Sandon

Here is NGC's photo (from VarietyPlus) of the date area of the rare 1969-S doubled die. Notice the clear doubling on the numerals with both images at about the same depth, while the mintmark, which was punched separately into the die, is not doubled. Similar doubling appears on the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" and "LIBERTY.". Your photos are blurry but do not appear to be the doubled die. If you see a weaker secondary image with less depth than the primary image, it is "strike doubling" caused by the die being a bit loose in the press, which has little or no value to collectors.

Welcome to the NGC forums! (Your post would have been better placed under the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" or "U.S., World, and Ancient Coins" forums, as this forum is specifically for matters pertaining to the NGC Registry for coins that have already been third party graded. The Administrator will likely move it to one of them.) Perhaps ironically, one needs to know something about the valuation of coins, including how to grade them, in order to determine whether they are worth sending to a third- party grading service such as NGC. Your post is entitled "Morgan dollars", which range in retail value from about $25 for a well-worn common date and mint to tens of thousands of dollars for a rare date and mint or variety in superb gem uncirculated condition. NGC grading fees alone for such coins start at $23 for coins valued at under $300 and increase to $40 for one worth up to $3,000, with higher fees for higher value tiers. Each order (one tier only) also involves a $10 processing fee and substantial shipping and insurance costs. NGC and PCGS have annual membership fees to obtain submission privileges in the first place. Obviously, one wouldn't want to incur these costs unless the coins submitted are likely to be of substantially greater value. If you have some Morgan dollars and are just curious about what they're worth but have no real interest in coins, I'd recommend showing them to collectors or reputable coin dealers at shops or coin shows in your area to get an opinion. (If you can take decent photos, you can post them on the "Newbie" forum and seek feedback from the forum participants.) If you're interested in becoming a collector yourself, you need to first "buy the book before the coin" and learn about U.S. coins and their grading yourself. In this regard I have the following post (click on title to open) describing some essential books, publications and online resources, the most essential of which is referred to as the "Redbook", which is quite affordable. I hope this helps.

Here's another of my album coins, an 1837 Seated half dime acquired at another Bowers & Merena auction in 2002. I believe this one was perhaps conservatively graded XF45.

I purchased this uncertified key date 1885 Liberty nickel at a Bowers & Merena auction in 1999, where it was graded XF40. It has been housed in a Whitman bookshelf Liberty nickel album stored in a safe deposit box since that time, and I only recently had a chance to photograph it.

@foundit--I thought you were referring to a Canadian nickel that sold for over $2,000, though on re-reading it, perhaps you were referring to the era when you found the nickel. I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but to avoid such misunderstandings it's better to write things out.

@pigeonman333rd--NGC has the 1893-S Morgan dollar as #10 on its list of 50 most frequently counterfeited or altered U.S. coins! While thousands of genuine pieces exist, their high value has led to the creation of many thousands of added mintmarks, altered dates, and outright counterfeits. Go to 10. 1893-S Morgan Dollar | NGC (ngccoin.com) (right click to open) for photos of the diagnostics of genuine pieces, including the die lumps in the "R" and die scratch in the "T" of "LIBERTY" and the mintmark shape and position. The "3" in the date on genuine pieces is also slightly higher than the other numbers, and it appears to be level or lower on your piece. Respectfully, if you purchase coins at this price level and aren't very familiar with authenticating and grading them, you should only buy pieces certified by reputable grading services such as ANACS, NGC, or PCGS or at least buy them from well-established, reputable dealers such as Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG) members. (It would also be better to post inquiries about your coins as new postings.)

As stated in the standard "Redbook" (note on p.139 of 2021 edition under listing of "wartime silver alloy" five cent pieces), "1944 nickels without mintmarks are counterfeits". They were readily identified by the lack of the large mintmark above the dome, and as I recall the Mr. Henning who made them had to spend some time in a federal penitentiary. They have, however, become collectible in their own right. @Quintus Arrius--I don't recall any such pieces dated 1954.

If you're referring to uploading photos from your computer to the filled slots in your registry sets, go to (click on) the post that appears below. If you're referring to posting photos from your computer on the forum, click "reply to this post" (or start a new topic) and follow the instructions at the below the box in which you type to choose files to attach, which will add the photos to the post.

