DWLange

You can find out about Numismatic Conservation Services (affiliated with NGC) here: https://www.ngccoin.com/ncs-conservation/

They do appear to have been improperly cleaned, and conservation cannot undo that. They would be Details graded rather than receiving a numeric grade.

Modern coins (submitted same year as made) don't appear until NGC has certified enough examples for the population to be meaningful. Vintage coins typically turn up within a week, unless no matching data number exists for them. This can happen with very exotic coins or varieties not previously certified.

Don't send that cent to NGC unless you simply have more money that you're comfortable having, because you'll get it back in a body back stickered ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE or even NOT SUIABLE FOR CERTIFICATION.

30x is greater magnification than necessary for examining coins. At NGC we typically use 5-6x for grading, if needed, and 9-10x for variety attribution.

It sounds like you're having fun, which is what the hobby should emphasize. There are two die marriages of 1835 half cents, and they're of roughly equal rarity. Your coin is Cohen-1, which is distinguished from Cohen-2 by the distance between letters ST of STATES. You can see examples of both here: https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/united-states/half-cents/classic-head-half-cents-1809-1836/811424/

That's a nice, evenly worn coin. Oftentimes with Barber silver the reverse is a full grade lower than the obverse.

Use of the AU grade goes back to the 1950s or earlier. Here's the first installment of a serial article in The Numismatist that ran during 1956.

I don't believe quad presses have been used for cents since introduction of the high speed Schuler presses a couple decades ago. Cents are now struck horizontally in single die pairs, though quads may still be in use for higher denominations.

If you believe your coin is a proof you may submit it a such. There is no variety charge to distinguish between T1 and T2 or between MS and PF.

It is whenever the same coins have been sold by the Mint outside the special sets.

To the best of my knowledge and through having examined all of the various coins under discussion I believe Roger's explanation of the proof processes used is the correct one.

There is no such genuine coin, so you must have a fake.

6472945 went through Quality Control on the 15th, but 6472946 was QC'd just yesterday. That must have been the hold-up, and I imagine they will ship shortly.

It took about five years for the 1955 DDO to begin bringing a strong premium. When first found these coins were called "Shift Cents," and no one knew what to make of them. They were released mostly in upstate New York and western Massachusetts, so Empire Coin Company (a partnership of Q. David Bowers and James Ruddy in Johnson City, NY) was offered quite a few of them shortly after they appeared. QDB wrote about how he bought a couple dozen or so but then paused, because it wasn't certain that they'd become popular. Inclusion in the Red Book by 1960 guaranteed them a good market and drew attention to many other DDO and DDR varieties for the first time.

All three of them appear to have been replated outside the mints. This was a cottage industry in the 1950s and '60s. Such coins are considered alterations and have no collector value.

Actual medieval coins are crudely made for the most part, and it would be nearly impossible to distinguish die doubling from strike doubling, so they answer to the original question is "no."

I noticed that this copy is from the Edness Wilkins papers. Here's a charming photo of Miss Wilkins from 1938 admiring her coin and medal collection which she housed in Wayte Raymond's National Coin Albums.

Some years ago NGC and NCS used the term IMPROPERLY CLEANED to distinguish harmful cleaning from proper conservation. In more recent years this has been replaced by the simple term CLEANED, but both mean the same thing. Your coin likely was graded ten years ago or more.

Those are not very good photos, but they're good enough to tell the coin is not prooflike at all. The graininess in the fields is mint luster, which has to be very smooth for a PL designation. If the coin is reflective, then it's probably the result of being harshly cleaned outside of the mint.

1980s to early 2000s

I'm managing well enough under the circumstances, but I deeply regret having to cancel my teaching gig at the ANA Seminar in June and missing all coin shows this spring and summer. I hope to be back in action for the Fall Baltimore show, but that remains to be seen.

It was done just as RWB states. The overdate was created in the actual die. I was commenting on the mistaken notion that existing 1886 coins were overstruck with 1887 dies.

You're right, of course, and I forgot about those. I haven't ordered anything from the U. S. Mint since the late 1990s, though I have kept the ones I bought previously as reference pieces.

The Jack Lee Collections (he assembled a second after selling the first) were quite memorable, and his Morgans soldier on as top point getters in other collectors' registry sets.