Sandon

Welcome to the NGC chat board. The indentations on the reverse of this lightly circulated 1962-D cent appear to me to be nicks from hits by a hard object and not any type of mint error.

If this is a circulation strike, as it appears to be, it is also a legitimately rare coin with an original mintage of 8,000 but most of which were probably melted in 1873, as were most of the silver three cent circulation issues from 1863 through 1872. Over the decades, I've managed to acquire an 1867 (NGC Uncirculated details, scratched and "cleaned"), 1869 (PCGS AU 58) and 1871 (PCGS AU 53) but am unlikely to collect them all. A piece dated from 1859-62 would more likely be acquired as a type coin.

Please post clearer photos that are cropped to show as little as possible of the surface surrounding the coin. Based on the current images, the 1875-CC twenty cent piece appears to be genuine, with Very Good details, though harshly "cleaned". Never hold a collectable coin in your bare hands, except by its edge if you must! Skin oils are quite detrimental.

This coin exhibits no mint errors, just severe damage.

I don't know what you mean by "certified elsewhere". By "certified", I mean that a coin has been graded and encapsulated by a reputable top tier (NGC, PCGS, CAC Grading) or second tier (ANACS, ICG) third-party grading service, which also entails authentication. It is very unlikely that you will ever find a coin worth submitting to a third-party grading service in your change or in random accumulations of circulating coins. An individual coin should be worth at least several hundred dollars to be worth submitting, and you need to learn how to grade and otherwise evaluate coins yourself before you can determine whether a coin is likely to have such value. The resources identified in the topics linked in my previous reply should help you obtain the necessary knowledge, as will your attendance at coin shows and coin club meetings, where you can examine a variety of coins and speak with knowledgeable collectors and dealers. You are welcome to post clear, cropped images of coins about which you have questions as separate topics on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum.

The person operating the "coin store" from which you obtained these items has no business being a coin dealer. These pieces are obvious fakes whose surfaces and design details do not match the genuine pieces. Compare them with the images of genuine examples on such legitimate sites as The NGC Coin Explorer, Online Coin Catalog Search Page - Coin Explorer | NGC (ngccoin.com), or PCGS Coinfacts, https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts. If you want to collect uncertified coins--or even certified ones--it is essential to know what genuine ones look like to protect yourself from all but the truly deceptive counterfeits. You should return these items and demand the return of the items you traded for them or their fair value. Two old sayings are applicable to your situation. The first is, "Buy the book before the coin!" Today, this includes reliable online resources. (Many are not reliable and contain misinformation.) See the following forum topics, which identify some of the legitimate resources: The second old saying is, "There is no Santa Claus in numismatics!" A genuine 1870-CC dollar with this approximate level of detail would sell for at least $2,000. Due to this value, nowadays one could expect it to be in a certified holder. A genuine 1891-CC Morgan dollar would sell in the Extremely Fine to About Uncirculated lever for approximately $200 to $350. What was the market value of the pieces you gave in trade?

Welcome to the NGC chat board. The reverse (under "Hidden Contents) being marked "COPY" inside one of the rings, it is safe to assume that this is a replica. It is a crude one at that. See Continental Dollars | Coin Explorer | NGC (ngccoin.com) for images of rare "original" pieces.

Whether or not a coin has a "die error" has nothing to do with its grade. A coin's grade is a description of its condition, not whether it can be attributed with a mint error or a die variety. This grade that NGC gave this coin is MS 63 RD. "Wide AM and "Close AM" (also referred to as "WAM" and "CAM") varieties of certain Lincoln, Memorial reverse cents are characteristics of the dies that struck them from the time the dies were made and are classified as die varieties, not mint errors. See Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com). As @powermad5000 has pointed out, all known 1995 circulation strike cents are Close AMs, so there would be no reason to attribute this coin as a Close AM. The issues worth a premium due to one of these varieties and, accordingly, attributable, are 1992 and 1992-D (Close AM), 1998 (Wide AM), 1998-S (Close AM), 1999 (Wide AM), 1999-S (Close AM) and 2000 (Wide AM). To obtain such attributions, the submitter must usually select "VarietyPlus", on the NGC submission form and pay the additional $18 variety attribution fee as well as the applicable grading fee. Mint error attributions require a separate $18 error attribution fee. It is interesting that NGC did attribute this coin with a die chip, which is usually regarded as a quality control issue rather than a mint error and, in the terminology used for earlier U.S. coins, a die state. As stated in the previously linked article, "NGC does not recognize as mint error coins those with minor die chips, breaks and rotations, etc., that fall within our interpretation of mint tolerance. The determination of what constitutes a mint error is at the discretion of NGC." This chip must have been considered significant enough to attribute. It would be helpful if you could post clear, cropped images of each full side of this coin.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Please provide better images of both sides of the coin that are cropped to show as little as possible of the surface surrounding the coin. Based on the current image, this 1982 large date cent has a well-formed rim and is not broadstruck. The curvature near the rim is an indication of die wear and is often seen on earlier issues of copper plated zinc cents. I can also see plating blisters on this coin, which identify this coin as a 1982 large date zinc. This would be considered a quality control issue, not a mint error, and would not be worth a premium. You are welcome to collect anything that you find interesting. For examples of broadstrikes, see https://www.error-ref.com/?s=broadstrike.

