Sandon

It might grade About Good (AG 3). It's clearly less worn than the one that NGC graded Fair 2.

I can't tell for sure from a photo, but these coins were likely plated or painted by someone after they left the mint. I've seen a number of U.S. Lincoln cents and other copper coins to which this has been done. From what I can see in the Standard Catalog of World Coins, all 1966 Canadian cents were struck in bronze, and all 2002s struck for circulation were copper plated steel. There were 21,537 2002s struck in sterling (92.5%) silver and issued in sets only. Your coin doesn't have the "look" of such a piece, and it's unlikely one would be found in circulation. They appear to be the correct sizes for their respective years. A cent struck on a dime planchet (blank) would be undersized and probably somewhat off center, without the perfectly round appearance with broad rims from the die collar. You'd need an expert to check the weight and other characteristics of these coins to determine if they could be "off metal" strikes, but there's so little likelihood of success that I wouldn't risk the money to send these to NGC or some other third-party certification company.

All 1982-S cents, like all other "S" mint cents after 1974, are proofs. The hole for the 1982-S is presumably an error. I wouldn't put a proof in a folder in any case.

The size and shape of the "CC" mintmark is all wrong, as well as the polished out looking areas at the bridge of Liberty's nose, the eagle's wings, and the border beads. Many of the other fine details are weak, whereas on genuine specimens they are sharp and crisp. The color looks wrong as well. This is an obvious counterfeit or replica.

As I commented in the registry set, older proofs are graded by a different standard that allows more hairlining than for circulation strikes. (There are limits, however.) The mirror surfaces make hairlines particularly noticeable, and so many nineteenth century proofs were wiped with cloths or abrasive materials by collectors of that era that very few would be numerically graded if some level of hairlining weren't allowed. In my experience most graded MS 65 or below will show some significant hairlines. (Some extent of hairlining is allowed on low to medium uncirculated grade circulation strikes as well, as they can result from normal handling--see the ANA grading guide.) The 1880 half dollar was a good buy, because the old NGC holder didn't designate it "cameo" as I think it likely would be designated nowadays. (If I were you, I'd avoid buying Morgan or Peace dollars for a while, as the prices for these common coins (yes, even the 1893-S in well circulated grades) appear to be in a "spike" and could go down.)

Thank you for your comments, EagleRJO! I'm not sure what you mean by "the PCGS certification for the 1849 Seated Liberty [dollar, not half dollar] came back as missing." PCGS certificate verification acknowledges the coin and its "cleaned" details grade. I'm glad you enjoyed my certified Morgan dollars (ranked #703). I have registry sets primarily for educational purposes. As a new collector, you might find most informative my type sets, especially "Sandon's Incidental Type Set", ranked #30 under category "US Type Set 1792-1964" or the extended version ranked #32 under the "US Type set including modern issues" category. I have photos and comments, sometimes extensive, on each coin. "Problem" coins are collectible at a discount varying with their level of impairment. You have to learn to recognize them, whether or not TPG certified.

The use of the term "cleaned" in numismatic parlance does not refer to the mere removal of dirt or other foreign matter from the surface of a coin, which is instead referred to as "conservation". "Cleaning", in numismatic parlance, instead refers to the use of abrasive or chemical substances that alter the appearance of a coin in a manner that contemporary numismatists consider to be unnatural or undesirable, such as the glossy and unnatural shade of gray on your 1903-S Morgan dollar, which may or may not also have telltale hairline scratches from contact with something abrasive. Even experienced collectors and dealers disagree on just what characteristics are indicative of a "cleaning" and how much a particular form of "cleaning" should reduce the desirability or value of a coin. I have created a custom set on the NGC Registry entitled "Characteristics of 'Cleaned' Coins" that explains this issue further and includes pieces from my collection that were described by NGC or PCGS as "cleaned" or that were numerically graded but in my opinion were "cleaned". You should be able to view this set at https://coins.www.collectors-society.com/wcm/CoinCustomSetView.aspx?s=31632

