Sandon

The coin has no better than XF details. The obverse shows significant wear on the hair, cotton bolls, and leaves and on the reverse on the eagle's breast and head. I can see no mint luster, which should appear in the fields on an AU coin that isn't more darkly toned than this one. The photos are inadequate to make any meaningful evaluation of the coin's originality or authenticity. (Remember that counterfeit dies are often modeled from genuine coins, so the die variety isn't determinative.) I do see some (1) "shininess" and (2) indications of streaks that at different lightings and angles than shown in the photos could be revealed as hairlines, either of which would designate the coin as "cleaned". I would never buy such a coin without the opportunity for in-person examination or, at a bare minimum, better photos in terms of lighting and more photos showing views from different angles.

Photos of Felix Schlag's original models that I've seen feature the narrow "8" in the date. The mint didn't adhere to it in subsequent years ending in "8". Incidentally, coins dated 1943 feature a round top "3", although the flat top "3" returned in subsequent years ending in "3".

This coin doesn't have either die or strike (machine) doubling. The faint image around some of the letters is likely due to die wear and is called "die erosion". The clog in the top of the "8" is a die chip as noted by Fenntucky Mike. These chips appear frequently on cents from the mid to late 1950s and early 1960s, and there was a fad of collecting them decades ago, though not lately. The deformity of the "I" and "B" is most likely damage. Of the various forms of doubling that can appear on coins, only a true doubled die, where the doubling is the result of improper die manufacture, may have value in the numismatic market. Such doubling is usually on one side of the coin and is found on all specimens from the die. The doubling is clear and has about the same depth as the primary image. The 1972 doubled die cent shown below is a good example. Note the crisp, clear doubling of all of the letters and numbers on the obverse, while the reverse is normal.

Allow me to provide a different opinion. In my view, it makes no sense to submit recently issued modern coins that you received in original mint packaging for third party certification. There is no question as to their authenticity, and virtually all of them are Superb Gems, with large numbers grading "70", which are virtually indistinguishable from nearly all of the others, which are graded "69". (I store mine in mint packaging or mint capsules, except for pieces I've bought for registry sets, with some "70s" costing less than their current grading fees!) Once you've paid the grading and processing fees and shipping and insurance costs, you would likely make little or no profit by selling the certified pieces grading "70" at wholesale prices to dealers or through auctions after commissions. Any pieces grading "69" or lower would likely be salable only at a loss. Dealers may be able to submit the coins more cheaply than you can. You should ask the dealers to whom you might sell the coins what they would pay for uncertified pieces and what they would pay for pieces already graded "69" or "70" before attempting to submit them yourself. I don't know why your sets are "unopened". They should have been inspected when received in case any coins were missing or damaged, as has happened. The mint's return privilege is only seven days.

@schism--Please see my response of today on your posting regarding a 1996-P quarter for references to websites and publications from which you may gain the knowledge I presume that you're seeking. I've been a collector for over fifty years and agree that all of the coins you've posted are either severely damaged and/or struck from worn dies, not numismatically desirable or valuable errors or varieties. It's not possible to explain "why" to someone who lacks basic knowledge without providing a very lengthy explanation, as well as showing many coins exhibiting known error characteristics. We're volunteers who are taking the time to help you, which you should appreciate. This will be my last effort to do so.

I'll assume that @schism is seriously attempting to obtain information about how to identify and attribute mint errors. The website "www.error-ref.com" appears to have a comprehensive listing of various types of errors and die varieties, with photos. @Oldhoopster has previously mentioned "www.doubleddie.com", which is authored by John Wexler, a recognized expert, although this site concentrates on die varieties and errors, not striking errors. I recommend that @schism as a new collector also learn about U.S. coins more generally. To that end I recommend he refer to the books and online resources mentioned in the following post that I made on this forum:

We have an old saying, "buy the book before the coin," which today can include looking at online resources. If you are a new collector, you may wish to refer to the following post I made on this forum:

