powermad5000

Hello and welcome to the chat board! Being there is both incuse and raised details as part of the original strike, especially on the reverse (E PLURIBUS UNUM being incuse in the shield, and ONE CENT being raised on the ribbon) I would say this would be very difficult to fake as it really would be tough to do this with a vise as I don't think you could come close to the pressure needed to "recreate" the second strike. My leaning is that the second strike is weaker and would make sense since the metal flow already occurred on the blank planchet from the first strike and wouldn't flow the same on the second strike making that strike weaker. Also, the orientation of the rotation on both sides seems to be in line that the coin rotated some before the second strike, and not as in a fake where the orientation would be "off" because the faker couldn't get the proper alignment. I am leaning that the coin is a legitimate error. It has elements from a pivoted die error as shown on error-ref.com or you can go right to it from this link : www.error-ref.com/pivoted-die-error/ I disagree that if being a legit error it would not be worth submitting. Error collectors pay more for coins with more bizarre errors and seems the more messed up the images are, the more they pay for the coin. I would think from seeing raw error Lincoln cents with off center strikes which are common as far as errors in Lincoln cents go selling at auction on eBay for anywhere between $20-$40, that this being a less common error would sell on an eBay auction for more like $50-$75 certified in the slab with a proper grade which would cover the cost to submit it (as long as the submitter was including it in a larger submission of say 10-20 coins and not as a single coin submission thus basically eliminating the shipping fees to and from for it being part of a full submission).

Being more specific about this particular coin is necessary, especially for new collectors. The 1982 D Lincoln Memorial cent you are referring to is the 1982 D Small Date Bronze transitional mint error (3.08g-3.11g) cent. Only two of these cents have been found (it is believed there may be a total of five) and it is imperative to weigh them as the error was discovered by the weight being off from all normal 1982 D small date cents which are copper-plated zinc and weighed 2.5g. As for the OP, I only see normal circulated coins and nothing special, so I would definitely not send these coins in for submission.

In the absence of a photo, or of any pertinent question about what is double, there is nothing here. I am going to follow RWB..... Double bubble, double on a pitch, double down, double twos, double double (basketball), double play, double duty, double time, double deuce, an old fashioned with double Makers Mark....

I am casting my vote for post mint damage.

Hello and welcome to the forum! Before I give my opinions on your coins, I would like to say that those on this forum would rather you put each coin into its own post with clear, cropped images of both sides of the coin as well as closeups of any areas in question. It makes it harder for us to identify singular coins when there are a bunch of pictures lumped into one post. Plus, when it comes to DDO/DDR coins, we really need to see full images of both sides of the coin in question to see if the doubling is across the entire obverse or reverse as would be in a true hub doubled coin. That said, the F is a counterstamp. the 1936 S could be the S/S variety Sandon mentioned, and the 1938 S does have what appears to be a die gouge across TRUST as I see a part of it continue across into the left edge of the U and the left part of the last T. I am not sure if that would be enough for a mint error as it is borderline that it could be considered as "too minor". I am seeing mechanical doubling or die erosion doubling on the rest of your examples.

I understand why you have to declare a value for your coins. It has never happened to me, but in the event of a total loss of your coins (the plane goes down, the delivery truck starts on fire, the package is absconded by an unscrupulous thief, etc.), since the coins have not been graded at that point, your declaration is the only thing that anyone has to go on for the purpose of insurance when you make a claim for the total loss of all your coins in the submission. I agree with you Jason, that a coin graded MS 65 is the same standards for any coin. Grade is based on quality of the strike, the amount of wear or lack thereof, and amount of dings and minor scratches, as well as damage and other irregularities. But to say an MS 65 grade is a generality of value cannot be applied. An 1893 CC Morgan MS 65 is not worth the same as a 2022 P Jefferson nickel MS 65. Part of the tier cost is the speed of the process of getting graded and slabbed. However, this does not help a submitter like me when I submit under several different tiers and then check the boxes to have all of my submissions returned at the same time to save on return shipping costs. So, my 1878 CC Morgan gets graded and slabbed quickly, but still has to sit and wait for my 1916 Mercury dime to be graded and slabbed. Me paying for speed of service at that point is worthless. It is not a perfect system by any means, but I look it as I am paying a bunch of different people to do something for me that I cannot do myself. And people deserve to be paid for their services just as you get a paycheck from your employer for doing your job. Someone has to receive my coins, another person has to sit at a table and grade them (and maybe make a label), another person makes digital images of both sides of my coin, another person has to put it into a slab and seal it, another person has to check my submission before it is returned and put it into a package, another person has to handle my payment and process that so everybody gets a paycheck for their work. And all those people make sure my coins don't get damaged in the process.

