powermad5000

Thank you for the images. As soon as you said you submitted this as a mint error, I knew why it came back graded the way it did. It is not a mint error, but a variety as noted by @Sandon. What I have learned in my years of submissions, you have really got to be on top of your submission paperwork, as once it is received by NGC, they are not allowed to make subsequent "changes" to it. I understand fully that you spent the additional $18, but I think what needs to be understood here is once a submission is received with the Mint Error box checked, the coin goes to either a different grading table or a different grading room than would be if it were to go through the Variety Plus route. So, once at the Mint Error table, they took a quick look at it and well, it doesn't have a mint error so the coin got graded as a plain 1942 D. Long ago, this coin would have come back with the slab in a separate plastic bag with a sticker on it that would have said "Not a mint error". Nowadays, you don't get that or an explanation. As far as it goes, I don't think you will be able to recover the $18 fee. You can plead your case to NGC on this but I think you are going to hear that no matter what, you should have checked the proper box for the condition on your coin, and the $18 fee will have to be charged again because the graders upon regrading this coin will have to do the work necessary to confirm that it is of the variety you are claiming it to be. I hate to be the Debbie Downer of this thread, but I have gone my occasional rounds with NGC over the many years of submissions I have made, and I have never gotten an error on my part "overturned" in my favor. One thing you can be happy about is that it straight graded, and didn't return as Details graded for some type of issue such as cleaning, scratches, etc. I am always happy when my coins return straight graded.

I am sorry, but I am further confused by this post the further down I scroll. We are comparing proofs to a circulation strike and also an S to a D to a W. With all the variables in just that, not withstanding any differences in the preparation of the planchets which I believe are supplied to the mint in large quantities, I don't see how any comprehensive conclusion can be made to any aspects of size, thickness, or weight of each of the three.

Nice assemblage @jimbo27! I am wondering why there are some missing VAMs in the registry for the 1921 (P). I have a VAM-1A Pitted Reverse and a VAM-3E Pitted Reverse. As I am not a registry participant it is probably a dumb question as to why there are not slots for those.

Thank you to everyone for providing me the CAC info. Good to know. My apologies to the OP for the additional chatter I created on his post. I felt it relevant however to make that part clear to all. As far as it goes @Roy Winters, it doesn't matter the why you want to submit what you want to submit. It is your $$. Just as it is anyone else. I have submitted many things others would say I just wasted my money on, but it is my money and I can burn it if I want to although I would never do that because I need it for more coins. LOL! The thing about this hobby is we are all free to collect what we want to and do whatever we want with the coins we have collected. Have at it is my opinion!

You can't get CAC stickers anymore as far as I know. The slabs that were stickered were done before CACG grading began. As far as I know if you want a CAC green bean you have to submit the coins directly to CACG for grading and the bean will be printed on the label inside the slab if I am not mistaken. Maybe I am totally wrong, but I know there are some members on here who know the correct info here. I am not participating in the CACG program so I don't know for sure, but I know that things changed when they started doing their own TPG grading. Can you still get a green bean sticker on say an old NGC slab or would it have to now be regraded by CACG to get a green bean?

Hello and welcome to the forum! If by graded you mean submitted to a third party grading service, the answer is no. The plastic will cost more than the coin inside is worth. While you provided good photos of the obverses, you did not provide the same for the reverses which could have physical damage, circulation abrasions or environmental damage not found on the obverses but could definitely impact the overall value of the coins. Just based on the decade these cents are from, you would need very near perfect specimens for these to be worth the costs of submission. Many of the 50's Lincoln Wheats need to grade at a minimum of MS 66 RD (red) just to basically make a break even with TPG grading costs and MS 67 RD to have any substantial value. None of the obverses in your post even come close to those grades and your 56 would be considered a RB (red-brown). Many of these cents were hoarded in substantial amounts by collectors and stored so that is why the value of these cents even in great condition still have a relatively low value.

