Sandon

Here are the clearer photos from NGC Coin Explorer of a 1971-S proof Ike Dollar, which will show that the mint mark on all of these coins is a small and somewhat clogged "S". There are no "D" mint proof "Ikes"! The reverse, which is also the normal "Reverse C", should help @lcourtney123 ascertain that her coin is, in fact, this usual version.

This 1859-O half dime appears to have uncirculated details but, unfortunately, has had a severe abrasive "cleaning", perhaps from a pencil eraser or a wire brush. While less severely "cleaned" coins can still be attractive, one as harshly cleaned as this isn't. A "problem coin" like this is difficult to value. An advanced or wealthy collector wouldn't buy it for any price. A young, new or "budget" collector might be willing to pay the value of a coin several grades lower, like Very Fine, or a percentage of the base uncirculated (MS 60) value. While an MS 60 1859-O half dime currently lists $350 in Coin World ($335 in NGC Price Guide), I wouldn't pay more than $75 or so (F to VF money, depending on which price list you use) if I wanted an example of this issue and didn't want to pay for a problem free higher-grade specimen or wait to find a problem free VF. Whatever price you pay above a nominal amount, it won't likely be easy to get your money back! Edit: I just realized that this topic was originally posted in the "Coin Marketplace" forum, which is for buying and selling. As its purpose was to ask a question, not offer the coin for sale, it should have been better posted under the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum.

The mint mark is the smallish or lightly impressed "S" used on this issue. The photo is blurry.

Presumably, this was simply the artistic preference of Emily Damstra, the "Artistic Infusion Program Designer" and/or Michael Gaudioso, the medallic artist, whom the mint jointly credits with designing the Type 2 reverse. Perhaps you should contact the mint to see if you could ask them.

I assume that by "Proof Prototype" you are referring to a 1971-S Proof Eisenhower dollar (over 4.2 million minted and extremely common) that has the low relief "Reverse A" or "Type 1 Reverse" instead of the higher relief "Reverse C" that was used to coin nearly all of this issue. Your coin is the normal "Reverse C". I base this opinion upon the nearly round image of Earth and the configuration of North America, as well as the high relief of the eagle's head and upper wing, which are the same as on my own coin. The additional diagnostics for a Reverse A, some of which are described in the next paragraph, are hard to see in your photo, but don't appear to be present. Circulation strikes are supposed to look different from a 1971-S proof! On the Reverse A, which was used on all 1971 circulation (non-proof) strikes from all three mints except for a small number of 1971-Ds, as well as some 1972s and all 1972-Ds, "The State of Maine is huge and with a flat top. Earth is flattened [not just weak] at the upper left. The north part of the Gulf of Mexico has a downward bulge. . . . Canada is almost non-existent." The craters are also weaker on the Reverse A than on the Reverse C, on which the craters "are strengthened with higher rims." A Guide Book of United States Coins, Deluxe Edition, a.k.a "Mega Red" (7th ed. 2021) at 806-09, 822. (There are three additional reverse styles on "Ike" dollars used in other non-Bicentennial years, especially the "Reverse E" introduced in late 1972). You are likely feeling overwhelmed because you are attempting to perform activities of an advanced numismatist such as die variety attribution without learning basic facts about coins and without the necessary resources and experience. I strongly recommend that you review the following topic on this forum and acquire and learn from the resources described in it:

The color of this coin is original for a circulated silver coin, including the darker area near the edge. The bright ones have usually been chemically "cleaned" (bad), polished (bad), or dipped in an anti-tarnish solution (sometimes acceptable in the market if properly done so that it didn't remove too much of the luster or original surface but may reduce the grade). However, based on your photos, the coin appears to have hairlines indicating an old abrasive "cleaning" (bad). The coin may have then retoned. Even if the coin isn't "cleaned", it grades somewhere in the VF 30 to XF 40 range. Coin World values (retail) currently list an 1892-O Morgan dollar at $50 in VF 20 and $55 in XF 40. It would cost you nearly that much to submit it to NGC, even as an "economy" submission. Why would you do this? You should have gained substantial knowledge about the grading and evaluation of coins before you attempt to submit coins yourself. Have you obtained a current "Redbook", a grading guide, and a monthly publication with coin prices?

That's simply the way the new reverse was designed! The "U" in United is supposed to be a capital "U" and doesn't have a leg on the vast majority of U.S. coins. The "Type 1" Silver Eagles dated from 1986-2007 don't have a leg on the "U" either, as well as a minority of 2008-W burnished uncirculated pieces that were minted with the old reverse by mistake. The leg on the "U" on pieces from 2008-2021 was a stylistic change made when the master dies were replaced in 2008. There were other minor changes made to details of both the obverse and reverse at that time.