Note how your 1942 cent shows displaced metal around the indentations, which is indicative of post-mint damage. This is quite unlike the 1955-D cent struck through a staple (which was retained) yet shows no displaced metal around the staple because metal displaced by the staple was pressed down by the surrounding die surface as the coin was struck. Note also that the error coin is in an uncirculated grade, as are most significant error coins, which are noticed and withdrawn before they pick up circulation wear. If you still believe that your coins are mint errors, you can post them for comment on the CONECA forum (https://board.conecaonline.org/forum) or can ask Jon Sullivan, a well-regarded dealer who specializes in mint errors, for an opinion at https://sullivannumismatics.com/contact-us/. Both CONECA and Mr. Sullivan will also examine the actual coins for a fee that is lower than what a grading service would charge for grading and error attribution.

Dripping 4? It sounds like the sort of variety that would be purchased by a collector named Ben Dover.

1835 Classic Head half cent, NGC graded MS 65 RB, though less "red" than it appears in these images: Images courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

Per my 2010 edition of the Standard Catalog of World Coins 1901-2000, these coins were composed of copper nickel, minted from 1962-82 without a change in the date, with a total mintage of over 883 million pieces, and a value of 50 cents uncirculated. (The NGC World Coin Price Guide yields no information.) Notwithstanding the low value of this particular coin, you should never hold a coin you want to collect in your bare hands, except by its edges if you must. Skin oils can cause discoloration.

The San Francisco mint facility (then designated an assay office) mass produced cents for circulation from 1968 to 1974 and nickels for circulation from 1968 to 1970. Mintages for circulation and proof strikes are set forth in the Red Book. For the 1968-S nickels there were 100,396,004 circulation strikes and 3,041,506 proofs, the latter for proof sets only. As the Philadelphia mint did not produce nickels in 1968, 69, or 70, it appears that the circulation strike "S" mint nickels were distributed around the country, including on the east coast, where I found quite a few of them in the 1970s and '80s. (The "D" mint coins from those years were more frequently encountered, however.)

If you're under the impression that all 1964 dimes are (or are "graded as") proofs, you're quite mistaken and obviously haven't been learning about coins from reliable resources. (Where did you get your information?) "Proof" is a method of manufacture, not a grade. Proof strikes are specially made for collectors and VIPs, while "regular" or circulation strikes are mass produced for circulation. All 1964 proof coins were individually packaged in 1964 proof sets, along with proof examples of the other four denominations from cent to half dollar issued that year. All 1964 proof coins were minted at the Philadelphia mint. Proof coins from that era are very sharply struck, with mirrorlike fields that on the earliest strikes from each die pair contrast with frosted devices and lettering (referred to as a "cameo" or "deep cameo" proof), as on the proof example shown on the images for the "1964 10C PF" issue shown on the page from the NGC Coin Explorer posted by @Coinbuf. Proofs are separately handled and usually receive much higher grades than uncirculated (MS) examples. The coin whose partial image you posted is clearly a circulation strike with typical, frosty luster, as would be expected from a coin taken from "an original bank roll". Coins distributed by banks for circulation at face value are circulation strikes. A roll consisting entirely of proofs could only be created by removing the coins from fifty different 1964 proof sets. I would need clearer photos (of both full sides of the coin as well as better closeups) to form an opinion as to whether the coin may have been struck from a doubled die. You might want to check doubleddie.com and varietyvista.com, which include more minor and lesser-known varieties than those on VarietyPlus, to see if you can find a match. It is very unlikely, though not impossible, that a new doubled die variety would be discovered.

The "PL" designation, for prooflike is a grading qualifier for non-proof coins, not a die variety attribution that would be listed on VarietyPlus. Other such qualifiers include DPL for deep prooflike (DMPL at PCGS), CAM or UCAM (DCAM at PCGS) for proof coins, BN, RB, or RD for copper coins; and FB, FS, FT and FH as strike designations for specific series of coins.