I see a large date 1982 D of which there were some struck in bronze and some struck in zinc. I do not know what you are seeing as being "weird" on the strike though. It looks normal to me and the "lightness" of the rim and lettering tells me it is probably a zinc and would probably weigh around 2.5g.

Hello and welcome to the forum! I can see where people might be mistaking these anomalies for drill holes, but where they are in fact raised. To me, it looks like someone practicing a process called brazing. It is similar to welding, but is done at lower temperatures on metals which are much softer than steel. I can see where there is adjacent bubbling of the surface next to the raised portion so heat was definitely used to attach the "droplet" as you call it. It is a process more aggressive than using a simple soldering iron, but not at extreme temperatures used in typical welding of steel and is usually reserved for softer metals such as copper, brass, and bronze. The "droplet" was left behind from the brazing rod, much like a welding rod, or the flux used in soldering. It is something used to "pool" the metals together at higher temperatures to join two metals together. Whether or not these spots "align" to me makes little difference. Post mint damage many times cannot be exactly explained as some people can do some really strange things to coins on occasion and it is difficult to try to pin down the "why". I could be wrong, but that is my humble opinion of what I am seeing here.

I agree with @Sandon on this particular coin and subject. I see a step-like secondary image that is definitely lower than the primary image made by the dies. There can be a number of reasons that this happens and is referred to in a general sense as strike or mechanical doubling. Die deterioration doubling produces more of a slope-like image as metal from the strike flows out from the recesses in the die as the die itself becomes too worn to make a full strike or to hold the metal from the strike within the recesses of the die which make the image raised on the coin after it is struck. Also, usually (but not always), with die deterioration doubling you can also see flow lines in the metal of the coin going out towards the rim which may just be beginning to start toward the rims on your coin, but is not pronounced as would be with a set of dies that is worn out well past the point of needing replacement. The strike of your coin seems to be sufficient enough as another indicator of strike doubling. Any of these forms of "doubling" (strike/mechanical or die deterioration/die erosion) are not true forms of doubling, and add no value to the coin exhibiting these characteristics.

Hello and welcome! I agree with the others. I see no errors. Only severe damage to both coins. Thank you for providing good pictures though! Most people posting for the first time do not provide adequate photos.

It seems to have some circulation abrasions and minor hits, as well as significant spotting on the reverse if I am seeing it correctly. This is now what would be considered an impaired proof and with over 3 million issued, has sadly lost its collector value when there are significant numbers of pristine specimens residing in collections.

I have reported your post and asked the mods to either move it to the Marketplace or delete it. You state this in a reply yet still are pushing sales.

A less common one. Too bad it was cleaned.

We each do our things differently. Completely ok. No problem here sir! I was just making a mention of of my opine. It may be something I try to do an experiment on with some ordinary circulation cents when I get time for it.

Hello and welcome! There are some cents of this era for whatever reason seem to have exceptionally bright and reflective surfaces on the copper plating. In some cases, this condition persists despite its age and circulation. I myself can't really explain this. I have found many 90's cents in circulation with either bright red color despite circulation wear, or some that still have a bright surface despite circulation. Proofs are produced differently than the coin you have posted which is a regular circulation issue. A proof would have a mirrored surface and sharpness of details that is not found on your coin, as well as frosted devices. The differences in the hair, beard and suit of Abe would be glaring if you held your coin up next to an actual proof.

I agree with @Sandon on this coin. However, I would like to add that a proof that has been put into circulation generally devalues the proof greatly. Depending on how much time this proof has been in circulation and has sustained circulation damage marks, hits, and possible environmental damage, its value might be reduced only to face value. If you provided cropped, full photos of both sides of the coin, we would better be able to assess if this is the case. Sadly, people sometimes do put proofs into circulation where they were never intended to be when they were struck.