I advise that you go to the NGC home page and review the items under the "SUBMIT" tab at the top of the page, especially "HOW TO SUBMIT", "COINS WE GRADE AND POLICIES", and most importantly "SERVICES & FEES". In essence, the costs include (1) a service charge of $10 per submission form, regardless of the number of coins submitted, (2) a grading fee per coin whose amount is determined by the "tier" selected for the entire form, which depends upon the value range of the coins submitted, their age, and whether they are U.S. or foreign and, (3) charges for shipping and insurance. (You also have to arrange shipping to NGC or submit at coin show attended by NGC, listed as "EVENTS" under the "SUBMISSION" tab. There are additional charges for attribution by die variety, special holders, etc. if desired. You also have to purchase an NGC membership with submission privileges. If you download and fill out a submission form, it should automatically calculate the total cost. A coin is only worth submitting for certification from a financial standpoint if it is worth several hundred dollars or more, and you should have sufficient knowledge to determine whether it has such value. I don't know how much knowledge you have about your coins. A reputable dealer may be able to assist you in making this determination and in submitting coins worthy of certification. If you want to learn about coins yourself, you may want to look at the following article that I posted on this forum:

Your photo shows that this is a 1982-D large date cent, which was struck in large quantities in both 95% copper alloy and in copper plated zinc. Both are extremely common--over six billion 1982-D cents of both date sizes and compositions were struck in total--and unless in gem uncirculated condition, which yours is not, worth only their one cent face value. The weight of 3.1 grams indicates that yours is 95% copper, the more common of the two with the large date. It is not rare. You have no doubt seen some sensationalist video or site on the internet that referred to the 1982-D small date cent struck in the 95% copper alloy, which was only recently discovered. It is extremely unlikely that you would ever find one of these, but it would also have a weight of approximately 3.1 grams, as opposed to the 2.5 grams of a copper plated zinc cent, of which all 1982-D small dates were until recently thought to have been. To see the difference in date sizes, refer to the photos at Lincoln Cents, Memorial Reverse (1959-2008) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). (Right click for the menu to open the link and click on the large and small date varieties for enlarged photos.) If you are a new collector, you should acquire basic reference materials to learn about coins. I have made some suggestions in the following post on this forum:

@EagleRJOLook at the old Stacks Bowers lot in the following link, a 1918/7-D Buffalo nickel with the date restored for a good example of such a coin: https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-B2EZV/19187-d-vg-8-details (I would have called it G, not VG details.)

There are chemicals that restore worn off dates well enough to make them legible, although the area of the date is etched and darkened. Such coins are collectible only as low value "fillers". For nickels there is--or was--a product called "Nic-A-Date" that as I recall was an iron chloride solution that was used to restore dates to many thousands of Buffalo nickels, especially pieces with mint marks. The first 1913-D and S Type 2s and 1921-S that I bought as a teenager for $1 or so apiece were such restored date fillers. A nitric acid solution was used to retore dates on silver coins such as pre-1925 Standing Liberty quarters. I understand that law enforcement uses such chemicals to restore legible serial numbers to guns and other devices when criminals had planed them off.

This coin is clearly damaged. The raised metal surrounding the gash on the reverse shows that the surface metal was pushed up after the coin was struck. A coin struck through foreign matter wouldn't have all this displaced metal, nor would it be so deep.

I suspect that by "more rare" the dealer meant that the coins would become more expensive over time due to increased demand and possible hoarding. I have found that the term "rare" is frequently applied to any coin that is popular with collectors, such as 1881-S Morgan dollar of which millions exist, or even to any coin that can't be readily found in pocket change such as a "W" mint quarter. It can also be used to describe coins with low certified populations or die varieties of which not many have yet been discovered but more eventually are as more collectors look for them. The Neophyte Numismatists' half cent variety rarity chart is an example of the last category. Under the rarity scale used for die varieties of early U.S. coins employed in the chart, most of the later coins usually described as "rare", such as 1909-S V.D.B. Lincoln cents, 1916-D "Mercury" dimes, or even 1907 High Relief St. Gaudens double eagles, have populations well in excess of 1,250 pieces and would all be classified as "R1". This scale isn't pertinent to such coins. "W" mint quarters that weren't found in uncirculated rolls and bags by those who looked for them will be subject to wear, damage, and loss in the hands of the unknowing general public. In that sense they will become "rarer". Many collectors like me have never received one in circulation. I'm not willing to pay the current premium for them. There still will be plenty left in most uncirculated grades for those who are willing to pay the price.

