Sandon

It also matters whether you specifically want to purchase an 1860-S double eagle--few collectors have the resources to collect large denomination gold by date and mint--or are looking for a Type 1 Liberty Head double eagle as a type coin. Several dates in the 1850s from the Philadelphia and San Francisco mints (such as 1853, 1854 small date, 1856-S, 1857-S) have somewhat lower list prices. I consult both the monthly Coin World "Coin Values" (subscriptions to print and online versions available at coinworld.com) and the quarterly CPG Coin & Currency Market Review, often distributed free of charge at coin shows, in addition to the NGC and PCGS price guides when determining a fair price for a coin. If I like the coin but the price is a little higher than I want to pay, I politely ask the dealer, "what's the best you can do on this?" If the dealer's best price is still more than I want to pay, I say "no thank you." As you are a new collector who presumably knows little about the authentication and grading of rare coins, you should be careful about making purchases of this magnitude, even of purportedly certified coins. Is the dealer from whom you are buying well established and reputable? Is he a member of the Professional Numismatists Guild ("PNG")? (Not all reputable dealers are members of the PNG, but those who are members must adhere to a code of conduct.) Are you dealing in person with the dealer, and have you actually examined the coin? Have you checked the serial number of the coin on NGC Certificate Verification--available on the NGC website--to make sure it matches that of an 1860-S double eagle graded AU53. (However, some counterfeit holders have had the matching serial number.) You might do well to follow the old adage to "buy the book before the coin" and gain some knowledge about what you want to collect before making major purchases.

These coins are essentially pocket change! (I see no reason why you would think they are mint errors). Why would you want to spend $19 apiece (NGC's grading fee for "modern" coins dated after 1964) plus a $10 processing fee, plus shipping costs? If you want to be a coin collector, which can be very enjoyable, it is essential that you educate yourself about coins. I recommend that you purchase a copy of A Guide Book of United States Coins (newest edition dated 2023), commonly known as the "Redbook", which may be available at bookstores or directly from its publisher at whitman.com. This book contains a great deal of essential information, although the pricing may not be up to date. You will also need to learn how to grade coins. I recommend The Official American Numismatic Association Grading Standards for United States Coins (7th ed. 2013), available from Whitman and other retailers. There is also an online photographic grading guide at www.pcgs.com. Look at the bottom of the page under "Resources" for "PCGS Photograde". Both the NGC and PCGS websites have online information about every U.S. coin and its retail pricing. You will also have to gain in-person experience by looking at a variety of the coins you wish to collect at venues such as coin shows and coin clubs. I've just scratched the surface here, but this should give you a good start.

Thanks Bill. I have a custom set entitled "Characteristics of Cleaned Coins", as well as a number of competitive NGC registry sets that you might want to check out. I construed Ali's answer to your inquiry to suggest that you can include an uncertified coin in a publicly viewable custom set. I added an 1801 half dime that NGC wouldn't certify as having an "altered surface" in the custom set, but it doesn't show up in the publicly viewable version.

However, it doesn't appear that your "raw" coins in a custom set can be seen by the public, only by you. (I just tried to add a "raw" coin to my custom set, and I can only see it when I press the tab to "edit" the set or view the "collection manager".) If there is any way I can publicly display an uncertified coin in a custom set, please let me know!

I hope that no one at NGC takes offense, but it appears that PCGS does certify 1921-S "Zerbe Special Strikes" as "Specimens", as an upcoming Stacks Bowers auction is offering one graded "Specimen 65". (It's lot 7111 in the "Rarities Night" session scheduled for August 25.) These so-called "proofs" or "special strikes" are controversial, so it's understandable that grading services differ on how to classify them.

Many, many certified holders have had their back labels/holograms damaged or detached by dealers' price and inventory tags, especially holders that have been around for some years like this one. It should have no bearing on the authenticity of the holder or the grading service's guarantee. The fact that the coin has been in a dealer's inventory at least suggests that it isn't a newly made counterfeit holder containing a likely counterfeit coin. (For what it's worth, it checks out on NGC Certificate Verification.) It's a matter of taste, but I don't know why anyone wants these saltwater damaged and abrasively "conserved" coins, especially at the premium they command!

I'd say the 2009-D nickel, which I've never found in circulation. I found one circulated 2009-P nickel within the last year or two, and it's the only one I've ever found. Decades ago, I found quite a few 1939s, but it's now been many years since I've found one. Both 2009 nickels and dimes were low mintage in the context of modern circulating issues, though not otherwise. I found one uncirculated 2009-P dime shortly after their year of issue and none since. I've never found a 2009-D dime in circulation either. A dealer told me that a large number of rolls of both denominations from both mints were hoarded. If so they're unlikely to ever become "rare" coins.

