powermad5000

If it is not too late, Mike, you can look into the rules for retracting your bid. In some cases, you can retract your bid if it is made in error.

NGC, PCGS, ANACS and now CACG provide the confidence that the coins are legit, but as for individual sellers, it is sort of impossible, especially for sellers who might only sell a couple or few coins a year. On eBay, there is feedback, but that can only go so far. The feedback is useful for sellers who consistently provide less than desired quality (such as receiving a coin not shown in the photos you bought from), or from sellers who don't even ship the coin, but for sellers like the one in question, I can only imagine not all the buyers from that seller actually submit their coins so for those who buy the coins off of those juiced up photos, they may only end up keeping them raw and not have the knowledge to check them for defects. Therefore, that seller can get positive feedback but there is actually a disconnect between the feedback and reality of the purchase.

Hello and welcome to the forum! Never hold a coin by its surfaces, especially if you believe it to have some collector value! Always handle a coin by its edges. You can damage the coins surfaces by touching them with your bare hands. Now, that you have once again been admonished to drive the point home to someone new to the hobby, I am voting in the dryer coin camp. There seems to be an anomaly between the legs of the eagle on the reverse as if something wore down that spot in the middle and also a flattening on George's head as if this coin got caught in its middle somewhere in a dryer and spun just a little, enough to damage those details and flatten out the rim, then fell out.

Hello and welcome to the forum! I resound the statement made by @Greenstang. NEVER hold a coin by its surfaces if you have to handle the coin at all. In the event you have to handle a coin by hand, only handle it by its edges. You can impart permanent damage to its surfaces by touching them. Now that you have been properly admonished again to drive the point home, I also agree there is no reeding on the edge of your coin and I am sure I will be corrected by member Sandon of the proper year, I do not believe coins were imparted with reeded edges until the early 1800's (1836 for US coins). I do see some type of pattern or design on the edge of your coin. I would say it is a two part issue here. Due to the coin's age (1751), the process of minting coinage was still rather crude and I am sure that the processes to impart the design to the edge were not perfect. What I mean is that the coin could have been made without the design going around the entire edge to begin with. Combine that with general wear on the coin and you could easily lose part or most of the rim design as is the case on your coin. As for the given weight, I am not sure what the weight tolerance would be for this coin, once again due to its age, and I can only hazard that there was not close tolerances for the coinage process as there are in today's terms, so I think the weight of yours is close enough for the coin to be deemed close to its ideal considering it lost some of its initial weight due to the wear present on your example. As for it being a genuine example, the coin would have to be reweighed on different scales to make sure its true weight is established and it would have to be remeasured, and metal tested by either an XRF tester and if that test was inconclusive, a specific gravity test to determine its metal content and if that matches a genuine example, as well as a thorough in hand inspection of the details to make sure they match a genuine specimen. Trying to determine authenticity from just photos can be nearly impossible unless there is very blatant and obvious signals such as missing or incorrect details.

My guess is it is now hot garbage

Hello and welcome to the forum! Die cracks have been present in coinage since basically the mint began mass producing coins. I have an 1883 Liberty Head nickel with die cracks on both the obverse and reverse. I at one time had a 1921 Morgan dollar with die cracks but that one just sold. I believe one member here @Sandon has an 1819 Coronet Head Large Cent with a large radial die crack. Point is, they are not errors and some collectors see them as "damage" and only collect examples without such die defects. Die cracks are sometimes used as a die marker on coins with other anomalies such as DDO or DDR and are used to help identify a certain set of dies which was producing the anomaly, but in and of themselves, die cracks are basically only considered something "interesting" and only to some people. In the case of what you have discovered, however, I think it would be educational and beneficial if you were to show photos of the progression of the discovered die crack here, since mostly, only a few examples get randomly shown, and mostly are never assembled in such a sequence or in such large numbers together. While I find die cracks to be of "dull curiosity" unless they are in very large numbers as on the Liberty Head nickel I have (I could only guess the dies were about to shatter), I would have great interest in seeing this assemblage and progression you would be able to provide here.