You might want to change the title, as the posted coin is a 1942 Lincoln cent. You should be able to do this if you edit your topic, by while you are logged in choosing "Edit" from the menu under the three dots under your initial post. The coin has deep gouges received during its extensive time in circulation and is not a mint error. (What type of mint error did you think it is?) Very few coins exhibiting significant mint errors are found in circulation or among random accumulations of coins. I have been collecting coins and checking change and accumulations of coins for over 53 years and have never found any error or other coin worth more than a few dollars in that way. I only know one collector who has ever found such a coin, another lifetime collector who a few decades ago received an uncirculated cent overstruck by nickel dies--presumably from a new roll--in change at a grocery store, which is worth a few hundred dollars. This is at best a once in a lifetime event. The vast majority of coins that new or casual collectors think are "mint errors" are damaged coins or coins with minor anomalies that have little or no market value. To learn about types of actual mint errors and how they occur, see, for example, the following: Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 1 | NGC (ngccoin.com) Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 2 | NGC (ngccoin.com) Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 3 | NGC (ngccoin.com) Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 4 | NGC (ngccoin.com) Additional articles on the NGC website under the heading "Mint Error Coin Chronicles" (Use the Search bar on the "News" tab of the NGC website.) The website error-ref.com provides a comprehensive listing and discussion of mint error types.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. NGC will only attribute die varieties that are listed on NGC VarietyPlus, which includes coins listed in certain widely accepted references. See What is a Variety? | NGC (ngccoin.com). (An exception might be made for a significant new discovery.) If your coins are not so listed, NGC will still grade and encapsulate them without an attribution but will retain the $18 per coin VarietyPlus fee for the time and attention required for its attributors to examine the coins. It is important to understand the policies of a grading service before submitting coins to that service, as well as to have sufficient knowledge that the submitted coins are likely to have sufficient value to be worth submitting. Are you sure that the coins you submitted were doubled die varieties? Most of the coins posted on this forum that are claimed to have been struck from doubled dies are in fact pieces that exhibit strike (a.k.a. machine or mechanical) or other common, "worthless" forms of doubling.

This is clearly post-mint damage, as demonstrated by the displaced metal around each of these gouges. Unfortunately, damaged coins are frequently confused with mint errors. See Jeff Garrett: Fake News and Misinformation in Numismatics | NGC (ngccoin.com).

Based on this and your previous topics, you appear to believe that if something looks unusual about a coin, it is a mint error. In fact, significant mint errors are rarely found among circulating coins or random accumulations of coins. The types of errors that can occur during the production of coins are limited, while the types of damage and alterations that can occur to coins after they leave the mint are infinite. You may benefit from the following recent article by a prominent coin dealer: Jeff Garrett: Fake News and Misinformation in Numismatics | NGC (ngccoin.com). To learn about types of actual mint errors and how they occur, see, for example, the following: Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 1 | NGC (ngccoin.com) Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 2 | NGC (ngccoin.com) Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 3 | NGC (ngccoin.com) Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 4 | NGC (ngccoin.com) Additional articles on the NGC website under the heading "Mint Error Coin Chronicles" (Use the Search bar on the "News" tab of the NGC website.) The website error-ref.com provides a comprehensive listing and discussion of mint error types.

This is just minor edge damage that almost certainly occurred after the coin was struck.

Welcome to the chat board. Please crop your images so that they look like this, but take them from up closer so that they have better resolution: I can't tell for sure from these images, but this 1982-D quarter appears to have some sort of residue, possibly dried glue, around the letters "RTY" and at the top of Washington's head. Does this area have an unusual shine in direct light? This, of course, would not be a mint error.

1854 Type 2 silver three cent piece from my old album page, VF details, slightly bent with some surface damage but a difficult date to find and still interesting:

Welcome to the NGC chat board. The outer layers of clad dimes and quarters since 1965 and half dollars since 1971 are composed of an alloy of 75% copper and only 25% nickel. Nickels are entirely composed of this alloy. This alloy darkens through chemical reactions to dark red or black when the coin is exposed to certain environments, such as when it is buried in the ground. This is likely what happened to your coin. It exhibits environmental damage and has no collector value. From what print and online sources have you been getting your information about coins? Coin collecting is most enjoyable when you have correct information.

I don't think that there was any change in the size or "style" of the "D" mintmark between 1952 and 1953, unlike, for example between 1932 and 1934. There may have been different punches that differed slightly, and they were obviously punched in different locations and different depths. It is possible that a reverse die used in late 1952 was also used in early 1953, but such reuse is more characteristic of the nineteenth century. I'm not sure that your coin exhibits a repunched mintmark. I think I see some strike doubling on the reverse, which can affect the mintmark.