DWLange

The flattening of the letter tops appears to be the result of abrasion rather than any kind of cleaning.

Few people realize that U. S. paper currency was likewise cleaned and pressed before being reissued, but this practice came much later. I know it was performed during the 1910s, but I believe it became impractical when the volume of paper currency swelled in the 1920s. So far as I know it hasn't been done since.

The graders looks for strike characters such as 5FS, FB, PL, etc. automatically when grading raw coins, and there is no extra charge. If you have a coin already certified by NGC, then you would have to get it regraded when seeking such add ons.

NCS is very good at removing simple copper spots. It's the black "flyspecks" that may leave a ghost behind.

Since you have the 1878-CC and 1878-S that means you're covered for 1878 7TF Rev of 78, which shares their reverse type. The 1878 7TF Rev of 79 is on all the P Mints after 1878, so I recommend you get an 1878 8TF, since it doesn't appear on any other issue in the series. That maximizes your varieties.

Hey, you can diss a coin show, but leave darling Penny alone...

That must be where they got the idea for Wheat Thins crackers...

The Scan-O-Matic is good but your have to plug it in for each coin....or did I read the instructions wrong.....? No, the coins are not electrified---only the light bulb.

This is all you really need. I wanted one so much as a kid, but at $12.50 they were way beyond my budget. I had my revenge decades later, when I accumulated about a dozen examples in various colors and with different boxes. Just plug it in and load a roll of pennies, then start sliding the handle...

It is not. You will find a good photo of that variety at NGC's VarietyPlus website.

Minor coins had very limited legal tender value and tended to accumulate in the hands of businesses. Banks did not want large numbers in deposits and could refuse them above their legal tender limit. The solution was a law passed in 1871 that allowed for their redemption in paper money by the Treasury when presented in quantities of not less than, I believe, $25. The T then cleaned and reissued them in lieu of new coins, which accounts for the plunge in mintages of small coins starting that year.

I believe we can be quite certain they were not.

This confirms what has been published in most U. S. Mint histories. The absence of chopmarks likely results from the lower silver content of standard dollars versus trade dollars. This was the purpose of creating a U. S. trade dollar in the first place---to be more competitive with the Mexican "dollars" in the Asia trade. Most of the standard dollars sent to the Far East were probably melted, the recovered silver being sold to India, where it was preferred over equivalent values in gold.

It is a slightly mishandled proof, though seemingly without any actual wear. Since 1964 proof cents are so common in gem grades it would not be worth having certified.

In my opinion it's silly for someone to pay more for a certified Poor-1 coin than it would cost for a nice VF-20. That's a neurotic obsession with plastic and numbers at the expense of real numismatics.

Many years ago I wrote on the subject of USA silver circulating in Canada and that nation's attempts to drive it out. Disclaimer: My hair is no longer thick and brown... https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/585/

The photos that tj96 posted are of the Type B used for proofs and a minority of 1964 Philadelphia currency strikes versus the Type A of normal 1964(P) and 1964-D currency strikes. The differences are easily seen, but they do little to assist in distinguishing the Type C 1964-D quarters struck with a clad hub reverse. On the link provided, you should compare the Type A reverse of truly normal 1964-D quarters against the Type C. For these two the diagnostic points cited above are nearly indistinguishable. The most reliable way to distinguish a Type C strike is by its crisp E PLURIBUS UNUM and it very sharply defined wing feathers. The overall lower relief will jump out at you, too, once you've seen a few examples of the Type C.

You'll find excellent photos at NGC's VarietyPlus website.

Correction...that's a Duesy.

It looks like die erosion or, as J P said, die deterioration.

NGC classes them with Anniversary Coins and Medals in the Census, so I imagine there's a Registry category for that.

That's just a chemical reaction and not wear. It could be from any number of things, including someone having held the coin.

Sorry to be the spoiler, but it is fake. The details are soft and grainy, and the denticles are partially detached from the rims, particularly on the obverse. Images of the real thing are below.

As long as you don't value them over $3000 each it is more cost effective to submit them under the Modern Tier ($19 vs $30). Here's a link to the page that describes NGC's fees: https://www.ngccoin.com/submit/services-fees/ngc/

The Census is dependent on internal numbers that identify a particular coin by country, denomination, date, mint, etc.