ZudenSterne

This is the plausible answer that I was looking for.  Early business strikes looking 'proof-like' makes sense and the ones I am talking about are just occasional finds from bank rolls and do not look plated or polished.  Thank you for the info!

Great point.

This spot is extra metal that is raised, sloping up toward the edge of the coin.  There is also a weak lowered edge next to it.

Does it look like a die break from these pictures?

Much appreciated, thank you!

Great, thank you.  Should I clean it myself first to remove the dark finish?

I am fairly new here, but I have already seen LOTS of the of posts asking if a 96P penny is a proof coin or if some older nicer-than-average coin is a proof with no mint mark etc. because it was shiny.  I understand where people are coming from, but generally speaking, actual proof sets look like mirrors and have an S.  They also shouldn't be in circulation in the first place - but can be found there occasionally if someone cracked a set and spent it.  This is rare, but I have found one before.

However, there are other reasons for coins to be shiny than being a proof, especially when not an 'S' mint mark.  Can someone help me/the world understand likely other reasons for extra 'shininess' we might encounter?  Maybe this can help get less questions about impossibly rare 'wrong mint mark proofs'...

For example...

1. Being uncirculated. Does every coin come off the press Brilliant Uncirculated?  Or is there something that makes some shinier than others?

The coins attached were both found in a bank roll and are in good shape for pocket change.  They have a similar number of minor nicks/scratches, but one has a frosted/clouded finish like almost every nice pocket change coin in collection books.  However, the other is one of 5-6 I have found that have a mirrory proof-like finish, but is still a 'P' or 'D'.  Did I just catch them sooner in their life than others or is there another reason?

2.  I also saw that the National Park Quarters are/were sold in collector sets of 6 coins. They aren't 'proof' sets, but they are collector sets with a D mint mark and a nice finish.  Have I really found a half dozen coins from broken sets spent as change?  Seems unlikely, but maybe.

What other reasons do some have mirrory finishes that stand out from the rest?

Thanks in advance!

- Long time passive collector, but noob serious collector

On 9/24/2019 at 8:07 AM, Greenstang said:

Welcome to the Forum-

Looks like environmental damage of some sort. You can still see some nickel showing through on the high spots. Sometimes by rubbing the coin, you can get the nickel to show through.

I think that's the picture not being good.  I'm adding another one to show that everything is copper colored...nothing shows nickel - even the big scratch on the top of the head.  The edge picture above also shows it somewhat. 

Thank you!

It's a 1999 Georgia state quarter in good shape, but with part of the Georgia state line and the 19 just missing.

After research, this looks like a strike through error, but I welcome any thoughts.

Worth getting graded or just hang on to?  It's circulated but not much.

(Normal one is on the right for comparison)

I see now how people say it's hard to capture color in pictures, but I did my best.

The coin on the left is a normal 1996D quarter, the middle one, though darkened, is copper colored  on both sides (and the side), while the right one is one of a few that are blackened for unknown reasons - dirty or whatever.

My question is on the middle one - definitely the color of a penny in the worn spots.  Does anyone think this is a missing clad coin and is it good or not good to clean it with some polish to see what happens?  There's my noob question.

Thanks in advance.

IMAGES:

1. Obverse (normal quarter, question coin, random blackened quarter)

2. Reverse (same three)

3. Side (question coin, normal quarter)   *and I think the apparent thickness difference is just the image