Somehow many people enjoyed coin collecting long before grading services existed. Indeed, I would submit that it was more enjoyable and more of a true "hobby" before one worried whether a grading service would grade a coin 65, 65+, or 66, which service had graded a coin and when, and whether some other company had placed a sticker on the holder. I certainly enjoyed it in the 1970s when I began collecting, and the 1985 ANA convention which I attended was a great success and memorable to me as the last one without "slabs". (ANACS certificates, their precursors, were, however, abundant.) Authenticity was more of a concern than the exact grade of a coin, and I thought that third party certification would be of value only for high value coins that are frequently counterfeit or altered. I couldn't have imagined that millions of modern collector issues would be ripped from their mint packaging and sent to grading services for mass marketing to "collectors" who have little or no interest in really learning anything about coins but think that one graded "70" is really better than one graded "69"! Regarding the proposed new "CAC" grading service, I understand that CAC, unlike the current grading services, buys and sells coins it has stickered. Will the new grading service buy and sell coins it has graded? Wouldn't such activity constitute a conflict of interest and make the new service more of a dealer than a third-party grading service?

I've never understood the hype about CAC. I have a few coins in holders with green "CAC" stickers and don't find any of them to be particularly "choice for the grade" or undergraded. One is an 1883 "No Cents" Liberty nickel graded PR64 CAM by PCGS the frost of whose devices is so light as to make its "cameo" status arguable. I also have a 1942 Walking Liberty half dollar in a PCGS "rattler" holder (the original holder used c.1986-89) graded PR64 with a gold CAC sticker. It is nice and could grade "65" today, but that isn't unusual for certified coins of that vintage. I bought each of these coins for what I thought was a reasonable price as I evaluated them, always below retail list at the designated grade. The CAC stickers weren't involved in my calculation of their value. Nor is the grading service grade when I consider a coin to be overgraded. I have long been disheartened about the willingness of many collectors to base purchasing decisions largely or entirely on the name and number on a little paper tag or the presence or absence of a sticker. Why isn't it better to gain knowledge about the coins one wishes to collect and to base purchasing decisions on that knowledge and on one's own personal judgment and taste?

If you view the holder with magnification at different angles, you should be able to distinguish scratches and scuffs on the holder from those on the coin itself. Most grading service holders aren't very scratch resistant, and you have to be careful not to let them rub against rough surfaces, including other holders. There are cellophane wrappers and other covers on the market to protect them, as do the grooved "slab" boxes that separate the holders from each other. If you bought this coin sight unseen, and it arrived in a holder that was this scratched, you might want to see about returning it for exchange or refund. While several decades ago the numerical grade of "70" was supposed to represent a theoretical absolutely perfect coin--which in reality doesn't exist--today as used by grading services it refers to an uncirculated or proof coin that shows no imperfections at low magnification. As stated on NGC's "Grading Scale" page (under the "Coin Grading" tab at the top of the home page), "NGC defines a Mint State or Proof 70 coin as having no post-production imperfections at 5x magnification." For this reason, I've never understood the paying of high premiums for modern coins graded "70" over those graded "69", as there's usually no observably significant difference between them. As to the haze to which you just referred, this is sometimes found even on newly minted proof coins and often appears over time. Grading services don't consider it to be an imperfection. See item 8a. of NGC's grading guarantee at NGC Guarantee | Coin Certification Guarantee | NGC (ngccoin.com). For this and other reasons, don't buy any coin sight unseen if issues like these render a coin unacceptable to you.

If you're still convinced that the Canadian quarter is some sort of rare and valuable mint error, you should show it to serious error collectors or reputable dealers who deal in errors--major coin shows are good for this--or pay to submit it to a reputable grading service such as NGC, PCGS or ANACS. "Plating errors" such as the bubbles frequently found on Lincoln cents of 1983-89 are regarded as poor quality control rather than as mint errors and are not valued by collectors. Where did you see one that sold for $2,000?