This is not necessarily true. There are many O and S Morgan Dollars with high mintages in the millions but they are considered "scarce" in uncirculated condition. Many examples can be found in grades XF and below, but they become scarce in MS 60 and up. Take the 1883 S Morgan for example. 6,250,000 were minted. An AU 55 lists for $375 in the price guide. However, a only a few steps up, an MS 60 lists in the price guide for $1,200. And if you want one in MS 65, you will have to shell out $30,000. The problem with your ASE example, is none of those are ever going to be circulated, and while splitting hairs over a 68 vs a 69 vs a 70, their prices are always going to be static no matter how many were minted. While that number may be lower than other years or mintmarks, it is only going to achieve a premium related to a specific collector demanding it be in a certain grade, but no more than that. I would say most of them have already been graded and are one of the three aforementioned grades. Another example is a 1916 D Mercury Dime. While it is the key date of the series, its mintage number of 264,000 is not considered "rare" and I have come across many examples of them. It does, however, become very scarce in grades over XF. Take old coppers for another example. The R numbers are generated by how many examples are survivors, not by how many were minted. The point of "rarity" is not necessarily mintage number, but how difficult a coin is to locate either by type or grade.

Die chips are not considered errors. I have a 1955 S Lincoln Wheat Cent with a filled 5 and submitted it but it returned sans error and unfortunately also scratched.

We cannot ascertain any issues without photos of the coin in question.

There is not a "code" and there never has been. There have always been unethical sellers and even dealers in the numismatic world.

Mike, I absolutely will not buy coins from this seller. I do believe they called themselves Canyon City Coin before the name change. All of their photos are incredibly juiced just like Auction Kings photos which look the same as these. All of their offerings have that black background with a cameo looking contrast. I can guarantee the coin in hand will not look like it does in the photos. I located this coin in seconds on an eBay search. Here's the deal. It is listed as 1878 ULTRA DMPL * PRISTINE+ GEM BU. My rule of thumb, the more descriptors used, the more full of BS the listing is. The coin should speak for itself. Here is the other thing. After taking a quick one minute look at the NGC census, there are ZERO graded in DPL, and only 5 graded in PL. The pictured coin is not a proof. It does not have the same sharpness in the hair, or shields on the obverse and reverse to be a proof so you would be buying a non proof with questionable marking or scratches that could be in the blacked out fields and I seriously doubt that the coin in hand would actually have that contrast to get it a PL grade (forget DPL as there are none graded at that designation). So the sellers description is deceiving to begin with. While the overall details seem to put the coin in uncirculated territory, if it is cleaned, think UNC Details and the commensurate discount the coin would end up selling for. An unimpaired MS 60 is listed in the price guide for $400. Your coin in UNC Details would end up selling for low AU or XF pricing if it is graded details so figure around $150-$200 in that case. And you would be out the cost to have it graded. I would only risk the $200 to cover my you know what in worst case scenario, so that is my opinion. If you can, stop bidding and let someone else get it and let it be their problem. And that is why I buy nothing from that seller.

Thanks! I am not a gold collector and only have one gold coin in my collection. Apparently these pieces are very scarce.

This was a short story on the news tonight, but I missed the verbal part of the story. I think they said it was sold at Heritage Auctions. I don't know what this coin is and was unable to locate it in a search. Just wondering what it is. Sorry, the news didn't show a picture of the reverse so I can't help on that.

We would be right back to Capped Bust Half Dollar varieties then. And how they relate to Buffalo Nickels.

Mike, IF it were real, it would be a six figure coin. NGC would bump that up all the way to the Unlimited WalkThrough tier with a turnaround time of three days. That's an "old" thread by standards in this forum. It would not have taken this long.

A 1943 Steel Lincoln Wheat Cent with no mintmark (P) was struck at the Philadelphia Mint. Your coin seems to have original surfaces as its color is commensurate with a steel cent with light wear. I would say this would grade somewhere around AU53-AU55, and its value in the price guide currently in that condition is $0.70-$0.75. I would think if it were submitted however, (I am most certainly not suggesting this) that it would grade as AU details - Environmental Damage for the corrosion spot on the reverse. This details grade would bring the value of this coin down to probably about $0.25. I have seen many worse examples of this type coin and this one would be a good candidate for an album imho.

Your coin is a large date 1982 D Lincoln cent and the weight is appropriate for a bronze cent of issue with a mint weight of 3.11g +/- .13g of tolerance. The mint made 6,012,979,368 of these cents.