Although I can't see much about your coin from your photo either, I can tell you that an I882 Indian cent (technically, the United States issues cents, not pennies) is a relatively common date in the Indian cent series that began in 1859 and ended in 1909. (The portrait is actually of a Caucasian woman representing Liberty wearing a feathered headdress, not of an American Indian.) Mint records indicate that in 1882 38,578,000 cents were struck. Based upon what I can see and the $4 price on the holder yours is a well-worn and possibly damaged or corroded specimen. Current retail prices in standard guides for unimpaired pieces of this date begin at $3.50 for a well-worn "Good" and $35 for a slightly worn About Uncirculated, with a number of grades between. (Uncirculated coins also have a number of grades, with values ranging from $60 to several thousand dollars depending upon the quality of the surfaces and strike and the amount of original mint color.) If you wish make good purchases as a coin collector, it is essential that you educate yourself about coins. In addition to using online resources such as the NGC Coin Explorer, I recommend that you purchase a copy of A Guide Book of United States Coins (newest edition dated 2023), commonly known as the "Redbook", which may be available at bookstores or directly from its publisher at whitman.com. This book contains a great deal of essential information, although the pricing may not be up to date. You will also need to learn how to grade coins. I recommend The Official American Numismatic Association Grading Standards for United States Coins (7th ed. 2013), available from Whitman and other retailers. There is also an online photographic grading guide at www.pcgs.com. Look at the bottom of the page under "Resources" for "PCGS Photograde". (The PCGS site also has current coin price and "coinfacts" features, as does the NGC Coin Explorer.) You will also have to gain in-person experience by looking at a variety of the coins you wish to collect at venues such as coin shows and coin clubs. I've just scratched the surface here, but this should give you a good start.

This goes beyond being a counterfeit or a replica. It's a "ludicrous forgery" of a coin that never existed, much like the "1879-S" trade dollars that sometimes turn up. (The Carson City mint didn't start striking coins until 1870, and the motto "In God We Trust" didn't appear on Seated dollars until 1866.)

If you're really concerned about counterfeit, altered, or impaired coins and aren't sure you can spot them yourself, you should only purchase certified coins and keep them in the certified holders, which do afford a guarantee of authenticity as well as some physical protection for the coins. I've always been ambivalent about third party grading, but so many coins have been "slabbed" it's getting hard to find decent older coins that aren't. The 1858-O NGC graded XF 45 appears to be original and accurately graded. The photos on NGC certificate verification are a little clearer, especially when magnified. You might want to end this thread, which has strayed significantly from its original topic about an 1893-S Morgan dollar.

I just noted that NGC identified the 1854-O as a counterfeit based upon depressions and marks appearing under magnification, notwithstanding being of the correct weight and composition! The only way to tell for sure would be if other pieces appeared with the identical marks and depressions from the host coin used to make the copy dies or mold.

I'll reiterate that mint mark positions, especially on nineteenth century coins, vary widely. So do their sizes and shapes, as different punches were used, sometimes during the same year. These variations help identify die varieties for specialists, which are referenced in books and websites on the specific series. Don't confuse diagnostics used to identify added mint marks on key date coins like 1909-S Indian cents struck from a single reverse die or 1916-D dimes with four known reverses with these variations on coins where such alterations aren't an issue! Both the uncertified 1854-O in Eagle RJO's photos and the 1858-O in Mr. Bill's are likely genuine coins, although the 1858-O is obviously "cleaned". Below are photos of three PCGS certified Seated half dollars in my registry set, an 1840-O small O--a larger punch was also used that year--an 1843-O with the mint mark centered and an 1845-O with the mint mark much closer to the "crotch" where the olive branch and arrow feathers cross. The "Shipwreck Effect" coins from the SS Republic and other shipwrecks are severely impaired coins notwithstanding their interesting provenance. I wouldn't want one, certainly not at the high prices they command.

The 1884-CC looks like a typical "baggy" GSA Morgan dollar that would grade MS 61 or 62 by today's standards with lots of abrasions but unworn with original luster. If you can get a picture of the entire holder, the odds are it reads "Carson City Silver Dollar" instead of "Carson City Uncirculated Silver Dollar". The coins that GSA employees considered too "scratched" or "tarnished" were separated into these holders and sold at a discount. In the original mid-1970s sales, "uncirculated" 1882, 83, and 84-CCs were sold for $30, while the ones that were culled--including the better dates--were sold for $15 as "mixed years" coins chosen at random. The culling was inconsistent, and some coins in "mixed years" holders have received higher grades than some in "uncirculated" holders. Many of the "tarnished" coins now sell for premium prices as having attractive original "toning". Per the "VAM book" 788,630 1884-CCs were sold as "uncirculated" and 159,008 as "mixed years". The combined 962,638 represented nearly 85% of their original mintage! All I could afford as a young teenager in 1974 was a single $15 "mixed years" coin, which turned out to be an 1883-CC that looks like the 1884-CC in the photo. It's still the example of that date in my collection. Some luckier buyers got an 1880, 81, 85, 90, 91 or even 79-CC! RJO Eagle--Remember that a large percentage of existing "CC" dollars of these dates were sold in GSA holders, including some that have been removed from them. While you should examine any coin and purportedly original holder that you purchase, I think that your distrust of GSA holders is misplaced. (I've read about fake NGC and PCGS holders but not GSA holders that have been counterfeited or opened and resealed with different coins.). Many dealers sold the coins in just the plastic holders, and a market has developed for the outer boxes and certificates for those who wish to have all of the "original" packaging.