The distorted looking mintmark is an "S", which I've seen on this date. The 1934-S is a date that is valuable in uncirculated grades and has little premium when well worn. It is worth a premium in higher circulated grades. Coin World Coin Values for July 2022 shows retail values of $75 in VF20 and $125 in EF40. (NGC Price Guide has $110 and $190 in these grades, but this would be for certified coins.) The reverse in your photograph under "[a]ll three have S mintmark" appears to have EF detail but also seems to have hairlines from a cleaning, which would reduce the value.

Each of these coins is in the Very Fine 20 to Extremely Fine 40 range. I can't be more specific without larger photos. Each one also has a mint mark (the small letter below "O" of "ONE"), although I can't tell whether any one is a "D" or an "S". The coin in the middle seems to have "hairlines" (thin shallow scratches) that indicate an abrasive "cleaning". See my recommendation to try out "PCGS Photograde" in my reply to your inquiry regarding your 1891 Morgan dollar.

I would say Choice Very Fine (30 or 35) to Extremely Fine (40) for this 1891 Morgan dollar. The glossiness suggests--as others have noted--that the coin has been improperly "cleaned' in some way, although this can't be determined from any photograph. ("Cleaned" in this context means that some abrasive or chemical process has altered the coin's surface, giving it an unnatural appearance.) Please be advised that many practices that were accepted by collectors of years ago such as your uncle are regarded as unacceptable today. If you have a large number of coins to grade but don't want to purchase a printed grading guide, you may want to go to the PCGS website (www.pcgs.com) and click on "PCGS Photograde" under "Resources" near the bottom of the page. (NGC doesn't presently have a photographic grading guide.)

This is an 1887-O (New Orleans mint) Morgan dollar that grades Good (a heavily circulated coin with full rims but little detail remaining). If graded numerically, it's probably a G6, which is better than a G4.

I'm an experienced collector of U.S. coins but don't know much about medals. An acquaintance who asked me to evaluate a few coins left to him by a relative included the medal whose photos appear below that apparently was struck in or after 1975 in memory of the founder of a Mexican numismatic and medalic society or movement (Angel Baron Sedano). The medal is approximately 3 inches in diameter and based on its weight and look composed of silver. The reddish color in the photos is due to the lighting, and I had to take two photos of each side with my digital microscope due to the size of the medal. Can anyone identify and provide an approximate valuation for this medal or give me a reference to a website or other source that would enable me to do so? I appreciate any assistance any of you is able to provide.

I'll amend what I said previously to note that there are decorative circles and rectangles between the words on the edges of these coins, not "stars" as I wrote in haste.

An obvious fake for many reasons including the following: Early U.S. silver dollars (1794-1803) have lettered edges reading "HUNDRED CENTS ONE DOLLAR OR UNIT" with the words separated by stars, not a reeded edge as shown in your photos! (The photo provided by Mr. Bill is of a Flowing Hair Dollar, not the Draped Bust type also coined with the 1795 date which the replica you're inquiring about purports to be.) Before you even think about buying coins in this price range (several thousand dollars nowadays), you need to learn what genuine ones look like! Check out the NGC Coin Explorer, PCGS Coinfacts or the sites of reputable dealers (such as Professional Numismatists Guild members) for photos and descriptions of genuine coins. Better yet, look at certified pieces at coin shows or shops.

