Sandon

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Morgan dollars are dated from 1878 to 1904 and 1921, not including the new mint collectors' reproductions dated 2021. I don't know where you got the idea that they go back to 1850. As others have stated, your 1921-D has insufficient value to make it worthwhile for certification by a third-party grading service such as NGC. Before you even think about submitting coins to grading services, you need to learn how to grade and otherwise evaluate coins yourself. If you are interested in becoming a collector, you do this by learning about coins, such as by referring to the print and online resources referred to in the following topics: You would also benefit from attending coins shows and coin club meetings where you can examine coins you want to collect and speak to experienced collectors and dealers. You could also get opinions from them on the coins that you inherited. I don't know where you live in Alaska, but I know that there is an Anchorage Coin Club.

@powermad5000--No. The 1955 "Bugs Bunny" clashed die variety half dollar isn't what I meant by an "earlier U.S. coin" and isn't listed in the standard "Redbook". To cite one of probably hundreds of examples, the standard "Redbook" lists 1803 large cents as follows: 1803, Small Date, Small Fraction 1803, Small Date, Large Fraction 1803, Large Date, Small Fraction 1803 Large Date, Large Fraction 1803, 1/100 over 1/000 1803, Stemless Wreath All of these varieties, some of which comprise multiple Sheldon die varieties, are readily discernible to the naked eye and by a glance at the photos in the "Redbook". Although NGC will attribute the last two varieties without the payment of an attribution fee, one must pay the $18 attribution fee to obtain an attribution for any of the first four, which must also include the exact Sheldon die variety. Otherwise, an 1803 large cent with any of the large or small date and fraction combinations will be simplistically labeled as just an "1803". To see which varieties require payment of the fee, see the "VarietyPlus" listings under the "Resources" tab on the NGC home page.

1799 Draped Bust silver dollar, now NGC graded VF 30, one of my better coins:

Over the years NGC has repeatedly raised the grading fee for the various tiers, which may be justifiable due to inflation, but has kept the tier coin values fixed even though the same inflation affects coin prices. This results in many coins that used to be eligible for one tier now having to be submitted at the next higher tier at a substantially higher grading fee. While @johnScott6442's proposal has some merit, it would be simpler if NGC would raise the upper coin value limit of the "Economy" tier to at least $500 and the upper limit of the "Standard" tier to at least $5,000. A related issue is NGC's requiring of the payment of the now $18 "VarietyPlus" fee to attribute naked eye, well known "Redbook" varieties of earlier U.S. coins instead of just identifying the coin by date and any mintmark. It is my understanding that PCGS does not charge an attribution fee for many of these varieties.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. You can answer this question yourself if you care to take the time. Just go to the NGC Census to which you were provided a link (or go to the Census through the "Resources" tab on the home page) and look through the various earlier issues of copper coins that have "RD" designations. If you're including non-U.S. and Colonial coins in this, it may take a while, but since you deem knowing this important, it should be worth it to you. Bear in mind that the oldest copper coin with the "RD" designation may no longer be in an NGC holder, and/or it may no longer have sufficient original color to still be eligible for the "RD" designation. My oldest NGC graded coin with the "RD" designation is a 1930 Lincoln cent graded MS 64 RD, but there are much older pieces with the designation than that.

1878 copper-nickel three cent piece, NGC graded PF 66:

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Your photos of a computer screen are too blurry as well as too magnified for me to venture any opinion on this coin. The digital microscope that you apparently are using, combined with the photo editing software on your computer, should be capable of producing clearer, cropped images of each side of the entire coin as well as better "close-ups" of whatever anomaly you think exists. You may wish to refer to the following forum topics for further additional information:

"And now for something completely different!" An 1884 copper-nickel three cent piece, PCGS graded PR 64: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

I'm pretty sure that this is a counterfeit. It appears to be in AU condition and should weigh approximately its official weight of 26.73 grams. The legal tolerance was only 0.097 gram. Even if the weight were correct or I didn't know the weight, I'd still say that it is counterfeit for any or all of the following reasons: 1. The detail on the devices and much of the lettering is indistinct or shallow, not clear and crisp. 2. There appears to be extra metal beneath Liberty's eye. 3. The reeding on the edge of the coin appears more worn than it should be for a coin in AU condition. 4. The luster doesn't look like that on a San Francisco (or any other) Morgan dollar of this era. 5. Apart from the one big nick on Liberty's chin, the coin doesn't have significant marks or abrasions typical of coins that were long stored in bags. The 1895-S Morgan dollar tends to be heavily bagmarked. 6. The numerals in the date, especially the "5", don't look right. Here is what the date on my 1895-S Morgan dollar looks like, with the date on my 1895-O being quite similar, including the thin line between the ball and upright on the left side of the "5": To make informed judgments about the authenticity of coins, you need to know what the genuine ones look like!

