powermad5000

I got a full roll of the Formative Years design from the bank when they came out. The roll was all the same date and same (P)'s. I went through the whole roll one at a time and sent in the best one of the roll. It came back MS 66 RD. Not really worth the cost of sending it in. My advice would be since you already messed with the end of the roll, it would be hard to sell off the whole roll on say eBay because everybody will assume it has been cherrypicked so I would go ahead and open it, but I wouldn't expect to find any 67's or 68's unless you were super lucky. It's kind of like playing the lotto. I hope you get lucky and do find a superb gem in it. Good luck!

Maybe revisit this thread with the results.

Just curious as to where you found it. Roll hunting?

Nothing wrong with collecting moderns and the fact that you are striving for the highest grades possible is good. Most moderns are not worth the cost of grading unless they are exceptionally high grades which would be MS 67 and above. My advice for someone who has never sent coins in to be graded, make your first submission small which would be 3 coins or less and see what grades you get back unless you are very self confident in your own self grading skills. Making a small first submission will give you an idea on just how good the quality of the rest of your collection is.

Hello and welcome to the forum!

The first thing I noted from the photo was the shape and positioning of the D mintmark which led me to look at Variety Vista. It is possible it may be the 1945 D RPM-005 variety. Without clear, fully cropped photos of both sides of the coin, however, it cannot be determined from the provided photo as we are unable to check the obverse and reverse for the markers that would identify if it were to be this variety.

As for the "corral", I would also give the coin a soak in some acetone as it looks like it is some kind of glue or adhesive or other foreign substance on the surface and it would be beneficial to remove this substance. Please note to let the acetone do the work and do not use any object in an attempt to scrape the substance off. Also, do not rub the surface of the coin in an attempt to remove it. Any of these methods will surely damage the coin.

It is important to note that it is not just US coins that are counterfeited typically by the Chinese. These would also fall into that category as well. I would say before you attempt to sell this or the Bison you have that you take them to an expert who can properly provide some kind of evidence that what you have are legitimate specimens.

Hello and welcome to the forum!

Submitting coins for grading is an expensive process and typically most coins to be submitted should be valued at a base minimum of $100 while many collectors will only submit coins valued at $300 or more. The advice of @Sandon is very good and he is well respected in the forums here.

Just as a question, could you perhaps tell us what types of coins you are considering submitting and possibly post a photo of one of them here? If we have a little more information about what you plan to send we could perhaps be able to better guide you as to whether or not to submit them to be graded.

Hello and welcome to the forum!

Unfortunately, it took me about a split second to denote that your coin is a very poor counterfeit based upon the coloring and surface of the coin as well as the shape of the lettering and numerals. There is no need to further expound on other issues on the coin.

Also to note, while you have a decent set of calipers, your scale is lacking when it comes to weighing coins. You need a scale that reads to the hundredth decimal place (0.01) in grams for coin weighing. Scales that only read to the tenth decimal place (0.1) will either round weight up or down depending on the actual weight of the sample placed on the weighing tray. This can cause the actual weight to be in some cases 0.09 grams off from the real weight which could be critical in certain weighing situations when it comes to coins.

Additionally, whatever the "ping" test is I can assure you is a terrible practice and something you should NOT do! I can only imagine it involves either striking the coin with another coin or object, or throwing it off of a table to hear the sound it makes. You would not want to do this to any coin you suspect that could be extremely rare and highly valuable as you will surely damage the coin in the process and significantly impact its value.

Hello and welcome to the forum!

You can also read my comment in the quarter error post as it will be the same comment for your posted coin. Also, your coin is not silver as stated but is copper-nickel clad over a copper planchet.

Hello and welcome to the forum!

There are many different denominations over many decades that have this type of damage from a coin roll wrapping machine. It is not an error as it happened after the coin left the Mint, and is not an error. It is also much more common than you might think.

In NGC Variety Plus, there are many Top 50 Peace Dollars that NGC recognizes. Being from what I know, that PCGS coins are also acceptable for registry sets, there may be some varieties that PCGS recognizes that NGC does not, so that could be why you are seeing all of these different slots.

