Sandon

Grading services don't attribute most die varieties unless the submitter requests such attribution and pays an additional fee for it. ($18 at NGC.) This sometimes enables astute collectors to "cherrypick" varieties on certified coins. Washington quarters made for circulation from 1932-1964 generally have a low relief "Type A" reverse. The dies for reverses of proofs dated from 1937-1964 (not 1936) were made from a higher relief "Type B" reverse with slightly different details. A minority of Philadelphia mint circulation issues from 1956-1964 also have the "Type B" reverse and are believed to have been minted from retired proof dies that were still suitable for making coins for circulation. There is a fad of collecting the "Type B" circulation strikes, although none appears to be rare. The Type B reverse is attributed by the clear separation of the "E" and "S" in "STATES" as shown in the NGC "VarietyPlus" photo below. (On Type A pieces, these letters nearly touch.) I identify the "Type B" reverse more readily by the higher relief in the leaves of the crossed branches below the eagle.

If I understand your post correctly, you are asking (1) whether NGC uses computers to grade coins and (2) why grades of NGC graded coins appear to be inconsistent to you. (I'm a collector, not an employee of NGC.) 1. No, computers are not used to grade coins. Some years ago, PCGS spent a great deal of money trying to develop a computerized grading system. It was a failure. The answer to your second question explains why. 2. The grading of coins is inherently subjective and dependent on a number of factors whose evaluation varies with personal taste. For uncirculated or unworn proof coins, factors include surface preservation (the number, severity and location of marks, abrasions, and light scratches), the fullness of strike, the nature and quality of luster, the presence or absence of "toning" and whether it is considered to be attractive or unattractive, and the coin's overall "eye appeal". For this reason, I have always regarded the use of numbers to grade coins to be wrong, as it implies that an objective or scientific process is involved. A grade assigned by a grading service is simply the consensus of several experienced graders employed by the grading service who have examined the coin under low magnification. The coin that you regarded as "dirty" may have been regarded by the graders as attractively "toned" or as simply "original" for the grade it received. Ultimately, your collecting should be driven by your own educated evaluation of a coin, not by the number on a little paper tag.

It's unclear what "skills" (knowledge) you presently have or what your collecting interests presently are. If you're a new collector, you need to know the basics about U.S. coins and their grading before you go on to more advanced areas such as the attribution of early U.S. coins by die variety. The submission of coins to third party grading services like NGC is only worthwhile for those who have sufficient knowledge to know that their coins are of sufficient value to justify the substantial cost involved. See the topics under the "Submit" tab on the NGC home page regarding the services available and their cost. In my opinion, your 1812 half dollar isn't worth this cost as it would come back Fine or Very Fine "details" graded due to the corrosion and probable improper "cleaning", and having it attributed would be a waste of an additional $18 as it's a common die variety. Its retail value is probably less than $100. Are you familiar with and have access to resources such as those described in the following topic that I posted in this forum?

The sawdust may have been used to absorb spills of oil and other liquids on the mint's floors so that they could be more easily cleaned up.

The reason for all of the varieties is that the dies for early (pre-1837 or so) U.S. coins were each made from separate punches for the devices, numbers, letters and stars, so each die showed various design elements in different positions in relation to each other and sometimes other distinctive characteristics. For early (1794-1836) half dollars the varieties were catalogued by Al C. Overton in a book first published in the 1960s, hence the "O" numbers. The letters following some numbers indicate a later "die state" of the same numbered variety, with the die showing cracks, clash marks, or other signs of wear or damage. The Overton book, which unfortunately I don't have, describes the most important characteristics, but I do have an auction catalog (Jules Reiver collection) that describes some of them. (I have collected Bust half dollars by the varieties listed in the "Redbook".) It's difficult for me to attribute your coin just from the photos, especially when I have to switch screens.You may have better luck comparing your actual coin to the photos. O-103 on the reverse has "a pair of small die lumps below the "I" in "AMERICA", which I can barely see on the VarietyPlus photo but can't make out on yours. The most important characteristic for the O-109a die state are on the obverse a "round lump at [to the left of] star 10" (the third star from the top on the right side) and on the reverse "heavy reverse die defect marks or lumps above and below the eagle's left (facing) wing and extending to the olive leaves". You can see these characteristics in the VarietyPlus photos, but I don't see them on your coin. The pertinent area of the reverse is obscured by the area of corrosion. VarietyPlus has no photo of the early O-109 die state. (Check PCGS "Coinfacts".) In any case, are no rare varieties of the non-overdate 1812, although the O-104 is somewhat scarce (Rarity 3).