There is no way to know what the graders at the table actually took into account when they graded your coin. For the most part, the label in the slab states what they saw when they graded it. If there is some type of issue you find with your grade, you can inquire on the Ask/NGC forum and see if you can get a response about your particular situation. There is a rebuttal but not a traditional verbal rebuttal. You can resubmit the coin for a regrade, however, it will cost you more funds and typically does not change the initial results unless there was a mechanical error made by NGC during the labeling process (i.e. some information such as a variety that was paid for that is in Variety Plus, but is not reflected on the slabbed label). I have only resubmitted one coin out of my several hundred submissions with notes for the graders on why I thought it should have graded one level higher, but it returned regraded with the same grade as I got the first time. You are always free to post pictures of it here and let the members here have a look see and provide you with an opinion from the forum.

I agree this cent looks to have been plated. It is off-color, shiny on the obverse, and the reverse looks like the plating which damaged the original surface is suffering from some form of environmental damage. Did you weigh this cent to the hundredth decimal place? I would be curious to know what the weight is.

Totally awesome @J P M! Regardless if it changes in the future, you have evidence AND bragging rights that you have the #1 set!!!! Of any of the nickel guys I know, you deserve this honor!

I also see three large date 1982 D Lincoln cents. I also echo the response by @Coinbuf that it is your time spent if you wish to continue to search for the third "unicorn" cent. Just keep in mind there are tens or hundreds of thousands of other people who are also looking for the same thing, so do not be surprised if you never find it.

I have gotten many higher uncirculated moderns in my cash register change. My most surprising was my Roosevelt Dime that graded MS 67 FT PL. Most of the better cash register change in moderns however for me has been MS 66 tops and downwards from there. Sure it is possible to find an uncirculated modern in a roll, but what you need to keep in mind is that even a modern grading as MS 66 is really not even slab worthy. The plastic will still be worth more than the coin. I cherrypick my cash register change for examples that look great and at first quick glance have no observable defects to the naked eye. I place these in a special tube for later review. It takes me about 4 months for the tube to start to fill up where I will sit down and spend, oh, maybe about 5-10 minutes with a 10X and give em a good look over. Here is where the hook comes in, of that little tube, 99% of the coins have some minor nicks or scratches which would preclude even an MS 67 grade. While they may be considered uncirculated MS, they are not slab worthy so they get kicked back out into the wild. Let's review so this sinks in. - A lot of cash transactions resulting in a lot of loose change of all denominations. Over the course of a year, probably a couple thousand coins. - Coins worthy of further inspection number in the tens and only roughly 30 minutes per year is spent to review them. - 99% of them are not worthy of being slabbed. Some while nice and uncirculated, are not worth the cost of grading. - Final result, I may only get one a year that I take a chance on having it graded. A chance. Most come back as MS 66 and the plastic costs me more than the coin is valued at. Roll hunting may accelerate the numbers but I think in the end you would spend more time roll searching and end up at the same final result that I do. Keep in mind, the mintage numbers of moderns in the BILLIONS.

The physical deformities should tell you immediately that it is post mint damage. The amount of force used to strike a coin properly while it is in the collar properly will always produce a coin that is flat. If this coin were flat with those type of defects, you would then have cause to take a closer look to see if it is damage or a strike through.

For the same reasons as stated by Mike, I would have to say the OP's coin would grade AU 53 but I don't think it would get higher than that. I do not have the coin in hand however so that is just an opinion. To the OP, this is a tricky series to grade. Not all of these nickels were fully struck, or struck well and that is taken into account at the grading table. Sometimes it can be difficult to discern between wear and a poorly struck specimen. That said, however, strike is one of the top things a professional grader is going to look at. A coin with zero scratches, marks, or hits with a fantastic surface might only grade as low MS if it is poorly struck. And a well struck coin with minimal wear in AU grades can be mistaken as an MS which is also known in the coin community as an AU slider. In this series, added twists to grading them also exist by year, and by mint so this is really a difficult series to try to self grade. You would have to put in a lot of work and research in order to self grade this series well and why I state my self grade of this by a photo is merely an opinion.

It is excellent that you are handling the coin by its edges. However, I really cannot even entertain you with an opinion of grade or value from the photos provided. They are too far away for me to see what I need to see. It might be helpful for you to put the coin on a table and then take the pics, make sure they are clear, and then fully crop them before posting them. P.S. I should not know that you had to take your shoes off.