TCGB--The genuine pieces, which are rare, were made of silver, pewter (an alloy that is mainly tin) or rarely brass. Your piece is mostly lead (Pb) with only a trace of tin (Sn). The uniformly dark and rough surfaces and weak details also identify this as one of the countless copies and replicas made over the years. For an example of a genuine pewter example that is currently being offered for sale, go to https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-Z7V5I/1776-1783-continental-dollar-newman-2-c-w-8455-rarity-3-currency-pewter-ms-64-ngc .

A die clash is distinctly different from a coin that has been struck multiple times! "Clashed dies" means that a pair of coinage dies came together in the press without a coin blank between them, resulting in traces of the design from one (or each) of the dies transferring to the other. Subsequent coins struck from these clashed dies will show evidence of the clash, known as "clash marks", as on this 1865 copper nickel three cent piece from my collection, which shows strong clash marks on each side, (as well as die cracks on the obverse around "OF"). Liberty's profile from the obverse is especially strong on the left side of the reverse: Clash marks are relatively common, especially on older coins, and usually add little or no premium to the coin's value. On the other hand, coins featuring multiple strikes from the dies while the blank was in different positions in relationship to the dies are considered to be significant errors and often command good prices. Each one is one of a kind. Here are NGC photos of the obverse of a double struck foreign coin with the second struck well off center and of one that was triple struck, each in a different position: I hope this helps.

Your photos are very grainy. I can't tell whether the obverse has doubling of some sort or it's just the blurriness of the photo. I see no doubling on the Lincoln statue on the reverse, which is also too grainy to see any fine detail. The weakness at the upper reverse is either due to grease on the die or is simply the result of inadequate striking pressure. Grease filled dies are not valued by collectors unless an entire side of the coin is affected, and I don't recall them being particularly valuable even then. Lincoln cents with the memorial reverse are frequently weakly struck in this area because it is opposite Lincoln's bust on the obverse die and requires more pressure for the reverse die to bring up the design in that area. This sort of "error" is not valued by collectors. To the contrary, collectors prefer strongly struck coins. Under one of your previous posts ("1996 quarter DDO") I suggested some resources to which you could refer to learn about mint errors and about U.S. coins generally. Have you done so? Some level of knowledge helps to ask us good questions.

Here's an uncertified 1857-O Seated half dollar that I purchased at a local coin show earlier this year. The 1857-O is the lowest mintage (818,000) "O" mint Seated half from the 1854-61 period and apparently the scarcest. I had looked for a long time for a suitable and affordable example. This coin has AU details, is sharply struck and shows a fair amount of mint luster, especially on the reverse. However, it has been lightly to moderately "cleaned" and has some rim damage on the left side of the obverse. The dealer from whom I purchased it took note of these issues and sold it for a reasonable price. It now resides in a Dansco Seated half album with most of the rest of my collection of this type. (My NGC and PCGS certified examples are in my Seated half dollar registry set.)

My VAM book (third edition from 1991) lists the same ten numbers as VAMWORLD, with VAM 1 (normal slanted arrow feather large CC) and VAM 2 (normal parallel arrow feather with small CC) already said not to exist because all known coins were varieties. (I think that Van Allen and Mallis always reserved the first numbers for "normal dies" for any pieces that weren't easily distinguishable from others, which could have included a number of different die pairs with slightly different date and/or mint mark positions.) I think that your photos may be of a VAM 3. The date and mint mark positions appear to match, although it's hard to tell when you can't compare them side to side. (I have to switch between screens.) The low quality of the photos of the coin in question and the wear and dirt on the coin make the diagnostics, such as die polish marks, the dash under the second "8" and the slight doubling on the first "8" and the "0" impossible to see. You would need to have the actual coin for examination to confirm that it is an unlisted die variety. Most serious collectors seek and study 1880-CCs in uncirculated grades, as most existing pieces are uncirculated from the GSA hoard (over 131,000 pieces) or earlier releases of mint bags in 1938 and 1955 believed by Q. David Bowers to have totaled around 100,000 pieces. (Source: his Silver and Trade Dollars of the United States: A Complete Encyclopedia, Volume 2 at 2299 (1991).) Therefore, it's possible, though not likely, that there are unknown die varieties of this lower mintage issue among well circulated coins.

