Sandon

I'm an older collector who has no intention of carrying a costly, internet dependent, and breakage and theft prone electronic device at a coin show. I carry current copies of The CPG Coin & Currency Market Review (quarterly) and the monthly edition of Coin World for pricing information. (In its May issue Coin World deleted its price listings for many series; but Larry Jewett, Coin World's editorial director, informed me that in response to complaints from many subscribers, including me, most or all of the deleted listings would soon be restored.) I also carry a recent edition of the standard "Red Book" for reference. I would also recommend that less experienced collectors carry a grading guide.

I'm pretty sure, as @physics-fan3.14 posted while I was writing this reply, that the purportedly proof Franklin half dollars posted by the author aren't proofs at all but are circulation strikes that someone has heavily polished or plated to look like proofs! Note the less shiny areas between the letters on the 1956, the partly smoothed out marks and scratches on the devices and in the fields, and the weak details on all three coins. Such bogus items are frequently offered on ebay. Please also note that the Marketplace forum is for topics soliciting the sale or purchase of coins. If you're trying to get the chat board members' opinions on Franklin and Kennedy half dollars that exhibit very early die states, you would do better to post it in the "U.S., Foreign, and Ancient Coins" forum, or if you are a newer collector, on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum. Proof Franklin half dollars of any die state generally have full bell lines, and those that are from early die states should also exhibit cameo contrast, like this 1956 Type II that NGC graded PF 68 cameo: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

You should post this inquiry in either the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" or the "U.S., World, and Ancient Coins" forum, which is also used by token collectors, for more attention.

The NGC "star" (*) graded coins I've seen have been one-sided proof-likes, near cameo proofs like @J P M's 1968-S proof nickel, or coins with toning of the sorts that some collectors consider attractive. Neither "star" grades awarded by NGC nor the "plus" (+) grades awarded by both NGC and PCGS are recognized by the A.N.A. grading standards. The more grades are used, the more subjective grading becomes! It's bad enough that the A.N.A. standards recognize eleven different mint state grades, not to mention multiple numerical grades for individual adjectival circulated grades. Experienced graders can honestly disagree over whether, for example, a mint state or proof coin should be graded "64" or "65", which can mean a big difference in the coin's list price. Adding "plus" grades effectively doubles the number of grades in the categories where those grades are used. The same graders might now disagree over whether the coin is a "64", a "64+", a "65" and perhaps a "65+" as well! They might also disagree whether the toning or reflectivity of the coin merit it a "star" grade. The system is overly complicated, yet imprecise, as noted by @RWB.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. It is very difficult to evaluate these Capped Bust (and 1807 Draped Bust) half dollars without seeing cropped, clear photos of the obverse and reverse of each coin, preferably as separate topics. (They appear to be mostly well-worn and/or improperly "cleaned" or damaged but if genuine may have individual retail values ranging from approximately $50 to a few hundred dollars.) Please refer to the following topics for guidance on posting questions about coins on this forum:

The official weight of a Draped Bust dollar is 26.96 grams, so, yes, this "coin" is quite underweight. It also bears only a superficial resemblance to a genuine example, such as this one, which NGC graded VF 30 after I took the photos: While there are a number of die varieties of 1799 dollars--mine, a BB-161, B-11, features a newer, though already clashed obverse paired with a worn reverse on which the berries had been polished off the olive branch--none has the shallow relief, the much smaller stars or the nearly missing word "LIBERTY" as on your grab bag piece. The edges of these coins are supposed to bear the words "HUNDRED CENTS ONE DOLLAR OR UNIT" with decorative circles, rectangles, and stars between the words. What does the edge of the grab bag piece look like?

1859 proof Liberty Seated half dime, PCGS graded PR 64. A one-year subtype (Philadelphia mint only) with the obverse engraving said to be by Anthony Paquet: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

NCS claims to be able to remove "verdigris", but I'm not sure if the black and green corrosion on your Fugio copper (possibly copper sulfate and/or other copper compounds) is what is referred to as "verdigris". The removal of the green and black encrustations would likely leave pits in their place. Other than removing surface dirt through a solvent such as acetone, one should perhaps leave such coins alone. Here is a link to NCS's claims as to what NCS can and cannot do: Coin Conservation | NCS | Numismatic Conservation Services | NGC (ngccoin.com)

This 1847 large cent is a good example of a copper coin that has uncirculated details and retains reflective or "cartwheel" luster but was nevertheless "cleaned" or "recolored" as confirmed by NGC's grade of "Uncirculated Details--Cleaned". Note the pinkish color, which is similar to that on your Connecticut copper.

