Sandon

I'm not sure whether you mean by a "film" that the 1889 Morgan dollar has a foreign substance stuck to its reverse--which would be bad--or simply has a difference in color that would constitute "toning" (formerly known as tarnish), which some collectors like nowadays. The coin appears to grade About Uncirculated, perhaps lightly "cleaned", but not a bad coin for a casual or budget collector. Regrettably, I suspect that the 1909-S V.D.B. you bought for your former girlfriend has an added mintmark. NGC (and others) have identified the 1909-S V.D.B. Lincoln cent as the most counterfeited or altered of all U.S. coins! It's unwise to buy one of these uncertified by a major grading service unless you're an expert! See 1. 1909-S VDB Lincoln Cent | NGC (ngccoin.com) for the characteristics of genuine specimens. (Right click the link for menu to open).

What is your question? If you believe the coin has doubling, where? I see none in your photos, which are fuzzy.

NGC graded this coin "VF Details, Cleaned", as I had expected.

@GoldFinger1969--I doubt that this could be done for "classic" coins or even modern coins made for circulation because they vary so much in strike, luster, location and severity of abrasions, toning, and other effects of environmental exposure, as well as the undefinably subjective "eye appeal". As for untoned modern collector issues, they could possibly be graded 68-70 by computer because they all look virtually alike--which is why they really don't need to be graded as anything other than Superb Gem Uncirculated or Proof anyway! Even for these issues, how could a computer be programmed to evaluate the positive or negative impact of toning, which varies infinitely in color, pattern, extent, location, and intensity?

I recall that back around 1990 PCGS and others spent a great deal of money trying to create a computer program to grade coins. It didn't work then and wouldn't now. Grading is by its nature is subjective and nuanced and involves a variety of factors that can't be precisely measured. There could never be a precise set of instructions that would enable a computer to precisely grade coins to the general approval of collectors.

@pigeonman333rd-- So far as I know, no recognized, responsible numismatic source has identified any 2022 quarter as "rare" or valuable. "Couch collectables"--whatever that is--is not such a source. There are a number of dishonest or ignorant hucksters on the internet who claim that "rare" coins can be found in pocket change, which is almost never true. Even most legitimate mint errors aren't rare or valued by collectors.

I assume you mean Certificate Verification. NGC has this feature too. Go to the NGC home page (www.ngccoin.com), click on the "Resources" tab at the top of the page, and select "Verify NGC Certification". You need to enter the grade of the coin from the drop-down menu as well as the certificate number.

I thought this one was completely "as struck" until I checked the specimens of this quarter in one of my own 2022 mint sets and realized that the name "NINA OTERO-WARREN" is incuse (struck into instead of above the field), so scratches and nicks in the field wouldn't go through the lettering. It still appears that there are raised lumps in and around the "O" and below the peak of the "W", which could be die chips or roughness from improper die preparation. This would constitute a minor mint error. (I don't think it would have anything to do with the feeder fingers.)

The discoloration and corrosion on this coin are likely just due to exposure to the elements, a.k.a. "environmental damage". It also may have been stained with some pink substance. Remember that "nickels" are actually composed of an alloy of 75% copper, 25% nickel. The copper is especially prone to discoloration and corrosion. Another site you might check out to identify errors is www.error-ref.com, which comprehensively catalogs known error types.

This coin was bent and otherwise damaged, possibly by being run over by a vehicle, with the reverse against the pavement, which would have caused the rough surface a.k.a. "road rash".

The scrapes on the reverse in your first three photos are clearly damage from a coin counting or roll wrapping machine, which frequently occur during the distribution process. The large nick on Washington's cheek and the other obverse nicks and scratches are likely damage the coin incurred in a mint bag from coin-to-coin contact. It's conceivable that the large nick is a "strike through" from scrap on the die, but such an impression is generally shallower, and I think I see displaced metal along its sides, which indicate that it was created after the coin was struck.

You may wish to determine whether the seller would be willing to take the coin back for a refund. NGC might correct the designation without charge, but you would probably have to pay the shipping and would still have a coin you don't want and have to dispose of. (You may want to contact NGC about this.) This is why it's important to ignore that little paper tag and carefully inspect any coin that you wish to purchase. If you can't inspect the coin in-person or at least a clear high-resolution photo, you might not want to buy it.

