done to garner likes and views in an attempt to besmirch and bash CAC, total hack job. I have not looked but I would not be surprised to find that the guy who did the video is a CAC hatter, perhaps he has other older videos bashing CAC stickering.

Appears to be just some worthless strike doubling and perhaps a few contact marks along the sides of a few letters, does not look like any type of hub doubling to me.