I'll add my comments as no one has given you a value, and you appear to have little or no knowledge about coins. Currently dealers sell any U.S. silver dollar that isn't worn slick or damaged for $30 or more, and there is unreasonably high demand for them. It's hard to evaluate your 1923-S Peace Dollar without actually seeing it, but it would likely retail for $35-$60 or so depending on whether it is About Uncirculated (AU) or actually a lower end, weakly struck Brilliant Uncirculated (BU) and hasn't been damaged by the polyvinyl chloride that may have leached from the vinyl flip it's been improperly stored in. (I see a greenish tinge suggesting that this has occurred.) I would think an honest dealer would pay at least $25 for it in any case. The "melt" value for the 0.77344 oz of silver in the coin is currently in the $14-$15 range and changes daily. I'm sure your grandparents paid much less in nominal dollars for this coin, depending on when they bought it, unless it was in 1979-80 when silver briefly went up to as much as $50 per oz. They could be obtained from banks at face value as late as 1964, and uncirculated ones sold for under $10 until the late 1970s. Any toys they would have bought you instead would be long gone now.

Probably the most popular of these novelty counterstamps from the 1970s was "Kennedy looks at Lincoln", where a small left facing head of JFK was punched into the field facing Lincoln's face. I frequently saw these offered for sale in souvenir shops in tourist areas where I went on vacation with my parents when I was a teenager. As I recall, the counterstamped coin was accompanied by a card providing trivia about the two presidents, such as that Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy, while Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln. I knew that these novelty coins were worthless even back then, but I'm sure that thousands were sold!

Dear "Spyglass Network", Before you formed the opinion that your coin might be a "gem", had you looked at Indian head quarter eagles (not just photos) that have been given "gem" grades (MS 65 or higher) by grading services or experienced collectors or dealers or for that matter at pieces in any uncirculated grade? The coin in your photo clearly shows wear on the obverse on the Indian's cheek and headdress and on the reverse on the eagle's neck and the feathers on its facing wing. I'm attaching a photo of a 1925-D graded all of MS 62 by PCGS so that you may compare the detail in these areas. The color also seems "off", which could be due to a cleaning, though it can't be told from a photo. Also, were you aware that Indian head quarter eagles are one of the most frequently counterfeited series of U.S. coins? The bottom line is that you can't successfully collect coins, especially uncertified ones, without first familiarizing yourself with the appearance of genuine pieces in various states of preservation.

While I agree that the first illustrated coin should be graded lower on the "AU" scale than "58"--a "58" should appear uncirculated upon initial examination--I would not purchase any Morgan or Peace dollar at current prices. Your $450 would have purchased an 1878-CC dollar graded MS 63 or so late in 2019 per the November/December 2019 PCGS Rare Coin Market Report, and while prices may not go back to these levels, they seem currently quite inflated for these common coins. I have observed these "spikes" before in the early 1980s and 1990s, and those who bought at the peak were left disappointed for some years thereafter. (My uncertified AU 50 or better specimen cost me all of $40, but that was back in 1992.)

The Large Cent registry set under "Competitive Sets>Cents>Large Cents 1793-1814, Complete by Sheldon Variety 1793-1814" does have a slot (#334) for the 1807/6 S272. This is the only set I could find that includes Sheldon varieties for these dates.

JT2 was correct to rely on his own informed judgment and taste where they conflicted with that of the grading services. I personally prefer a lightly circulated but fully struck specimen of a coin to one that was graded MS 65 or higher by a grading service but lacks details due to a weak strike. The problem is that many coin buyers are more interested in the number on that little paper tag and the presence and color of a sticker than they are in the coin itself.

Errors by grading services--obvious and otherwise-- aren't as rare as they should be and lead to an important lesson: Learn about coins you wish to collect, carefully inspect them, and rely ultimately on your own informed judgment, not that of grading services, dealers, or other third parties. I knowingly purchased from a dealer's "cheap slab" box a low grade 1873-S with arrows Seated dime that NGC had certified as the Philadelphia issue to demonstrate that grading services are fallible. You can see the "S" mint mark on NGC's photos (#2028915-007) as well as on mine in the "Sandon's Certified Seated Dimes" registry set (#21 under the 1837-91 circulation issue, 1873 Arrows slot). Even if the error originated with the submitter, it should have been caught by the graders. More serious errors are ones that require more than the relatively casual, low magnification inspection of certain coins by graders. Attached are my photos of an 1867 Seated dime that PCGS designated "PF 62" (#06993924). Although certified as a proof, I believe that this coin is actually a more valuable circulation strike. It exhibits the obverse clash marks and other characteristics of Fortin's variety F-102 (Greer 103). Both Fortin and Greer regard coins from these dies to be circulation strikes. It is often difficult and controversial to distinguish some nineteenth century circulation strikes from proofs, and I question whether the determination of grading services should be determinative on this issue.

