powermad5000

On 4/7/2023 at 8:14 PM, EagleRJO said:

Completely off topic, as a card and comic collector I am curious what your thoughts are on a move by NGC towards a 10 point grading scale starting with modern coins, in lieu of the present Sheldon 70 point grading scale, discussed here ...

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.

Welcome to the NGC chat boards!

NGC will grade these. You may have to provide them some additional information about the coins being they are for sports memorabilia. You would have to take them out of the OGP plastic rounds yourself. You have to get 2.5"x2.5" flips to submit them in. You have to get a base membership unless you can find a dealer near you that will accept and send in submissions for you. In lieu of that, insured shipping will cost you around $30-$35 to ship them. You have to submit them on the modern tier for $21 per coin. And you will have to pay for the return shipping cost which is a minimum of about $30. Should you need a base membership, you are looking at about $125 just to submit one coin.

Being these are a sports collectible thing, bullion, and not an actual currency type of coin, I would definitely NOT submit these for grading. This demand you state in your post with people paying these prices as of right now, you have to remember that the price will be based on demand (like currency). Typically, with these kinds of collectibles, there is a big demand when they hit the market, but that demand drops over time, and think if that demand will exist twenty years from now???? Probably not. So, the prices that are getting paid by people for them now will historically not be sustained twenty years from now (versus actual US currency where demand typically remains the same over time). Putting them in a TPG holder will just be a very expensive version of the OGP plastic round they are in now. 

The other thing I will probe in this discussion is what are your grading skills? Do you know they will return as PF 70 UC? I will tell you that I am well into coins for over 45 years. My grading skills are excellent. I purchased the coin in the photo below because I liked the design. I had to take it out of the plastic round just like you will have to. I have plenty of experience doing this and couldn't find anything wrong with the coin when I put it in the flip to submit. It returned this way. This coin without the PF 70 UC has little demand as collectors only desire this coin in perfect condition. Point I am making is by submitting the coins you have in your post here, you are taking a huge risk for a reward that over time I do not think will be much of a reward. 

Congratulations on the expansion of your family! I hope the day goes well and is enjoyable! And a true coin collector : can't pass up a good coin auction no matter what the occasion! 

These coins are harder to get high grades on being besides the stars on the reverse, and the shield on the obverse, there are not many fine details to wear down. What I note on your coin is that the lines surrounding the shield are no longer completely separate from wear, and the stars on the reverse have lost the point in the center as well as the fine lines in the stars which would put this coin imho at XF 40 details. However, it appears to have been cleaned (most likely improperly). Die cracks, while a feature of the coin, do not add to a coin's value unless there were so many cracks it is evident that the die shattered while making the strike.

With the cleaning, and the wear, even with the RPD, I would estimate the value of your coin to be between $50-$60.

That said, in NGC VarietyPlus, I believe your coin to be the 1851/851 FS-302 recognized variety. The two below pics are from the NGC VarietyPlus page and I believe mimic the RPD on your coin.

The naming probably came from some of the popular Morgan dollars that were named for the variety that was being described such as the 1888 O "Scarface" and the ever popular 1891 CC "Spitting Eagle". The thing to note, though, is that there were large numbers produced with the same attribute. Somewhere along the way, more recently to be specific, people started over magnifying every coin picking up every scratch (most post mint damage), and every insignificant die chip, or minor imperfection normal in the minting process and within mint tolerance, and giving it some crazy name and touting that it is a "unique error ultra rare pop 1 of 1 coin" and then started to try to sell these for ridiculous dollar amounts, for something that is unique from the standpoint that there probably isn't another with the same small insignificant detail, but most certainly NOT an error, NOT some ultra rare collectible highly desirable coin, and NOT some one off discovery coin (most are being sold raw anyway).

Those who do attempt to sell for these ridiculous amounts should be called out. If I am not mistaken, you can report listings like this on eBay (I am not sure on other sites), and check the box for pricing. Problem is most people don't and just move on. As for those that do sell at a ridiculous price to some unknowing buyer, it should be criminal.

Click the X on the click bait pop ups, and yes, you should look at your coins but remember anything beyond 10X is not going to be significant enough to be worthy of anything special. And please don't participate in the shiesty market by trying to sell stuff like that for a ridiculous price.

Not all die clashes are spectacular as in transferring the complete image to the other side of the coin. Typically, most die clashes are partial only and some very minor as in the case with your coin. Full, complete, highly pronounced die clashes are sought after by error collectors and get premium dollars at the point of sale.

As a side note, I would not submit this coin to a TPG, as it will be considered as "too minor", and you will be at a loss on all those grading fees.

Being there is weakness in the rim and T in CENT on the reverse side in the same area where the cud is on the obverse, I would say it is a legitimate mint error for a die break. Being more metal flowed into the broken spot on the die to form the cud, resulted in the weaker detail in that area on the reverse. The larger and more dramatic the cud, the more an error collector would be willing to pay for it. Also being that the 1973 D cent is common with a mintage of 3,549,576,588, and yours seems to be lightly circulated and has lost its red color for brown, I would not see it getting premium dollars at the sale point. It would be impossible to tell how many more were produced by the broken die before it was discovered and removed from service, but typically there will be other cents out there with the same or very similar cud as yours. It would probably see its best sale price on eBay at auction with a guess it would go for between $10 and $20.

