Sandon

A coin that appears to be made of "blackened metal" when viewed at all angles is either severely corroded or has been painted or otherwise colored with something. (A coin can tarnish or "tone" to a darker color, but this has nothing to do with its being a proof.) A proof coin from 1975 would have deeply mirrored fields, usually with at least somewhat frosted devices (the portrait and other elements of the coin's design). Additionally, there should be an "S" above the date, the mint mark for San Francisco, where 1975 proof dimes--like nearly all others issued since 1968--have been made. The mirror fields would make the fields look "black" when viewed from an angle to the light, brilliant when the light source is directly overhead. The 1977 proof dime in the photos demonstrates this appearance. While typing the last paragraph I got your photo. Your coin is simply a well circulated (worn) and toned 1975 dime made for circulation at the Philadelphia mint, one of a reported 585,673,900 made that year. Spend it! If you're interested in becoming a coin collector, please advise. We can help you with acquiring the necessary knowledge.

I was using the actual VAM book, formally titled Comprehensive Catalog and Encyclopedia of Morgan & Peace Dollars by Van Allen & Mallis (3d ed. 1991). (I had to place my digital microscope on a pile of 6 books to get the accompanying photo and still couldn't get the top of the photo.) There are newer editions that have added additional varieties, as well as on the web sites. The photo of the mint mark in my book looks more like the photo on the likely counterfeit coin, but I think the difference is in the photos, not the coins. Notice, however, the distinct difference in the surface texture on all of the photos of genuine coins versus that on this likely fake! If you are a new collector and want to buy more expensive uncertified coins, you should only buy them from reputable, well-established coin dealers, not from random people who post on eBay. You should also only buy them after in-person examination. I'm sure that there are established coin dealers and coin shows in your well-populated area. Have you tried them?

I suspect that this coin is also a fake, though not because of the shape or position of the mint mark. The mint mark is a match to that shown for die variety VAM 3 (O Set Right, Tilted Left). However, other details of the reverse, such as the eagle's breast feathers and the shape of the gap between the eagle's neck and right wing don't seem to match the genuine article. The oddly prooflike surfaces are also peculiar, though some genuine prooflike (rare) and semi-prooflike 1903-Os do exist. The coin is also oddly devoid of the usual bag marks. This could be one of the newer, more deceptive Chinese counterfeits!

Per PCGS Coinfacts at https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1964-50c-sms/6844 a dozen or so pieces have turned up that are believed to be experimental strikes for SMS coins, but they were all obtained through a coin dealer who is thought to have obtained them from a mint employee. They aren't known to have been issued in 1964 proof sets like yours. I've seen proof 1964 Kennedy half dollars that aren't completely mirrored and have a little "cartwheel". This is probably due to high production. The plastic also makes them look a little dull.

Diamondslayer--Here are my comments on some points you made: 1. However many 1860-S double eagles exist or are in numismatists' hands, their price is determined by demand as well as supply. It is a better date but not an especially rare one in circulated grades, and a relatively small number of wealthy collectors endeavor to collect double eagles by date and mint, some of whom compete for "finest knowns" and wouldn't be interested in an AU 53. A population of 1,500 (if it were that low) isn't particularly small for such a coin. For every collector who specifically wants and can afford an 1860-S, there are probably hundreds who want and can afford a 1909-S V.D.B. Lincoln cent, 1916-D "Mercury" dime, or 1893-S Morgan dollar, to name a few. Tens of thousands of each of these coins exist, but they command high prices even in worn grades that increase over time. In 1999 I purchased an 1869 silver three cent piece graded AU 58 by PCGS. This coin had an original mintage for circulation of 4,500, but as the "Redbook" states regarding silver three cent pieces, "[n]early the entire production run of non-Proof coins from 1863 to 1872 was melted in 1873." NGC and PCGS have numerically graded 148 pieces, with an additional 12 NGC "details" graded. Few collectors try for a complete set of three cent silvers. I paid $437 for the coin in 1999, and it presently lists $1,500 on CPG. (They rarely trade, so even current price lists aren't reliable guides.) This coin is much rarer than the coins I mentioned or even such rare coins as a 1901-S Barber quarter or 1916 Standing Liberty quarter yet sells for far less than they do in equivalent grades due to the much lower demand. 2. I don't know anything about the standards or institutions by which diamonds are "graded" or otherwise evaluated. Perhaps there are objective criteria by which all competent diamond experts would agree on the "grade" of a particular diamond. That's not so with the grading of coins! Whether numerical (especially) or adjectival, the grading of coins is inherently subjective and varies even among experienced numismatists, including those employed by grading services. There are simply too many factors to consider, such as contact marks and other abrasions to which even uncirculated coins are subject (number, size, location, severity), luster, strike, toning, originality, and the especially nebulous "eye appeal". There's also wide disagreement over whether certain impairments such as "cleaning", "artificial toning", "stains", or "damage" exist on a coin or whether the impairment is sufficiently severe to warrant giving the coin a "details" grade. The proliferation of numerical grades has made the process even more subjective. Coins have been graded by a particular grading service, "cracked out' and given a grade several points higher or lower by the same grading service, with neither grade necessarily being "wrong". Ironically, there's much less subjectivity when dealing with modern proof, commemorative and other coins made solely for collectors, which are carefully handled and encapsulated at the mint, but because nearly all of them are nearly flawless and fully struck there's no good reason to send them--especially the ones you bought from the mint--to a grading service! 3. I began collecting coins as a child in 1971, 15 years before third party grading and encapsulation began at PCGS and before grading guides had standards for the grading of uncirculated coins. You had to learn about coins by examining them and reading about them and then collect them in accordance with your own informed judgment and taste. You still do! What's on a grading service tag is someone else's opinion, not necessarily yours! Most of my coins, including some rare ones, are uncertified and will likely remain so. They look nicer in albums and take up much less space in my safe deposit boxes than they would in bulky "slabs". 4. If you're still unable to create new threads, make sure you're "signed in" on that screen. I hope this helps!