I don't find it confusing. It is just that when I ride the line for a tier, I don't want to submit on the Early Bird tier and pay that extra money when a coin comes back graded for the Economy tier. So, to not incur a loss during my submissions, I will submit under the cheaper tier when a coin is borderline and could go either way. When I have coins that I know are well within a certain tier, I submit properly. Most of the time, I don't have any issues with my submissions as I know what I have and what its grade will come back as. It is just the occasional submission where a coin surprisingly comes back graded higher than I thought it would that this happens.

Hello and welcome to the forum! Before I roll out any submission advice, how many coins is in the "slue"???? In the absence of knowing the values of what you are submitting and thinking they will get astronomical grades, I would advise to be ready for disappointment sans knowledge of the hobby and self grading. And to give you an idea when you mention "slue", in a couple weeks, I am going to submit roughly 40 coins and it will cost me over $1,000 for the grading and slabbing.

It has happened to me a couple of times in the past as well. When I called and inquired about it, I was told it was a tier charge for a coin that graded out of a lower tier. I sometimes ride the line of that $300 mark and get the occasional surprise of a coin returning graded higher than I thought it would. If you give em a call they will have an explanation. The only thing that bothers me about it is why does it take their billing department so long after the submision is graded, and returned, and there is this months long lag period before it is like, "Oh, wait, we need to charge you extra for _____". It shouldn't take months but for whatever reason when it has happened to me, it was months after.

Those are definitely counterstamps. Some counterstamps were to an "old" way to see if a coin was legitimate metal (typically this was done on silver though). Other counterstamps were ways of merchants to advertise a business or event. And some counterstamps were just people messing around with coins. Modern counterstamps are usually a marketing gimmick. Counterstamps could be a letter or a number or a random symbol. Whatever was counterstamped on your coin in the area you have red circled was not fully impressed into it so it is hard to tell whether or not it even says anything, or it could just be a string of random symbols. As an FYI Eagle, me on my secondary geekdom with Trade Dollars, NGC still sees them as damage and will give a Trade Dollar, XX Details - Chopmarks

Hmm...appears to be incuse. I've seen some of these cents with area "scratches" on Abe's head or torso, but they are not usually deep. I am thinking those are made by a rolling machine. Due to the area's irregular shape, I would say it could not be from a grinding wheel as an attempt to simulate a mint error. It is possible you have a lamination error. The only problem is the grading fees to find out 100 percent for sure would be cost prohibitive as even on an eBay auction would probably not realize the equivalent value of grading. Cool find! I would keep that one in a flip for sure!

Hello and welcome! The overall grade of any coin is a combination of both the quality of the strike and the amount of wear (or lack of wear), as well as the rim and conditions on both sides of the coin. I do have some graded Pfennigs in my collection and one closer to being this old (1891 10 Pfennig I believe but it is quite worn and not graded). I would think in an MS state the horizontal lines inside the numbers of the 20 would be all separate and distinct. In the closeup photos, I can see some wear at the bottom of the 2 and at the top and bottom of the 0. The doubling appears to be some form of strike doubling as it does not translate to the numbers in the center of the coin (20) or the beaded circle which also would not be a mint error so it is good you changed position on that. The only other thing I note is there is an unevenness of the toning which the coin could have been cleaned in the past and is in the process of retoning which could get it a details grade. Being you only paid $0.01 for the raw coin, you are way ahead in that area. But it is likely that any profit could be eaten up from the shipping to and from and grading fees. What I note from selling coins is that graded coins tend to sell faster than raw coins. I would hope to be wrong on all my points and would be interested in seeing your return to this post with a photo of the coin in the holder.

There of course is always the possibility of human error in the grading process, digital imaging process, or both. The coin was definitely from a large submission as coin number one to be graded would be 6******-001, and yours is already over -150. If the coin you have in your hand has that scratch on the coin and not the case, and you can return it, I would return it. Being it is a modern, there should be more available to purchase a coin free of damage. If that is not the case, and this coin is difficult to find in a graded slab, then you would have to contact NGC and have them investigate what happened.

Thanks Just Bob! I learned something new today! I had a Merc with the reverse like in the link you posted and I submitted it as a mint error because I thought it was a strike through. It returned straight graded. At least, now I know what I was looking at on that coin.