I agree that this is a "Reverse of '40" with weak steps. On the Reverse of '38 the steps are lighter and slightly "wavy", while on the Reverse of '40 the steps are straighter and deeper. More significantly as I see it, the whole area of the steps on the Reverse of '38 has a relatively "flat" appearance, while on the Reverse of '40 that area has a more "rounded" appearance. (On the Reverse of '38 the triangular edges of the area supported by the pillars are a little sharper than on the Reverse of '40, but I consider this a minor difference that may be difficult to discern.) If the grading services recognize these varieties, they should make sure that their graders are properly trained to recognize them! Given the cost of third-party certification, I find the frequency of errors like this troubling.

Because the "Red Book" is published in April of the year before its date from data compiled months before then, it isn't good as a current price guide. Please see my following topic for recommendations on "Resources for New Collectors: Braided hair large cents, especially later dates, were often not struck with full star centers (the lines inside the stars, which is what I think you meant by "crosses"), so even many uncirculated coins don't have them. The star centers also are usually worn off on coins grading below Extremely Fine. I, too, prefer well-struck coins. Here's an 1850 from my own collection, which PCGS graded MS 64BN:

@Hoghead515--While attribution was difficult due to the roughness of the coin, I'm pretty sure that your 1802 large cent is an S-233 (a.k.a. Breen 13, BW-11). I determined this primarily from the reverse, which is only known to be used on this variety, particularly the position of the second "S" in "STATES" and the "D" in "UNITED", as well as other reverse characteristics. The obverse is also consistent in terms of the positions of the letters in "LIBERTY". The "T" should be punched over a "Y", though I can't be certain of this from the photo. There should also be a rim break or "cud" beneath "18" which appears to be there, but this area is too affected by corrosion to be sure. The S-233 is considered to be a "high Rarity 2" or slightly scarce variety with 501-750 pieces estimated known. It isn't likely to be worth a premium over any other normal reverse 1802 cent in this low grade. The first edition of the "deluxe" version of the "Redbook" (2015) contains an attribution guide for early large cents, upon which I primarily relied. I confirmed my findings with reference to Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of Early United States Cents 1793-1814, published in 2000 from Breen's notes as edited by Mark Borckardt in collaboration with Del Bland. (I don't have the earlier books by Sheldon et al).

This phenomenon is normal on cents of the 1960s, especially those of 1968. The master die for the Lincoln cent obverse dated back to 1919, and the devices and lettering had spread out from nearly five decades of use. The master die was finally replaced in 1969, which is why they look so different from their predecessors.

Welcome to the forum! This isn't a mint error. It is a "counterstamp" that someone punched into the coin after it left the mint. They are frequently encountered on early to mid-nineteenth century U.S. coins. People in those days used to "mark" their money to identify it as theirs, or it may have been done to test the punch. Some more elaborate counterstamps were used to advertise products (such as "HOUCK'S PANACEA--BALTIMORE") or advocate causes (such as "VOTE THE LAND FREE") and are collectible in their own right. Unfortunately, one like yours would be regarded as post-mint damage and makes the coin less, not more valuable.

@D.E -- These are both mutilated coins that were damaged by a coin counter or other machinery. This occurs with some frequency. The 1963-D, which you just posted on this old thread, contains approximately $1.50 worth of silver at the current price of silver, which changes daily. I'm sorry that you took offense at @Greenstang's efforts to encourage you to learn about coins, which can be a very fulfilling endeavor.

Based on the styles of the remaining numerals and the mint mark, this is either a 1926-S or (most likely) a 1936-S that would have graded Very Fine if undamaged. While an undamaged 1926-S would have a retail value of $15 or so in Very Fine grade, the damage obliterating the third numeral renders it unsalable. A 1936-S in Very Fine would be worth less than $1 even if undamaged.

I had hoped that this thread would die! Perhaps these will be the final comments, though I have my doubts: 1. As 1970-S nickels were made and are common in both mint state and proof formats and as 1970 uncirculated coin ("mint") sets were assembled and packaged in San Francisco--note the address on the white envelope--it is possible that a proof was inadvertently packaged with a mint set. If so, this would be considered a "packaging error" that would only have extra value to collectors in the intact package. If the OP is telling the truth, he destroyed any such value by removing the coin from the package! He also made it impossible to verify his claim. The coin certified by PCGS is clearly a proof for reasons stated in my and others' previous post in this thread, so there's no error on the part of PCGS. 2. 1970 "mint" sets are of interest as the sole source of 1970-D half dollars and because a minority of them contain the so-called "small date" or "high 7" 1970-S cent, whose most obvious characteristic is actually thinner obverse lettering. (I actually cherrypicked one of these at a local coin auction some years ago.) Enough of these sets--themselves numismatic artifacts--have already been destroyed for these coins. Must we finish the rest of them off looking for wayward proofs?