The John Jay Pittman collection, sold in 1997-98, included proof sets for each of the years from 1843 through 1846, complete from the proof only half cent through the ten-dollar gold piece! Each of these sets was housed in a blue velvet lined wooden case covered in burgundy Morocco leather. The 1844 set was accompanied by a price list printed by Manley & Orr of 45 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, PA entitled "Complete Series of Coins of the United States of America", listing each of the coins at its face value and adding $3.085 for the case, for a total cost of $22 for the set. David Akers, who catalogued and sold this magnificent collection, understood that Pittman had purchased the 1846 set in its entirety as an original set in its case of issue and that the 1843 and 44 sets "consisted of original copper and silver sets paired with original gold sets, but without the certainty that the copper and silver sets actually belonged with the gold sets with which they were paired." Catalog of The John Jay Pittman Collection, Part Two, at p.167 (Lot 1712, the 1846 proof set). Pittman had mostly assembled the 1845 set, but the gold coins as a group and the half dime, dime and quarter as a group had likely each been from separate original sets. See Catalog Part One, lots 832-833, Catalog Part Two, Lots 1711-1712. It appears that the mint did issue a few complete proof sets in the years prior to 1859, as well as groups and individual pieces of minor and silver coins and gold coins. It doesn't appear, though, that many collectors wanted them at that time or that they were available to the general public.

After all that "great looking stuff", how about something that's truly awful looking but nevertheless interesting? This is an 1801 half dime that I purchased at a local coin auction in 1999. It is the only Draped Bust, Heraldic Eagle half dime that I've acquired in over fifty years of collecting. Half dimes are in my experience the hardest denomination of this design type to obtain. Although it is battered and abused, it is one of those coins that I wish could speak so that I could hear the stories it could tell, perhaps including being stepped on by a horse! I submitted it to NGC earlier this year in the hope of using it to fill some type set registry slots, but NGC concluded that it had an "altered surface" and would not grade or encapsulate it. At least I am able to share its photo here.

This inquiry might get more attention from the NGC staff if it were placed in the "Ask NGC/NCS" forum.

You can blow up the posted reverse photo by clicking it and then clicking the "+" emblem twice. Here is the photo from NGC VarietyPlus, which shows the A and M essentially touching on a "Close AM", which clearly isn't the case on Thunderkat84's specimen.

PCGS uses this description to designate likely artificial toning, which is created by "coin doctors" in an attempt to increase the coin's value to collectors who like toned coins or to disguise "cleaning" or other problems. I believe that NGC designates such pieces as "artificially toned" or "altered color". It is sometimes controversial whether the toning on a particular coin is natural or artificial. The coloration on your 1909 Lincoln cent does not appear to be original. It should be orange, not pinkish as it appears in the photo. Compare it to the accompanying photo of a 1909 V.D.B. graded MS 65 RD.

To get more and better responses, inquiries of this sort should be posted under the forums for "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" or "U.S./Foreign/Ancient Coins", not the Registry forum. You should also include photos of the coin about which you are inquiring. Respectfully, please also try to write more intelligibly and use proper sentence structure and punctuation. There are two different types (designs) of 1795 silver dollars, the Flowing Hair and the Draped Bust. While either one is valuable if genuine, there are many counterfeits and replicas (fakes), which are usually worthless. The condition of a genuine piece also means a great deal. A genuine coin of either type will have on the edge of the coin the words "HUNDRED CENTS ONE DOLLAR OR UNIT" with decorative circles and rectangles between the words. Most fakes don't. You appear to be a new collector who needs education to collect coins successfully. "Buy the book before the coin." Please look at the following article I posted for how to obtain some important books and online resources:

The NGC Registry allows both NGC and PCGS certified United States coins. Coins issued by other countries must be certified by NGC. To answer your other questions, go to the NGC home page (www.ngccoin.com) and read the various pages under the "Submit" tab. I advise that you determine that your uncertified coins likely have sufficient value to make the cost of membership, grading fees, and shipping and insurance costs worthwhile before submitting them.