The term "cleaning" is confusing because the removal of surface dirt or other foreign matter from a coin without abrasively or chemically altering the surface of the coin--cleaning in a literal sense-- isn't considered improper "cleaning" but is instead referred to as "conservation". However, both of the examples you have given would be considered improper "cleaning" and would devalue the coin. Wiping a coin, even with something soft, leaves fine scratches on the coin known as "hairlines" that are undesirable. It constitutes abrasive "cleaning" if the hairlines are sufficiently extensive or noticeable. (If a coin is wet, pat--don't rub--it dry.) Metal polish chemically alters the surface of the coin, leaving a very unnatural appearance, and the application of the polish is abrasive as well. Collectors want original surfaces, not surfaces that are damaged or chemically contrived. For a fuller explanation and a number of examples of "cleaned" coins see my custom registry set "Characteristics of Cleaned Coins" at Characteristics of "Cleaned" Coins - Custom Set (collectors-society.com) (right click link for menu to open).

@EagleRJO-- Actually, the "small 8" and "large 8" nomenclature that is used for 1811 Bust half dollars and the 1812 overdates isn't popularly used for other 1812 varieties, so I probably shouldn't have referred to the original poster's coin as a "small 8" variety. However, the "8" on his coin looks narrower and thinner than the "large 8" 1812 overdate varieties or the 1811 large 8s. There also seems to be some variation in the date punches used for the eight non-overdate 1812 varieties. I don't think I have the software to draw a line through the numerals as you do or the time to do a full comparison.

Welcome to the Forum. Your coin is definitely not the rare 1812, 2 over 1, Large 8 variety (O-101 or 101A). It is a non-overdate 1812 small 8 variety. Compare the size, shapes and locations of the numerals relative to Liberty's Bust with the photos on @EagleRJO's post. Note particularly how the peaks of the "1s" in the date on your coin point upward, while the peaks of the "1s" on the coins in the photos point downward, as well as the difference in the size and width of the "8". The date position doesn't match the 1812, 2 over 1, small 8 (O-102 or 102A) variety either. The elongated areas under the second "1" and "2" are indicative of a worn die, not an overdate. The "stained" area on the reverse is likely corrosion, which can't be removed without damaging and devaluing the coin. If it is foreign matter that isn't chemically bonded to the metal, it might be removed by an acetone bath. Never use anything that abrasively or chemically alters the coin metal!

Perhaps this is the first recorded mention by mint personnel of what collectors refer to as "clash marks". This variety is catalogued today as 1891-O VAM 1A, a "Top 100" variety, which also has four die states. A weaker 1891-O "E" clash is catalogued as VAM 3A, a "Hot 50" variety.

You might get a better response to this topic if you post it under the "U.S., World and Ancient Coins Forum". This forum is for questions and matters pertaining to the NGC Registry. (I primarily collect U.S. coins.) Welcome to the NGC chat board!

There are so many thousands of different types and varieties of ancient coins that it would be extremely difficult to define the parameters of how many slots a set would have or what coins would qualify for a particular slot. Think of all the different portrait styles and reverses of the denarii or other issues of any longer-ruling Roman emperor! The grading of these coins is also very complex, and it would be difficult to program the number of points that would be awarded for any particular coin in a manner that most participants would regard as fair. I doubt that either NGC or PCGS will ever offer competitive registry sets for ancient coins. (I don't think PCGS even certifies/grades ancients.) NGC does offer the option to create custom sets that allow a collector the opportunity to display a collection in accordance with the collector's own taste. NGC awards several prizes for custom sets, including one for "Best Ancient Custom Set". See The NGC Registry Awards | NGC (ngccoin.com).