The coin could go XF, but the NGC guide referred to by @EagleRJO lists it at $42 in VF and $50 in XF. Obviously, it's not worth the expense of third-party certification!

@BIC2 -- There are two old expressions among coin collectors. One is, "Buy the book before the coin." The other is, "There is no Santa Claus in numismatics." You had good instincts in realizing there was something "not right" about this valuable coin being offered as uncirculated in an unknown brand grading holder when it had obvious defects. Apart from being worn, I believe that @powermad5000 is correct in suspecting that it has been removed from a mount, a.k.a. "ex-jewelry", which collectors regard as a significant impairment. There are also deceptive counterfeits of this issue, such as the one described by NGC at Counterfeit Detection: 1907 High Relief Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle | NGC (ngccoin.com) (right click for menu to open). I began collecting in the 1970s, before third party grading existed. You had to learn about coins yourself, which to me was much of the fun of it, and with knowledge develop your own taste. I've never regarded coins as an "investment" but as assets and as a pursuit that has enriched my life. The spread between wholesale and retail is approximately 30%, so coins purchased at retail values generally have to increase by that much just to break even, without considering the impact of inflation. I don't know what books and other resources you already have. I described what I view as the basics in the following post: I hope this helps.

It doesn't appear that the original poster has returned to the forum for some time, but I would like to point out for the benefit of anyone looking at this post that the 1907 High Relief $20--assuming that it is genuine--is clearly circulated (XF or AU), with obvious wear on Liberty's breast and the eagle's upper wing, and it has hairlines suggesting that it has been "cleaned". If you are going to spend thousands of dollars on coins, it is imperative that you understand what the coins you want to collect look like in various conditions, even if you purchase only coins certified by reputable grading services. It would be better to spend a few hundred dollars on books and subscriptions and some hours in study before making purchases at such price levels.

I primarily collect U.S. coins. I'm most interested in all U.S. regular minor and silver issues by date, mint and major variety, with a particular emphasis on the older (1793-1891) series. I also collect classic gold, commemoratives, and pre-1936 proof coins primarily by type. I collect post-1936 proofs and less expensive modern issues as well. I'm usually not interested in paying premiums for so-called "condition rarities" or coins that are common but are high priced due to heavy demand but have instead been on the lookout for scarce but overlooked issues that are more reasonably priced, such as lower mintage Bust and Seated issues. I'm not Eliasberg or Hansen and will never have every coin I'd want or the quality they could afford, but I share with them "the thrill of the chase". My interest in coins began as a child in the 1960s when my grandmother gave me some "pennies" to play with. I noticed that some had what looked like two cattails (actually wheat sheafs) on the reverse, while others had what looked like some sort of vehicle (actually the Lincoln Memorial). In 1971 an aunt's father gave one of the new Eisenhower dollars to me and each of the other children at a gathering at his home, and since that time I have had an abiding interest in coins. A friend of my father's gave me some used coin books and supplies, including a 1969 "Redbook", a Brown and Dunn grading guide, and some Whitman bookshelf albums. I remember handing a dealer at a coin shop in 1972 a five-dollar bill for my first Morgan dollar, an uncirculated (MS 61 PL or so by today's standards) 1881-S. (The same dealer had a Good 1916-D "Mercury" dime for $85, an amount then far out of my reach.) My coins are stored in safe deposit boxes and mostly housed in albums, coin holders, or mint packaging, and will remain so housed for considerations of expense, space and weight, and because I consider myself able to grade and evaluate my coins myself. However, many of my more recent and more expensive purchases are in certified holders. I decided in 2020 to create some partial NGC registry sets with the NGC and PCGS slabs I had and began this year to have some of my better pieces certified to fill out some of these sets, especially the type sets I've created mostly from pieces I collected by date and mint. (I presently also have first place sets under the categories for 1811 and 1815 "mint sets".) You can see these sets and examples of the pieces I collect at Sandon's Competitive Sets | NGC (ngccoin.com) (right click for menu to open).

Is there any contemporary written record of how the U.S. Mint created each of the non-traditional finishes of the proof coins of the 1907-21 era?