Sandon

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?

I wouldn't buy coins from any Chinese website! Apart from any internet security issues, I understand that Chinese law doesn't prohibit the counterfeiting of coins of any other countries or of pre-1949 Chinese coins. As a result, there are huge numbers of fakes of varying quality of both older and modern U.S. coins being manufactured in China and offered on these websites. Some are immediately recognizable as fakes by experienced collectors, and others are rather deceptive, especially from photos. Frankly, I recommend avoiding purchasing coins from the internet other than sites of well-known, reputable dealers and auction houses. Even then, there is no substitute for in-person examination of coins at coin shows, shops and auction lot viewings. This is true for everyone but especially for new collectors!

Proof dies by their nature are highly polished, which often results in the loss of some lower relief detail. I've never heard of anyone placing any value on this characteristic or seeking out such pieces. That doesn't mean that you can't find it interesting! (I often prefer to buy the "uncirculated" versions of modern mint commemoratives, as they may show more fine detail than the proofs, as well as usually having lower mintages.)

I had to think about it for a while, but by "MD" I assume that you mean "mint damage". I don't see any damage or anything else unusual about this proof nickel. I assume that the scratches appearing in the field above Monticello are on the plastic of the case of the 2002 proof set in which this coin is housed.

I don't have any settings on my digital microscope other than for focusing and to turn its lights up and down. I've found both brilliant uncirculated and proof coins difficult to photograph because of the glare but have gotten the best results by turning off the lights on the scope and instead using a gooseneck lamp whose light hits the coin at an angle. I have to experiment with the position and angle of the lamp, and some parts of the coin are still too bright or dark, but the result is good enough for my purposes (registry set or posting here). I crop and occasionally make adjustments using the photo editing software in my personal computer. This is a 1943 steel cent in a PCGS "rattler" holder graded MS 66:

I understand that the wartime composition (1942-45) five cent pieces have the same 21.2 mm diameter as all others since the 1883 Liberty nickels. The "Redbook" so indicates. They all fit in the same album openings. Where did anyone see a claim for a different diameter?

This is clearly a copper core, indicating that this is an ordinary copper nickel clad 1973-D half dollar. Compare this edge to that of any 1965-70 silver clad half dollar.

May we see the edge of this coin? A bright red (uncirculated) or brown (circulated) edge will demonstrate that the coin has a copper core, not the approximately 21% silver core of a silver clad piece, which is much lighter in color.

There are at least 33 different die varieties of 1853 large cents, as shown on NGC "VarietyPlus" (under the "Resources" tab on the NGC home page), most of which are identified largely by the placement of the date, which varied from die to die. This is true for most U.S. coins from about 1836 until about 1908, when most production dies were prepared from a "hub" (master die) that usually included all of the design elements, but the date (and any mint mark, until the 1990s) was still punched into the die. (Occasionally, new varieties of earlier U.S. coins such as large cents are still discovered.) I am quite familiar with this series. Based on your photos, I also see nothing that would identify your coin as a counterfeit, although the color seems a little dark. I see nothing unusual about the "denticles", usually referred to as "border beads" on coins made in close collars like these. (It is almost certainly not a "contemporary" counterfeit that was made as money in the 1850s, as these are rather crude.) I heard some years ago of counterfeits of common date Braided Hair large cents that were made from "spark erosion" or other copy dies that were modeled from genuine coins, and there are now all sorts of fakes coming from China. However, the genuine pieces are so common that the odds of buying a counterfeit from an established coin dealer would seem rather low. It would require in-person examination and tests of the actual coin itself to say more. These coins are supposed to weigh approximately 10.89 grams. What does your scale say?

Virtually all circulation strike silver dollars have noticeable marks and abrasions from decades of storage in thousand-coin bags that were piled on top of each other and sometimes thrown around! Even coins graded MS 67 or better have some such marks, while coins graded "63" or lower are usually quite heavily marked. The "market grading" used by the grading services (and even the current 7th edition ANA grading guide, of which you may wish to obtain a copy) considers the number, location and severity of marks as only one factor for determining the grade. Other factors the type and intensity of luster, quality of strike, whether the coin is brilliant or dull or attractively or unattractively toned, and its overall "eye appeal". Your coin is well struck, has intense brilliant luster, and believe it or not, is not heavily bag marked for a Peace dollar, resulting in a "64" ("Very Choice") grade. (If it were up to me, we would grade coins with adjectives, not numbers, which imply an objective and precise determination of grade, which is impossible!) The coin has a small, retained lamination (not "delamination", which would mean it had peeled off) that probably doesn't affect its value. This would be probably considered poor quality control rather than a mint error. If this is what you find interesting and enjoy collecting, you should do so, as such pieces can often be found without having to pay a premium for them.

I assume that you're trying to add the coin while you're looking at the set itself. Try opening the "My Competitive Coins" panel on the left side of the page. Go to the coin in question and clicking the green "+" in a circle in the "Add to Sets" column at the far right. I just tried this for a Hard Times token in my list, for which there is currently no competitive set, and instead of the dialog box I described before there was one saying the following: "The competitive NGC Registry doesn't accept this coin yet. This often means that the coin is new. If you think this coin should be accepted, let us know." Click on the "let us know", which should be lit in blue. This should take you through the categories, set, and slot in which you want to place the coin, which will be referred to the administrator. I hope this helps.

Have you tried when using the "Add to Sets" function in your coin list and it doesn't show any eligible sets, clicking on the "I'm looking for something else" that appears in blue at the bottom of the dialog box? It should take you through steps to indicate the category, set and exact slot in which you wish to place the coin. Your specific request will then be referred to an administrator. (I assume that this is the first slot in your set under "Flying Eagle Cents, 1856-1858, Circulation and Proof Issues". It's a nice set!)

In fact, the mintage of 1964-D nickels was over 1.787 billion, which is still the highest mintage for any Jefferson nickel! Based on what I can see from your photos, this one has a retail value of at most a dollar or two, assuming it's uncirculated. You can buy uncertified uncirculated Jefferson nickels of many dates and mints going back to 1938 from dealers at coin shows or shops for prices ranging from 25 cents to $10 and store them safely and attractively in a Whitman or Dansco album (not folder) that I think can still be purchased for less than $25. Even the "key" 1939-D and 1942-D are relatively inexpensive in decent uncirculated grades. There's a lot less cost and space involved. I have a complete 1938-64 set, all uncirculated, in a Whitman album that I put together mostly in the 1970s and 80s. The album has preserved the coins in the same condition as I purchased them.