I've never approved of the numerical grading system because the use of numbers implies that the process involved is an objective or scientific one, which coin grading can't be. I also disapprove of the large number of grades, which increase the subjectivity of grading. The more grades there are, the more opportunities there are for reasonable minds to disagree with them! In this case professional graders at a single grading service--maybe the same graders--viewed a coin twice within the same year based on the labels and determined it to be Choice About Uncirculated on the first occasion and a scruffy Uncirculated piece on the other. I always use my own experience and judgment in evaluating a coin and have no qualms about disagreeing with the grade given on that little paper tag. I recall that in the late 1980s or early 1990s, the staff of Coin World sent groups of coins to each of ANACS, NGC and PCGS, recorded the grades given, then cracked the coins out and resubmitted them, sometimes to a different service and sometimes to a service that they had been graded by before. Some coins varied in grade by as much as three or four grading numbers even at the same service, and several were given numerical grades on some occasions and returned ungraded as "problem coins" on others. (NGC and PCGS didn't give "details" grades at that time.) I hoped that this revelation would explode the myth of third-party grading, but it has continued and expanded to this day. Most collectors just want someone else to do the work for them. I do like the "oval O" varieties found on a small minority of 1888-O and 1889-O Morgan dollars, which most likely resulted from the New Orleans mint's use of leftover dies from 1884, the last year the oval mint mark had regularly been used. It's also possible that the old oval punch was used on a few dies prepared in 1888-89. As I recall, they're usually well-worn and a great find in AU or Uncirculated.

Last year's Deluxe or "Mega Red" edition of the Redbook (7th ed. 2021) contained special sections on silver and modern dollars and devoted 38 pages (pp. 799-837) to Eisenhower dollars. It includes a number of lesser-known varieties that aren't listed in standard guides and don't have established market values. These include Peg Leg varieties for the 1971-D, 74-D, 76-D Variety 2 and 78-D (no photos). (The "peg legs" are most likely the result of dies that were heavily polished during their preparation, not worn.) There is also the website of the "Ike Group", www.ikegroup.info, which I understand has comprehensive research about the series. (Users have to agree to various terms and conditions before accessing the information on the site.) It is important to note that there were numerous changes made to the design details of the Eisenhower dollar in 1971-72, for a total of four different obverse types and five different reverse types. The 1972 (Philadelphia), for example, used three different reverse types, one of which, the "Variety 2" or "Reverse D", is worth a premium in standard guides. Some of these changes affected the shapes and thicknesses of letters and are to be distinguished from a peculiarity of a particular die such as a "peg leg". I reiterate that it's essential to have basic references such as the standard "Redbook" and a grading guide and to acquire basic knowledge of coins before getting into more advanced or esoteric areas like spotting minor or new varieties or errors on a particular series. It would be like a child trying to take high school courses without attending grade school!

Your coin may be original, but it doesn't appear to be a high-grade specimen (MS66 or higher). I recommend that, if possible, you go to coin shows in your area and look at certified specimens or uncertified pieces in the inventories of reputable dealers of the coins you want to collect or already have. In addition to reading about coins, you have to learn what they're supposed to look like. You may also benefit from joining a coin club. I happen to own a 1943 steel cent certified MS 66 by PCGS, for which I paid $50 just to be able to fill a registry set slot for the type. While the photos don't show the exact appearance of the coin, note the quality of the strike and the bright, frosty (not shiny) surface.

Enormous numbers of 1943 zinc coated steel Lincoln cents from all mints that darkened have been re-plated. They are essentially worthless. I can't tell from your distant, blurry, overexposed photos whether yours is original or re-plated. An original piece is bright but frosty, not shiny. Even if original it wouldn't be worth third-party grading unless it graded MS 66 (just barely worth it) or higher (rare). A legitimate uncertified uncirculated specimen can be bought for a few dollars and stored in an inexpensive holder or album. A grading service holder isn't airtight and wouldn't necessarily preserve it any more effectively. If you want to spend $50, please spend it on some of the resources to which I directed you, or at least on a coin worth at least $50!

