Coinbuf

I concur, PMD looks like counting machine damage to me (often called wheel marks). Let me add that I think your plan of attack; "Being that the coin was from an uncirculated roll and the all the coins in the roll were in terrific mint state condition, this brush like blemish would seemingly come from the minting process or immediately following it's production" is not the best approach. When you find something that looks different you should be assuming that it is only PMD unless you can prove that it happened during production. Remember the mint is a high speed production facility, coins minted for circulation are not given even a modest level of careful handling. And once the coins are shipped out of the mint they are subjected to more rough handling and the use of counting machines which can also impart marks and damage. In order to identify real errors vs damage you need to know how coins are minted. Here is a very short video released by the Denver mint, this is not a substitute for studying the minting process but in this video you can see just how rough these coins are treated during the production, note the use of tools like a metal rake. Link

Just some reference for you, the mint began phasing out the hand punching of mintmarks in the mid eighties. By 1990 all hand punched mintmarks had been phased out, so it would be impossible for you to find a D over anything on a coin from 1993 unless a mint employee was doing some creative midnight manufacturing on his/her own.

I've never understood the desire or rational behind wanting or feeling the need for a label that says first day of issue.

Perhaps you have heard the term a rising tide lifts all boats; I'm surprised that you have not seen the same with the other series you have been working on. Between the current administrations rapid inflation and a super bull market in numismatics over the past few years I cannot think of any coin or series that has not seen significant rise in the asking prices, especially if you are looking at buying from a dealer. Having said that gem+ full red coins in the twenties and teens have always been pricey, that is why my set is mostly RB or BN up to 1930, from 1930 on I have strived for only red and at least 66 shooting for 67 on each coin. But I have a few of the early 30's coins in 66's that are so nice it is hard to justify upgrading. My advice is to look at the auction sites to fill in those gaps, it will not be much less expensive but still less than paying the dealer markup. After all many dealers are buying from those same auctions and adding 25% or more on top.

I see nothing out of the ordinary.

Lots of people are, there are millions of stained coins floating around the system just as yours are stained and not any type of error. Think about it, improperly annealed coins are found in circulation but are not common at all, how likely is it that you would find that many in such a short time span. The answer is very VERY unlikely that you would, instead of assuming that everything you find is an error or variety you should instead assume it is not unless you can prove it is an error or variety.

I cannot say for sure but I do not believe this is improperly annealed either, the look is all wrong. However, the white balance of your photo is off (I'm assuming the background color is white but appears to be yellow on my monitor) which makes the coin look yellow, thus it's very difficult to say definitively.

Hello Kel and welcome to the forum, I used your photo and circled the area I think you are asking about, if correct this is as @Sandon mentioned above what is called a die chip. As he explained these are common and just a product of poor quality control not an error and doesn't add anything of value to the coin. You can read about die chips at this link I have provided. Error-ref.com - die chips

Coins that are improperly annealed will usually be a copper color, this quarter in your photos doesn't appear to be copper in color on my monitor. Your coin just looks stained or discolored from these photos to me.

Thanks, the photos were taken by Jeremy (aka airplanenut on the PCGS forum) 15 or 20 years ago, dang it is hard to believe it has been that long. The coin still resides in its old small ANACS holder.

A cud only happens around the rim of a coin, what I see in your photos appear to be either a die chip or just damage from something that hit the coin in that spot. Die chips are somewhat common and have no collector value, and damage is never collectable.

64PL

plating blisters on the zinc core cents are very common, it would be a complete waste of money to have a coin like this sent for grading as none of the TPG's would recognize this as an error. Here is a reference that explains how it happens. Link

Not a real or fake error, just a damaged coin.

Welcome to the forum, as already said you do not have a doubled die coin just some common as dirt machine doubling on this cent.

Here you go.

Not surprising but another loss for NGC and the hobby in general. Hot off the press

That seems odd, did you see any set with this slot filled? Seems like this should be addressed by the registry staff, @Ali E.

An anonymous seller can list anything and claim anything (and they do) on ebay. Ebay doesn't have any process to check the validity of what a seller on that site lists, nor do they care, they are worried about getting their "cut" when things sell not about protecting the buyers. If you are looking for errors you should spend some time to understand how the minting process works and what is an error and what is not. An error only happens at the time a coin is struck and 99% of real errors are unique, by that I mean you will not find ten of them in a roll. The only exception to that is for strikethroughs, on occasion the foreign object that creates a strikethrough can stay in place and strike a handful of coins before falling of the die. Here is a link to a site called error-ref, there is a ton of truthful information about real and not real errors. Link I suggest that you spend the time to review this site thoroughly.

I was accepted as a collector submitter by CAC around 2010 or so and I have submitted perhaps half of the coins that I could from my collection. It is the dealers (and some collectors) that send in everything without doing any type of prescreening that have caused this huge backlog and the resultant closing of new memberships. JA has said that overall collectors represent a very small portion of the submissions that CAC receives. However, if they just threw the doors open to everyone the backlog would be months or even a year.

But that email says nothing about a special rate of $16 vs the newly announced econ tier of $22; I think that you will be charged $22 for each coin that passes but I will hope I'm wrong on this. Please update once you get your invoice for the group you just sent in so we have a definitive answer to the amount of the fee.

Do you have a link to this information? I have not seen this posted anywhere on the CAC forum. I am referring to the $16 vs $22 fee, I know about the 20 failures that will not be charged a fee. @robec1347 I have not seen any information or statement to clarify how long the twenty coin per year exemption will last, I too hope it will be for several years.