Sandon

I just examined the Ozark Riverways quarters in my 2017 U.S. Mint Uncirculated Coin Set, a.k.a. mint set. Both the "P" and "D" mint coins in the set show the same depression (which the other members may have interpreted as a raised area indicating a die chip) that @LisaH believes looks like a snake in the tree. It is apparently intended to show a separation between the leaves on two different branches. It is not a mint error or irregularity of any sort such as a die chip but part of the design of the coin! Presumably, it is found on all pieces of this issue from all mints. Sorry, but as a circulated specimen of this issue (203 million minted at Philadelphia alone) it is only worth face value. With the mint having issued quarters with multiple reverse designs every year since 1999, it is hard to keep track of the intricacies of the details of each design. It is advisable to compare different coins of each design before interpreting some feature of a particular coin as an error.

This is exactly the type of "toning" that was called "tarnish" when I began collecting in the 1970s. It was (and for me still is) considered to be ugly and is the reason why so many silver coins have been "cleaned" or dipped. Even now, it's the colorful toning that is usually thought to be desirable.

Welcome to the NGC chat boards! This forum is for questions pertaining to the NGC Registry. In the future, please post inquiries of this sort under the forum entitled "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions", where they may receive better attention. (The administrator will likely move this one there.) Your coin is an 1870 Shield nickel. Shield nickels, which are dated from 1866 to 1883, are the first copper-nickel five cent coin (popularly called "nickels") and replaced silver half dimes, which were last minted in 1873. Shield nickels are the same weight (6.25 grams) and composition (75% copper, 25% nickel) as those still issued today but are slightly smaller in diameter and thicker than nickels issued since the Liberty head design began later in in 1883. Pieces dated 1866 and a minority of those dated 1867 have a different reverse with rays between the stars. The 1870 had a reported mintage of 4,806,000 pieces. It is a common though slightly better date. Your coin would likely grade somewhere between Choice About Uncirculated (AU 55-58) to the lower end of Uncirculated (MS 60-62). It may have been lightly "cleaned", which would reduce its market value. I cannot give a better opinion from photos, as I would need to examine the actual coin from different angles and magnifications. (The coin appears to be genuine, but be advised that numerous counterfeits of most series have been coming from China in recent years.) If genuine and uncleaned, your coin has a current retail value in the NGC Price Guide of $185 in AU 55 and $325 in MS 62. (You can find this guide under the "Resources" tab on the NGC home page.) Other current guides have similar pricing. Wholesale (dealer buy prices) would be 25-50% lower. I've given you a detailed explanation to give you some idea of the amount of knowledge you will need to succeed as a collector. We have an expression, "Buy the book before the coin", which nowadays includes online resources. Please see my following topic for an overview of recommended resources for new collectors:

As previously pointed out, proof coins regardless of grade are supposed to be designated as proofs (PF or PR), not as mint state (MS). The grading of any coins is subjective and dependent on a variety of factors. Different professional graders may grade a coin differently. Even the same grader may grade a coin differently at different times! Therefore, no coin has an inherent, pre-existing grade imparted by the mint as you seem to imply. This being said, modern proof coins are supposed to be--and usually are--carefully made, handled, and packaged, and will usually be professionally graded at the higher end of the scale. U.S. proof coins made since the late 1970s have mostly been graded by the grading services between PF 68 and PF 70, with PF 69 being the most common grade and PF 70 being the second most common. Coins that have developed spots or unattractive toning or were nicked or scratched at the mint or were removed from the mint packaging and mishandled before being submitted will, of course, be graded lower. In my opinion, modern proof coins and other modern collectors' issues are best enjoyed in their mint packaging and are not worth submitting to grading services as they are common even when graded "70", and the differences among pieces graded 68, 69, and 70 are hardly noticeable.

The first "4" on your very common circulated 1944 cent has been disfigured by one of the numerous nicks (post-mint damage) on the coin. This is exactly the opposite of what coin collectors want. It is worth at most a few cents and generally unsalable. Do not submit it to a grading service, as this would cost over $40 in grading, processing and shipping costs and be returned details graded and noted as damaged.

Taxay's book was well-known and highly regarded, at least at one time. I frequently saw references to it by other authors. I think I borrowed a copy from a library and read it in the mid or late 1970s.

1. Yes. 2. Yes, but because they are circulation quality and did not receive any special handling, it's unlikely that any would grade higher than MS 65 or 66, and many probably wouldn't grade higher than MS 64. Coins made and distributed without special handling and separate packaging like modern proofs and commemoratives inevitably have blemishes and probably don't exist in MS 70. (Check the NGC Census and the PCGS Population Report in this regard.) You'd have to carefully examine each coin in the rolls under magnification to determine if any would likely grade high enough to be worth having third-party graded.

