Sandon

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.)

You can try to remove any mud or other surface dirt from such "ground finds" by gently washing them with soap and water and thoroughly rinsing and patting the coins dry. You could also try a bath in a neutral solvent such as acetone. If your 1835 half cent still looks like this after trying such remedies, its surface has chemically reacted with substances in the ground, resulting in a crust of corrosion. There is no way to restore the original surface, so the coin will always be impaired. An appendix to the old Brown and Dunn grading guide (6th ed. 1975) entitled "If You MUST Clean Your Coins", while generally discouraging "cleaning", describes the following method that may somewhat improve the appearance of your coin: "For copper or bronze coins which have been buried in the earth over a long period of time or which have a heavy crust of oxidation, wrap the coin in several layers of gauze and place [it] in pure olive oil. The olive oil should be in a glass jar and should cover the coin well. This process will take from three to eighteen months to show any material effect, depending on the condition of the coin. The gauze should be changed every now and then as well as the olive oil if it becomes too discolored. A coin cleaned in this manner will have a slightly oily sheen to it. Do not dip such a coin." I tried this method on a few corroded coppers years ago, and it made the surfaces more natural looking, though still rough. (If soaking coins in olive oil seems odd, Brown and Dunn's treatment for "silver or nickel coins on which a heavy black oxidation has formed a crust" was perhaps stranger still--it involved soaking the coins for 10 minutes in Worcestershire sauce and removing the crust with a toothpick!)

Mintage figures for Morgan dollars of 1878-1904 are of limited significance. They were minted in large quantities by the standards of those times largely at the behest of silver mining interests. While portions of some issues were paid out into circulation during this period, hundreds of millions vanished into U.S. Treasury vaults and were used to back the silver certificates (currency redeemable in silver dollars) that were issued until the early 1960s. Under the Pittman Act of 1918 some 270 million were withdrawn from the vaults without regard to date and mint and melted down for other domestic coinage or for export. The melted coins were replaced by 1921 Morgans and by Peace dollars. The remaining 1878-1904 Morgans and their replacements were paid out at face value until March 1964, when only 3 million or so were left, largely Carson City mint coins which the government retained and sold at a profit during the GSA sales of the 1970s and early '80s. Most of the many millions of coins released during the 1950s and especially 60s went to coin dealers, collectors and speculators and have remained in uncirculated condition. Due to the uneven distribution and random meltings, coins like the 1878-82-S mints and 1883-85-O mints are abundantly common as uncirculated coins today, while the 1883-84-S mints and the 1886-O are scarce and expensive as uncirculated coins notwithstanding comparable mintages. The 1899, with a mintage of only 330,000, mostly exists in uncirculated grades with tens of thousands certified and lists at $552 in MS 64 in CPG, while the 1901, with a mintage of 6,962,000 is scarce or rare in any grade above XF and in MS 64 lists $49,200! On the other hand, a well-worn 1901 is much easier to find and cheaper to buy than an equivalent 1899. Similarly, nearly all of the current supply of 1903-O coins comes from the tens or hundreds of thousands of uncirculated pieces discovered when a long-sealed Philadelphia mint vault was opened in November 1962, so a circulated specimen is considerably scarcer than one in the usual uncirculated grades, explaining why you can't save much on a circulated one, assuming that you can find it. There is a recent fad of assembling "low ball sets" in which some collectors try to find the most worn, though undamaged, coin possible, which explains why a F-VF 1903-O might sell for more than an XF, though most of these collectors want coins in Poor to Fair! To each his own! I'm attaching photos of the MS 64 (PCGS graded) 1903-O dollar that I acquired at the 2000 ANA Convention, which almost assuredly came from the vault hoard.

I can't see any "undertype" of the supposedly overstruck coin either. Can you take clearer photos of the areas that you claim shows remnants of the design of the Canadian cent? The only way a U.S. coin could have been overstruck over a Canadian coin in 1986 would be if a U.S. mint worker had deliberately fed the Canadian coin into the press. While such misdeeds have occurred, they are rare, and the mint worker would have tried to sell the coin for a profit, not have allowed it to enter circulation.

