Kirt

That doesn't look like rust - that looks like some sort of dried organic material. To the left on the character it looks like paint. Soak the coin in acetone for a few hours, I am pretty sure both will come right off. However, there may well be some discoloration underneath where the material protected the metal.

1 hour ago, Conder101 said:

No.  A RPD (Re-Punched Date) is a die where the date was punched in, the die sinker was not satisfied with the depth or the placement, so they placed the punch on the die an hit it again.  As a general rule a die was never used, altered, and then used again.  Only two instances come to mind, both in 1806.  The 1806/5 quarter and 6/5 half dollar.  And that would be called an overdate, not a repunched date.  And that is the only cases where a die is known to have been used before and then again after the overdating.  All other examples of overdates before 1907 are the result of a new date being punched into an unused and non-hardened die of the previous year. (After 1907 they are the result of a Doubled Die, with the die being first hubbed with hub bearing one date, annealed, and then hubbed with the wrong hub, one bearing a different date.)

Thank you for the correction. Apologies for the wrong info!

6 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

Regardless of NGC's determination, I think you're being too harsh, especially with respect the area under the eagle's right wing, the cheek flaws and the area in front of Liberty's chin. And when you're talking about grades in the 61-62 range, I don't think eye appeal plays much of a factor in most cases.

Ok. I'll take that feedback. Not the first time I've heard I can be harsh on grades at times; I'll take the learning on what is acceptable at 62. The only one where I'll stand my ground is that right wing. If that is in fact a scratch and not a die gouge, that's almost as bad as the scratch on Liberty's hair -- to me.

I agree with @jgrinz on the not a straight grade; that obverse scratch. As far as the VAM goes, my eyes failed the test. I knew there was one in there and spent a good 30 minutes trying to figure it out!

OK @jgrinz I'll play - I learn a lot on Morgans from you!

MS Details, Damaged due to scratch in hair and rim damage on obverse from 1 to 2 o'clock. On the reverse I can't tell if that's a die gouge or a scratch to the underside of the eagle's right wing.

Assuming I'm totally wrong on those (and Mark's post indicates I might be) I'm harsher on the cheek blemishes and the spot on the field in front of her chin for eye appeal - MS 61.

RPD = re-punched die; it means the die that was used to strike the coin had been used previously and then re-punched with a new date or mint mark. The whole coin pics are a little small to tell but I don't see any signs of one. Next time, try zooming in as far as you can and taking as high a resolution picture as you can, then crop around the coin so it is the majority of the image.

That's a circulated Indian Head and so not particularly valuable; on the obverse there's some raised-looking areas. I can't tell if that's gunk or corrosion. If it is green, it's corrosion and I recommend you sell it for what you can get for it; someone will buy it. If it is just gunk, leave it alone. Other than those areas and an unfortunate rim ding at 6 o'clock on the obverse, it's a really solid 1902.

Thank you for sharing Wexler's comments; it's great to continue to learn. That's the most significant MD I've seen; your pics are a great reference.

Probably damage; other options are some sort of lamination error that's now well worn or someone messing with the coin to try to add a mint mark - in which case they missed. While it's kinda neat, it's not of appreciable value.

Sorry, I don't see the 2. I see an extra 6 to the right of the actual 2, but nothing where you're pointing it out.

So I thought I'd have a little fun with this. Enjoy the decidedly green toning on these three clad Roosevelts. They, as well as several others I hit with my chainsaw, were wedged into a rotten spot in a 60' silver maple I took down Sunday.

I know that @Coinbuf was going for high end but all I have that are green are lowballs!

2 hours ago, JKK said:

I agree there's rim damage. Whether it would rise to the level of a details grade is a fair question; not one I considered, but it surely exists. I don't think it lowers the grade, but it might change the way it would slab.

In any case, the odds are middling at best on authenticity. Looks okay, but a highly counterfeited issue.

Ok, I'm now convinced on AG too. Rim damage, rim wear...it doesn't meet the G4 criteria. It's a bit odd that the rim wore that much more than the devices, but it did.

9 hours ago, jgrinz said:

Looks real to me 

Looks like a G-4 

IT probably will come back as a damaged details holder because of rim damage

IMO

Agreed with one quibble - I see it as G-6. Rim damage is a crapshoot! 

I had similar issues with a Morgan dollar. Acetone overnight worked a treat; the sticker was laminated plastic/paper and the acetone ate right through both the glue and plastic laminate. Of course now I have a Morgan dollar with a very unattractive un-toned spot; however, that's (to me) better than the sticker. I figure it will tone and eventually even out with the rest of the coin; I purposefully have left it unprotected to see if it tones. I'll check it in a few years.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that's a heavily circulated coin. It's also a year that UK collectors snapped up in MS.

