Sandon

   Welcome to the NGC chat board.

   I assume that by "conditioned" you mean "conserved". NCS (NGC's affiliate) uses processes that can remove surface contaminants from coins but cannot remove or reverse corrosion, nor could the deep cuts be repaired. See Coin Conservation | NCS | Numismatic Conservation Services | NGC (ngccoin.com).  

   You may want to try soaking this New Jersey copper in acetone or even distilled water to see if this improves its appearance by removing any mud or other residue that hasn't chemically become part of the coin's surface.  The coin could only be "Details" graded even if successfully "conserved" and, in my opinion, wouldn't be worth the substantial cost of conservation, grading and shipping. See NGC Services and Fees | NGC (ngccoin.com).  If you do decide to submit it, it may be somewhat less expensive to do so through an NGC member dealer instead of submitting it yourself. See Find Coin Shops & Dealers | Coin Dealer Locator | NGC (ngccoin.com).

   This piece is still rather nice for a "ground find". 

Proof 1964 Washington quarter, NGC graded PF 69 though not as mirrorlike as some and rather inexpensive:

    This coin is likely counterfeit, though apparently modeled from a genuine O-102. The odd surface texture and uneven wear are suspicious.

    What does the edge of the coin look like?  A 1795 half dollar should have "FIFTY CENTS OR HALF A DOLLAR" with decorations between the words as shown on this image from NGC VarietyPlus:

   The new photos show details that weren't visible before.  I see a trace of the reverse design (oak leaves) as well as the obverse on the side that previously appeared to be blank. This could be some kind of "brockage", where a previously struck coin was stuck on the reverse die when this coin was struck, although that doesn't account for the trace of the reverse design as well.  Let's see what Mr. Sullivan's opinion will be.

1951 Lincoln cent, PCGS graded MS 66 RD:

     In addition to awaiting any additional responses on this forum, you might want to post this coin on the CONECA forum at https://board.conecaonline.org/forum. You can also request an opinion from Jon Sullivan, a respected errors dealer, at https://sullivannumismatics.com/contact-us/.  If this coin were authenticated as a genuine indent strike or other significant mint error, it would have some value, although, as each error coin is unique, how much is difficult to say. I continue to have my own misgivings as to its authenticity.

    Welcome to the NGC chat board.

    I'll add to what has already been said that acetone is a solvent that should remove surface dirt or contaminants from a coin's surface and is not considered "cleaning", which is a process that chemically or abrasively alters the coin's surface.  Be careful using acetone, as it is highly flammable.  As "toning" is formed by chemical compounds that have bonded with a coin's surface, a solvent such as acetone should not affect them.  If it does, what you saw wasn't toning.

   Welcome to the NGC chat board. The "Coin Marketplace" forum is dedicated to topics offering to buy or sell coins in accordance with the Guidelines posted near the top of the forum, with which your topic does not comply.  A topic like this one should be posted on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum, where it would receive appropriate attention. You should not offer to sell a coin when you have no knowledge of its value.

    The images you provided of your 1998-D cent are too brightly lit and/or have inadequate resolution to see any details clearly, as well as being uncropped.  Try to post clearer images that are cropped like this:

  I think I see some light, shallow "strike doubling", also known as machine or mechanical doubling north of "WE TRUST", which is extremely common and of no collector value. See Double Dies vs. Machine Doubling | NGC (ngccoin.com).  I can see no mint-made anomaly on the "A" in "AMERICA", which may have suffered a nick. 

   You appear to be a victim of internet disinformation. In reality, it is extremely unusual to find any coin of substantial value in pocket change. Submitting coins for third-party grading is for those who have sufficient knowledge and experience to make a likely determination of the coin's identity, grade and value. 

    Your best defense against counterfeits is understanding what the genuine pieces are supposed to look like. Most of the counterfeits we see here are detectable on sight due to their differences in design details and overall appearance from genuine coins.  Even most of the more deceptive ones can be identified by understanding the characteristics of particular types of counterfeits. See, for example, NGC Counterfeit Detection | Identify Counterfeit Coins | NGC (ngccoin.com).

   Although an accurate scale and compositional tests may also be of value in detecting some counterfeits, they are no substitute for knowledge of and experience with the coins that you collect. I also recommend that if you do not have such knowledge, you do not buy uncertified coins--or perhaps any coins of significant value--on sites such as eBay, except from well-known, reputable dealers such as those who are members of the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG). See https://www.pngdealers.org/af_memberdirectory.asp.

