Sandon

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.

The 1823 half dollar has been holed and plugged, with related tooling and burnishing, especially on the reverse around the plug. You can see a circle at the center top of the liberty cap where the rather large hole was, with a corresponding circle on the lower reverse. The hole apparently included the top of the numeral "5", which was re-engraved in an attempted "repair". I've never seen a reference to a "Tampered 3" 1823 variety. Where did you see this terminology? 1823s that aren't "normal" 3s are classified as "broken", "patched" or "ugly" 3s in the Redbook and elsewhere. This one may be a "patched" 3, although it is hard to tell from the photo. You might be able to determine the exact variety from the Overton book on Bust half dollars that you referred to in the initial post

I refrained from getting into this discussion for a while, as you all seemed certain that the coin was cleaned and/or counterfeit based solely on a single set of photos. The coin as photographed appears to me to be a lightly circulated (AU 50 or so) and likely genuine 1878-CC Morgan dollar with a natural shade of gray and good overall appearance for such a coin. Coins pick up patches of hairlining from coming into contact with rough surfaces, and those I can see aren't sufficient for me to call the coin "cleaned". My opinion could change if I could examine the actual coin and view it at different angles, lightings and magnifications. If a picture is worth a thousand words, the opportunity to view an actual coin is worth a thousand photos! As for the coin being counterfeit (or having an added mint mark) because the mint mark position doesn't appear to exactly match that of any known VAM variety, bear in mind that the VAM books and the "vamworld" site don't necessarily show all varieties, especially for a coin having a mintage over 2.2 million. New VAMS continue to be discovered and others delisted as die states of other varieties. A slightly different "mint mark tilted right" would only attract the attention of a real VAM enthusiast, which the vast majority of collectors aren't. I doubt that grading services check Morgans submitted to them for matches to VAM varieties unless they were submitted for attribution. Here again you'd need to see the actual coin to form a proper opinion.

Check out the "bibliography" toward the back of your standard or deluxe edition "Redbook", which lists references for each U.S. series. The bibliography is listed in the index. The 1836-39 Capped Bust half dollars are attributed in major auctions by Graham Reiver (GR) numbers, presumably from the Graham book referred to by Mr. Lange, which isn't included in the bibliographies. I don't know where you can get the book. Seated half dollars are attributed by Wiley-Bugert (WB) numbers from the books referred to by Mr. Lange, also referred to in the RB bibliographies. Many of these, as well as many varieties of subsequent series, are listed with photos on NGC "VarietyPlus" or PCGS Coinfacts, although there is usually no verbal description of a variety's distinctive characteristics. Before 1837 most U.S. coinage dies were individually made up from individual punches for the devices, letters, stars, numbers, etc., so each die pair produced a distinct variety. Beginning in or about 1837 dies for U.S. coins were generally produced from "hubs" that included all design elements except for the dates and any mint marks, so after that there are fewer dies that were distinctly different enough for every die and die marriage to be catalogued. Thereafter, die varieties are mainly from noticeably different date or mint mark positions, errors in the die making process, or damaged or worn dies. (Since the early 1900s the dates and since about 1991 mint marks are included in hubs.) This is why the only variety references that seek to be comprehensive are those for pre-1837 issues, and subsequent series references are less popular, with the notable exception of Morgan dollar "VAMS".

This does appear to be a doubled die, but if so, it is a very minor one that isn't most collectors' "cup of tea". If this is what you enjoy, more power to you, as these sorts of varieties are a lot easier to "cherry-pick" than the better-known varieties and can be purchased for no premium. You can simply put in your own holder and note the attribution. If you want to see if ANACS will attribute and grade it, you should ask them; but you should ask yourself whether it's worth it to you to do so.

I generally agree with the previous replies to this post. (This coin was severely corroded, and someone attempted to scrape off the corrosion, even further damaging the original surface of the coin.) However, the poster's question as to its value wasn't answered. If it is a 1925 Buffalo nickel with no mint mark, the corrosion and damage render it a "junk box" item that should sell for 25-50 cents. The photos don't show the area where a "D" or "S" mint mark would appear at the very bottom of the reverse beneath the gap between "FIVE" and "CENTS". With a mint mark it might sell for a few dollars--perhaps $5--to a beginning collector on a budget. By way of comparison an undamaged 1925 Buffalo nickel with original surfaces in Very Fine condition, this one's approximate details grade, would currently be sold by a dealer for approximately $9, a 1925-D for approximately $75, and a 1925-S for approximately $80 per the September 2022 Coin World Values. Condition means a great deal in coin valuation. If the poster would like to learn how to better evaluate coins, he may wish to refer to the following article that I posted:

You might want to post this inquiry on the U.S./Foreign/Ancient Coins forum instead of the Marketplace forum, which is for coins being offered for sale. All I know about these apparently privately issued patterns is that a set of them in silver ($2.50, $5, $10 and $20) was sold as a set as lot 371 of the famous Louis E. Eliasberg, Sr. collection for a total of $27,500 on May 20, 1996. The narrative in the catalog states that "they are known in silver, copper, and white metal, but not in gold," so your gilt specimen was presumably discovered later.