The 1854-O half dollar in Mr. Bill's photo could be a counterfeit, but it's most likely a harshly cleaned and otherwise abused genuine coin. (It also appears to have been holed and plugged at around 1:00 relative to the obverse!) The most suspicious aspect is the extra metal around the reverse devices and lettering, but this could be the result of etching by too long an immersion in an acidic dip. While mint mark positions are important for authenticating lower mintage mint marked coins that were struck from a limited number of dies whose diagnostics are well known, they are less useful for more common issues struck from a large number of die pairs, as mint marks were hand punched into the dies until the early 1990s, and the locations vary from die to die. (Someone reading this who has the Wiley-Bugert book on Seated half dollar die varieties might be able to identify this one, but if it matches it could still be a counterfeit modeled from a genuine coin. and if it doesn't it could be an unlisted die variety.) In any event, it isn't a coin I'd buy either. (For $10 or so it might make a nice gift for a young collector.)

I see a raised dot in approximately the correct location, but the coin has a number of other raised dots and lumps beneath the date from corrosion or foreign matter. I understand that the three known specimens all came from cased sets obtained from the Royal Canadian Mint. If Kevine84 believes he has discovered a circulated specimen, he should submit it to NGC or PCGS. He should discuss it with them first, as the grading fee for a genuine piece would be quite high. If it is authenticated, it would be big news!

You might want to buy your 1880-85-CC Morgan dollars in GSA holders, as they were taken from mint bags and placed in the holders without anyone having an opportunity to dip or clean them. Many of them have a "blast white" appearance because they were stored in an airtight vault surrounded by other coins, but they aren't "washed out".

The 1879-CC definitely looks like it has been subjected to a scrubbing with silver polish. The 1883-CC looks a bit washed out (dipped), but it could just be the way it was photographed. Have you examined the actual coins or just the photos? The same coin can look completely different in different photos! Many uncirculated silver coins that have likely been dipped are graded by the grading services with a reduction in MS grade. It isn't considered "cleaning" unless the luster was significantly impaired by too many or too long immersions. They also grade circulated silver coins that appear to have been dipped, though I hate their unnaturally bright appearance. In previous times (up to the 1970s or even later) many collectors preferred the appearance of dipped coins to those that had heavy toning, then derided as "ugly tarnish". Tastes change.

You are obviously very new to coin collecting! Your 1902 Indian cent grades approximately Very Good but has some damage and corrosion. It's only worth (retail) a dollar or so, maybe $2 if undamaged. Your very common 1958-D Lincoln cent (Very Fine details) is also damaged and not worth much more than a cent. Third party grading is only economically justifiable for coins worth several hundred dollars or more! Coins of lesser value can still be enjoyed and preserved in coin albums and other proper holders. If you're interested in becoming a coin collector, you need to learn about coins. If you respond that you are interested, I and others can suggest the books and other resources you'll need.

It's important to remember that acetone is highly flammable, so don't use it anywhere near a flame or something very hot! It's also unwise to breathe its fumes.

This is a likely cast counterfeit from a mold made from an impression of a genuine circulated coin. I agree with Mr. Lange's analysis. It is also probably thicker than a real one, which would explain the higher than legal weight. The edge reeding may be irregular, and there may be an area of tooling on the edge showing evidence of the "gate" into which the metal was poured. It likely contains little or no silver, which you may tell by comparing the sound it makes when dropped onto a hard surface from an inch or so as compared with the "ring" of a common circulated Morgan or Peace dollar, which was struck in the same weight and composition as a Seated dollar. My own best (by far) Seated dollar is an 1840 PCGS graded AU 58, of which you can see photos and comments on the NGC Registry at 1840 United States $1 | NGC (ngccoin.com) (Right click on the link and left click to "open link in new tab".)