RWB's explanation is almost certainly the correct one for the cent and nickel. I've found coins that looked like this lying on parking lots and in roadways. The Canadian quarter appears (most likely) to have been etched by acid. It could also have been damaged by high heat, coated with some foreign substance, or be a crude counterfeit. It's hard to tell from the photos. Had the roughness been in the planchet (blank), it would have been smoothed out by the pressure of striking. If the roughness was imparted by the dies, a number of others with identical roughness should exist. Some much older coins were struck with rusted dies, but none I've seen has this extent of roughness. Modern die-making, storage and inspection procedures make it incredibly unlikely that such a die would be put in service today. As others have mentioned, to designate a coin as a mint error, one must be able to explain how the error occurred during the minting process. Neither I nor the other experienced collectors who have responded have such an explanation for the quarter. If you still think it's an error, what is yours?

. A coin that has been polished or plated, even if unworn, still has a different "look" from a mirror proof, which can be seen when the two are compared but can't be put in words. (One clue would be that any marks or scratches on a mirror proof probably wouldn't have the mirror surface, while those on a plated or highly polished coin likely would.) Matte proof coins (not just nickels) of the 1908-16 era have a finely grainy surface that is different from the usually frosty luster of an uncirculated regular strike, as well as a broader than usual border. Both types of proofs usually have sharper or more squared off edges than circulation strikes. Unfortunately, one can't fully learn how to recognize these characteristics without looking at the actual coins.

I believe it's "Service@NGCcoin.com". It probably isn't case sensitive, but the first part of the address is "service", not "services".

The date that you should see on the edge (along with the words "E PLURIBUS UNUM") is 2010, followed by a "P" (for Philadelphia) or "D" (for Denver) mint mark. Since 2009 the reverse on Native American dollars has been changed each year.

Alan K--The odd look of "IGWT" when compared to the genuine coins shown in the linked sites is one of many indicators that the original poster's coin is a fake, and a crude one at that!

You don't want to spend these, as the silver in them has value that substantially exceeds their face value. To determine this value, which changes daily, obtain the current spot price of silver per troy ounce from a site such as kitco.com and multiply by 0.18084 for a pre-1965 quarter, 0.07234 for a pre-1965 dime, or 0.36169 for a pre-1965 half dollar. This morning's silver price is $19.56 per ounce, which yields a value of approximately $3.53 per unworn silver quarter. There would be a slight discount due to weight loss from wear. Coin or bullion dealers would pay somewhat less than the spot value but likely still over $3 per quarter at current silver values.

Because of the risk that someone could try to pass off a polished or plated circulation strike as a proof, I'd recommend that you only consider one certified by a reputable grading service such as NGC, PCGS or ANACS. I don't know of videos showing these coins, but there are many photos of specimens, such as on the NGC Coin Explorer, PCGS Coinfacts, and the auction archives of the websites of major numismatic auction houses such as Heritage and Stacks Bowers. I don't recall these later proofs having broader borders than circulation strikes, unlike the 1913-16 matte proofs. However, the edge tends to be sharper (less beveled) than on circulation strikes, as well as the strike. I've never heard of one of these being offered with "moderate wear", but it's possible that a few so impaired pieces could exist. Hopefully, RWB's book would have diagnostics that would remain after the proof surface has worn off. I agree with VKurtB that no photo (or video) can fully do justice to any coin. Try to go to coin shows or other venues where you can see the coins in person. Here are the photos (courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries) of the 1937 NGC graded PF66 that I purchased earlier this year:

This is a rather crude imitation that was probably cast rather than struck. Compare it with the photos of a genuine specimen on the NGC Coin Explorer at 1927 S $20 MS | Coin Explorer | NGC (ngccoin.com) or those on PCGS Coinfacts at 1927-S $20 (Regular Strike) St. Gaudens $20 - PCGS CoinFacts (right click either link for menu to open). Just about everything is wrong (surface texture, color, weakness of details, size and style of letters, numbers and mint mark). It's probably not even gold. The correct weight would be 33.436 grams. The edge of a St. Gaudens double eagle should have the words "E PLURIBUS UNUM" with the words separated by stars. What's on the edge of this one?