The bottoms of the "E" and "R" are weak and blend into Kennedy's hair on most of the 1970s Kennedy half dollars I checked after reading this. Yours may also have been struck from a somewhat overpolished or worn die on which the area of the "R" and Kennedy's hair beneath it were weakened, which are common occurrences. The mint periodically replaces the master die from which "hubs" and then working dies are prepared, and this area was stronger on half dollars of the 1980s. The "Peg Leg R" Eisenhower dollar variety is found on a 1971-S silver clad coin that the mint sold to collectors for a premium. It was not issued for circulation and would almost certainly not be found among copper-nickel clad (red rimmed) "Ike" dollars that you might have obtained from circulation. @Posso--I've tried to impress upon you the importance of "book learning"--some of which can now be done online--and experience in gaining an understanding of what sorts of coins are considered interesting or valuable by most serious collectors. You've stated that you don't yet even have a standard "Redbook", yet you believe that you can frequently find all sorts of significant errors and varieties in pocket change. Please study or at least refer to some of the resources to which I and others have directed you before claiming to have made some great find.

Your posts asked us to identify the "variety" or "error", not whether the coin was genuine. I, among others, realized that there were differences in the design details and thought that it might be some previously undiscovered and perhaps rare prototype design like the 2000-P Sacagawea dollars with boldly detailed tail feathers. Obviously, the 1975 date on the obverse would have aroused more suspicion that it just wasn't real.

The 1839 is a "Booby Head". The point at the back of the bust is visible even in this low grade. There should be no line on the reverse under word "CENT". The "Silly Head" has a line under "CENT". You're correct that the 1840 is a "Small Date".

It depends upon what you mean by "varieties". If you're talking about determining whether you have any rare dates or grades or "naked eye" varieties of value, a "Redbook", grading guide and current price list are basically all that you need to do this yourself. Grading and determining whether the coins are impaired takes some experience, which you can acquire by studying these resources and by examining the coins. (As I recall, I previously referred you to my "Resources for New Collectors" topic.) If you're talking about attributing these coins by the many hundreds of different "Sheldon" (1793-1814) and "Newcomb" (1816-57) die varieties, this requires specialized reference books and experience and may be difficult to do from photos. It's often difficult or impossible to do on well-worn coins and always difficult to do on most pieces dated after 1836, as all elements of the dies except the date were at that point punched from a single "hub", so the only differences are the placement and occasional repunchings of the date and die polish marks and die cracks that are often invisible on worn or corroded coins. Relatively few of these varieties are worth a significant premium over common varieties of the date in equivalent and, as they are rare, they are seldom found. While NGC "VarietyPlus" and PCGS Coinfacts have photos of many of these varieties, they do not include the written descriptions that explain what characteristics to look for to attribute the coins. Someone might have the time to attribute all of them, but I don't. I can tell you what books you need if you're interested in attributing them yourself and are willing to spend $100 or more for them. (There may be an online attribution site of which I'm unaware.) While I was typing this reply, you posted photos of a number of these coins. They are mostly common dates that are severely impaired by corrosion, heavy damage, or holes. Such coins are referred to as "culls" and are of little value (a few dollars apiece to a young collector). They are probably unattributable Several others are excessively worn (Fair to About Good) and also of little value. The 1810 may be worth $20 or so to someone notwithstanding the hole. The 1838 and the 1847 are, based on their obverses, in collectible circulated (Fine to Very Fine) grades for budget collectors. You can look up the values in a current price guide. The 1834 whose reverse you posted is an 1834 large 8, small stars, medium letters "Redbook" variety, probably a common N-3. (The N-4 is only slightly scarce.) It's impaired by scratches, and the missing "One Cent" is almost certainly due to wear or damage. The 1839 and the 1840 are also varieties that are listed in the Redbook. What are they? Post your answer, and I'll tell you if you're right.