The only reputable third-party grading services that are currently in business are NGC and PCGS (top tier) and ANACS and ICG (second tier, mainly because they don't offer registries, price guides or other extensive online services). The CAC grading service will presumably be added to the list of top tier grading services after it starts business. Among former grading services, I consider only the original PCI (green border label for numerically graded coins, red border label for "problem" coins) to have been a reliable authenticator and grader. (Later gold label PCI holders were issued under the ownership of a dealer who mostly (over)graded his own inventory.) The "ANICOINS" acronym appears intended to create confusion with ANACS. Anyone who can buy some equipment can set himself up as a "grading service". It requires a considerably larger investment to hire the appropriate number of experienced numismatists and ensure reliable and unbiased results.

I see no doubling of any kind, missing plating, or other error on this coin, which is being mishandled by being touched by bare fingers.

What you see as a "teardrop" is a scrape, likely from a coin counting or roll wrapping machine. Sorry.

I hope that @Standby means polishing the holder, not the coin! As PCGS would have to remove the coin from the holder if it were found worthy of upgrading and would place it in a new holder, I doubt it would make sense to attempt to improve the appearance of the holder and then resubmit the coin.

This is incorrect. Such an overstrike involving a coin with a different date, is extremely rare--usually one of a kind--and usually the result of shenanigans of mint employees who smuggled the older coin into the press room. The strike with the newer dies is generally in a different position, so the remnants of the date and other features from the original strike are on a different place than the date and other features from the sharper second strike. The dies impart the entire coinage design, not just the date! If you're referring to the 1960 cents with large over small date or small over large dates, this occurred when obverse coinage dies were prepared, probably by mistake, with blows from both the large date and small date hubs. (Hubs are dies that are taken from the master dies and used to create working coinage dies.) This same sort of error led to the creation of the 1942, 2 over 1 dimes and the 1943, 3 over 2 nickels. These dies received blows from hubs of each year. Every coin made from such dies with a single strike features the different date sizes or overdates. To the best of my recollection, nothing of this sort has happened on U.S. coins since the years mentioned. I advise you to study how modern coins are manufactured before making suppositions of this sort. I recall that the U.S. mint has videos on this topic on its website, www.usmint.gov. You may also wish to refer to websites such as error-ref.com, doubleddie.com and varietyvista.com. Please also note that this sort of inquiry is best posted on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum. This forum is for matters pertaining to the NGC Registry. Happy Holidays!

Yes, the "W' stands for the West Point mint. In 2019 and 2020 the West Point mint issued two million of each National Parks quarter in circulation quality with the "W" mint mark. These coins were mixed into some bags of "P" or "D" mint quarters of each such issue. The idea was that this would somehow stimulate interest in coin collecting among the general public. It appears instead that collectors and dealers who had connections with bank personnel who were on the lookout for these coins intercepted a substantial number of them in uncirculated condition to sell at a premium, while the rest of them have passed into circulation mostly unnoticed and are becoming worn and beat up like the one found by @J P M.

I am aware of no rule for how to value coins that have been "cleaned", whether abrasively, chemically or both. Such pieces vary in appearance from absolutely hideous to rather attractive, the evaluation of appearance being to some extent a matter of taste. In my opinion, many pieces that have been described as "cleaned" by the grading services due to light hairlines, slight glossiness, or other minor issues are actually desirable, especially because they trade at a discount due to their being shunned by some collectors and "investors". I would personally be satisfied with a 30% discount from retail list price for such a coin. You should evaluate any coin that you are offered in light of your own experience and taste. It all boils down to whether you like the coin and whether you are willing to pay the asking price. See my custom registry set "Characteristics of Cleaned Coins" at Characteristics of "Cleaned" Coins - Custom Set (collectors-society.com) for specimens of "cleaned" coins in my collection. The 1834 and 1874 dimes, 1818 and 1819/8 half dollars, and 1849 silver dollar are examples of pieces that I find attractive notwithstanding having been described as "cleaned".

Regarding the 1972-D half dollar, if you're referring to the weakness on the eagle's neck and the shield, this is from a weak strike or a worn die and is frequently seen on Kennedy half dollars of that era. The master die was subsequently modified to lower the relief in this area to reduce the number of weak strikes. The strike was probably taken into account by the graders in arriving at the MS 64 grade. So were the number and severity and number of marks and abrasions on the coin, which was almost certainly never in circulation. Coins made for circulation drop from the press into a bin where they fall on and are hit by many other coins. They are then packed into bags of thousands of coins, and other bags are piled on top of that bag. This is why uncirculated coins made for circulation almost always have such marks (referred to as "bag marks") and abrasions. Coins graded MS 60 to 62 are typically very heavily marked, and even coins graded MS 67 typically have a few noticeable marks and abrasions. Regarding the description of the 1993-D quarter, note that the "MS" is in parentheses. It is simply being used on this PCGS Coinfacts page, together with the PCGS code 5935, to identify the coin as a 1993-D quarter, which is a circulation ("MS") issue. The grade on the PCGS label in its holder would be AU 50. You are understandably confusing PCGS's classification system with a grade. You cannot learn the basics about coins entirely from online sources. When you receive your "Redbook" and grading guide, please read them carefully. You should then go to coin shows and shops, examine the coins of series that interest you to learn their grading and characteristics, and speak to dealers and experienced collectors. You should also consider joining a local coin club. It's a lengthy process but a rewarding one.

