Sandon

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

I'm attaching a photo of an 1893 Columbian half dollar graded MS 65 by NGC--several decades ago based on the style of the label--that I just bought at auction for $216. If you compare these photos to those of your coin, you will note the full detail, frosty luster and relatively mark free surfaces on this coin as compared to yours. It is questionable whether the coin I just bought would be worth submitting for third party grading if it were uncertified, as this would now cost $23 for the grading fee alone submitted at NGC's "economy" tier for coins valued below $300, plus a $10 processing fee per order and the cost of shipping and insurance. In my opinion, coins worth under $600 or so aren't really worth certifying, and unless you're keen on building registry sets, you should enjoy such coins in albums or other traditional holders or buy them already certified if you can find them at reasonable prices, benefiting from someone else's mistake or a dealer's bulk discount. As a new collector you should study grading guides and other print and online resources, as well as the coins themselves, so that you can rely on your own judgment, not a grading service's, even when you buy certified coins.

I stand corrected. Ronjovi's coin is not designated from the Redfield Hoard but is simply a "generic 1879 Morgan dollar in Paramount's holder with a red insert similar to that found on most Redfield coins. No discovery coin here.

The 1991 third edition of the Van Allen and Mallis Comprehensive Catalog and Encyclopedia of Morgan and Peace Dollars ("VAM" book) includes a table (p.406) listing the dates and mints known to the authors to have been included in the Redfield Hoard. The 1879 minted in Philadelphia--relatively common among Morgan dollars--is not among the listed dates, although "many" or at least "a couple dozen" bags each of 1889, 1890, 1896, 1897 and 1898 Philadelphia coins were included, as well as smaller quantities of 1892, 1893 and 1903. The NGC registry set for "Redfield Holders, Morgan and Peace Dollars, 1878-1935, Including Varieties", includes slots for several date and mint combinations not in the VAM book table, but none for an 1879-(P). Ronjovi may have a stray, unlisted coin--perhaps a discovery specimen--that would be of interest (and possibly a high price) to a specialist in Redfield holder coins. He may also have a coin in a holder that is counterfeit or has been opened and another coin substituted for the one placed in it. (While the coins in the vast majority of Redfield holders don't grade "MS 65" by today's standards, this one, featuring a huge obverse scratch, seems inconsistent even with these looser 1970s standards.) Perhaps he should submit it for NGC certification--I don't think PCGS grades coins in Redfield holders--and see if it authenticates as a Redfield coin.

Originally, the major grading services wouldn't encapsulate genuine coins that couldn't be numerically graded due to any impairment (cleaning, scratches, damage, corrosion, etc.). All such pieces were returned ungraded in flips, which became derisively known as "body bags". This policy made it impossible to obtain third party authentication or grading for a large percentage of older coins, including pieces that are quite valuable notwithstanding their impairments. As I recall, ANACS was the first service to offer "Details" adjectival grading, and PCGS began putting impaired pieces in holders marked "Genuine" with no grade. (I own two U.S. coins in old PCGS "Genuine" holders.) I'm not sure how the situation evolved at NGC. Ultimately, both NGC and PCGS offered "Details" adjectival grading for "problem" coins.

While I would recommend certification for such a rare coin, this one is so obviously a crude replica that anyone who has taken more than a passing glance at a genuine specimen of a 1916 (or 1917 Variety One) Standing Liberty quarter or a good photograph of one should realize that this isn't the real thing! If you want to collect coins, you have to learn what they look like. Looking at them is what's fun about them, anyway.

I have an idea for a new set under the "Multi-Denominational" U.S. category, which currently has only one set. It would be a "One Coin Per Year Collection" with slots for one U.S. coin for each year from 1793 to date. The coins could be any pieces accepted in other U.S. sets, including circulation strike, proof, commemorative and bullion issues. They would be scored as in date and mint series sets, with "Autobuild" selecting the highest scoring pieces in the collector's registry list. This would be fun for those who collect both classic and modern series. Would NGC have any interest in placing such a category in the Registry?