Sandon

This is another example of post-mint damage from being scraped. The right side of the "8" is also scraped.

It is fallacious to argue that inexpensive--or even quite valuable--coins should be certified by grading services to "conserve" them! In fact, neither NGC nor PCGS guarantees that coins that they have certified will not deteriorate in their holders! The "NGC Guarantee" provides that, "[t]his Guarantee does not apply to certain Coins where the appearance of the Coin changes or deteriorates over time and such change or deterioration is responsible for any discrepancy between the assigned grade and the Coin’s actual grade. . .. In certain Coins, natural environmental deterioration may cause undesired features to appear, such as (but not limited to) spotting, hazing, PVC and corrosion." Moreover, NGC will only guarantee the grade of copper coins for ten years, after which they will be treated as "raw" submissions. See NGC Guarantee | Coin Certification Guarantee | NGC (ngccoin.com) PCGS applies a similar qualification to all coins. The PCGS Guarantee of Grade and Authenticity provides that "[t]he PCGS Guarantee does not apply to coins exhibiting environmental deterioration subsequent to PCGS grading and encapsulation. This deterioration may include, but is not limited to, spotting, hazing, PVC contamination, changes in color, and corrosion." See PCGS Guarantee of Grade and Authenticity - U.S. and World Coins. Grading service holders are likely no better than inexpensive, inert plastic holders such as square polystyrene "snap tights", round capsules or even mylar flips for "conserving" coins! Lucite boards cost more but are more durable than grading service holders and still far less expensive than the cost of certification. A great deal of air and whatever pollutants were in it when the coin was encapsulated continue to make contact with a certified coin's surface, and the holders aren't guaranteed to be airtight either. Many coins have toned or otherwise changed over time in grading service holders, usually not for the better. I have stored brilliant uncirculated as well as circulated U.S. coins composed of copper, copper nickel and silver alloys in albums (mostly Whitman Bookshelf and Classic but also Dansco and old Library of Coins) albums for decades, some since the 1970s. All but a few or the coins have remained relatively unchanged in these albums, perhaps because much less air circulates over the coins' surfaces and edges than in a certified holder. One must be careful not to touch the coin with bare hands before and during its insertion into the album and to make sure that it is seated below the upper plastic slide to avoid "slide marks". The aforementioned hard plastic holders are definitely better for silver dollars and other larger coins, in which I have also successfully stored coins for decades. (Storage of coins in a cool, dark and dry space is also important.) Such storage saves a great deal of space and weight, as well as expense, in comparison to third party grading!

Breen's Encyclopedia (p.272) states that Mint Director James Ross Snowden invented the "neologism" "trimes" and admits that the term "hardly got into use outside coin-collecting circles, if there." Collectors usually refer to them as "silver three cent pieces" or "three cent silvers" for short. The 1865-89 copper nickel three cent pieces are sometimes referred to as "three cent nickels".

It's just severe damage! Someone took a tool and scraped the date off. Note how the scraped metal is piled up along the edges of the scraped area. (Based upon the style of Lincoln's head and the lettering, the coin was likely dated between 1969 and 1973.)

I just purchased this 1907 Barber quarter, which is NGC graded MS 64. The coin is less toned and even more attractive than suggested by the photos, which are courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries:

I continue to think that this is a die chip. The missing part of the "B" and the adjacent area don't look scraped, smashed or dented. The raised metal is on both sides of and beneath the missing part of the "B". The die appears to have chipped in this entire area, and the striking pressure wasn't enough to raise the blob from the chip to the same level as the remaining part of the "B". My opinion might be different if I could see the actual coin and not just photos. The most important point, about which we all agree, is that it's not a significant or valuable error or variety.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Actually, this appears to be a die chip, which is very common, especially on Lincoln cents of this era. They have never been of any great value to collectors. There was once a fad of collecting cents where such a chip formed between the "B" and "E" of "LIBERTY" that resembled the letter "I". These were avidly collected as "BIE" errors but had no real value either. They are fun to collect. See my topic on this issue:

Actually, Type 1 gold dollars (1849-1854), were the smallest in diameter at 13mm. However, the three cent silver pieces at 0.75 gram for the Types 2 and 3 (0.8 gram for the Type 1) are certainly the lightest and based on observation certainly the thinnest!