While it is possible that a coin can have both strike and die doubling, the secondary image above the "T" is in much lower relief than the primary image and appears to be strike doubling. I assume that your reference to "variety 1942-016" is to an old Fivaz-Stanton ("FS") number, but I see no such number listed for 1942 under VarietyPlus (so NGC probably wouldn't attribute it) or my Fourth Edition of the Cherrypickers' Guide, which lists both old and new numbers. I assume that newer editions of the Cherrypickers' Guide wouldn't list new varieties with old numbers. From what reference is this variety? If you remain convinced that this is a doubled die, it's a very minor one that probably wouldn't be worth much of a premium. If you still want to have it certified, you may want to try ANACS (www.anacs.com), which more comprehensively attributes die varieties and doesn't require a paid membership for submissions.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. I wouldn't submit any coin to a grading service without having a good idea that it is of sufficient value to justify the substantial cost involved. Your coin appears to be a Spanish colonial (Latin American) piece dated 1711, but there are many worthless modern replicas (fakes) of them. I believe this one is likely such a replica based upon its rough surface and weak detail. You might want to re-post your inquiry under the "U.S., World, and Ancient Coins" forum to see if a member with more knowledge about these coins could give you another opinion.

As NGC isn't offering opinions on coins without them being submitted, you should post inquiries of this sort on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" or "U.S., World and Ancient Coins" forum. Based on your photos, your coin appears to exhibit "strike doubling", which results from a die being slightly loose in the press when the coin is struck, as opposed to "die doubling", which results from the die being produced from a "hub" (die-making die) that was shifted in position between blows, resulting in doubling on all coins struck from that die. In strike doubling the lighter secondary images are shallower than the primary image ("step-like"), as it is on your coin. On a coin struck from a doubled die, the two images are about equally deep and sharp. Unfortunately, coins with strike doubling aren't actively sought by most collectors and usually don't have much value over coins with no doubling. NGC VarietyPlus shows two 1942 DDO varieties, neither of which resembles your coin. See Washington Quarters (1932-1998) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). I understand that NGC generally won't attribute a variety that isn't listed on VarietyPlus. I wouldn't submit this coin, as you would have to pay the grading ($23 or more), attribution ($18) and processing ($10 per order) fees, as well as shipping and insurance costs, and almost certainly receive it back from NGC graded as a regular 1942 quarter.

Your 1999-P Roosevelt dime appears to be absolutely normal and worth face value. Any "toning" (really oxidation or tarnish), which I don't see, wouldn't add any value to a coin like this. I don't know what you mean by "strike marks" and can see nothing unusual about the reverse letters. I don't want to go off-topic, but I understand that these coins are mostly from dealers' bulk submissions of entire rolls or even bags of common mint state coins or large groups of proof coins, for which they receive (or used to receive) discounts that bring the cost down to as little as $7 per coin. The dealers hope to get back enough coins in very high grades like MS 67-68 or PF 70 so that they can make a profit from the whole submission. They sell the lower grading pieces for much less, some below per-piece cost. I've bought such slabbed coins for as little as $5 to fill registry set slots. One dealer told me that he had usually been on the losing side of such transactions, as where his rolls of BU 1940s Lincoln cents mostly graded MS 64 RD.

Grading services are normally for coins worth at least several hundred dollars each! Less valuable coins can be enjoyed in albums and hard plastic coin holders, or, for government issued sets, in their original packaging. Unless you have sufficient knowledge to determine which, if any, of your coins are likely to have such values, you will likely spend more in grading and processing fees and shipping costs than the coins are worth! This is why you should acquire and study the resources referred to in the "Resources for New Collectors" topic to which I previously provided a link.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Your 1986 Lincoln cent has a weak "6" and weak lettering on the reverse due to a weak strike and, regarding the "6", possibly that numeral on the die being partly filled with dirt or grease. Either of these causes would be regarded by collectors as poor quality control rather than as a mint error and do not add value to the coin. (It may also have heat or other damage.) Based on your photo, the marks beneath the eagle's head on your Sacagawea dollar are nicks or "digs" (damage) and also add no value to the coin. Both coins are only worth face value. There is a great deal of misinformation being spread on the internet that valuable mint errors or other valuable coins can be found in circulation, which is in reality highly unlikely. For some legitimate sites regarding mint errors and die varieties, see www.error-ref.com, www.doubleddie.com, and www.varietyvista.com. For more basic information to learn about U.S. coins and how to collect them, see the following topic on this forum:

Based on your photo this coin has Choice AU or possibly uncirculated details but definitely shows evidence of hairline scratches and glossiness that are indicative of "cleaning". You may wish to post additional photos of the coin taken from different lighting angles to give us a better idea of the nature and the extent of its impairment. You may also want to look at the examples of "cleaned" coins and comments in my custom registry set "Characteristics of 'Cleaned' Coins" at Characteristics of "Cleaned" Coins - Custom Set (collectors-society.com). In my opinion, the more attractive specimens of such coins are worth collecting, provided that the purchaser understands the impairment and receives an appropriate discount.

I suppose they might not sell as many if they labeled these coins "FIRST FEW MILLION STRIKES"!

I'm sure you'll soon have lots and lots of company, if not on your block, then among collectors of modern coins. It's interesting to note that the 2023s have a round top "3", whereas Silver Eagles of 1993, 2003, and 2013 all have flat top "3"s.

As explained in my response to your other post of today about this coin, its weight and appearance are absolutely correct for a normal 1976 Lincoln cent. Why do you contend that it is of an "aluminum alloy"?

