powermad5000

Hello and welcome! If I am seeing a tiny B and a tiny A, that was not put there by the mint and someone did that intentionally, much like larger counterstamps found on many earlier types of coins from early to coppers to Trade Dollars to Capped Bust Halfs and just about everything in between. It also could just be paredolia and just the way the coin took a couple hits on the rim though too.

Hello and welcome to the forum and to the hobby! While you may have one of the DDO-001 varieties, it would be helpful to us if you could post clear, cropped photos of both sides of your coin to be able to check it for the necessary die markers to 100% confirm yours is of that variety. While I see a die scratch running into the top of the 4 on your coin as is found on Stage C specimens, I would need to see the rest of the coin to make sure the markers match the known variety. Your coin seems to exhibit original surfaces and while I hope that the tiny black spots are something besides the earliest stages of corrosion found on these steel cents, I would hope it could be conserved to keep from spreading further or getting worse in the future.

Well, that is the last time I try to do the chat board on my phone. Couldn't see the pic so clear. I'm on my laptop now and it didn't take me but a second to see that was a Memorial Cent reverse pressed into it. No more cell chat for me!

Hello and welcome to the forum! I'm not too sure on this coin. On the obverse, it looks like the word UNITED is backward and not incuse and you can faintly see the word CENT near the date and that also does not seem to be incuse. If you pressed a reverse into the obverse with Lincoln's bust, those elements would end up being incused from pressing positive image letters into the surface which would leave behind incuse lettering. Or am I just not seeing it right.

Sure hope that is an April Fools...

Sweet! Did you find this in circulation??? If so, that is fantastic and so not common.

Definitely not an error. I agree with @Coinbuf that is a dryer coin. The rims got mostly worn off as well. It also looks like it may have suffered some mild heat damage as well.

I like the chart @J P M! Excellent!

The mag pic makes it harder to tell what characteristic you want us to focus on, but from what you have provided here I think I see some corrosion under the D as well as maybe some tiny die chips next to it. In the future, please post clear cropped photos of both sides of the coin as well as closeups of any area of interest.

Usually with more severe cases of die erosion doubling, there is a secondary ghost-like image surrounding the letters or numbers on all sides as is the case on this coin. True hub doubled coins produced will exhibit the secondary image to only one side or the other of the lettering and numerals as the dies were produced from a slight rotation when pressed from the hub and the secondary image will be at the same height as the the rest of the lettering and numerals on the coin, not step-like or sloped.

I concur with the others on the abnormalities on this nickel. It also looks like possibly the dies were also loose to produce that kind of twisting motion to it. Full cropped images of both sides of the coin would also be useful in determining these characteristics overall which were not provided by the OP.

Hello and welcome to the forum! From the mushy details and rough surfaces, this exhibits the same characteristics of another cast replica of which many have been posted here with the same question. I can say with much certainty it is not genuine.

No. Mike is looking at buying a raw coin.

I responded to your comment regarding rarity which applies to ALL coins. And I mentioned your ASE's in the comment as well. SMH

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.