I am in agreement that the 1948 Wheat Cent was clamped in something (not sure what) as nothing in the mint process would make the rim on the obverse look "beaded" like that. It is also heavily environmentally damaged and worth one cent. 

And yes, PLEASE crop your photos before posting them with your question. I had to take photos of your photos and zoom in on them to see what was needed to see.

It would return from a TPG with a tag of AG Details - Rim Damage. It would be worth spot price for an ounce of silver.

I would say this is a badly environmentally damaged dime. 

Here is an example of a Morgan I own with heavy toning. It is not dirty. Silver depending on how it is stored or not protected will develop dark toning over time.

On 4/3/2023 at 7:32 AM, J P M said:

If Hinkle were to slide another IKE into the clip then take a picture. We may be able to see if there is a big variation in the gap if it has been cut and filed .

This is a very good point!!! The curvature if made by the blanking press should be the same radius as an Ike dollar. And the second dollar should fit into the clip like a key into a keyhole, but the reeded edge may prohibit actually inserting the second Ike into the clip so yes, putting it on top should suffice to see if the radius is equal.

The tool you pictured, Eagle, is what electricians in the field call a stud punch. We use it to punch out steel studs to put electrical pipes through the insides of walls. It is not made to cut through metal thicker than 1/16" thick. It will not punch out metal boxes or metal stock that is 1/8" thick or thicker. In alignment with J P M, they cannot punch a part of metal off without bending the metal. The tool I was referencing I have I pic of below. This is a hydraulic tool that can punch a moon shape piece of metal from thick metal boxes and thick metal stock. Keep in mind though that this tool will ALWAYS produce an edge next to the punched out metal that is "rolled" or "lipped".

I would like to see the OP maybe send this coin to ANACS which would be a little less pricey than NGC or PCGS and see what the determination is.

Cropping the original image typically brings the file size down to 1.5MB - 3MB. We also desire to have clear, cropped images of both sides of a coin and possibly a close up (not over magnified) of any questionable areas to be able to try to help answer your question.

In the field we use a hydraulic hand pump version typically made by Greenlee tools. They also make hand thread versions for use in tight spaces and take a lot of elbow grease to make the punch. Milwaukee also makes a battery operated version which is now becoming very popular. They are able to cut through metal up to 1/4" thick and could easily cut through a coin. I have made side cuts with a 1" punch on a 3/4" hole to enlarge the hole to 1" and will punch out a moon shaped portion of the metal if aligned properly. They could easily clip a portion of a coin.

Outside of our discussion of metal punches, there still has to be reasonable explanation of the weaker details and rim of the coin presented if the coin were to be a vice job with a punch tool and doctoring of the cut. One area that does disturb me is the R in LIBERTY on the obverse. E, T, and Y are all weak at the top, but the R is fully struck and I would think that the top of the R would also be weak. The other thing concerning the filing of the clip is that the clad layer is thin and if you were to take a file to it, you would remove the copper-nickel layer and expose all the copper underneath, not more copper-nickel silver clad.

I don't know for sure. I may just have to keep the option open that it was a legitimate clip error but has post mint damage as well.

Sans better pictures, it would not be made of gold and if it did have a "gold" color it would be a mint error for missing the copper-nickel clad layer which would expose the copper underneath explaining the "gold" color. An example of this is shown in the picture below which is currently being sold on eBay. Coins of this type of error can sell for anywhere between $150-$600.

The pictures are quite fuzzy and the New Mexico quarter is on a terrible angle to use as a comparison to a "normal" quarter. I think much better, clearer, and cropped photos are needed to give you an assessment of your coin in question.

Also a vice job would not explain the weaknesses of the lettering and rim on an otherwise uncirculated coin as described by the others and the article referencing the Blakesley effect, and would require those areas to be ground down which imho would be plainly evident with grooves from a cutting wheel, grinding wheel, or heavy leaning on a polishing tool.

I could only assume it is not silver and it seems to be plated the way the reverse has a mirror like finish, but the obverse either wasn't plated, or just not as heavily. Another thing when buying coins is a different finish or color or overall appearance on one side of the coin VS the other. This can help tell if a coin has been cleaned on one side but in this case, it would indicate an altered surface and a hint to look at details further in the case of a counterfeit. I am sure its weight is off also.

Current price guide shows $42 for MS 65, and I agree with the contact marks visible in the photo, which would tell me I would probably find more with the coin in hand, maybe only getting it a MS 64 grade. I would not chance it for the money spent to submit it.

Being there is also lack of detail in the hand holding that stick, and partial weakness in the lower half of QUARTER DOLLAR, the drum is missing one of the center spines (although that could be from a hit), and there is some weakness in the S of E PLURIBUS UNUM, but the rest of the coin seems to be fully struck, a strike through grease makes sense. A coin would not wear in that kind of manner.

Thanks for the article Eagle!

I wonder how the metallurgy of the coin also affects the details after the coin is struck, and that is not covered by the article. What I am getting at is are the weak details around the clip going to be the same on copper VS silver VS nickel (harder VS softer metals)....I do see how the copper-nickel clad is showing on the edge view (although that could be just silver paint), and the coin is uncirculated which is most likely in the case of a clipped coin (especially one like this with such a large clip). This coin does show most of the attributes covered in the article on genuine clip errors. I am leaning towards this being a true mint error for a curved clip.

Being I am not a fan of social media, is that how these YouTubers get paid if you subscribe to their channel? I honestly don't know how people get paid by posting videos although I have heard that they do.