Here is what the famous 1955 doubled die obverse cent looks like. (NGC Coin Explorer photo.) Note the crisp, clear doubled images that are about on the same level, not faint ghostly images as on your coin (die deterioration doubling) or shallow, shelf-like images as on strike doubling, a.k.a. machine or mechanical doubling:

1936 Norfolk, Virginia commemorative half dollar, purchased uncertified in 2015 and just graded MS 66 by NGC:

Yes. It's a popular, though not rare, "Top 100" variety.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. The only difference between the regular and "premier" silver proof sets issued from 1992 through 1998 is that the "premier" silver proof sets were issued in fancier packaging. The coins in the sets (cent and nickel in regular composition, dime, quarter and half dollar in 90% silver as in pre-1965 coinage) are exactly the same.

1879 Liberty Seated dime, NGC graded MS 63, old holder:

I wouldn't buy such a pre-packaged set because the odds are that at least some of them will be overgraded or unattractive for the grade. There's nothing wrong with collecting uncertified coins, especially those whose value is too low to make them worth certifying, provided that you have sufficient knowledge and experience to form a reasonable opinion as to their authenticity and grade. It also helps to buy them on a sight-seen basis from reputable dealers. While I mail-ordered individual coins decades ago, I wouldn't do it now. Even back then I sometimes received pieces that were consistent with the dealer's description, but I just didn't like them. If you want to collect uncertified Morgan dollars, notwithstanding their being grossly overpriced nowadays, you should buy them at coin shows or similar venues and select those that are to your taste. You can also buy your own Dansco, Whitman or other albums, although I do not recommend albums for silver dollars or other large, thick coins due to the propensity of such albums to cause devaluing "slide marks" on the high points of the coins. I keep most of my uncertified silver dollars in 2x2 inch hard plastic "snaptite" holders or other hard plastic holders.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Please post clear, cropped photos of each entire side of a coin about which you have a question, as well as any pertinent closeups. While the photos you have posted are somewhat fuzzy, it is clear that the faint, shallow secondary image of some of the lettering is common "shelf-like" strike doubling, a.k.a. machine or mechanical doubling, not die doubling. Die doubling creates a much crisper, clearer and less shallow secondary image, with "notching" between the junctions of the primary and secondary images, of which the "Redbook" variety 1972 doubled die obverse cent is a good example: While more minor doubled dies may have a narrower "spread" between the two images and involve doubling on fewer letters, numbers or other design features, they are always clearer, crisper and less shallow than the faint secondary image on your coin. Additionally, please note that in recent years the mint has used a "single squeeze" method to manufacture dies, which has greatly reduced the incidence of doubled dies, especially significant ones.

This is another (and good) example of strike doubling. Although there is a wide "spread," it is faint and much shallower than the primary image. (I typed but forgot to post this response before.)

Sorry, but this appears to be just more shallow, shelf-like strike doubling. If you've learned anything through this exercise, it should be that for every coin featuring a doubled die, even a minor one, there are hundreds, if not thousands of coins featuring worthless forms of doubling!

This is just another example of shallow, shelf-like strike doubling. It's certainly no match to the 1967 DDR FS-801 on VarietyPlus, which is a good example of what reverse die doubling on this series should look like.

This looks like strike doubling to me and doesn't appear to match any of the three 1966 DDO varieties on VarietyPlus. I suggest that you try to match it to one of those varieties or any others on doubleddie.com. If you think it is a match, add photos of the same areas shown on the VarietyPlus or doubledie.com photos.

This is just more strike doubling. It's very common! There is no 1966 doubled die reverse variety listed either on VarietyPlus or doubleddie.com, and although there might be some minor ones still out there to be discovered, it's unlikely. You might want to study the pertinent pages on doubleddie.com, including the ones describing and illustrating various doubled dies and comparing them to worthless forms of doubling, before posting more coins here.

This is another example of common shelf-like strike doubling.

The faint shallow secondary image on the reverse of this 1965 Kennedy half dollar is clearly not from a doubled (not "double") die! Die doubling creates a much crisper, clearer and less shallow secondary image, with "notching" between the junctions of the primary and secondary images as on the 1965 DDR FS-802 to which I assume you are comparing it, which I would classify as a relatively minor example of a doubled die. Your coin appears to have common strike a.k.a. machine or mechanical doubling from the reverse die being slightly loose in the press.

1882 Shield nickel, PCGS graded MS 64: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

There is no large cent subtype referred to as the "Head of 1837." Using the Redbook's nomenclature, the two obverse subtypes used in 1837 are (1) the "Head of 1836" a.k.a. "Plain [Hair] Cord" that was first introduced at some point in 1835 to replace the original Matron Head design that went back to 1816 and (2) the "Head of 1838" a.k.a. "Beaded [Hair] Cord" that was introduced at some point in 1837. The "Head of 1836" was used on some cents dated 1835, all dated 1836, many dated 1837, and the scarce 1839 over 6 (N1). The "Head of 1838" was also used on many 1837 dated cents, all dated 1838, and some 1839s. (Two additional subtypes, the "Booby Head" and the "Silly Head" were also used only in 1839, and the first "Braided Hair" type style was also introduced in 1839.) Collectively, all of the 1835-39 subtypes except for the 1835s with the original Matron Head and the 1839 Braided Hair, are referred to as the "Modified Matron Heads" or "Young Heads". None of these subtypes is rare, although some specific Newcomb die varieties collected by specialists are. The 1837 with Head of 1836 is somewhat scarcer with a small letters reverse than with a medium letters reverse as on mine.