Sandon

   Zinc is even more prone to corrosion than copper, and when a copper plated zinc cent is exposed to damp ground it literally starts to dissolve like this one.

   The "S" mintmark on 1979-S circulation issue SBA dollars came from a worn die punch, and they all look filled and "blobby" like this.  I observe no mint errors on this coin, just rim damage that you are perhaps mistaking for a "cud".

    These well-circulated wartime "nickels" are worth less than $2 each, and that is mostly due to the current high price of silver. How could it be worthwhile to pay at least a $23 per coin (NGC) "Economy" tier grading fee, plus processing and shipping costs, to submit them to a third-party grading service?

   The so-called (and misnamed) 1964 "SMS" coins were apparently first strikes made for presentation purposes from new, highly polished dies showing an unusual matte-like finish and many die polish marks and were well-struck. Based on the photos you provided, your coins do not have this finish or strike. The so-called "SMS" coins apparently originate from a particular source and are not found among coins issued for circulation. Moreover, they were struck at the Philadelphia mint with no mint mark, and your coins are both 1964-Ds, struck at the Denver mint with a "D" mint mark. They couldn't possibly be the so-called "SMS" pieces.

   You are obviously a victim of internet disinformation and a lack of proper numismatic education. Please see the following forum topics for reliable print and online resources from which you may learn about U.S. coins:

   Welcome to the NGC chat board.

   It would be extremely unusual to find even a single 1992 "close AM" cent, so it is unlikely that all or any of them are "close AMs". There is no way we could tell without clear, cropped photos of each coin.  The "AM" looks close even on the common "wide AM" variety. On the "close AM" the numerals nearly touch at the bottom. These images from PCGS Coinfacts show the comparison.

   Unless you have the knowledge and experience to grade and otherwise evaluate coins yourself, including being able to identify die varieties, you should not submit coins to third-party grading services. You will likely waste a great deal of money if you do. Your referring to some of the coins as "almost proof" indicates a lack of basic knowledge, as "proof" is a method of manufacture, not a grade, and all proof 1992 cents are 1992-S.

1854 Liberty head quarter eagle, uncertified, Extremely Fine details, "cleaned", ex-John Jay Pittman collection:

    Welcome to the NGC chat board.

    The last thing you would want to do as a new collector is to submit these coins to a third-party grading service. Common date and mint, circulated Morgan and Peace dollars may not be worth much more than their current high silver value of about $23 per coin. The minimum grading fee at NGC would also be $23 per coin, plus substantial processing, shipping and insurance costs. Unless a coin has a market value of at least several hundred dollars, it isn't cost effective for a collector to submit it to a grading service.

    You state that you inherited these coins. The laws of many states require that property go through a probate proceeding before it can be distributed to heirs or will beneficiaries, and this process usually involves an appraisal of the market value of the property as of the date of the owner's death.  You should first determine whether the coins were appraised and ask the estate lawyer or executor for a copy of the estate appraisal.  Otherwise, you will need to determine the dates, mints and approximate grades (condition) of the coins before you can attempt to value them. Please see the following forum topic to locate basic resources from which you can learn to identify and get some idea of the coins' condition:

   The basic resources you will need for your purposes are a current (2025) or recent "Red Book" as identified in this topic and a grading guide. If you don't want to purchase these relatively inexpensive books, you can use such online resources as PCGS Photograde, PCGS Coinfacts, the NGC Coin Explorer, and the NGC and PCGS price guides.  You can also post images of a few of the coins for our opinions, but this wouldn't be practical for all 153 coins.

    The curved discolored area that runs between the date and "IN GOD WE TRUST" appears to me to be simply a stain from dirt or some chemical compound that has formed on the surface of this circulated 1983-P quarter, which is composed of a chemically active alloy of 75% copper, 25% nickel. It doesn't appear as an indentation based on the photos both on this and your previous topic. This stain probably formed long after the coin left the mint from exposure to some substance that the coin encountered, such as the circumstances described by @powermad5000. The coin likely continued to circulate after the stain formed, causing the dirt or chemical compound on the tops of the lettering to be rubbed off.

    If for whatever reason you find this coin interesting, you are welcome to collect it, but don't expect any knowledgeable numismatist to classify it as a mint error.

     Welcome to the NGC chat board. 

     In the future, please crop your photos to minimize the amount of the surface surrounding the coin.

     Your coin is a well-circulated 1973-D Roosevelt dime, which had a mintage of over 455 million pieces with an obverse scrape, likely from a roll wrapping machine. The weak reverse letters ("US U") are likely the result of the die having become filled with foreign matter, which is quite common and unless much more extensive than this generally considered to be a quality control issue rather than a mint error for which knowledgeable collectors would pay a premium.  See https://www.error-ref.com/?s=struck+through+"grease" for further explanation more significant examples, which usually aren't of great value either.