Original color on a copper coin has a more orange, not pinkish, hue. The coloring doesn't look like luster to me, either. I've seen many worn copper coins with coloration like this. It can be created either with chemicals or a pencil eraser. The manner in which you obtained it couldn't account for everything it may have experienced in the 236 or so years of its existence, assuming that it is genuine.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. I'll address your specific questions that don't appear to have been directly answered: 1. Modern U.S. proof coins like this differ visibly from those made for circulation or for bullion investors in that they have mirror-like fields combined with heavily frosted devices, lettering and numerals that produce a "deep cameo" (a.k.a. "ultra cameo") contrast. The bullion version has uniformly frosty or matte-like surfaces. There have also been other collectors' versions with a "Burnished Uncirculated" finish (2006 to date) that is also uniformly but more coarsely matte-like than the bullion version and only in 2006 a "reverse proof" version that has frosted fields that contrast with shiny devices. 2. The technology used to create U.S. proof coins has changed somewhat since 1986, most notably to my recollection that the frosted devices, etc. that were once created on the dies by sandblasting are now created by lasers, but the appearance of the coins is only slightly different. (Any comments or corrections on this, @RWB?) 3. Your 2018-W proof one-ounce American Eagle gold bullion coin has a reported mintage (probably the approximate number sold by the mint) of 15,570 pieces, which is not unusual for recent issues. Some were sold individually like yours, others in four-coin sets that also included the tenth, quarter, and half ounce versions. 4. I obtained my information from a recent edition of A Guide Book of United States Coins, popularly known as the "Redbook", which is the most popular basic guide to U.S. coins and is published annually in standard (462 or so page) and deluxe or "Mega Red" (1500 or so page) editions. The 2024 standard edition came out in April. It is available from its publisher at whitman.com. Whitman has also published a more comprehensive guide to this series entitled American Gold and Platinum Eagles, which the website currently lists as out of stock. You may be able to find it from other book dealers. (The "Redbook" can't be considered current as a price guide, and you should probably refer to online price guides such as those at ngccoin.com and pcgs.com. I would presume an uncertified coin in its original packaging to grade PF ("PR" at PCGS) 69. You can also subscribe (one example) to the online version of Coin World, which has a monthly price guide, at coinworld.com). 5. Due to the high price of gold, most one ounce gold coins can now be considered "bullion-related" items, and nearly all one ounce proof gold American Eagles appear to trade for a few hundred dollars over current gold values in all grades, with the exception of the very low mintage and currently popular 2020-W "privy marked" issue. In my opinion, high bullion prices place these coins out of the hands of the vast majority of collectors and dampen their future as collectors' as opposed to bullion investors' items. However, no one can predict what will or won't be popular in future.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. If you want to submit coins to a third-party grading service such as NGC, you must have your own sufficient knowledge of these coins to determine their likely grade range and value. Coins worth less than several hundred dollars apiece really aren't worth the cost of certification. To request NGC to attribute your coins as mint errors (whether they are found to be errors or not), you would have to pay an additional $18 fee per coin on top of the tier grading fee ($19 per coin "Modern" tier for the date range you describe), a $10 processing fee for your order and, for 20 coins, a $35 return shipping fee. This works out to a total of $785 or $39.25 per coin and doesn't include your cost of shipping the coins to NGC. Many types of mint errors on modern Lincoln cents wouldn't even have a retail value of $39.25, and if they aren't mint errors, they are likely only worth their face value of one cent apiece. NGC doesn't regard minor anomalies such as die chips, strike doubling, and die deterioration doubling as mint errors and wouldn't attribute them as such. As suggested by @Coinbuf, you may submit photos of some of the coins you think are "mis-struck" on this forum for our opinions. The photos should be clear and cropped shots of each side of each coin, and you should point out what type of error you think each one exhibits. You may find the following topics helpful:

If you are asking the NGC Registry administrator this question, you should post it under the following topic in the NGC Registry forum: The competitive Registry has very few sets for medals, and it is unlikely that they would be thought to be sufficiently popular or enough pieces in NGC holders to make a competitive set worthwhile. However, you can create a "Custom Set" that lets you define the slots and set other parameters in accordance with your own preferences. Go to the following link to browse existing sets and if interested then to the "Create a Set" icon. You would presumably want to place such a set under the "Tokens & Medals" category: NGC Registry | Custom Sets (collectors-society.com)

The new chat board rankings and related icons have generated much discussion in the topic linked below on the U.S., World, and Ancient Coins Forum. Can you explain how these rankings are determined and how a member progresses from one rank to the next? (A number of chat board "Seasoned Veterans" are now also ranked as "Newbie" or "Rookie".) Additionally, there seems to be a consensus among the topic participants that the icons are too large and result in too much white space beneath each post.

1929-S Standing Liberty quarter, NGC graded MS 65: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

I tried comparing the total numbers of "Days Won" under the "Past Leaders" tab of the "Leaderboard" but could find no direct correlation there either.

