powermad5000

Yes, NGC still does 5FS as well as 6FS. Too bad I don't have pics of the reverses of my nickels with 5FS and 6FS. I have a 43 P MS 65 5FS and now I really wish I took a pic of the reverse of that one.

The pics are either too blurry or too magnified. I do agree with Mike that it could be the FS-501 variety. Maybe post some better pics for us with the D upright, and a good clear closeup of the D not under super magnification, and we could do better to verify what you have. With the coin's wear putting it in the VF range, good pics are critical to be able to determine this.

Good luck on the Franklins! I am at about 70% on the series in a minimum of 64 FBL.

There may have been an extremely slight shift in the alignment, but being the entire image, lettering, and date is still visible, I am sure this is quite within mint tolerance and also would not add any value to the coin as it is. I have a 1977 Roosy with the W completely gone in the In God We Trust motto, and submitted it as an error, but It returned graded normally with the too minor specific. I believe misalignments and off center strikes do not get mint error designation until it is at a minimum of 5% off center or alignment.

Thank you! I appreciate the information. It will help me to better decide which coins to send for conservation in the future.

This question is for NCS. Can coins with altered color or altered surface have those alterations removed with NCS conservation?

Thanks for that! I actually never read that subpart. I am wondering if they can do something for altered color. I now have a mission to find out.

I think when it comes to ASE's, whether MS issues or Proof issues, the real value comes when it is graded as a 70. Grade of MS 69, or PF 69 UC (DCAM) only command so much value in the marketplace. I think this applies regardless of year of mintage (except for some of the mintmark issues that were low mintage numbers). Although I am not a collector of ASE's (I do have 5), I don't think there has been any marketplace "explosion" in value over the years. I would say the value has modestly gone up due to demand, but once again I think the collectors chasing the 70's are willing to pay the big bucks to get 70 on the label. IMHO, I would save cash if I were to be trying to put together a full set of ASE's and I would buy everything graded in 69 and not pay the premiums to get graded 70's. To the naked eye, is anyone able to tell the difference between a 69 and 70 unless it happens to be one major blemish? Edit add : I have noted some sales of recently minted ASE's selling for $200 because the label was signed by someone, or they were First Strike, or First Day of Issue, but I can't justify paying those prices (probably which turned me off completely to collecting ASE's). That is buying the label, not the coin. It is supposed to be the other way around.

I have (no offense intended) always been critical of some of the PCGS grades being "inflated". I have found NGC to seem to have the toughest grading standards so I only submit to NGC and if I buy a slab, I will always try to find it NGC graded. Of the roughly 425 slabs I own, only 2 are PCGS. Just as an FYI. I have done several crossover experiments. ANACS usually grade the same, or in two instances NGC graded them higher. ICG have graded down 1 numeric in the proof experiment, and down 2 numerics in a silver Walker experiment.

I agree with Sandon. I have seen many Lincolns with that area of weak lettering on the reverse. On strike through errors, there is unevenness in the surface as the metal flow is not normal but either pushed aside or an object struck through will leave pits or grooves depending on what object was in the dies at the time of the strike. Struck through heavy grease will impair the struck image, but also will result in small pitting of the surface as the layer of grease affects the metal flow of the image and also is a compressing layer on the clean fields. This coin does not show evidence of a struck through error.

If I am not mistaken, NGC grades coins using 10X. An actual microscope is not necessary and also not useful. If you have to use 200X to see something on a coin, it is not going to affect its actual grade. And yes, the quarter is highly circulated with mechanical doubling and enough wear that some details are actually worn off the coin.

The only time I have had NGC recommend a coin be sent to NCS for conservation is in the case of PVC contamination (in which case NGC will not slab a coin with PVC residue), which NCS is able to remove. I am not 100 percent sure if NCS can remove verdigris, but I believe they are able to do that. I would contact NCS and verify that. Conservation can stabilize the surface of a coin to prevent further damage, but conservation does not reverse environmental damage already imposed on a coin. The worst that could happen is if you send them for conservation, and NCS rejects them for their services not being able to help the coin. I don't think you get charged if they don't work on a coin, but I could also be wrong on that.

I'm waiting for Central States and plan to blow all my dough there. Enjoy if you do get a chance to go!

Aside from that, the plating itself is compromised due to further environmental damage and is showing the damage it did to the original surface. Now it is just a badly damaged cent.

The OP's spellchecker was off or not working. Agreed, it is just a damaged cent.

The answer to the cleaning question is always NO. NGC states that a thorough rinse under warm water with NO RUBBING is sufficient to remove surface dirt and contaminants (with the exception of PVC residue), and the coin will still grade numerically but anything more will usually result in details grade. Submitting your coins to NCS will solve other issues such as PVC contamination and will not affect the original surface of the coin, but that also is assuming it was not previously cleaned before you got it. You learned a lesson the hard way. No more YouTube videos (unless you watch ANA or Mint videos, there is too much wrong information on Joe Blow's videos).

My only reservation with that being in the planchet before the coin was struck would mean the planchet would be thinner in that "lower" area. That to me would mean there would be less metal to flow into the spaces in the die during the strike and the actual struck image in the "low" spot would be weaker (less metal to flow), and that is not the case in this coin as the image seems to be completely unaffected by whatever happened here.