@JKK--Just check the NGC or PCGS population reports for nineteenth century proof coins, especially of proof-only issues and issues (such as 1880 Shield nickels or 1884-85 three cent pieces) where a circulation strike is more valuable than an equivalent proof. I've actually seen some well-worn pieces designated as proof on the holder.

@JKK is incorrect in this particular. Circulated coins that were manufactured for circulation and have circulation wear are sometimes (and incorrectly) referred to as "MS" instead of by their adjectival circulated grade to distinguish them from coins that were manufactured as proofs. (On an NGC grading submission form, the coins being submitted have to be identified as "MS" or "PF" A coin that was struck as a proof can be designated "PR" (PCGS usage) or "PF" (NGC usage) no matter how worn it is, so long as it is identifiable as a proof. Certain U.S. coins, such as Trade dollars dated from 1879-1885 and Shield nickels dated 1877 and 1878 were only made as proofs, so the occasionally encountered well-worn specimen, say one worn to Very Good grade, would be designated by NGC "PF 8", whereas an equivalent circulation strike would be designated "VG (not MS) 8". From time- to-time other well-worn coins have been identified as proofs by having characteristics of dies known or believed to have been used only to manufacture proofs. For @Seamus8 and others, here is an overview of the adjectival and parallel numerical grading systems, which should explain why there is so much confusion: When I began collecting coins in the early 1970s, grading was done by adjectives from Poor through Uncirculated, specifically Poor, Fair, About Good, Good, Very Good, Fine, Very Fine, Extremely Fine, About Uncirculated and Uncirculated. Only very rare coins were (and generally still are) considered collectible below the grade of Good. A coin that was nice for its grade could be described as "Choice", and one that was nearly the next grade up would be described by the two grades with a hyphen between them, such as (Very Fine-Extremely Fine, usually "VF-EF"). Each side of the coin was graded, so a coin with Fine obverse and a Good reverse (this happens on older coins) would be described as "F/G". An uncirculated coin that was unusually nice would be described as a "Gem" and an uncirculated coin that was brilliant (though in those days sometimes due to what is now condemned as "cleaning") would be described as "BU". A Guide to the Grading of United States Coins by Martin R. Brown and John W. Dunn, first published in 1958 and last published in 1975 (fifth edition) had standardized and popularized this system, which was generally accepted by collectors and dealers. (Before the Brown & Dunn grading guide, the adjectives were used inconsistently.) Brown & Dunn used line drawings as well as written criteria to depict most series from About Good to About Uncirculated. In 1970 Photograde by James F. Ruddy, which was generally consistent with Brown & Dunn's guide, used photographs to depict each of these circulated grades. Both guides were accepted by the American Numismatic Association ("ANA") Board of governors as official grading guides. In the late 1940s Dr. William Sheldon, an early (1793-1814) large cent collector and researcher, had proposed a 1 to 70 numerical scale for grading early large cents. At that time such a coin that was in Gem Uncirculated condition (almost nonexistent) was valued at seventy times as much as one in "Basal State" (Poor), so Sheldon believed the grade could be related to the value. (The price relationship would now be thousands to one, not seventy to one.) In the late 1970's some collectors and dealers started using the numerical scale together with the adjectival system for all U.S. coins, so a Very Fine became "VF 20", a Choice Very Fine a "VF 30" and the like. Initially uncirculated (and unworn proof) coins were only graded "60" and "65", with "70" being a theoretical "perfect" coin that couldn't exist in reality. This numerical system was accepted by the ANA as an alternative or equivalent to the adjectival system, which is still used. Over time more and more numerical grades were used, especially for higher grade circulated and uncirculated coins, so that when PCGS began grading and sealing coins in holders in 1986, all eleven numbers from 60 to 70 were used. The ANA Board--mistakenly I think--acquiesced in this practice later in 1986, even though no one has been able to consistently define how one numerical grade varies from the next. This is why instead of "AU" and "Choice AU", we now have AU 50, 53, 55, and 58, and endless debates over which of these numbers a coin may be (or is it an XF 45 or an MS 61 or 62?). Try to enjoy coin collecting notwithstanding the confusing, inconsistent, nitpicking, subjective nonsense that coin grading has become. Focus on learning the adjectival grading system. Happy holidays!