Mr. Bowers really isn't replaceable by any one person. He wrote for so many years on so many numismatic topics, not to mention about other collecting areas as well, such as coin operated musical machines. Numismatic writers tend to be more specialized now.

As @Coinbuf indicated, some dealer or promoter likely paid PCGS for this "special" label. The PCGS certification verification function (on pcgs.com) refers to the holder as "Standard". The "Redbook" and other printed price guides just don't have room to list coins in all eleven (or more) mint state grades now in use, not to mention all of the now numerous circulated grades. (The Redbook isn't useful as an up-to-date price guide anyway.) They just choose a few representative grades. The online price guides (NGC, PCGS, Coin World and others) tend to list more grades. The PCGS certificate verification for this coin indicates that there are 1,845 1955 "Bugs Bunny" variety half dollars graded in MS 64 and 350 in all higher grades, so MS 64 is likely what Q. David Bowers would call the "optimal collecting grade" (highest grade at a reasonable price) for this variety. You can see the populations in all grades on the PCGS population report, which is also accessible from the PCGS home page.

Can anybody give an approximate value for what those counterfeits were trying to replicate ? We talking $300 coins....or $3,000 ? The 1806 (small "6", presumably without stems) half cent would have a retail value of $550 or so. The five large cents, if "straight graded", would have retail values ranging from $2,250 to about $4,000, but I would figure about a 50% discount due to the severity of the impairments perceived by the graders, which would still be substantial values. The impairments would have been created by the counterfeiters to make the coins look their purported age. Hopefully, these mostly PCGS graded coins will be covered by a grading guarantee for anyone who bought them in these holders, presuming that the grading services agree that they graded and encapsulated counterfeit coins. This is, indeed, scary, considering that coins in these holders are presumed to have been duly authenticated by professionals.

Many of these fakes aren't made to deceive knowledgeable collectors but are mass produced for sale as cheap souvenirs or to deceive the unwary. The makers often didn't care about the metallic composition of the originals or about duplicating their true appearance. The packets of such items that I saw decades ago in souvenir or novelty shops were usually made in a silvery (like yours) or darkish "antiqued" looking color. In my experience (over 50 years) a coin or other numismatic item's being in an unfamiliar composition usually means that it is not genuine, not that it is a significant new discovery! When and where did your uncle tell you he obtained this token, and what else did he tell you about it?

After spending some time referring to both the international numeral chart and the Iran listings in my 2010 Standard Catalog of World Coins, I was able to translate the coin with the effigy of the last Shah as "2536", which corresponds to 1977 under a dating system used only in 1977-78. The other piece is dated "1370", which corresponds to 1991 in the Islamic calendar. Assuming that you are correct about the denominations and that the coins are genuine, the 1977 quarter Pahlavi contains 0.0589 oz. of gold and was valued at bullion value in 2010. The 1977 quarter Azadi contained 0.0588 oz. gold and listed $300 in "Uncirculated" at that time. You should refer to the NGC World Price Guide (under the "Resources" tab on the NGC home page) for current retail valuations.

As I assume that @Idhair knows, the piece in the preceding post is a crude counterfeit, probably contemporary and possibly not silver. Here is a genuine "Type III" silver three cent piece, and one that can be legitimately called rare, an 1869 graded PCGS AU 58 in an old green label holder.

As it turns out, I was too conservative. My own numerical grade would still be no higher than XF 45.

I hope that the administrator explains what the qualifications are for each level. I had just achieved "Seasoned Veteran" status by reaching my thousandth post, which, of course, says nothing about the significance or quality of those posts. I've also been on the "Leaderboard" for several months, which should signify something. However, I'm now listed on this new system as a "Newbie". Perhaps it's because I've only been active on the chat board since last summer. However, I've collected coins for 52 years, have been an A.N.A. member for 42 of those years and think that the "Newbie" label will be misleading to those to whom I offer opinions and advice on these forums.

I was concerned about the authenticity of this token since I first saw it and photos of authenticated examples of pieces in other metals of the same design. It has a grainy yet shiny surface and weak details suggesting that it was cast rather than struck. As I'm not an expert on Civil War tokens and the OP had already submitted it to NGC, I didn't express my concerns. I recall that when I visited Civil War battlefields as a child during the 1960s and early 1970s, souvenir shops sold packets of "replica" Civil War tokens and Confederate "coins" that looked like this. As this was before the enactment of the Hobby Protection Act (late 1973), it wasn't necessary for the makers to mark them "COPY". I don't know what @Ernest Nichols's uncle told him about this piece, but it may have originated in the 1960s rather than the 1860s. It is up to him whether to make further efforts to authenticate it, with the knowledge that he may be throwing good money after bad.