Hello and welcome to the forum! I knew I had seen something with a similar effect to the dime you posted here and it seems @l.cutler beat me to it. While it is a legitimate mint error, and the dime itself seems to be in great condition for its age, it still might only get a slight premium for the error. We are talking about maybe $15-$20. If in the case of it being graded, the grading costs would be a wash with its potential value. It is nice to see a coin posted however that has a legitimate error and not just damage like most posts on here claiming the damage to be an error. Nice find!

He IS the seller.

One thing to remember in cases such as this, eBay sold listings are not a very good "guide" to overall FMV. There are damaged coins on there listed as errors with asking prices in the thousands by sellers looking just to scam some unsuspecting dupe into being separated from his money. There is no real oversight on there. And just because a seller lists a coin like this as a super rare CAM, doesn't mean it is. Sellers on there can list a coin with whatever description and for whatever price they want to. It doesn't mean they have to be correct in the description, nor fair in the price. If you want to look at more reliable gavel prices, check the bigger auction houses like Heritage, Stacks and Bowers, and Great Collections. Also, HiBid has been gaining in some market share so that is another one to check.

Not exactly. I only resort to this for a coin with an actual problem. Acetone is a chemical and while more on the "gentle" side, it is still strong enough to eat through paint. I just had to do this for a Lincoln Wheat that was half covered in grey paint. On these copper coated zinc cents, I would be a little leery of using this on a cent without a visible or noticeable issue. Being the plating had issues from the mint, I am not sure what would happen in the future if doing this and then having the acetone get under the plating somehow. I am sure there are no studies on what it would do if it got to the zinc core. Maybe nothing. Maybe something. Just not something I would risk doing on every coin I send in.

Hello and welcome to the forum! Well, I also see a CAM and after reading some of the responses, I don't think that part is in question anymore. What is still in question is opinions on grade and value. Good photos by the way and yes, taking the photos in different lighting will always affect how the coin looks. It is usually best to try to take the photos of the coin well lit, but not washed out with too much light if that makes sense. If the lighting is poor, it can make the coin look dirty, or environmentally damaged. I would say with the steps on the memorial being blended in the middle, and some evidence of light wear all around, this coin would probably grade as AU 53 RB. However, I do think the obverse scratch leading to Lincoln's face would get this coin a details grade so the actual numerical grade in my opinion is moot. Unfortunately, details coins usually only sell for a substantial reduced price below what the actual grade is on the label. Being an MS 61 is currently offered for over $2000 on eBay and a quick check of the NGC census has turned up very few of these submitted in any grade and only 8 in details census, I would think this coin even in details grade would not lose about half to two thirds of its value as is with more common details graded coins. All this said, however, it will only be worth what someone is willing to pay for it. I could even be wrong about the scratch getting dinged by the graders, but it does need to be taken into account for its possibility. As for declaring its value if you are submitting it, I would say you wouldn't go wrong by declaring it at $1000. No matter what you declare it, it will have to be submitted under the Standard tier as its value details or not is within that tier. You also need to pay the $18 Variety Plus fee for the coin to be properly graded. There is a dealer locater listed right on the main NGC page here. Under the Resources tab, in the dropdown menu, click on Locate Dealers and put in your info. I think those on the list are dealers that will accept submissions but as always, contact them first. It would be cheaper for you to submit through one of them especially on a single coin submission. Excellent find! Congrats! I will say I thought to myself "Ok, there must have been another get rich quick YouTube video on CAM's and WAM's for all these posts popping up.". It is nice to see an actual example come across the forum!!

The OP posted larger "slices" of the cent in question @Sandon, but I still don't believe there is anything out of the ordinary, and I also still believe the OP's cent is too environmentally damaged for it to have any collector value.

This is an old thread and @Stebo280, you would be better to start your own thread instead of piggybacking on an old one. Many users here won't return to threads that are years old. You would need to provide better, clearer and cropped photos for your topic as what is here is either too far away or too pixelated, but I can state there is no way that an 8 was added anywhere on a 1974 Washington Quarter at the Mint.

Newbies should stay far away from this. And this thread is just a sales pitch. The mods should remove this post.