This coin appears likely genuine to me, although there are so many purported 1916-D dimes that have added mint marks or are counterfeit that only a grading service's (ANACS, NGC or PCGS) judgment would make the coin readily marketable. The February 1997 issue of The Numismatist contains an article entitled "Authenticating the 1916-D Dime" by J.P. Martin (pp. 205-06). The article includes photos and descriptions of the mint mark styles and positions on the four known reverse dies used to strike 1916-D dimes. Your coin appears to match the photo for "Reverse Die #3", although the amount of wear on your coin makes the mint mark look fatter and with a smaller opening. Martin noted that "added mint marks seldom are found on coins grading less than Very Good", such as yours. If determined to be genuine, I think the coin would be found to grade one of G4 (due to the weak areas of the rim), G6 (due to the relatively strong central detail) or "Good details, cleaned" due to the "off" shade of gray and possible hairlines. Even if it is cleaned, the value would be high enough to warrant certification. (I wouldn't recommend that any circulated "Mercury" dime be submitted other than a 1916-D or the 1942/1941 overdates.)

This is definitely an example of a well-known alteration of a 1944-D Lincoln cent to appear to be a 1914-D to those who have never examined a genuine one. The mint mark is of a size and style introduced in 1933, not the smaller, narrower one used from 1911-1916. The date is also too large too wide for 1914, and there is a telltale wide gap between the "9" and the purported "1". I'm sure that if you examine the left side of the truncation (the bottom of but not underneath) of Lincoln's bust you will see the designer's initials "V.D.B." that do not appear there on coins minted before 1918. I'm inserting the photo of the genuine coin appearing on the "NGC Coin Explorer" for comparison. (In answer to your original question, the coin if genuine would have likely been considered too dark to numerically grade and most likely would have been described as "Very Fine details, environmental damage" or "corroded".)

I wish that U.S. large cent collectors had more choices for NGC registry sets. Presently NGC offers sets that are either essentially date sets with very few varieties--none for most years--or sets including all of the Sheldon or Newcomb die varieties, which are nearly impossible to complete and which hardly anyone attempts except for chosen single years. Presently no one has a set of 1793-1814 large cents by Sheldon varieties that exceeds 9% completion, and no one has a set of 1816-39 by Newcomb varieties that exceeds 35% completion, most percentages of completion being much lower in each category. In my experience most collectors collect these coins by the major "naked eye" varieties listed in the "Red Book" and similar popular guides. Would it be possible to create sets with separate slots for such varieties?

I generally agree with the previous responses but would like to point out that in my view confusion results from the use of the term "cleaning", which confuses the simple removal of surface dirt, glue or other foreign matter from the surface of a coin without chemically or physically altering that surface (such as the use of acetone or other neutral solvents) with the use of abrasive (such as wiping or scrubbing) or chemical (such as "dipping") processes that do. It is the latter group of processes that numismatists generally refer to as unacceptable forms of "cleaning", while the former group is referred to as acceptable "conservation". Any process that is intended to remove "tarnish" or "toning"--chemical compounds that include molecules from the original coin metal is likely to be regarded as improper "cleaning", although coins that may have been lightly dipped are sometimes third party graded. For further discussion of this topic and descriptions and photos of examples of coins that have been improperly "cleaned", see my NGC custom registry set entitled Characteristics of "Cleaned" Coins at https://www.collectors-society.com/wcm/CoinCustomSetView.aspx?s=31632