My 1984 4th edition Coin World Almanac shows the official weight for an 1840-1935 silver dollar as 26.73 grams with a tolerance 0.097 grams. This would result in a minimum weight of 26.33 grams, which is, given the inexactitude of scales, close enough to the 26.3 you got. The specific gravity is stated as 10.34 with no tolerance given. The coin appears--insofar as I can tell from your photos--to be a genuine Philadelphia mint Morgan dollar of this era based on its luster, striking quality, crispness, fine details, surface preservation, and rims. (The coin may have been "dipped".) I suggest that you may have not performed the specific gravity test correctly. In over fifty years of collecting, I have never weighed or tested the specific gravity of a coin! I doubt that grading services do this routinely either. Traditionally, one learns counterfeit detection by studying the characteristics of genuine coins versus counterfeit or altered pieces. Experts can usually tell what mint struck an uncirculated Morgan dollar just by looking at the obverse based upon characteristics such as the texture and quality of the luster and how beveled the rims are. I admit that the widespread counterfeiting of even common date coins like this one in China over the last decade or so should make one somewhat skeptical about everything, but collecting wouldn't be "fun" if one had to weigh and test the specific gravity of every coin! Based upon the holder and capsule in which your 1887 Morgan dollar is housed, I assume that it was acquired from a mass marketer who sells large quantities of common coins to the general public. Such marketers usually don't employ experts who can spot all counterfeits or problem coins, and their offerings are usually way overpriced. I would avoid such sellers.

As I understand it, yes. I would just call coins legitimately graded "68", "69", and "70" "Superb Gem" (proof or uncirculated, as the case may be) and leave it at that!

Tarnish, oxidation or "toning"--whatever you want to call it--is ultimately inevitable for any silver, copper, or nickel alloy coin that is exposed to the atmosphere. Older coins that have remained brilliant without being "dipped" have usually been stored for most of their existence in bags or rolls surrounded by other coins, with little air getting to them. How quickly and intensely they change likely depends on how they are stored. A grading service holder or other inert plastic holder should slow down the process considerably, unless there was some corrosive substance already on the coin or the air surrounding it in the holder is humid or polluted. The worst thing you can probably do is "dip" a coin to remove existing toning, as the stripped surface is likely to re-tone rapidly and unattractively, and the "dipping" will mute the coin's original luster. I have stored uncirculated coins of various compositions in Whitman and similar albums housed in safe deposit boxes for decades with all but a few of them developing little or no toning or other deterioration, a notable exception being several copper-plated zinc cents from the 1980s and 90s, which have corroded around the edges. However, I don't recommend album storage for more valuable coins. While the classification of various forms of "toning" as "original" or "artificial" and whether or not they are attractive is a subject of much disagreement, I think that most collectors would regard the appearance of the 1900 British shilling as "original" and appealing. I would store it in its holder in a cool, dry place and, apart from checking on it periodically, leave it alone.

The depressed area and surrounding raised metal in the "S" are clearly from a nick or gouge. The coin isn't "off center" either. The obverse die was slightly misaligned, meaning that it wasn't mounted in the press so as to be perfectly perpendicular to the coins it was striking. Coins struck from misaligned dies are quite common and generally command no premium. They are considered to be examples of poor quality control rather than mint errors. An off-center strike would be off center on both sides of the coin. Here are NGC photos of a 1988-D Kennedy half dollar that was struck about 80% off center: While this is a particularly dramatic example, the two sides would always be about equally off center. (I previously placed this response under the duplicate post.)

Copper-plated zinc planchets are plated before they are struck into a coin. A dent or hit usually won't remove the plating but instead pushes the plating in along with the zinc. It takes a pretty deep scratch or gouge to remove the plating. As for the "toning" from the coin darkening from finger oils, beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder!

The depressed area and surrounding raised metal in the "S" are clearly from a nick or gouge. The coin isn't "off center" either. The obverse die was slightly misaligned, meaning that it wasn't mounted in the press so as to be perfectly perpendicular to the coins it was striking. Coins struck from misaligned dies are quite common and generally command no premium. They are considered to be examples of poor quality control rather than mint errors. An off-center strike would be off center on both sides of the coin. Here are NGC photos of a 1988-D Kennedy half dollar that was struck about 80% off center: While this is a particularly dramatic example, the two sides would always be about equally off center.