Bear in mind that "wear" may include the slightest amount of friction ("rub") on the highest surfaces of the coin. If you hold the coin at an angle under magnification, you can see the loss of luster resulting from the friction. (The grading services tend to allow a small amount of "rub" for older coins and give the coin a lower mint state grade, but I've never agreed with this practice.)

Please refer to the following topic for both printed and online resources that I regard as essential to success in becoming a knowledgeable collector: This topic includes a reference to PCGS Photograde, an online photographic grading guide. However, I strongly recommend that you obtain and study a printed grading guide that includes written descriptions of each grade for each series, such as the Official A.N.A. Grading Standards book referred to in the topic.

Without the "gunk" it would be an AU50 or so. With it it's "AU Details, environmental damage". Either way it's worth face value. Do you have a grading guide and other basic numismatic references?

The "star" grade, which is only used by NGC and is not part of the ANA grading system, when used on proofs, appears to be applied to coins that are one-sided cameos (or deep cameos), as there isn't enough room on the little paper grading service tag to say that the coin is a "deep cameo obverse, brilliant reverse", or the like. The original poster suggests that a one-sided cameo (or deep cameo) is better than a two-sided cameo or deep cameo. Assuming, as most collectors do, that a cameo is better than a non-cameo and that a deep cameo is better than a cameo, this position is illogical. For that matter, so is the fad of "low ball" collecting in which some collectors compete to own the most worn coin possible! Collect what you want, but just because it's unusual or "low population" in a certified holder doesn't mean it's really desirable or that most collectors will accept it as such.

These terms are most commonly used by collectors of colonial and early (pre-1837 or so) U.S. coins, on which the handmade nature of the dies from separate punches for letters, numbers and devices enables the relatively easy identification of the dies from which a particular coin was made. These dies were also subject to rapid wear but for reasons of economy were often used until they shattered. The term "die pair" refers to the pair of dies (obverse and reverse) from which a coin was struck. For example, what is referred to as obverse A of a particular date of large cent might have been paired with reverses A, C, and F at different points in the obverse die's use, with the resulting varieties being referred to as die pairs A-A, A-C, and A-F as well as by their usual Sheldon, Newcomb, or other reference numbers. The different pairings are sometimes referred to as "die marriages". The term "die state" refers to the condition of the dies from which a coin of a particular variety was struck. An early die state would usually be a coin struck early in the use of the dies showing few or no die breaks or clashes and little or no die erosion or other signs of wear on the dies. A middle die state would be identified by cracks, clash marks, and/or other signs of die wear in particular places and of particular sizes or severities. A late die state would be identified by more serious cracks that may have culminated in pieces of the die falling out resulting in blobs on the coin called "cuds". (In some cases, the mint tried to extend the life of dies by polishing or grinding them down to remove clash marks, while also removing some design details, with coins struck from these reprocessed dies also identified as die states.) The "terminal" die state would be the latest die state known to exist, with the dies apparently about to shatter. For some issues, researchers have described a large number of die states. I'm not sure to what post in this topic this inquiry relates. St. Gaudens double eagles aren't usually collected by die pairs or states, although they are known to exhibit die cracks. I've never seen one with clash marks, but they probably exist. Clash marks occur on coins minted to this day, although they aren't as common as they were on older series.

@B.C-- I didn't previously post in this topic. Could you please post a photo of the entire holder, including the coin and its label? If there is any strikethrough error, it must be at the center of the affected area and hard to discern from your photos. Most of the discoloration is clearly toning/corrosion. The foreign matter that caused the strikethrough could have been struck into the coin and chemically reacted with the surrounding coin metal. Would it really be fair to accuse our members of incompetence under these circumstances? In any event, if the coin was already certified as an error, you didn't need their help and wasted their time. The "67" grade would be unusually low for a modern proof coin, of which most typically grade "69" and most of the rest typically grade "70". This lower than usual grade would likely be due to the unattractive toning around the strikethrough.

I'd like to see a photo of the entire obverse of your 198? cent. The line, if raised as it appears to me, may be a legitimate, though not particularly valuable, error resulting from the die having been damaged by some hard object before the coin was struck. If the line is incuse (sunken into the coin's surface) it could be a fairly common error resulting from the coin being struck through a thread or other piece of foreign matter that was lying on the die or the planchet. (If the coin is a 1982 or later copper-plated zinc cent, the line could just be a defect in the plating, such defects having been very common in the early years of this composition.)

It appears that someone painted this coin with a gold colored paint or polish. You can see places where the paint has chipped off, and the original copper plating is still present. I can think of no way that the gold color could have been created during the minting process.