If it were genuine, I'd say somewhere in the XF range, partly because it has no luster as you'd expect on an AU and as the PCGS photo shows. However, this fake probably never had any luster or any additional design detail and may be "as struck" (or "as cast".) It's not an appropriate piece from which to learn grading.

I collect coins because they fascinate me, not as investments. Numismatics involves many areas of study, including history, artistry, science, technology, and economics. Yet coins are also assets that can be liquidated should the need arise. They do tend to increase in at least nominal value over time, although the spread between wholesale and retail values is far greater than for stocks, bonds and other true investment assets. If you pay a retail price for a coin, its retail value may have to increase by 30% or more before you'll break even whether you sell it to a dealer or at auction. Additionally, the tax treatment of rare coins and other "collectibles" is less favorable than for traditional investment assets. I do think that we're in a "bubble" for at least some series right now. Moreover, the value of most high denomination gold coins, even somewhat better dates like the 1860-S double eagle, is strongly influenced by the price of gold, which has been quite volatile lately. At $1,800 per troy ounce, even the most common double eagle, containing 0.975 troy ounce, has a "melt" value of $1,755. If gold were to retreat to $1,350 per oz. as it priced as recently as 2019, this intrinsic value would go down to $1,306.

Who told you that there are "under 1500 of these coins known"? A quick look at the "PCGS Population Report" and the "NGC Census" indicates that NGC and PCGS have numerically graded a total of 1,609 1860-S double eagles and that NGC has assigned an additional 63 impaired pieces a "details" grade. (PCGS does not report its "details" population.) Additional pieces have likely been graded by other grading services, and there are undoubtedly uncertified pieces. (Some certified pieces may have been submitted more than once.) PCGS Coinfacts indicates that 63 1860-S double eagles were recovered from the SS Republic and graded by NGC--probably including the one you are considering--and 18 others were recovered from the SS Brother Jonathan. Those who want a coin from a shipwreck usually aren't picky about the date. With a few notable exceptions, there's no way to know how many pieces out of a specific issue of coin made for circulation presently exist. Millions of U.S. gold coins were sent to Europe and elsewhere under the international gold standard, and I understand that there are still quantities coming back. These and pieces that people in the U.S. saved when gold coins were recalled in 1933 are the major sources of classic U.S. gold coins collected today, not shipwrecks. If you really want a "shipwreck coin", you might want to save up for one of the 5,000 or so 1857-S uncirculated double eagles that were recovered from the SS Central America, the most famous salvaged shipwreck. These are much more attractive than circulated pieces and always in demand. Coin World lists them at $5,500 in MS 62, $7,750 MS 63. While it should have no bearing on your decision, note that Lincoln was elected president in 1860 but not inaugurated until March 4, 1861.

This coin is definitely a counterfeit! On the obverse, note the misshapen numbers in the date and the fat misshapen stars. The reverse is based on the "C3" reverse hub as identified in the VAM book, which wasn't used after 1901. Note the narrow space between eagle's neck and wing, when compared with the larger, rounded gap of the "C4" reverse hub used on all coins dated 1903. DON'T BUY IT!

You've purchased this coin directly from the U.S. mint, so you know it's genuine. You can tell by looking at is that it's flawless or nearly so and will almost certainly grade PF 69 or 70. (If you see a major flaw, you should return it within the seven days allowed.) It's common in either grade, although for some reason (ignorance?) there are people who will pay a premium for a "70". It's housed in a protective capsule and can be attractively displayed in its box of issue. Why on earth would you want to spend money submit it for grading? Collect coins, not grading service labels!

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!