Yes, unfortunately both of these purported Flying Eagle cents, a rare date 1856 and a common date 1858 large letters, are counterfeits that aren't very deceptive to those who know what the genuine ones look like. The 1856 has several distinctive characteristics, the most familiar that only on the 1856 does the "5" in the date slant to the right. Another is that the interior of the "O" in "OF" appears somewhat rectangular instead of perfectly oval. I hope that EmilioV's father didn't pay much for either of these counterfeits, as they have no value. Occasionally, genuine pieces do turn up in unexpected ways. Some years back a member of a coin club to which I belong had inexpensively purchased a miscellaneous group of coins at an estate sale. One of the pieces was an 1856 Flying Eagle cent, which he knew was frequently faked. When I examined the coin, I found that it had some surface damage but had the characteristics of a genuine specimen! NGC subsequently certified the coin with a grade of Fine details, and as I recall it was sold for over $5,000.

This common late date Seated dime has Choice Very Fine details and apparently original surfaces, with an obverse rim bump, some light but extensive reverse scratches, and some small patches of likely reverse corrosion in the upper wreath. It's still a nice affordable collector coin for an album or individual holder. I don't see anything green and assume you are referring to the small black patches, which are likely corrosion. Acetone might remove these patches if they are some sort of dirt or residue but not if they are corrosion as I suspect.

Both coins grade Fine, with apparently original surfaces and the usual marks and light scratches seen on pieces with this level of circulation. They are simply nice, affordable common date collector coins that can be enjoyed in albums or individual holders as you may prefer.

Although I don't consider myself an expert on mint errors, I'll attempt an explanation. Origami Master's coin doesn't resemble a coin struck through grease or other foreign matter, which wouldn't create the apparent concavity of the obverse. Nor does it resemble any other known category of mint error, such as a "brockage"--a strike from a previously struck coin that had adhered to the obverse die-- which would result in the "obverse" having a blurred mirror image of the reverse. It appears instead that someone used some sort of tool to scrape off or scoop out much of the obverse detail, except for the rim, which shows a number of likely tell-tale nicks and scrapes. It might be informative to weigh this coin to see if it weighs the approximately 3.11 grams that a 1982 brass (copper) cent is supposed to weigh, as its being underweight would tend to confirm that it was altered after being struck. (I assume that the lighter color on most of the obverse is a peculiarity of the photo and not exposed zinc on a 1982 copper plated zinc cent, which would tend to prove that the original copper colored surface was scraped off.) In order to conclude that a coin is a mint error, one must be able to explain how it was created during the minting process. I can think of no such explanation for this piece.

EagleRJO--As I recall you have the 7th (current) edition of the ANA grading guide. Take a look at the table on p.287 for grading uncirculated Morgan dollars. There is a column for "hairlines" that indicates the amount that may be visible without magnification in various uncirculated grades from MS 60 through MS 65, with some visible under magnification in grades as high as MS 67! There are similar tables for other large coins that were subjected to bag storage. Coins also acquire stray or patch hairlines in circulation. (It's likely that at least some coins with "continuous hairlining over surfaces" as allowed in the ANA guide for MS 60-61 are details graded "cleaned" by the grading services.) Hairlining from an abrasive "cleaning" is more intense, tends to be in straight or curving lines, and tends to give the coin an unnatural looking sheen when viewed with the naked eye. You may be able to see this by taking a piece of pocket change and rubbing an area of it hard with a pencil eraser or other rough object.