Based on your photos, the coin doesn't appear to be a proof but an About Uncirculated to lower end Uncirculated type 1913 Buffalo nickel, which is very common and retails for $26-$50 per this month's Coin World values. I see no characteristics of a matte proof (extremely strong strike, squared off edges, frosty matte textured finish). The coin was apparently sold as a circulation strike. The mint produced 1,520 proofs versus nearly 31 million circulation strikes, so what are the odds it's a proof? If possible, I suggest you take the coin to a larger coin show and show it to dealers who are familiar with matte proof Buffalo nickels before you spend more than the coin's likely retail value ($40 grading fee, plus $10 per order processing fee, plus shipping and insurance) for NGC's opinion. You might also look at the photos of matte proofs on the NGC Coin Explorer and PCGS Coinfacts. Why do you believe the coin may be a proof?

I grade coin (1) F-VF (F 15) details, "F Details" at a grading service. There's too much wear on the cotton leaves on the obverse and the wing feathers on the reverse for VF 20. The coin appears definitely to have been "cleaned". Check out the verbal descriptions of these grades in the ANA Grading Guide (printed), as well as the photos there and on PCGS Photograde. I grade coin (2) in the VF 30-35 range in detail, possibly "cleaned", but not as detrimentally as coin (1). It's hard to tell from the photos. The coin has a little too much wear in the cotton leaves and Liberty's hair on the obverse and the eagle's left facing wing and head on the reverse to call full XF. Check out the references I mention here as well. Even after over 50 years of collecting, I still find Morgan dollars difficult to grade due to the complexity of the design and their striking characteristics. Coin (2) at a reasonable price may be a satisfactory 1903-S for your collection, depending on your budget. They're out of reach in uncirculated grades for most collectors. Mine (uncertified) has XF details but has been polished to an unnatural brilliance. It cost me $154 back in 1995!

It's more like a MS64-65 to me due to abrasions, spots, and a not quite full strike, but I've never been impressed with most allegedly high grade Morgan dollars.

1943 steel cents from all three mints--not to be confused with the very rare pieces struck on stray bronze blanks--are very common coins that aren't worth the cost of third party grading unless they would be likely to grade MS 67 or higher, which wouldn't be the case for those you have shown even if they hadn't been replated. In the usual uncirculated grades they're only worth a few dollars apiece, less than a dollar if circulated or replated. They're usually collected in coin albums for Lincoln cents. If you were to submit them to NGC in the "economy" tier as coins worth less than $300 each, you would pay a $23 grading fee per coin, a $10 processing fee for your order and substantial charges for shipping and insurance. It could take several months for you to get the coin back in that tier; "standard" service (somewhat faster but could still take over a month) would cost an additional $17 per coin. PCGS fees are similar. You'd also have to pay for an annual membership with submission privileges at NGC or PCGS. If you want to collect coins, you need to read about and learn how to evaluate them for yourself. You should have at a minimum a recent edition (2023 is the newest) copy of A Guide Book of United States Coins, a.k.a. the "Red Book", available at whitman.com, a subscription to a publication with news and a current price guide like Coin World or Numismatic News, and a photographic grading guide like The Official A.N.A. Grading Standards for United States Coins (available from Whitman) or Making the Grade, available from the publishers of Coin World (coinworld.com). The NGC and PCGS websites also contain valuable educational resources and price guides. (PCGS has an online grading guide, PCGS Photograde, accessible under "Resources" at the bottom of the PCGS home page, pcgs.com.. You should also try to attend coin shows and examine third party graded coins as well as uncertified specimens. I've been collecting coins since 1971, fifteen years before NGC and PCGS existed, and found that much of the enjoyment of collecting is in the pursuit of knowledge about coins and being able to rely on my own judgment about them instead of relying on a grading service.