Much better photos, thank you. Some might complain they are too washed out with light now, but for this coin I think they will suffice. Good find! As I stated before I usually find any pre 1970 nickels in much worse condition than that. Not submission worthy, but still keeper worthy and album worthy.

Is the area in question incuse, or is it just a stain similar to a milk spot on a silver coin? I do know from the cents in this series that even fresh cents can have some staining issues with the copper plating.

1910 S $20 MSLast updated 04/11/2023 BASE PrAg G VG F VF XF 50 53 55 58 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 $2125 $2125 $2150 $2150 $2150 $2175 $2175 $2200 $2200 $2225 $2275 We could split hairs all day about whether or not the coin is XF or AU. If it WERE graded, basically we are talking about $25-$50 worth of price guide value (not actual sale value or melt value). Which is why I stated simply that it is really just a matter of preference of the OP whether or not to spend extra money to have it slabbed.

There's a lot going on with the reverse. The lines through E Pluribus looked raised so I don't think it is scratched. There is weakness in IT of UNITED, A in STATES, and C in AMERICA. There does appear to be a cud above the wheat stock. Then there is weakness in the left wheat stock and seeds. The rest of the coin looks fully struck and other than a few minor hits, looks unimpaired on both sides other than the areas mentioned. I have never heard of Progressive Indirect Die Transfer, so a better explanation of that might provide a clue. I don't see it as being PMD, so I want to class it a mint error, but I am not sure under what condition. I am aware of all the recognized mint errors, but this coin seems to be a blend of several different things. Perhaps part of the die did fall off and then the extra metal flow into the space of the missing piece of die caused the other areas of weaknesses?

Hello and welcome to the forum! I have no expertise on foreign or ancients but there are others on here who are and will be able to help you with your questions. It may take a number of days for them to see your post so be patient. Also, you might want to edit your post with some tags (such as Greek, world coin, ancient, etc.) so those with more knowledge in this area can more easily find your post and help you.

Back at ya J P M! And the same to all on this day! I feel bad for kids today because the eggs are too expensive now to screw around with and color, but that was a lot of fun as a kid.

Not sure. A better picture of the reverse with the coin orientated properly so I am not looking at it upside-down and better lighting on the area in question, then I might be able to give a better assessment of what is going on with it.

It's too difficult with the "new math" being taught nowadays!

Price guide values for this coin only go up $125 from XF to the lowest UNC (60), so submission would not be any real "advantage" monetarily as it would in the case of a coin where the difference between say VF and XF could be a $750-$1250 increase in value. The question is do you want to spend extra money to encase your roughly $2,000 coin? I think with the basically steady value of this coin despite the numerical grade makes this a matter of your own personal preference.

I'll chime in on this....I think it is absolute nonsense! Unless they are including all the "points" as in 10.0, 9.9, 9.8, 9.7, etc. then the system is less critical for impairments on coins and more lenient to defects. In the case of say a 2023 ASE, who is getting screwed more? The guy who submits his raw for a returned grade of MS 68, or the guy getting his graded as a 9?? A 9 without being more specific could mean anything from MS 65 to MS 69 in lieu of the Sheldon scale and then how do you assign a true value to that? The Sheldon scale then to equate would have to be a scale from 0-100 for it to be "equitable" to the ten point grading scale. The Sheldon scale has stood the test of time and I don't see why new collectors can't learn it. If you want to cause me heart conditions, try to start telling me my MS 65 and MS 66 Morgans are both 9's.....

DCAM or UC (Ultra Cameo in the case of NGC), is an objectival description of a proof coin. In the case of NGC, there is Proof, Proof Cameo, and Proof Ultra Cameo descriptions along with the numerical grade. Each designation depends on the depth of mirroring in the fields, and the level of frost on the raised devices, or how much contrast exists between the two. These designations are basically only for eye appeal. Once the collector seeks out these coins, it becomes a matter of preference to the individual collector. There are those that absolutely will not buy a proof coin unless it is either DCAM or UC. Those collectors in this vein see anything lesser as that the proof is somehow impaired and will pay premium dollars for coins with the label designating what they believe to be the highest standard for a proof. It may not make sense to other collectors as in reality a PF 69 is much less "impaired" than a PF 67 UC which is why I say these designations are strictly for eye appeal. In the case of modern proofs, actual value is still attached to the numerical grade. As an example, take the Sacagawea Dollar Proofs. Price guide values for a PF 69 UC could only be roughly $25-40. That next step up to PF 70 UC has some values shooting up to anywhere between $100-250 depending on numbers certified at that level and the demand for them.