I have done tests on ICG coins to see if they carry over crossover grading (they do not). I agree with the others in that it is possible the NGC grading standards are a little more stringent than ANACS. Most buyers on eBay just see MS 70 and pay accordingly regardless of the TPG. There is probably a good chance that it might return as MS 69 from NGC and then not only does the marketplace value drop, but you essentially lost money resubmitting it to another TPG. If you ever are to have to take a coin out of a sealed holder, I do not prefer when people use the term "cracking" it out. Being if you sent it to NGC for them to open it, you still are running the risk of damage to the coin so I would want to be the one in control of that situation as I did in my ICG tests. You are guaranteed to damage the coin by cracking the holder. Or taking a hammer to it. Or trying to pry it open with a screwdriver. The method I employed which worked wonderfully and posed very little risk to the coin inside was to put the holder into a vise and clamp it snugly (not to the point where it is breaking the sides of the holder but just so it is snug). I then used a bandsaw (a hacksaw by hand using a slow controlled motion will also work but DO NOT use a sawzall!!!!!) to cut only the farthest edge of the holder. I repeated this process on all four sides. Still clamped in the vise, I brushed all the plastic bits away from the outside. Next, I took the cut holder out of the vise and moved it to a clean area where I put the cut holder on a microfiber cloth and carefully opened it with my fingers (all the seals are gone once you cut all four sides off so be careful not to drop it or let it slide apart as damage will occur). Using another microfiber cloth with the 2X2 submission flip set on it (set the flip to receive the coin into one of the pockets in the flip) next to the opened holder, I carefully pulled the insert out and moved it over the 2x2 flip (hold the insert over the flip as close as possible), and gently bent the insert and let the coin fall out of the insert and onto the 2X2 flip. I then carefully used the edge of a second 2x2 flip on the rim of the coin to move the coin into the 2X2 submission flip. In this way, I never actually touched the coin inside the cut holder and controlled the movement of the coin once released from the insert so there would be no scratching of the surface. I did this on 5 proofs and using extreme care, I did zero damage to the proofs and also never touched even the rim of the coins. How you proceed from here is up to you, but I again say I agree with the others and I don't see any real advantage to you sending it to another TPG as I think you will end up losing more money than you think.....some on the shipping and grading fee and also on the coin itself should it return graded as lesser than it left the ANACS holder.

Better photos in this post, but please still crop out the background as much as possible. This coin also has mechanical/strike doubling, whichever term you prefer to use in identifying the condition you are seeing on your coin.

Hello Hess4! Your original photos were not cropped so it is difficult to fully examine the areas in question. I did take a photo of your photo so I could zoom in as best as possible on the areas in question and although it is still difficult to tell for sure, it looks like there might be some minor die erosion doubling present at least on the reverse of the coin but that is not a condition of value or collectability. I do not see any evidence of an RPM either.

You have to remember the time period when those were put into the GSA holders. I'm sure back then nobody was thinking that the average person is going to be able to reproduce the holder on their own and put a fake into it. The level of scamming has grown over the years as well as the complexity and the means available to scammers to do these types of things. Look what can be done with a laptop and a 3D printer that can be bought for use at home now. It is scary nowadays what a person with minimal knowledge can now look up how, find a program how to do it, and then execute the scam.

I would really hope the standards are strict enough that someone handling the coins I submit isn't coming back from lunch with greasy pizza/burger/wings fingers and touching my coins. Really hope. Really, really hope.

"Milk spots" have been around for decades. I have a Franklin half proof with one small one on it. I have a silver IKE with one on it. The spots are actually due to metallurgic change in the planchet from the pressure of the strike. Some coins will never spot. Some will get only one. Some several. Some may take thirty years or longer for the spot to appear. Some can appear after TPG grading and in the respective holder. Some can appear weeks after being minted. They are an unwanted but an uncontrollable part of the minting process.

Hello and welcome to the forum! Copper coins of this time period and especially this issue are not exactly common so it is a nice addition! I note the cracking on the reverse of the coin does not extend through to the surface on the obverse, so it is likely that it is from the surface corrosion from whatever environment it was subject to. The copper planchets in this time period subjected to the environment that made the surface start to break down usually become more and more porous leading to the surface splits. I am not leaning towards a defective planchet in this case as those usually are a crack all the way through both sides of the coin extending in to the center from the rim as the planchet actually starts to split from the pressure of the strike. I would not worry about the coin's condition in its present holder (as long as you are not using the holder as an air hockey puck). I don't see the planchet splitting all the way through and the coin "cracking into pieces" so to speak. There are conservation services for coins (NCS Conservation), but they will not conserve certain coins for various reasons, and I believe yours would fall into that category. Being the level of environmental damage already present, I would think any attempt to try to restabilize the surface of your coin could risk even further damage. Good luck with your registry set!!

I agree with Sandon's assessment of both of these coins as for grade, and the possible cleaning of the Peace Dollar. As for the rim, on the Peace Dollar, being those were heavy silver dollars, and put into mint bags of 1000 per bag, the grading as far as considering those rim hits as damage is not always the case. If a rim is actually dented inward from the side it will get a details grade for rim damage, but I have several graded Morgans and Peace Dollars with rim hits like that and they have graded solidly. I don't know though where their tolerance limit is as far as the amount of rim hits where they consider it rim damage as the OP's has quite a few.