A 1976 Lincoln cent is supposed to be composed of 95% copper and 5% zinc (the alloy known as brass), with a statutory weight of 3.11 grams, which is exactly what you state yours weighs. Based on your photo its appearance is brown with traces of remaining mint "red", which is an expected appearance for a lightly circulated cent of this era. A coin containing aluminum would have a lower weight. Your coin is simply a normal 1976 Lincoln cent, one of 4,674,292,426 reported to have been minted.

On the topic of Liberty Head double eagles, did you know that-- 1. The original obverse hub used to make dies for all coins dated from 1850 through 1858 had the "I" in "LIBERTY" corrected from a second "L". The foot of the erroneous second "L" wasn't completely removed and can be seen on all coins of these dates. 2. Each of the reverses for the Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3 double eagles is distinctly different from the others in a number of respects apart from the motto "In God We Trust" being added to the Type 2 design and "Twenty D." being changed to "Twenty Dollars" for the Type 3 design. The relatively simple straight sided shield on the Type 1 was changed on the Type 2 to a more ornate shield similar to that on the Shield nickel. There were a number of other changes to the ornamentation of the eagle, and the eagle was enlarged, necessitating the use of smaller mint marks. The reverse was again redesigned on the Type 3 to feature a substantial enlargement of the words "E PLURIIBUS UNUM" on the scroll on each side of the eagle and the repositioning of some design elements. There were additional, though relatively minor changes to the reverse design in 1900, most notably that the feather protruding from the back of the eagle's neck was removed, causing the neck to appear smooth. 3. The Liberty head on the obverse of these coins is essentially a greatly enlarged version of that on the Type 1 gold dollar that was coined from 1849 to 1854. This head was redesigned for the Type 3 coins. In addition to the head being repositioned in relation to the stars, Liberty's hair is much more finely engraved. (The Type 3 designs for both sides were engraved by William Barber, as James B. Longacre, the original designer, had died, as I recall, in 1869. Longacre's initials "J.B.L." appear on the truncation of Liberty's bust on all three types.) If you are fortunate enough to own examples of all three types of these coins, take the time to really look at them! Nowadays they seem to be valued more for their gold content than their numismatic attributes.

It appears that the coin is lying on your fingers, not being held between them. I apologize for misinterpreting the photos. I don't know how much experience you have as a collector. Most of the newer members of the forum are also new collectors, so I endeavor to educate them about the basics. I hope that my over 50 years of experience as a collector qualifies me to do this. As I see it, the 1846 (a rare date worth certifying in any grade) that you show for comparison has more detail on the breast and knee than your 1854 and is reasonably graded VF 30. (PCGS may have deducted a few points for the darkness of the coin.) Respectfully, I can't see how your 1854 could possibly merit any AU grade. (Will the most recent (7th) edition of The Official American Numismatic Association Grading Standards for United States Coins, which I consulted as well as PCGS Photograde, also "rot my mind"?) It's your $23 grading fee, $10 processing fee, and shipping and insurance costs if you're convinced otherwise! In the future, you might want to post inquiries like this under either the "U.S., Foreign, and Ancient Coins" or "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forums, where they may get more responses. The "NGC Registry" forum is for questions about the Registry.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Based on your photo, which is somewhat out of focus, someone appears to have begun to drill a hole in the coin. Note the metal piled up around the depression. It bears no resemblance to the longer, narrower, and thinner "D" mint mark used on 2020 Lincoln cents.

In my opinion, your 1854 half dime would grade no better than XF 40. (My grade after reviewing the ANA grading guide and PCGS Photograde would be VF 30.) Note the areas of flatness on Liberty's breast and knee and the shield on the obverse and the leaves on the reverse, as well as the lack of luster. The coin also has light damage and has possibly been cleaned, either of which could preclude a grading service numerical grade. Please check your own grading guide or, if you don't yet have one, PCGS Photograde (www.pcgs.com/photograde). You should never hold any collectible coin with your bare hands, except, if you must, by the edge. The oils from your fingers will gradually degrade the coin.

So that this thread doesn't arguably end off topic, here is a link to a page on PCGS Coinfacts with a photo of and discussion about the unique 1851 dated Proof "Restrike" Seated dollar with a faint "O" mint mark. It looks nothing like the original poster's "coin". 1851 $1 Restrike Over O Mint (Proof) Liberty Seated Dollar - PCGS CoinFacts

None of these coins is likely to be worth anywhere near the $200 or so that, in my opinion, would make it worthwhile to submit them to any grading service, even at the "Modern" category rate.

Go to the NGC home page (ngccoin.com) and put your cursor on the "Submit" tab. Review the first three topics, "How to Submit", "Coins We Grade & Policies", and "Services & Fees". Grading services are really for coins worth at least several hundred dollars each! Less valuable coins can be enjoyed in albums and hard plastic coin holders, or, for government issued sets, in their original packaging. Unless you have sufficient knowledge to determine which, if any, of your coins are likely to have such values, you will likely spend more in grading and processing fees and shipping costs than the coins are worth! If you want to make this determination, I strongly recommend that you acquire and study the print and online resources in my "Resources for New Collectors" topic to which @EagleRJOhas already provided a link.