powermad5000

If your nickel didn't exhibit any other abrasions, gouges, or other subsequent damage, I would have taken a look to see if it was a struck through error for being struck through a piece of wire or staple which has been known to happen at the Mint. View the coins in the link I have provided to error-ref.com for examples. You will note on those examples there is no raised metal at the edges of the indents, and also there is no scrape marks in the indent itself.

https://www.error-ref.com/struck-through_wire/

When I look at the line in your coin, I can see scrape marks at the bottom of where you believe there to be a strike through by a staple. This tells me the mark was caused by a scrape, and not struck through a staple. Then combined with all the rest of the damage on it, it makes sense. It is a nickel that has seen some tough abuse. It is not an error, however.

First off, coins from the Mint are struck not stamped.

That said, the coin you have actually is "stamped" (much like as in a counterstamp where someone punches their initials or a design into a coin already struck). It took me seconds to see the backwards image of a dime onto a nickel to send my brain right into vise job territory. Being there is a preponderance of posts like yours that appear here within a given year makes me wonder if there isn't another cutesy YoubeeTubee video showing how allegedly "cool" it is to make vise job coins in your garage. For the record, it is not cool or kewl for those of that era.

You should keep in mind people can do some weird stuff to coins. Most of the time, only the person doing the damage can say why they did what they did. What we know is that damage is damage and sometimes people do these things as an experiment, sometimes to illegitimately make an "error" to defraud someone, or simply deface currency because they can.

On 4/11/2024 at 5:21 AM, Patman54 said:

Not sure y this wouldn't come up when I searched It

Don't feel bad. I checked Numista for this specific thing, and yours with the no numeral was not on their site which is quite comprehensive. It is basically lumped in with the 50 yen from the whole period but doesn't get specific that this particular coin seems to be a one year only with a proper explanation.

Mea culpa. I thought this one was a charged fee.

On 4/11/2024 at 2:34 PM, Henri Charriere said:

Q.A.:   I have taken the liberty of emphasizing the above words not only because I find them offensive (yes, viewers, ME, Q.A.) but because I am irate!

At first, I thought you were irate with me for my comment. But I read your rant and see it is directed elsewhere. While I agree, we all know the TPG's are a business and as such charge $$ to perform a service. I am sure you and I would keep in touch with that courteous side of doing business and that treating customers more like "friends" would be something we would do. We would listen to the issue and determine that money was already paid, and rather than charge more to fix it, we would know that it would be of our better interest to make a single situation right, resulting in a happy customer, which would result in more future business with said customer. And after all, anyone who submits their coins to a TPG is a customer.

What I have noted of most businesses, when they start to get too big, they lose this basic empathy with their customers.

On 4/11/2024 at 3:38 PM, Stagecoach_Rider said:

Sadly my request for reconsideration was declined, and I will have to resubmit with the proper selection on the paperwork; at full expense.

I was afraid this would be the outcome, but at least as duly noted, at least it is a no fee Variety Plus.

Hello and welcome to the forum!

You have a well worn and well circulated common 1964 D Jefferson Nickel. While there is a variety for this year and mintmark of a D over D which is very scarce, I cannot ascertain from the photos given if it were to have this characteristic and would need closeup photos of the mintmark to be able to tell. Most likely it is just a common 1964 D Jefferson Nickel well circulated and worth face value.

If you are having trouble identifying this coin, you should obtain a copy of the current Red Book of United States Coins. This book is widely available at book stores, online sellers, and at numismatic events.

Hello and welcome to the forum!

Well, this is an entertaining thread! 

As for the coin, maybe you could fashion it into a slip sinker for fishing. Who knows, maybe this tragedy in the numismatic world can be turned into a record catch in the angling world.

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.

On 4/7/2024 at 3:36 AM, murder69 said:

I have the "Make Offer" option available.

I have reported your post and asked the mods to either move it to the Marketplace or delete it.

On 4/7/2024 at 3:35 AM, murder69 said:

Pardon me if I'm in the wrong section, I'm a newbie

You state this in a reply yet still are pushing sales.

On 4/6/2024 at 3:22 PM, Jason Abshier said:

@powermad5000 I’ve never had single problem soaking a coin in acetone , reason I do it is because I have no idea how previous person handled the coin left skin oil and such on a coin . so I soak them for about 10 minutes and let them dry transfer them to a 2x2

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! 

On 4/6/2024 at 3:10 AM, KolVCoinHunter said:

What gets me is on ebay, in the sold listings is what appears to be a 1992 D that sold for thousands, but not even actually being a CAM! Like its actually insane!

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.