I am not a registry participant but I have read posts of others and I am just musing. You may want to ask this same question in the Ask/NGC section of the forum.

Hello and welcome to the forum!

The fact that your cent has no mintmark means it is a 1974 (P) Lincoln Memorial cent. We use the (P) to refer to coinage that is sans mintmark as that means it was produced at the Philadelphia Mint. As stated this coin was minted in the billions and is worth its copper value in the condition it is currently in.

Hello and welcome to the forum!
 

You have a 1982 (P) small date Lincoln cent in bronze with an ideal weight of 3.11g and the weight of your cent is well within Mint tolerance. (P) is how we refer to coinage struck at the Philadelphia Mint which are sans mintmarks.

The cent you have, however, has been harshly cleaned and not done well at that. It is worth face value and is a spender in its current condition.

On 4/28/2024 at 10:14 PM, Sandon said:

Ongoing research may reveal that even the authenticated pieces really shouldn't be regarded as "special" either.

I can see where this might apply. If the so called SMS were simply the first 5 or so coins struck from a brand new set of dies, but not a specially made set of dies, then wouldn't it stand there would be 5 or so coins from every series and date ever struck now called the so called SMS and what about the in the same year of striking once the dies have worn out and get changed to a fresh set? Then there would be an additional 5 or so called the so called SMS? I think by the standards we grade, those would simply be just exceptionally high graded but not have a special designation attached to them.

To me, the SMS designation should be applied when the coins are struck from a specially crafted set of dies not made for regular issued strikes or business strikes as some refer to.

On 4/13/2024 at 12:46 AM, Captain Murder said:

when u feel as if your coin received an unfair low grade.

I have a feeling you got one of your submissions back and received these grades. It has happened to me in my over roughly 700 submissions (I have retained roughly 500 slabs and sold off some of my self grading mistakes). I will be honest to all in this thread. I felt the same way you did when I started getting details grades back and I even approached NGC with the same idea here as you opened this thread with. The NGC response was the slab says Details grade does not determine value and that impairments negate numerical grading. It took me to think through the process and adjust my thinking to what the situation is.

The problem with assigning a numerical grade to a details coin is that would literally directly affect the value of straight graded coins in the market. Imagine under that system then having two slabs side by side, one labeled MS 65 and another labeled Details 65 - Cleaned. Everybody would know the FMV for the straight grade, but then the seller of the Details slab will be asking a price near the straight graded, just somewhat lower and also arguing that it is better than an MS 64 straight grade. That is the exact why a details numbering system won't work. There is one or many impairments involved. The price of such an impaired coin should not and cannot be based upon a numerically graded specimen and its value should be effectively lowered on the number and severity of impairments. Take for example some of the Trade Dollars I have seen over the years. There are some I have seen that probably would have graded MS 66 or MS 67 with the quality in the rim areas of the coin, but are so heavily chopmarked on both sides that they have no remaining center details left and are somewhat bent. You could not give that coin a label that says Details 66 in that state. Trying to say that coin is better details than a straight graded 65 would simply not be true.

Once again, let impairments and the number and severity of impairments sink in. Here would be another side by side example of why you cannot assign a number to a details coin. If one slab is AU Details - Cleaned side by side to a slab of the exact same type and mintmark of coin and the other slab is labelled AU Details - Corrosion, Rim Damaged, Tooled. Now if both of those said AU 55 Details, do you see where the seller of the more impaired coin would begin to argue that his coin is worth just as much as the one that is cleaned because they both say 55 on them? It is those exact situations of why you cannot assign any kind of numeric to a details coin.

Keep in mind, many decades ago, cleaning coins was partly considered an acceptable practice, and in recent decades collectors have upped the ante only willing to pay premium for coins with exceptional surfaces.

To conclude, when my first details slabs started coming back, it made me look harder at my coins. It taught me where my self grading was lacking. It taught me to look for specific issues when I do my inspections. If anything, it improved my self grading immensely. I have in recent years finally become better (although not perfect) at detecting cleaned coins and get many dealers who look at me surprised when I pass the coin back to them very quickly because I see hairlines right away or detect some other problem with the coin quickly. Needless to say, when my submissions return now, I get a box full of straight grades, a details grade that I knew was going to be there, and maybe only one where I have to sit down with and try to find where I missed something.