Regarding the 1836 quarter about which the original poster inquired, the die cracks on both sides are consistent with later states of 1836 B-2. I realize that most of you don't have access to A.W. Browning's The Early Quarter Dollars of the United States, 1796-1838, originally published in 1925, or the 1991 reprint with comments by Walter Breen, of which I have a copy. I'm attaching a copy of pp.150-151 regarding this variety. The first two paragraphs on p. 151 (Browning's original text) describe the cracks; see also the comments in small type regarding states II and III. While counterfeits showing all of these cracks could have been struck from a mold or transfer dies made from a genuine host coin, I've never heard of this being done with pieces of this series. All U.S. quarters were made with reeded edges. All half dollars before the introduction in late 1836 of the "close collar" that fits tightly around the coin as it is struck were made with lettered edges. (Errors excluded in both cases.) The mintage of "1,200+" still stated in the standard "Red Book" for the 1836 Reeded Edge half dollar is definitely low. Researchers now believe that as many as 5,000 or more were struck. I purchased one of these last year--a major acquisition--and it is in several of my registry sets with more extensive comments at 1836 REEDED United States 50C GR-1 | NGC (ngccoin.com).

A "whizzed" coin is one whose surface has been scraped by a rapidly rotating wire brush in a misguided attempt to simulate mint luster on a circulated coin to make the uninformed believe that the coin is uncirculated. A "whizzed" coin is considered to be more impaired than most that have been "cleaned". "Whizzing" was a fad in the 1960s and 70s and ruined many otherwise desirable coins. I've seen some certified coins labeled "whizzed" that I don't think were, but the 1893-S in your photo appears to have been one that was actually "whizzed". When you look at such a coin under magnification you can see how messed up its surfaces are due to thousands of microscopic scratches and displaced metal from the brush. It's difficult to say what would be a reasonable price for any impaired coin, as each one's impairment is unique. An unimpaired AU 50 1893-S lists $22,500 in Coin World, a big jump from the $9,000 shown for an XF 40 or the $5,000 for a VF 20. It's a matter of what you're able and willing to pay for a coin that will always be unacceptable to those collectors who regard themselves as connoisseurs or investors and harder to sell. It might be a good deal at $5,000-$7,000 (VF money), but I bet the seller wants over $10,000 and might get it from someone. I've always considered 1893-S Morgan dollars overpriced in lower grades--many thousands exist--but based on the certified population reports they do get scarce above VF and could be said to be rare AU or Uncirculated. I have all of the other dates and mints of Morgan dollars issued for circulation but never bothered to buy an 1893-S because I knew I could get much rarer coins in other series (such as Bust and Seated liberty series) for the money. For example, an 1871-CC Seated Dollar with a mintage of 1,376 versus 100,000 for the 1893-S Morgan lists $20,000 in AU 50, 10% less than the 1893-S Morgan in that grade but it is, far, far rarer. There's more to coin collecting than simply filling holes or slots, and insistence on set completion at any price or sacrifice of quality may be unwise.

I see a scratch between the wreath and the eagle's left facing wing as well as the scratch beneath "we trust". (The various other blemishes I see are from bag storage and nearly always found on silver dollars.) The grading services in my experience give some leeway for light, short scratches on large silver coins, but these, especially, the one under the eagle's wing, may be too long and too obvious for them to give the coin a numerical grade. I'm not sure whether an 1883-CC dollar that would grade less than MS 65 would be worth the $40 grading fee and processing and shipping costs anyway.

Here's what an 1847 large cent like yours looked like before it became worn, corroded and damaged. (Large cents were minted from 1793 to 1857, with the "Coronet" or "Braided Hair" type minted from 1839 to 1857.) This one has no wear, although the bright color has been restored with chemicals. If coins could speak, though, I'm sure that yours would have more interesting stories!

If I understand your statement that you "know nothing about this coin" to mean that you cannot even identify it by type, it is a Capped Bust, close collar strike quarter dollar. This exact type of quarter was struck each year from 1831 through 1838, with the first Seated Liberty quarters also being struck in and dated 1838. Coins of each date of this type are usually available from coin dealers, with the July 2022 issue of Coin World monthly listing each date at $75-80 in well-worn Good, $150-200 Very Fine, and $350-400 Extremely Fine. About Uncirculated coins retail for $700 or more, and Uncirculated coins (scarce) go for four or more figures depending upon the mint state grade. I suggest you refer to a recent standard or deluxe edition of the "Redbook", the NGC Coin Explorer, or PCGS Coinfacts for more information. Always "buy the book before the coin" or nowadays at least look at the free online references! The specimen whose photos you show appears to be genuine--though I cannot guarantee that it is--and with About Uncirculated details, though likely chemically "cleaned" and not worth the list price for an unimpaired AU. The die cracks that are apparently of concern to some of the other responders frequently occur on these coins and actually helped me identify this one as a late die state of an 1836 Browning die variety no. 2, a scarcer, though not rare, 1836 die variety. (Various elements of dies of earlier U.S. coins were punched or engraved by hand, and some specialists collect them not only by date but by die variety based on the positions and styles of letters, numbers, etc.)