Coinbuf

I would follow the suggestion that Bill made. However if you do not you will want to remove the coins from the damaged holder, if you don't you could end up with an ugly toned coin or two. I bought this coin in this holder because it was super cheap at the time due to the look.

It is going to take awhile for CACG to have enough graded coins in the market to have a decent sample size. Additionally, it will take time for the euphoria or honeymoon phase to wane before we will really get a true sense of how the market will view CACG. You may well be right, but I think that two years is a reasonable window for all those factors to shake out. I'm the odd duck as the plastic is both important and at the same time not important. When I am looking at a coin to add to my old holder collection the holder is very important, including (but not limited to) the condition, generation, and the coin. But when buying a coin for one of my sets the brand of plastic is the last thing I care about, ACG, ANACS, PCI, ICG, NGC, PCGS, and more I have them all somewhere in my collection. On occasion both worlds collide and I have the opportunity to add to a set with a holder that is desirable to me, a win win.

It's tough to see the viewers right side of the steps due to the angle, but from what I can see the steps seem to blend together at the bottom. Would need better pics to say.

I will put forth another possible scenario which is a late-stage die cap. I too am wondering about the shiny look of the coin and the possibility of someone that tried to spiff it up in the past.

@abcd43130 welcome to the forum, looking forward to seeing your photos.

Yes you are correct when talking about world and foreign coins, however, I only collect US so that coinage is not the part of the market I am referencing in my reply. And as I said anyone can easily find exceptions to the order I posted, but as an overall US market (note the emphasis on overall) what I posted is correct at this point in time and especially true at the pointy end of the grade spectrum. I am not debating which TPG is better, tighter, higher sales volume, or preferred, those areas are more about personal bias. I'm talking about the order in which these TPGs perform when looking at dollar sales for same grade coins. That can be affected by many market forces, not the least of which is registry participants. Notice that I left CACG out as it is too new to have any real idea just how or where the market will value that TPG currently. My personal guess is that CACG could in a few years become the US market leader (again when using same grade sales), but time will tell on that. Again, anyone can cherry pick one or even several examples that are contrary to my order, but the US market data proves me correct.

I think @Sandon did a great job of explaining why your coin cannot be a mint error. Something was pressed into the rev of the coin after it was minted, whatever it was may have has some wires or strings attached to it which also left those thin impressions that your second set of photos show. In the end it is all PMD.

Something minor to fill in the gaps between the larger purchases, I bought this Washington quarter today at the monthly local coin show. It will be fill the slot in my raw album nicely, my photos are a touch dark but I think I captured the colors fairly well.

It would help if you could give some examples of what you are seeing. Newer ANACS holdered coins are often not well respected in the market so those do often sell for less than NGC or PCGS graded coins. As a general rule the pecking order goes: PCGS with CAC, NGC with CAC, PCGS, NGC, ANACS, and lastly ICG. You can find examples that contradict my list order but as an overall of the market that is what you will generally see. Very old ANACS holders, prior to the AMOS press ownership, are often sought out by some collectors as are the very early generations of NGC holders. ANACS photograde, and ANA holders and NGC Gen 1, 2, and 3 holders are often highly sought after and can bring significant premiums.

My guess is that the coins you have been seeing came from mint sets, those sets were issued in cardboard holders that over time have imparted toning to the coins, often the black splotchy type of tone you describe. This quarter is currently on GC and is what I think you have been seeing in most of your searches, I would bet this coin came from a mint set. Just keep looking I'm sure you can find what you want, just might be a lengthy search.

AU details cleaned is where I'm at, it appears to be picking up some secondary tone but in the video it looks more polished than lustrous.

No.

I would say that your description of yourself fits most of us, the hard part of not having a fat wallet is that a collector has to be disciplined and patient. Takes way longer to build a set that way but I find that studying while I accumulate funds makes buying that one big coin extra satisfying. In some ways it wouldn't be as fun if all I had to do was click the mouse a few times, although I would not mind trying that at least once.

It looks to be a large date to me as well.

I go POGO?

Looks like the new transparent variety.

I'm sorry but you are incorrect and have been told by everyone that you have a large date because that is what you have. However, since you are convinced that you and you alone are correct it serves no purpose to continue this discussion.

No we (or more correctly I) am correct that you have no clue. There is another VAM that uses the rev of 78, you are making such a fool of yourself because you make statements of fact that are in fact not true.

True, but it could be VAM4 which also uses the rev of 78, however, the photos are too poor to see the date clearly enough to verify or disqualify this coin as a VAM4. What is true is that we can eliminate VAM7 as none of the markers are present. So, without better photos all that can be said for sure is that this is either; VAM4, a discovery of a new rev of 78 coin, or as Eagle suggested a counterfeit that used the incorrect rev.

Do you actually think anyone cares about what you think You have proven you know little about coins but at least you are a funny guy.

There is nothing that can be said of your photo except that it is a coin on a scale, your photo does nothing to prove your claim when the details of the coin cannot be seen..

When you see parallel lines across the coin, like you took a piece of sandpaper and moved the coin back and forth across the sandpaper in one direction, that is a good sign a coin has been cleaned in an abrasive way. At first this can be difficult for someone new to coins to see and grasp, but after you see enough of this look it stands right out, marks from circulation are random with no pattern.

From your photos possibly AU58 to low MS, however, both coins appear to have hairlines so there is a possibility both might be deemed cleaned. From a value standpoint there is not much point it submitting either coin. I have included a screenshot of both the nonFB and FB coins from the NGC explorer, as you can see there is very little difference in price at this grade range between a FB coin and one that is not. Also, this date is not an expensive coin, at least not until you reach the gem plus grades; because as a first year of issue it was horded by collectors. Because it was horded there are many mint state examples to be found. This is a nice collector coin for an album, just in this condition not one that is a good candidate for submitting to a TPG.

I think @Sandon nailed it, NGC considers this to be too minor to list and attribute.