   Welcome to the NGC chat board. 

   In the future, please crop your photos to eliminate the surrounding surface. Note also that coins are said to be struck, not "stamped".

   There is a type of mint error known as a "full uniface strike" or "full indent" that results from an extra planchet (blank) lying between the dies, preventing one side from being struck. See https://www.error-ref.com/?s=uniface+strike.  However, the fully formed rim and "scooped out' appearance of the otherwise blank reverse of your 1965 Roosevelt dime, combined with the depressions on the obverse, look quite suspicious and lead me to conclude that the coin was likely altered after it left the mint.  Let's see what some other forum members think.

    Yes, it is a "type 2" "S" mint mark as that term is used on 1979 proof coinage. The determination is made by the shape of the mint mark.

   It's unknown what kind of a test this was, whether it was of the surface or the entire coin, or who performed it. The analysis of 93.4% iron (Fe) and 4.79% zinc (Zn) would seem to be consistent with a normal 1943 zinc coated steel cent. If it's a surface scan, it would suggest that the coin is abraded or corroded, so that most of the zinc coating is gone.  Appropriate photos, which were never provided, would have been helpful. 

   The coin whose NGC label is shown isn't the coin submitted by the OP. On the PCGS forum, the OP's accompanying comment is that "NGC graded a coin like this a few years back". It is presumably a pattern or trial piece that is largely composed of tin (Sn), with smaller amounts of antimony (Sb), copper (Cu) and vanadium (V).  We still have yet to hear of the results of the OP's submission, which, based upon his description of the coin being a 1943 cent that was "Steel Bronze Coated" would appear to be one of the countless normal 1943 zinc coated steel cents that was copper plated outside of the mint.

   On March 25 in a previous thread, the OP admitted that "[t]rying to prove it is bronze I made a big mistake and scraped some of the edge", which undoubtedly exposed some of the zinc core. The most likely explanation, which is usually the correct one, for this coin being somewhat overweight for a copper plated zinc cent but definitely underweight for a brass (95% copper, 5% zinc) cent is that the coin was struck on a slightly thicker than normal copper plated zinc planchet. Coins struck on slightly thin or thick planchets aren't rare and don't command much if any premium.

   We all dream of finding a rare and valuable coin in circulation, but the odds of actually finding one are infinitesimally small. That's what "rare" means, after all.

@tklein--You would probably receive better attention by posting a question about a specific coin as a separate topic. 

   There is no way I could develop my own opinion as to whether your 1987 proof coins have "original" or "artificial" toning from the images provided. Grading services have to base their opinions--and that is all they are--on the appearance of the coins. Their personnel cannot know how the coin became toned, and I understand that the personnel who grade the coins are different from those remove them from the packaging. It may be possible to expose coins in government packaging to chemicals or heat that would produce rapid toning that would be considered artificial.  Although proof coins from 1887 would be expected to have toned, proof coins from 1987 that were stored in their government hard plastic holders are expected to be untoned, superb gem (69-70) deep cameos. Although I have seen coins in Prestige sets develop more toning than regular sets, the likely explanation for such coins to be significantly toned is storage in a humid or otherwise less than ideal environment.

   To me, the larger question is why any collector would submit "an entire 1987 Prestige Proof Set for grading".  These sets contain modern collectors' issues, all with mintages in the millions and virtually all in deep cameo, superb gem grades. If you wanted them for a registry set, the only reason of which I can think, you could likely have bought these same issues in NGC or PCGS holders in at least PF 69 UCAM for reasonable prices. It must have cost you $114 ($19 x 6) in grading fees alone, $152 with the return shipping and processing fees plus any cost of shipping to NGC, and you ended up with coins deemed impaired.  Think of the coins you could have bought with that money instead.

    Welcome to the NGC chat board.

    Anything that looks green on a clad quarter (or most other coins) is either residue of a foreign substance or a corrosion product, neither of which is desirable. (Some uncirculated copper and some silver coins may develop a greenish toning that can be attractive, but that's not what is going on here.)  Based on your photos, both of your circulated 1976 Bicentennial quarter appear to have been coated with glue and/or other foreign substances. (Soaking them in acetone might soften or remove this residue.)  Even without the residue, they would have no numismatic value. Over 809 million were struck, and millions were saved in uncirculated grades.     

On 5/15/2024 at 2:42 PM, tulloa said:

don’t you have to have your coins certified before you sell them?