I dislike old decimalized pounds because for whatever reason, circulation results in those dings and nicks in addition to wear. A good bit of the detail on the devices is not present; on the obverse Elizabeth II's eye, hair detail, lips and ear are heavily worn and her crown is very indistinct. The reverse is worse, the royal arms are completely unreadable. With pounds, the edge is important as well, the incuse lettering needs to be clearly visible and we can't see that.

I think you'd be incredibly lucky to be in the Fair range on that coin; most likely it would be considered damaged and ungradeable.

This thread has me shaking my head. We need to be better than this.

Yes, it's expected that we try to make a profit when we sell. Yes, it's expected that we should look for bargains when we buy. Good business ethics dictate that we should do both fairly and with respect for the person on the other side of the transaction.

Thanks for the new pics...I don't see any other doubling anywhere except the MM and maybe the 9s. Those are clearly MD. I was hoping we'd get lucky and there would be a clue on the obverse opposite or the reverse...nope, no joy.

Completely agree with @Coinbuf. I don't know what you have there but it is unusual enough to get it looked at. The whole P looks twisted about 2 degrees to the right and in some pictures looks like a really strong MD, in others a true DD. Please let us know what Wexler says!

Agree, 98.

5 hours ago, kbbpll said:

how rounded and large the upper left of the P is. If it were truly doubled, it would have the serif.

Yeah, I saw that too but then there's that clear shadow inside the P itself. The top of the P looks like die erosion, there's something going on with the first and third 9s as well that looks like machine doubling, and then there's that shadow on the inside of the P. I know it's not possible but that almost looks re-punched.  

Apart from that area of the coin the rest of the strike is clear and strong. Weird.

@Mrph12: Really nice clear pics but would it be possible to get a really good image of the entire obverse & reverse of that 1999?

Abraded by something, maybe an automatic roller. All PMD.

For the 1999 P, that mint mark looks doubled. I didn't see anything on VarietyVista but worth keeping and snooping around on.

The 2001 D is machine doubling, I don't see anything except wear on the 2000 D and 1983(5?).

7 hours ago, Callinectes said:

Thanks, That is probably right, the dryer theory has merit, It weighs 4.776 grams, I will check the diameter with calipers later today

Errrm, that's actually quite a bit of metal to lose - I'm going to double-down on heavily polished for some reason. I'll bet the diameter is within tolerance.

The line around the diameter is odd - it looks really deliberate. Weight and diameter are going to be really helpful here. Is it possible we're looking at someone's really aggressive polishing experiment that then went back into circulation?

7 hours ago, RWB said:

It's evidently some sort of accounting token - possibly for picking olives, kumquats, turnips or noses. The digits are punched in with metal stamps. The side with a design might refer to the value of the token to the bearer - "one centime" or "one cent."

I see absolutely no connection to any calendar including the Mayan "Long Count." (See: https://maya.nmai.si.edu/calendar/calendar-system .for a simplified explanation.

Alternative theory: it's a time tag similar to those used in mining. They're usually punched through in some spot but there's a lot of rim damage which might be a loop or something being ground off the edge. Completely agree on the calendar point.

As with the nickel, this looks like machine doubling. Here's a good reference for telling them apart: https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/5688/Double-Dies-vs-Machine-Doubling/

It's also important to note that many numismatists believe that modern minting methods in the US means that doubled dies don't occur anymore and haven't for a while (1990s something?). That doesn't mean doubling doesn't occur, just that it is much more likely to be minor and without value.

The doorway looks like it could be very slight machine doubling. The date is neat and most likely a die chip. Sorry to say though, both are minor errors that don't increase the value of the coin.

10 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

Is a "peer" someone who pees? Or is that "pee-er"? (or, without the hyphen: peeer?)

The only thing I know about zincs is from a Tom Clancy novel, but aren't they used to protect metal things like propellers on a boat?

 We could make it even more confusing in that in these cases, you're absolutely right, the peer would be examining the situation from a pier as they are sacrificial anodes to protect other metal from corrosion in marine environments. In my case, docks and boats. Basically solid lump of zinc + salt water + electric current = zinc hydroxide plus a little bit of heat plus some free chlorine. As they dry it becomes zinc oxide. Right is new, left is what I was replacing every spring on at least 2-3 dozen boats.