EagleRJO, regarding several of your comments: 1. Some collectors like chop marked trade dollars, and I think that PCGS--I don't know about NGC--will numerically grade them with the notation "chop marked", but most collectors regard them as impaired in my experience. Most surviving genuine trade dollars are not chop marked, as many circulated in the United States, even though they had limited (later no) legal tender status. 2. The "Red Book" is a great source of basic information, but as it's published in April the year before the one it's dated, its prices aren't up to date. I refer to one or more of the newest editions of Coin World (monthly), The CPG Coin & Currency Market Review (quarterly), and the online PCGS and NGC price guides, depending on my purpose. I think that Coin World is best for circulated or lower grade uncirculated uncertified coins. 3. Regarding the grade of New User's coin, in my opinion it shows too much wear on Liberty's head and breast and on the feathers of the eagle to be graded AU. (New User's coin seems closest to the XF45 photos for trade dollars on PCGS Photograde, a resource you should check out at the PCGS website, under "Resources" at the bottom of the home page.) Moreover, grading services tend to downgrade "details" coins by one adjectival grade in my experience, and AU coins are usually expected to show some mint luster, which the cleaning has destroyed on this one, if it had any beforehand. Check out photos of higher grade mint state trade dollars (as on PCGS Photograde) to see what they look like with full details.

I've participated in StacksBowers' auctions (stacksbowers.com) for some years now. While "there is no Santa Claus in numismatics", I have occasionally been able to get some good deals (20% off retail list, on a few occasions even more), although this has become more difficult since 2020. You have to study every lot in which you may have an interest. It's also advisable to attend lot viewing it you're able to do so, as no photo can fully depict all the aspects of a coin. I don't like buyers' fees either, but I don't pay any extra for them. I decide what the maximum is I'm willing to pay for the lot, divide by 1.2 (for a 20% buyer's fee), and round the result down to the nearest acceptable bid. You also have to consider the cost of shipping and any applicable sales tax. In my view you buy at auction to pay less than retail, unless the coin you're bidding on is very difficult to find elsewhere or it's an exceptional specimen for its grade. I usually am outbid on most, sometimes all, of my lots, but the ones I get make it worthwhile. (Of course, you have to be ready to pay for all the lots you've bid on.) Regarding Zadok's comment, the vast majority of lots at major coin auctions are certified nowadays. Stacks merged with Bowers & Merena and ANR to form StacksBowers in or about 2011. I haven't seen any auctions of only uncertified coins, though there are some, usually in the "internet only" portions of the auction and are frequently album, group or roll lots, not individual coins. I've also seen such lots at Goldberg auctions (goldbergcoins.com). You should have a good understanding of grading and the ability to recognize impaired, altered or counterfeit coins wherever you buy uncertified coins. Local live coin auctions (usually also on the internet these days) are also a possibility. Once again, you have to know what you're doing to avoid overpaying, as there is frequently no warranty, especially as to grade. (Wherever you bid, you should review the terms of sale.)

In my opinion it makes no economic sense to submit this coin to a grading service. You already realize from the "off" color and hairline scratches that the coin would be "details" graded as having been "cleaned". It also has a "chop mark" on the obverse at Liberty's knee and two more "chop marks" on the reverse. While these marks tend to demonstrate that the coin actually circulated in Asia, they don't make it a coin of sufficient value to warrant the cost of third party authentication and grading. The coin would receive either an XF or AU "details" grade. An unimpaired XF40 to AU50 1875-S trade dollar has a retail value (per Coin World) of $350 to $400. Impaired it's worth at least a third less, and dealers may offer much less than that if they think it would be hard to sell, as most collectors prefer unimpaired pieces. You could try to submit it to NGC in the "economy" tier as a coin worth less than $300, which would involve a $23 grading fee, a $10 processing fee for your order--hopefully not just a single coin--and substantial charges for shipping and insurance. It could take several months for you to get the coin back in that tier; "standard" service (somewhat faster) would cost an additional $17. I've been collecting coins since 1971, fifteen years before PCGS and NGC existed. I've found much of the challenge and enjoyment of numismatics to come from learning how to grade and otherwise evaluate coins yourself. While third party certification is of value for coins that are (a) high value or (b) frequently counterfeited or altered and of sufficient value to warrant the cost, why do you need to pay for someone else's opinion for this piece, which you've already formed a good opinion on yourself?