YES! U.S. coins must have been certified by NGC or PCGS. World coins must have been certified by NGC. For the rules go to www.ngccoin.com/registry/ and review the lower tabs at the left side of the page "About" and "Help/FAQs. The "NGC Registry Help and Instructions" forum on this chat board is also helpful.

@lcourtney123--That's a nice proof 1963 Franklin half. However, to "follow the lead picture post" means that you post a photo of either a coin with the same date (1944) or the same type (Jefferson nickel). (The rules are stated way back on the first page of this topic.)

Another name for it is "strike doubling". The secondary image has much lower relief than the primary image. On a doubled die, which is caused by the die itself receiving blows from the die-making "hub" in different positions, both images are at about the same level, as on this "Redbook" variety 1972 doubled die cent: You refer to the coins as "1964", but the only one whose reverse you show is a 1964-D. Were you aware of this? To collectors, coins from different mints are completely different issues as much as different dates are! Mint mark locations for the various coin series are just one part of the basic information you must have before you even think about searching for a die varieties! (Known varieties are listed by date and mint mark.) Please get and study a recent edition of the "Redbook" before asking questions like these. At least check NGC VarietyPlus (NGC home page under the "Resources" tab) before asking us to determine if you have some unusual die variety. The varieties recognized by NGC for 1964 and 1964-D quarters are at Washington Quarters (1932-1998) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). (click the link) We can't do all your work for you!

Your first sentence is partly correct, but your second sentence isn't correct. (People display their collections for many reasons, not just to see whose is "nicer".) There are many low value and low grade coins on the Registry. However, I checked the Registry for Mexico and noticed that there are no set categories for 4 real pieces dated before 1701. There is a set category for 8 reales dated 1621-1667, but no one has created a set. NGC has probably decided that there just isn't enough interest in these coins and/or there are too few pieces certified to create a set category for them, whatever their value.

The 1863-72 circulation strikes are among the rarest but least promoted U.S. coins. I was able to obtain two of them, an 1867 (Uncirculated details) and an 1869 (AU 58) some years ago. You can see them, as well as two other more common pieces in my three cent silver registry set at https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/264273/. I also have an attractive proof 1866 graded PF 65 (more common than the circulation strike of that date, but still quite scarce), whose photos (courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries) follow:

As stated, this is just a "milling mark", a type of bag mark from the reeded edge of another coin that was ground into the surface of this coin when it was squeezed into a bag with many other coins. They're abundantly common and not desirable.

I'd grade it "Choice Brilliant Uncirculated", with a numerical range of MS 62-MS 64. If I had to pick a single number, it would be MS 63.

@lcourtney123--A purported 1943 bronze cent is in a special category due to its extreme rarity and the large number of fakes. It should be weighed on a professional quality, perfectly calibrated scale operated by experienced personnel. The vast majority of coins don't require weighing! One generally makes a preliminary determination about the authenticity of a coin or whether it is a significant error or variety by looking at it carefully and understanding what it's supposed to look like. One obtains this understanding by personally examining many coins, by reading good numismatic references, and by speaking with experienced collectors and dealers. Most of this can't be done on a chat board! You need to acquire and/or refer to the print and/or online resources to which I've already directed you. A good magnifier (5x-10x) is the only tool that is essential. You should also go to coin shows and consider joining a coin club if you really want to learn about this fascinating field!

For many of these coins there may not be a sufficient number of reported transactions to establish a price. Prices are established by amounts that are actually agreed to by willing buyers and sellers in the marketplace, not by "fudge factors" such as you are proposing!

This is supposed to occur when a former owner had the coin in his or her coin list and didn't bother to remove it after selling the coin or when someone dishonestly entered the serial number without owning the coin to begin with. NGC is supposed to e-mail the owner of record to ask whether that person still claims ownership and will transfer the coin to your list if the record owner agrees or doesn't respond. This happened to me once with a coin I had just purchased and was resolved within two days.

@lcourtney123--By the laws of physics, a coin must have the same weight from either side! (On all the photos it's weighed with the obverse up anyway.) Most of the inexpensive scales aren't sufficiently accurate to weigh coins, which is one of the reasons I don't have one.