     Only coins of significant value (at least several hundred dollars) are worth the cost of submitting to third-party grading services. Many still enjoy collecting lower value--and even higher value--coins in albums, hard plastic holders, or other appropriate holders.  Knowledgeable collectors can grade and otherwise evaluate coins without having them encapsulated in bulky grading service holders. Even for those who collect only certified coins, knowledge of grading is important.  For those who want to submit coins to grading services, it is essential.

   All 1975 proof sets (over 2.8 million issued) contain "Type 1" Eisenhower dollars, and all 1976 Proof sets (over 4.1 million issued) contain "Type 2s".  All proof sets issued since 1968 are struck at the San Francisco mint and are supposed to have the "S" mintmark. 

   Based on the photos you provided, which are inadequate for a careful examination, your sets appear to contain pieces of typical quality. (The cent in the 1975 set has toned and wouldn't be worthy of a "red" designation, and some of the coins might not receive a "DCAM" or even "CAM" designation.)  This month's Coin World Values provides a retail price range of $11 to $14 for the 1975 set and $10 to $12 for the 1976 set. The NGC grading fees alone for these sets would be $19 per coin, and it would be extremely unlikely that any of the coins in the sets would achieve a high enough grade (such as PF 70 DCAM) to make the cost worthwhile.  Such pieces can often be purchased in NGC or PCGS certified holders in grades as high as PF 69 DCAM for less than the cost of submission. Unless you have the grading expertise yourself to determine that a coin would have a shot at getting a high enough grade and market value to make the cost worthwhile, you shouldn't submit it.

   You should enjoy these sets in their original packaging, which is sufficiently protective and provides historical context. That is how I've kept mine since I bought them from the mint in the years they were issued. (The 1975 set was my first one purchased from the mint.)

@Dieuwer--Welcome to the NGC chat board. The likely reason that you haven't received an answer from the NGC staff is because you posted your question on someone else's topic to which they had already responded. I recommend that you create a new topic for your inquiry. You could also contact NGC Customer Service at (855) 472-3310 or service@NGCCoin.com.

    Welcome to the NGC chat board.

    I would really need better photos to evaluate this coin. Please provide full and, if possible, clearer photos of each side of the coin, right side up and cropped like this edit of the obverse:

   Although this might not be one of the immediately obvious counterfeits that we frequently see, I have never heard of a blundered edge like this on a 1795 Draped Bust dollar, and the color and certain other characteristics seem suspicious.

   Welcome to the NGC chat board.  The "Coin Marketplace" forum is for offers to buy or sell coins in accordance with the posted guidelines, not for questions about coins, which should be posted on the "U.S., World and Ancient Coins" forum or the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum.  For an answer from the NGC staff, it should be posted on the "Ask NGC/NCS" forum.

   NGC will apparently attribute earlier U.S. coins with counterstamps listed in the Brunk reference, but not others. See US and World Tokens and Medals Graded by NGC | NGC (ngccoin.com). I assume that such pieces would not receive a numerical grade but could only be "Details" graded, as is NGC's practice with chopmarked trade dollars.  It appears that coins defaced with unlisted counterstamps would be deemed "ineligible for encapsulation". See Early Copper “INELIGIBLE TYPE”. - Ask NGC/NCS - NGC Coin Collectors Chat Boards. 

   You may want to contact NGC Customer Service or use the "Ask NGC/NCS" forum for a definitive answer.

@tklein--Welcome to the NGC chat board. In the future, please start a new topic instead of posting a new question about your own coin on someone else's old topic.  Your question will be more accessible to users of the forum, and you, instead of the original topic author, will receive an e-mail indicating replies to your topic.

   Your 1979-P SBA dollar does appear to be the "wide rim" or "near date" variety. It is likely that PCGS didn't attribute it as such because the submitter didn't indicate that it was this variety and used the PCGS code for the common "narrow rim" variety, which isn't designated (#9571), instead of the code for the "wide rim" variety (#99571).  

   NGC charges an $18 "VarietyPlus" fee to attribute most varieties but, fortunately, not this one. See Anthony Dollars (1979-1999) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com).  However, you would have to designate the variety on the NGC submission form and pay the full grading fee for the appropriate tier (presumably the $19 Modern tier) for the "Crossover" service referred to above as well as the related processing and shipping fees totaling $38. There would be no guarantee that NGC would agree with the PCGS grade, which could be lower or higher.  As PCGS already graded the coin, you might want to check whether PCGS could make the attribution without charging the grading fee again.

1932 Lincoln cent in old PCI green bordered label holder graded MS 65 Red. The grade seems reasonable on this one, too: