Sandon

@USAuPzlBxBob--I assume you meant "1876" in both cases where you typed "1776". Prior to about 1992 mint marks were punched by hand into each set of dies that were to be shipped from the Philadelphia mint, where dies for all mints were then prepared, to the branch mints. Different punches were often in use during the same year, and the branch mints sometimes used reverse dies received in previous years. It is quite common, therefore, for different coins with the same date to be known with mint marks of two or more sizes, shapes or styles, and in different positions. Researchers for a number of coin series have documented the known sizes, styles, and positions of mint marks to identify many of the branch mint die varieties of those series. Larger denomination gold coins tend to be the exception due to the high cost of attempting to collect them by die variety. Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins (1987), at p.568, lists the 1876-CC double eagle as being known with both a "Close CC" (presumably like yours) and a "Wide CC", with a "doubled rev[erse] die" that had already been used on coins dated 1875, which Breen commented (not necessarily correctly) was "rare". It is possible that there are additional varieties. You may want to look at photos of 1876-CC double eagles in PCGS Coinfacts and in online auction archives to see if you can find a reverse with a mint mark that matches your coin.

@RWB--I view the terms "replica" and "fantasy piece" to mean something of a lower order than a counterfeit. A counterfeit, to me, is a coin or note that is intended to deceive collectors or to pass as money. The most common Liberty Seated dollar issues now retail for at least $300 in slick "Good" condition. Anyone who collects coins as valuable as Liberty Seated dollars are in all grades needs to be aware of what date and mint combinations actually exist, as well as have some idea what they're supposed to look like. It's not hard to acquire a "Redbook" or current price guide to do the former or to find photos in books or online resources to do the latter. Anyone who paid a lot of money for the originally posted item would get what he deserved. I would be more concerned about the more deceptive pieces that are coming out of Asia--or wherever--that are modeled from genuine coins or their images and have been mistaken by even relatively experienced collectors for genuine coins.

I assume that you know how to find proof coins in the NGC Price Guide, which (in case you don't) is found by going to "Price Guides" under the "Resources" tab and then going to "U.S. Coin Price Guide" and then to the correct series and choosing "PF" at the "MS/PF" selector at the top right of the series page. There is no price listed for a 1952 cent in PF 69 RD, presumably because it is rare in that grade (11 graded by NGC and none higher), and there is no recent publicly recorded transaction. It's not listed in the PCGS Price Guide in that grade either. I note that a PF 69 NGC cent is currently being offered at a Great Collections auction. The "sky is the limit" on such pieces for some high rollers at these sales. It's not my "cup of tea". Whatever price it realizes will be recorded and may provide a basis for a price.

I assume that you know that you could have purchased complete 1985 and 1991 proof sets in their original government packaging, likely with coins of "69" quality for far less money than this. Each of these proof sets lists for $5-$6 in this month's Coin World "Coin Values". I suppose it's worth it if you must have these in certified holders, but I've seen slabbed modern proof coins in dealers' bargain boxes for as little as $5 each.

Your "coin" is a crude replica or "fantasy piece" of an "1851-O" Seated dollar, which doesn't really exist. It is likely of recent Chinese origin. It differs markedly in appearance (grainy and "off" color) and in fine design details from either an "original" (high date) or "restrike" proof (centered date) 1851 Seated dollar, either of which is quite rare, or for that matter from any genuine Liberty Seated dollar. As I recall, one of the restrikes appears to have been struck over a previously struck 1859-O or 1860-O Seated dollar, with a trace of the "O" mint mark visible from the previously struck coin, not a bold "O" like this! (All of the restrikes were apparently made at the Philadelphia mint, perhaps as late as the 1870s.) In the future, you may wish to compare pieces like this to photos of genuine pieces on the NGC Coin Explorer (from NGC home page, under the "Resources" tab) or PCGS Coinfacts (www.pcgscoinfacts.com). Here is the NGC Coin Explorer's photo of an 1851 "original". Photos of the proof restrike can be found on "Coinfacts".

NGC MS 65RD:

I wouldn't! The PCGS Price Guide has very high retail prices. You would probably have to sell it for a much lower price. Not many collectors seek minor doubled dies, and some of those who do prefer them uncirculated, so I doubt a dealer would pay more than half the list price for it, probably less. It would be unlikely to realize the retail price at auction before commissions. (I assume that you're including the variety attribution fee ($18 at NGC) in your calculation of the grading cost.) If you don't intend to sell it right away and have attributed it yourself, why pay a grading service to do what you had the numismatic skills to do yourself? If you have a Lincoln cent album, it will nicely fill the 1972 DD opening, as one would generally have the "Redbook" variety (FS-101) certified. That's what I did with an AU FS-102 that I bought for $15 in 2012.

From what I can see on NGC VarietyPlus, your coin does appear to resemble the FS-104. Does it have the reverse die scratches running from the "N" of "UNITED" as shown in the photo below?

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Your coin is definitely not the rare 1969-S doubled die obverse cent. Note the crisp, clear doubling on the date in this photo from NGC VarietyPlus, while the mint mark, which was separately punched int the die, is not so doubled. "IN GOD WE TRUST" and "LIBERTY" show similar crisp doubling on the doubled die.

Unfortunately, there isn't enough room for an adequate description of most coins, impaired or not, on a grading service label, which I prefer to call a little paper tag. A coin that has been "cleaned" may have been mistreated with any of a number of abrasives and/or chemicals applied in a wide range of intensities, which result in a wide range of appearances ranging from rather attractive to absolutely hideous. Perhaps there is room on the tag for the words "lightly", "moderately", or "harshly"--the latter is sometimes already used--to measure the undesirability of the "cleaning", which would be subjective but hopefully at least somewhat helpful. Another term needing clarification is "altered surface". Both NGC and PCGS use this term, but NGC will not grade or encapsulate a coin said to have an "altered surface", while PCGS will encapsulate such a coin with a details grade. NGC has defined an "altered surface" as follows: "ALTERED SURFACE - The coin's surfaces have been extensively manipulated. For example, a Proof coin that has been altered to appear to be a Mint State coin, or vice versa. This alteration can often make authentication impossible." I have seen coins with a variety of appearances described as having an "altered surface", and other coins with similar appearances encapsulated with details grades and described as "cleaned", "burnished", "buffed", "polished"--which can make a circulation strike coin superficially look like a proof--or "tooled". Obviously, anything done to change the appearance of a coin alters its surface! If the grading service can't decide whether or not the coin is genuine, it should return the coin with a refund under the "no service" category. There should at least be an explanation as to how the surface was "altered".

While this sounds like it could be a "brockage", which results from a struck coin adhering to the reverse die and creating spread out incuse reverse images on subsequently struck coins, I don't know how it could be "steel", as no steel planchets had been produced since 1943. It's likely a fake. Can you get pictures? It is my understanding that most major striking errors that weren't clandestinely produced by mint employees are found in mint bags. In over fifty years of searching through my change and my relatives' change, the only significant errors I've found are a blank cent planchet and a couple of broadstruck quarters. However, a collector I know received a few years ago at a supermarket an uncirculated Lincoln cent that had been overstruck with Jefferson nickel dies! It has been certified by NGC.

It can be very difficult to grade coins from any photos, and yours really aren't clear enough to get a good impression of the coin's surfaces. It appears to have at least Extremely Fine and probably About Uncirculated details but appears to have been abrasively and/or chemically "cleaned" as was all too common years ago and reduces its value. You may want to compare your coin to the high-resolution photos in PCGS Photograde (www.pcgs.com/photograde) for a better determination of at least its "details" grade. (Unfortunately, NGC has no equivalent resource.) 1878-S Morgan dollars all feature the "Reverse of 1878", which, unlike most coins from 1879 on and all after 1880, have a concave instead of convex eagle's breast and a parallel top arrow feather instead of one that points upward. The concave breast in particular makes grading them a little different.

A proof coin of this era has fields with a mirror surface and a strong strike like the 1977-S proof dime shown below. It may also, like this one, have frosted devices producing a "cameo" effect. (Proofs from 1978 are almost always "cameos".) These proofs were issued in sets (cent through dollar) sealed in plastic cases. A proof that had been taken from a sealed proof set and spent would probably be indistinguishable from a circulation strike once as worn as your coin. Notwithstanding what you may have heard on the internet, it's almost impossible to find valuable coins in circulation! If you're interested in becoming a coin collector, we can direct you to legitimate sources of information.

ANACS charges substantially less than NGC or PCGS to grade coins and doesn't require a paid membership to submit coins for grading. The tradeoff is that the ANACS website (www.anacs.com) doesn't include a registry or a chat board, nor does it contain price guides or such educational resources as the NGC Coin Explorer or PCGS Coinfacts. Obviously, it is quite expensive to provide such unpaid services to the public, and the provision of such services is only worthwhile if it creates an adequate number of additional submissions to defray the cost. It is unusual for a business to promote a competitor's products. We are fortunate that NGC allows PCGS graded coins on its registry, albeit only U.S. coins and with some limitations. ANACS does have a certificate verification service, which you can access by clicking the "Verify" tab at the top of the home page. (There is also a population report which you can access by registering for a free membership and obtaining a password.) I would advise @BeardBoy61 to keep a record of his ANACS coins, including the serial numbers on the holders, which enable use of the certificate verification function and can confirm his description of these coins. Such records can be handwritten, produced on a computer spreadsheet or word processing program. Commercial coin record software also exists, such as "Coin Collector's Assistant", which I noticed is currently available at Amos Advantage - Coin Collector's Assistant. (I have never used such software and don't know how well it works.)

As one would expect, the coin from China is definitely fake. All genuine 1794 silver dollars were struck from a single pair of dies. Note how the positions and shapes of the stars and letters on the Chinese coin differ from those on the genuine coin in @RWB's photos. There are many other differences, one of which is that the eagle's eye on the fake is concave and ill-defined, whereas on the genuine coin it is a convex and clear round dot. Unfortunately, this fake could still be deceptive to the ill-informed who wouldn't bother to compare it with photos of genuine examples. Because these coins are so rare, the counterfeiter couldn't get a genuine coin from which to make an impression. Chinese counterfeits of later series such as Morgan dollars may not have immediately obvious differences from genuine pieces and can be more deceptive.

Here is a proof 1939 "Mercury" dime, which I purchased uncertified some years ago, and which NGC graded PF 67 last year:

I have NGC Registry Sets primarily as a source of education for other collectors. I post photos of the coins and educational comments and anecdotes about them. Although I wasn't much interested in the point competition, I just won "Best in Category" awards for five different sets, including three early "mint sets", circulated early dimes and a New Orleans type set. Each of these sets includes circulated and/or details graded coins! One can do well in numismatics without getting into the prevailing "condition rarity" insanity.

In my experience this means that the coin wasn't graded, though the NGC certificate verification entry says why, such as "Altered Surface."

This thread epitomizes much of what I view as wrong with coin collecting today. Instead of collecting coins, one collects little paper tags with numbers on them! A 1952-D Washington-Carver half dollar per the NGC Price Guide lists $145 in MS 65 and $225 in MS 65+. (Q. David Bowers would call these the "optimal collecting grades".) The list price shoots up to $1,700 in MS 66 and $2,350 in MS 66+, simply because fewer specimens have been given these numbers, not because there is anything significantly different in the appearance of coins in these grades. I see clear evidence of bag marks and other abrasions on the coin purchased by @LDH Coins & Memorabilia, which was evidently purchased without in-person inspection. There is nothing so unusually nice looking about it as to warrant such a high price. (The photos of the PCGS graded coins aren't clear enough to get a good impression of the surfaces.) In my experience, there is often little difference between coins graded 65, 66, and even 66+, and the same coin when submitted multiple times can go up or down within this grade range. Why not settle for a nice, handpicked, MS 65 or 65+ that you find to your liking and have a lot of money left over to buy other coins? I would value a 1952-D Washington-Carver half dollar for its low, though still mostly existing mintage of 8,000, not for the difference of a point or two on that little paper tag.

The photo likely depicts genuine coins in genuine NGC holders. That's almost certainly not what you will receive for your money, if you receive anything at all!

The Maryland State Numismatic Association (MSNA) published a tribute to Bryce Doxzon in its Autumn, 2021 issue. I am posting it with the permission of its author, MSNA president Ed Craig:

I had known Bryce for several decades, although I couldn't say we were close friends. Bryce's specialty was medals, especially U.S. presidential inaugural medals, of which he had a substantial collection, though to his chagrin lacking the very rare Harding and Coolidge inaugural medals. He displayed some of his medals at coin club meetings and gave several coin club programs, including one based on his A.N.A. convention exhibit entitled "They Also Ran", which featured presidential campaign medals featuring the losing candidates. Bryce also collected U.S. coins. He once cherrypicked three nice BU 1934 doubled die obverse quarters (yes, the FS-101 "Redbook" variety) unattributed from a dealer's inventory! Shortly before the pandemic, he showed my coin club a pristine 1949 mint set in its original cardboard packaging, which his father had purchased from the mint in the year of issue. I last saw Bryce at a local coin show in July 2021. He looked very frail and was using a cane. I hadn't known that he was ill and was dismayed when he informed me that he had ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease). His condition deteriorated rapidly, and I was informed last summer that he was in hospice care. I am posting below a tribute to Bryce that the Maryland State Numismatic Association, of which he was secretary for many years, gave in its Autumn, 2021 newsletter.

It's most likely damage that removed the copper plating, and the underlying zinc that had been exposed then corroded. It could also be plating bubbles that contained gasses that caused both the copper plating and the zinc to corrode. There's no way to tell. In either case, the coin would be highly undesirable to me as a collector. I wouldn't hesitate to spend it!

This is an 1808 U.S. quarter eagle ($2.50 gold piece), an extremely valuable one-year type coin. Only 2,710 were issued. I think the coin in your photo is the finest known, graded MS 65 by PCGS, which sold for $2,350,000 at the auction of the D. Brent Pogue Collection in 2015. I assume it isn't yours!

Per the deluxe edition of the "Redbook", a.k.a. "Mega Red", legitimate privately issued California Small Denomination gold pieces are denominated with the words "CENTS", "DOL.", "DOLL." or "DOLLAR". (7th. ed. at 1351-52.) Non-denominated pieces such as the one posted by @Mike Meenderink are regarded as tokens and are much less valuable. The piece also does not appear to be solid gold but to be some other metal that was plated or painted with something gold colored.