    Contrary to what you may have seen on some websites, it is extremely unusual to find an error coin of any significance or value in circulation.

    This still appears to be most likely a planchet lamination. The 2023 "Red Book" generically lists a lamination on a 95% copper alloy Lincoln cent like this at all of $3. A sizeable lamination like this might sell for somewhat more, but it certainly wouldn't be worth the cost of third-party certification. At NGC, this would involve a $23 "Economy" tier grading fee, plus an $18 error attribution fee, plus considerable processing and shipping costs.

   Welcome to the NGC chat board.

   Based on the photo and assuming that the anomaly involves metal that is flaking or peeling off of the coin, I think that it is what is known as a planchet lamination. See https://www.error-ref.com/?s=lamination.  I agree with @Greenstang that in-hand examination would be necessary for a sound opinion.

   No, these coins are environmentally damaged, likely from having been buried. Remember that U.S. "nickels" are actually composed of an alloy of 75% copper, 25% nickel.  

On 6/10/2024 at 10:43 PM, powermad5000 said:

Could you explain to me gold Mercury dime?

  Presumably, the reference is to the 2016-W centennial commemorative issue, containing a tenth of an ounce of .9999 fine gold and bearing the design of the "Mercury" dime. The mint sold 124,885 of them, according to the "Red Book", which lists them in between the 2015 and 2016 Roosevelt dime issues, at least in the 2023 edition.  There were similar 2016-W gold commemorative issues of the Standing Liberty quarter and the Liberty Walking half dollar.

   Whoever told you this was wrong. There is a great deal of disinformation about coins on the Internet. A 1941 cent in circulated (Fine or so) condition like this one is only worth a few cents. The "L" being near the rim, likely the result of a worn die combined with wear, adds no value.

   Please see the following forum topics to find reliable print and online resources from which you can learn about U.S. coins:

   Welcome to the NGC chat board.

   When you post photos of coins about which you have questions, it is helpful to post images of both sides of the coin and to crop the images to minimize the surface surrounding the coin.  

   Neither 1925 (nearly 140 million minted) nor 1925-D (22,580,000 minted) Lincoln cents are rare, especially in well-worn condition like these.  The 1925 in your photo is probably worth about 25 cents retail, the 1925-Ds a dollar or so each.  The weak "I" on the second coin could have been caused by foreign matter on the die or by the coin being scraped in circulation. In either case this adds no collector value. A "reddish hue" on worn copper coins is likely the result of improper "cleaning", which would reduce their value.

   There is no rational or factual basis to ask for a minimum bid of $99.99 for a discolored and spotted 2004-D Keelboat reverse nickel. The most likely explanation for the discoloration and spotting, which is usually the correct one, is environmental damage.  That "Seller does not accept returns" is telling.

1871 silver three cent piece, PCGS graded AU 53, another rare late date:

Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

   None of these "Indian" (actually the goddess of Liberty wearing a feathered headdress) cents is worth the cost of submission to a third-party grading service. However, any coin that you want to collect is "worth grading"--by you. It is fundamental that if you want to collect or "invest" in coins, you acquire grading knowledge and skills yourself. Here are approximate grades and current Coin World retail values for the coins you posted:

1. 1859 Good   $13

2. 1860, broad bust   Good   $12

3. 1862 Fine details, corroded, net Good   $10

4. 1864 bronze, no "L" Good   $14

5. 1898 Very Fine   $5 ($10 in Extremely Fine)

6. 1899 Very Fine   $5

7.1900 Very Good to Fine (VG 10) $2.50

    The NGC "Economy" tier grading fee alone for coins valued at no more than $300 is $23 per coin, so submission would be a losing proposition. They are, however, nice coins for display in a Whitman or Dansco album.

    By way of comparison, here are images of a Choice Uncirculated 1895 Indian cent that NGC graded MS 64 RB, retaining much of its original mint color and with a retail value of approximately $225, which is around the minimum value worthy of submission, in my opinion:

    None of the pieces you show has sufficient value to be worthy of submission for third-party grading.

    The purported California fractional piece, though dated 1853, does not appear to be a collectible piece made from about 1852-1882, all of which pieces have a denomination expressed as CENTS, DOL., DOLL., or DOLLAR. Non-denominated pieces, which are usually of more modern origin, have little value. See A Guide Book of United States Coins (the "Red Book"), 2023 ed. at pp. 418-19.

    The 1833 Capped Bust half dollar has Very Fine details, with scratches, such as the "X" in the obverse field, and edge damage that would likely preclude the awarding of a numerical grade. It was also unevenly struck and as such is not the most desirable example.  An unimpaired example would have a retail value around $100, this one probably around $60 and certainly not worth a $23 "Economy" tier NGC grading fee, plus related processing and shipping costs.

    The 1924 Peace dollar appears to have About Uncirculated details with a number of pin scratches that would also likely preclude a numerical grade. This coin probably isn't worth more than its current bullion value of around $23, the same as the grading fee alone.

    The 1919-S Walking Liberty half dollar is a better date but grades only Good (G 4 or so), with a retail value of $25-$35 depending on which price list one consults. It's a nice coin for an album, not for a grading service holder that would cost the full retail value of the coin.

    The 1945-S Micro S "Mercury" dime grades no better than Choice Very Fine (VF 30), with an approximate retail value of $5-$6, a small fraction of just the grading fee. 

    Before you even think about submitting coins to third-party grading services, you must know how to grade and otherwise evaluate coins yourself. Only individual coins worth at least several hundred dollars are likely worth the cost of submission. It may take you at least several years to acquire the requisite knowledge and experience.  What books and other resources are you using to learn about coins.

    Welcome to the NGC chat board. 

    Topics offering to sell or buy coins should be posted on the "Coin Marketplace" forum, not the "NGC Registry" forum. Please review the guidelines for posting on that forum before proceeding.  Coin Marketplace Guidelines - Coin Marketplace - NGC Coin Collectors Chat Boards

On 6/8/2024 at 2:10 PM, Gray Electric said:

I also requested it be listed in the registry as a mechanical "labeling" error. I'm hoping this will list it as a population of 1.

   I highly doubt that NGC will do this and sincerely hope that they won't. It has nothing to do with the coin in the holder, which is what you should be collecting, not the little paper tag in the holder that incorrectly identifies it. As someone who has been collecting and studying coins since 1971--some 15 years before grading services that encapsulate coins with these little paper tags existed--your concept of collecting is totally alien to me.

On 6/8/2024 at 1:30 PM, Gray Electric said:

The guarantee does apply apparently.

   What I mean by the "guarantee" is that the grading service agrees to pay damages to a collector who overpaid for a coin in reliance on the description on the label. There are guarantees of both authenticity and grade, with the grading guarantee being nebulous at best, but the guarantee of authenticity being of some value if the coin can be shown to be counterfeit or altered.  See NGC Guarantee | Coin Certification Guarantee | NGC (ngccoin.com).  Section 15 of the NGC Guarantee, dealing with "Clerical or Mechanical" errors, provides that the sole remedy for such an error is the relabeling of the holder without charge, as follows:

"15.  Clerical or Mechanical Errors. A clerical or mechanical error occurs when a Coin is encapsulated with a label that bears a grade and/or description that clearly does not correspond with the Coin. It is the duty of the buyer and seller of a Coin to examine such Coin for a clerical or mechanical error to return such Coins for correction when warranted. This Guarantee does not apply when Guarantor determines, in its sole reasonable discretion, that a clerical or mechanical error has resulted in the Coin having an incorrect grade or description. If requested, any clerical or mechanical errors will be remedied free of charge by updating the encapsulation to show an appropriate label.

NGC certification labels with incorrect dates, mintmarks, denominations or Coin types (all of which should be obvious to someone who performs an inspection of the Coin and label) are considered clerical or mechanical errors. Examples of such errors include, but are not limited to, the following:

A Coin is labeled a 1955 Doubled Die Lincoln Cent, when the Coin has no doubling.

A Coin label description references a 1916 Standing Liberty Quarter, when the Coin is a 1916 Barber Quarter.

A Coin is identified as a Proof, when it is a business strike and the types are readily distinguishable from each other.

A Coin is described as an 1881-O Morgan Dollar, when it is an 1881-S Morgan Dollar and the mintmark was improperly identified on the label.

A Coin is graded MS 68 when it should have been graded AU 58, an error with respect to grade that would be obvious to a collector.

Owners and prospective buyers of NGC-certified Coins are encouraged to enter the Coin’s NGC certification number in the Verify NGC Certification section of the NGC website to confirm a Coin’s grade and description and, for many Coins, view images of the Coin. If NGC becomes aware that a Coin was encapsulated with a label that bears a clerical or mechanical error, it will correct the error in its records and display the correct grade and/or description for that Coin in Verify NGC Certification."

    As I recall, PCGS's policy is the same.