Under the circumstances you describe, your best option may be to have the collection professionally appraised, at least once you make a preliminary determination that it has substantial value. Most coin dealers will provide this service for a fee, as will some auction houses that accept routinely accept consignments of coins and some advanced collectors. In that way you will avoid disputes over whether each of the siblings received an equal share. Additionally, the laws of many states require such appraisals before such property can be distributed from a deceased person's estate. You should be easily able to determine the approximate value of mint issued items like the 1975 proof set you show from a recent edition "Redbook", which is $9 in the 2022 (last year's) edition. You are also showing what appears to be an uncirculated 1941-45 "short set" of "Mercury" dimes, the value of which may vary widely based on the market grade and striking quality of each of the coins, which we can't assess from photos and which requires a fair amount of grading experience. An average (MS 63-64) set could retail for $150-250, while one with many coins that grade MS 66 or higher or have "full split bands" on the reverse could be worth many multiples of that. If you aren't planning to become a serious collector yourself, you should consider having the collection appraised for this reason as well.

This is almost certainly a replica of a "Continental Currency dollar". While the original pieces are quite rare and valuable, huge quantities of copies and replicas have been made and sold as souvenirs over the years. They have little or no value. Based on its color, rough surface, poor detail despite a lack of wear, and comparison with photos of genuine pieces, your piece is one of the copies or replicas. If there are established coin dealers in your area, you could show your piece to them for an opinion, but I highly doubt that any experienced numismatist would think this one genuine. There is an old expression, "buy the book before the coin". If you are "new to the world of coin collecting", you shouldn't be buying "a bunch of coins at auction" without the knowledge to assess the authenticity, condition, and value of what you are buying. Learning about coins can itself be enjoyable and is essential to success as a collector. I have posted the following article identifying some of the print and online resources that will enable you to gain essential knowledge:

I agree with the others who have responded that this is a common date (1889 Philadelphia mint) Morgan dollar that has Extremely Fine to About Uncirculated details but was abrasively "cleaned", possibly with a pencil eraser. Collectors find such "cleaning" undesirable. The coin contains about $13.50 worth of silver at the current price of about $18 per ounce, and a dealer might pay between that amount and $25 or so for it. Therefore, it isn't worth certifying, as the NGC grading fee alone would be $23. If your father-in-law left a number of coins, I recommend that you purchase a current edition of the "Redbook" referred to in the article "Resources for New Collectors" to which EagleRJO provided a link, as it will give you some idea of coin values. For example, an 1889 Morgan dollar with a "CC" (Carson City) mint mark would be worth hundreds of dollars even in the condition your Philadelphia (no mint mark) specimen is in.

I agree that the grade is in the lower (20-25) part of the VF range, with nicks that might or might not preclude straight grading at a grading service. The mint mark looks a little odd. The first "C" looks rounder than that used this year and appears closer to the "D" in "DOLLAR" than any shown on the VAMWORLD site. (Compare with reverses shown for VAMs 1 and 7, the closest matches.) Due to the incentive to add mint marks to these, you might want to buy this date certified.

Jeremy Agens--Respectfully, you don't have to place similar posts about the same coin in every forum on the chat board. Most of the members seem to check them all out! For those who are seeing this for the first time, my answer to the similar post on the U.S./World Coins forum follows: It would be helpful if you could provide photos of both sides of the entire coin and a clearer photo of the close up to get a better idea of your possible mint error. From what I can see, your 2021 Tuskegee Airmen quarter most likely has a "die break" through the date area. Die breaks occur when coinage dies crack after becoming stressed from use, causing metal on the planchet (coin blank) to be pushed into the crack as the coin is struck, leaving a raised line. Another possibility is "clash marks" that result from the coinage press operating without a planchet in the press, causing the dies to strike against each other and parts of the design from one die to be transferred (reversed and incuse) to the other. (The curving line could be from the top of Washington's head on the other side, but there would likely be other areas of design transfer.) Both die breaks and clash marks are rather common occurrences in the minting process, and coins featuring either or both of them are usually worth only a small premium. There are other possibilities, such as your coin having resulted from multiple strikes, but, again, I would need better photos to offer any opinion on this.