Actually, per Breen's Encyclopedia, now out of print, the postal rate had been decreased from five to three cents, which was why a three cent denomination was chosen. However, the main reason for the issuance of the silver three cent pieces, stated in both the Encyclopedia and the Deluxe or "Mega" Red Book (7th ed. at 304) was the increase in the price of silver relative to the price of gold due to the increase in the gold supply from the California gold rush, which was driving silver coins out of circulation. The "Type 1" pieces dated 1851-53 are composed of 75% silver, 25% copper ("billon") in an effort to keep them in circulation. (Types 2 and 3 are the usual .900 fine silver.) While the Treasury referred to them as "trimes", the public, per the Encyclopedia, called them "fish scales"! The issuance of the reduced weight half dimes through half dollars with arrows in 1853 fully resolved the silver coin shortage, while the "trimes" themselves ultimately were impacted by the hoarding of all gold and silver coins during the Civil War, leading to the issuance of the copper nickel three cent pieces. However, some returned to circulation and apparently showed up as late as the earlier part of the twentieth century. A friend's grandfather, who wasn't a collector, had two well-worn (Fair to AG) 1852s that he had taken from circulation.

It's been about 52 years for me, and I've never owned a scale either. One generally makes a preliminary determination about the authenticity of a coin or whether it is a significant error or variety by looking at it carefully and understanding what it's supposed to look like. One obtains this understanding by examining many coins, by reading good numismatic references, and by speaking with experienced collectors and dealers. I also understand that many of the more inexpensive scales often aren't very accurate and that they all require frequent calibration. This is not to say that determining the exact weight of a coin with good equipment isn't important to the professional authentication process for frequently counterfeited or questionable coins. I have no idea, however, what @Abigail1964 believes to be unusual about this seemingly ordinary looking (despite the blurry photos) 1965 quarter. The copper on the rim indicates that it is of the usual copper-nickel clad composition, worth face value as a circulated coin.

In my original post on this topic, I said that the coin might be worth submitting for authentication if it weighs over 3 grams. Assuming that @Kyle Mesneak's scale is accurate within 0.1 gram, a weight of 2.9-3.0 grams isn't likely more than 3 grams! Two of the examples certified by NGC in low mint state grades have weights stated on the holder labels of 3.09 and 3.07 grams respectively. These bear certificate nos. 2067200-001 (61 BN) and 2067200-002 (62 BN). The coin shown is lightly worn but is unlikely to be much lighter than these. I agree that the coin should be weighed to the nearest 0.01 gram on a professional quality scale before a decision is made on submission and with the other comments regarding peculiarities in the coin's appearance, including the mushy look of its details and the apparent "wire rim" or "fin" on the lower reverse, which isn't commonly seen on U.S. coins of this era. However, unlike the case with many of the items posted in these forums, I can't state definitively that it is a fake. (The example with certificate no. 2067200-001 has a large obverse "cud" rim break that looks too good to be true!) This coin is quite valuable if it is genuine but absolutely worthless if it is a fake! It can't be sold for any price unless professionally authenticated without one of the parties being cheated! A coin can't be authenticated from photos and must be submitted to a respectable third-party grading service. If you can't make affordable arrangements with NGC or PCGS, you might try ANACS (www.anacs.com). As the authentication of a previously unknown example of a 1943 bronze cent would generate favorable publicity for the service that handles it, I think that you should be able to make suitable arrangements.

This coin has no mint mark, and I can see no evidence of any kind of doubling either.

If this coin sticks to a magnet, it is simply a normal 1943 zinc coated steel cent that has been copper plated. There are tens of thousands of such pieces that were so plated as novelties or to deceive. There are also many, many counterfeits. Only 17 genuine 1943 cents struck on bronze planchets are known to exist, so reports of any new findings are greeted with much skepticism. If the coin doesn't stick to a magnet, I would try to weigh it on a properly calibrated digital scale, as suggested by @Greenstang. The official weight for a bronze cent is 3.11 grams, while a zinc coated steel cent is supposed to weigh 2.70 grams. If the coin weighs over 3 grams, there's a chance it's genuine, though it would still be unlikely. You could submit the coin to either NGC (www.ngccoin.com) or PCGS (www.pcgs.com) for authentication. (The coin if genuine would be unlikely to receive a numerical grade because of the deep scratch on the reverse and the hairlining on the obverse but would still be valuable.) For NGC submission, review "How to Submit", "Services & Fees" and the other topics under the "Submit" tab. As this coin if genuine would likely be worth more than $25,000, the authentication and grading fee would be substantial--$350 plus 1% of the fair market value--you might want to discuss its submission with NGC customer service (1-800-NGC-COIN or service@NGCCoin.com) to determine if it could be submitted at a lower tier and a high fee charged only if the coin is determined to be genuine.