I think you should learn from those details grades you are getting back and strive for more quality.

On 5/3/2024 at 1:44 PM, ThePhiladelphiaPenny said:

but I thought if I kept a close eye on them I could get them out if something fishy started.

Once you see something, the damage is already done. It is literally done when you put the coin in a PVC type storage method.

The PVC leaches into the coin below the surface, so by the time you see damage or an "oily wet" surface, it has damaged the coin.

Hello and welcome to the forum!

The Jefferson nickel was first struck as a series in 1938. I agree with the others that you have a 1990 P Jefferson that has some obverse damage to both nines, and looking at the numerals, I can only think the large zero was created by both a hit that affected the last nine and a die chip that just happened to be in that spot as well. Die chips add no premium to the value.

I would not spend this coin, however. It is different to me so I would put it in a 2x2 cardboard flip and keep it as a curiosity piece.

On 5/3/2024 at 2:00 PM, ldhair said:

Keep the lens flat to the coins surface and play with the lighting.

I do this on every coin except proof and prooflikes. The returning glare I encounter literally washes the coin out in the photo so I end up having to take photos of those types at a slight angle. Note, I said slight. Just enough so the light returning back into the lens doesn't turn the coin into a white mess. I am photographing my coins with a Google Pixel so it has its own things to get around, especially the auto focus which I turn off when taking coin pics.

This is not the first time there has been some sort of a level of "infighting" on these pages. It happens. The OP may possibly feel by posting this it "started it", but the reality is it is always there lying beneath the surface and actually has nothing to do with the OP. I have noticed over time some of these are long standing "disagreements" that come and go.

I understand both sides of this issue that has arisen between two members here that I respect both. And I agree with portions of both sides on the issue. I am always aware of "giving out too much info" on counterfeits is an aid to the counterfeiters, but I also think when someone comes onto this forum looking for help and who in this case has inherited coins and does not seem to be a collector him/herself, we owe it to the poster of such pieces a little better of an explanation that looks a little better than the following :

Nah. Fake. Sorry.

We are supposed to have the knowledge here and at least be able to give a reasonable explanation of the why part of why it is fake while at the same time not helping the counterfeiters improve their fake products. I usually explain things such as certain details being "off" or missing which is enough to satisfy the part of providing an answer with enough of a why and be able to back up my statement, but I also at the same time usually don't reveal everything I am seeing wrong.

While we are in discussion on this, counterfeiters also have plenty of online resources of genuine examples, and I would say their pieces are generated only as good as their budgets and equipment allow. 

If I may interject and digress, to the OP, as stated by yourself that you are new, I would definitely read and learn the minting process information presented by @Sandon. I would also get a copy of the current Red Book of United States Coins. If you are learning self grading as well, I would obtain a copy of a book titled ANA Grading Standards for United States Coins, 7th Edition.

Also, look at as many coins as you come across. When you see coins normally and in good condition, you will start to recognize ones that are cleaned or damaged as in the case of the one you posted here.

Appreciate the updated photos which are not the best but I think good enough for me to provide an opinion. I want to say this coin was face up in a parking lot, and got ran over once (maybe twice if the car backed out of the spot the same way). Then it was found and picked up. There are too many of those tiny depressions with some of them a little deeper that unless someone who had a lot of time to waste intentionally putting them in there with a punch tool (still could be possible), that those were the leftover impressions from some very rough asphalt.

After 40+ years and pulling all wheats from change, I had to buy enough tubes to cover the entire range of dates from 09 to 58. There are mixed mintmarks in the tubes but at least all the dates are separated. Many of the tubes in the teens are mostly empty and by the time you get to the mid 50's ones, some of them have have multiple full tubes. Some are in good shape, some not. I only submitted two. A 1910 (P) and a 1914 S. Neither were worth big money but plenty more than the $0.01 I obtained them for from change.

I still get around half a dozen or so per year and just keep adding to the tubes.

I also see 1919 S.