Sandon

Regarding the 1972-D half dollar, if you're referring to the weakness on the eagle's neck and the shield, this is from a weak strike or a worn die and is frequently seen on Kennedy half dollars of that era. The master die was subsequently modified to lower the relief in this area to reduce the number of weak strikes. The strike was probably taken into account by the graders in arriving at the MS 64 grade. So were the number and severity and number of marks and abrasions on the coin, which was almost certainly never in circulation. Coins made for circulation drop from the press into a bin where they fall on and are hit by many other coins. They are then packed into bags of thousands of coins, and other bags are piled on top of that bag. This is why uncirculated coins made for circulation almost always have such marks (referred to as "bag marks") and abrasions. Coins graded MS 60 to 62 are typically very heavily marked, and even coins graded MS 67 typically have a few noticeable marks and abrasions. Regarding the description of the 1993-D quarter, note that the "MS" is in parentheses. It is simply being used on this PCGS Coinfacts page, together with the PCGS code 5935, to identify the coin as a 1993-D quarter, which is a circulation ("MS") issue. The grade on the PCGS label in its holder would be AU 50. You are understandably confusing PCGS's classification system with a grade. You cannot learn the basics about coins entirely from online sources. When you receive your "Redbook" and grading guide, please read them carefully. You should then go to coin shows and shops, examine the coins of series that interest you to learn their grading and characteristics, and speak to dealers and experienced collectors. You should also consider joining a local coin club. It's a lengthy process but a rewarding one.

@JKK--Just check the NGC or PCGS population reports for nineteenth century proof coins, especially of proof-only issues and issues (such as 1880 Shield nickels or 1884-85 three cent pieces) where a circulation strike is more valuable than an equivalent proof. I've actually seen some well-worn pieces designated as proof on the holder.

@JKK is incorrect in this particular. Circulated coins that were manufactured for circulation and have circulation wear are sometimes (and incorrectly) referred to as "MS" instead of by their adjectival circulated grade to distinguish them from coins that were manufactured as proofs. (On an NGC grading submission form, the coins being submitted have to be identified as "MS" or "PF" A coin that was struck as a proof can be designated "PR" (PCGS usage) or "PF" (NGC usage) no matter how worn it is, so long as it is identifiable as a proof. Certain U.S. coins, such as Trade dollars dated from 1879-1885 and Shield nickels dated 1877 and 1878 were only made as proofs, so the occasionally encountered well-worn specimen, say one worn to Very Good grade, would be designated by NGC "PF 8", whereas an equivalent circulation strike would be designated "VG (not MS) 8". From time- to-time other well-worn coins have been identified as proofs by having characteristics of dies known or believed to have been used only to manufacture proofs. For @Seamus8 and others, here is an overview of the adjectival and parallel numerical grading systems, which should explain why there is so much confusion: When I began collecting coins in the early 1970s, grading was done by adjectives from Poor through Uncirculated, specifically Poor, Fair, About Good, Good, Very Good, Fine, Very Fine, Extremely Fine, About Uncirculated and Uncirculated. Only very rare coins were (and generally still are) considered collectible below the grade of Good. A coin that was nice for its grade could be described as "Choice", and one that was nearly the next grade up would be described by the two grades with a hyphen between them, such as (Very Fine-Extremely Fine, usually "VF-EF"). Each side of the coin was graded, so a coin with Fine obverse and a Good reverse (this happens on older coins) would be described as "F/G". An uncirculated coin that was unusually nice would be described as a "Gem" and an uncirculated coin that was brilliant (though in those days sometimes due to what is now condemned as "cleaning") would be described as "BU". A Guide to the Grading of United States Coins by Martin R. Brown and John W. Dunn, first published in 1958 and last published in 1975 (fifth edition) had standardized and popularized this system, which was generally accepted by collectors and dealers. (Before the Brown & Dunn grading guide, the adjectives were used inconsistently.) Brown & Dunn used line drawings as well as written criteria to depict most series from About Good to About Uncirculated. In 1970 Photograde by James F. Ruddy, which was generally consistent with Brown & Dunn's guide, used photographs to depict each of these circulated grades. Both guides were accepted by the American Numismatic Association ("ANA") Board of governors as official grading guides. In the late 1940s Dr. William Sheldon, an early (1793-1814) large cent collector and researcher, had proposed a 1 to 70 numerical scale for grading early large cents. At that time such a coin that was in Gem Uncirculated condition (almost nonexistent) was valued at seventy times as much as one in "Basal State" (Poor), so Sheldon believed the grade could be related to the value. (The price relationship would now be thousands to one, not seventy to one.) In the late 1970's some collectors and dealers started using the numerical scale together with the adjectival system for all U.S. coins, so a Very Fine became "VF 20", a Choice Very Fine a "VF 30" and the like. Initially uncirculated (and unworn proof) coins were only graded "60" and "65", with "70" being a theoretical "perfect" coin that couldn't exist in reality. This numerical system was accepted by the ANA as an alternative or equivalent to the adjectival system, which is still used. Over time more and more numerical grades were used, especially for higher grade circulated and uncirculated coins, so that when PCGS began grading and sealing coins in holders in 1986, all eleven numbers from 60 to 70 were used. The ANA Board--mistakenly I think--acquiesced in this practice later in 1986, even though no one has been able to consistently define how one numerical grade varies from the next. This is why instead of "AU" and "Choice AU", we now have AU 50, 53, 55, and 58, and endless debates over which of these numbers a coin may be (or is it an XF 45 or an MS 61 or 62?). Try to enjoy coin collecting notwithstanding the confusing, inconsistent, nitpicking, subjective nonsense that coin grading has become. Focus on learning the adjectival grading system. Happy holidays!

Bear in mind that "wear" may include the slightest amount of friction ("rub") on the highest surfaces of the coin. If you hold the coin at an angle under magnification, you can see the loss of luster resulting from the friction. (The grading services tend to allow a small amount of "rub" for older coins and give the coin a lower mint state grade, but I've never agreed with this practice.)

Please refer to the following topic for both printed and online resources that I regard as essential to success in becoming a knowledgeable collector: This topic includes a reference to PCGS Photograde, an online photographic grading guide. However, I strongly recommend that you obtain and study a printed grading guide that includes written descriptions of each grade for each series, such as the Official A.N.A. Grading Standards book referred to in the topic.

Without the "gunk" it would be an AU50 or so. With it it's "AU Details, environmental damage". Either way it's worth face value. Do you have a grading guide and other basic numismatic references?

The "star" grade, which is only used by NGC and is not part of the ANA grading system, when used on proofs, appears to be applied to coins that are one-sided cameos (or deep cameos), as there isn't enough room on the little paper grading service tag to say that the coin is a "deep cameo obverse, brilliant reverse", or the like. The original poster suggests that a one-sided cameo (or deep cameo) is better than a two-sided cameo or deep cameo. Assuming, as most collectors do, that a cameo is better than a non-cameo and that a deep cameo is better than a cameo, this position is illogical. For that matter, so is the fad of "low ball" collecting in which some collectors compete to own the most worn coin possible! Collect what you want, but just because it's unusual or "low population" in a certified holder doesn't mean it's really desirable or that most collectors will accept it as such.

These terms are most commonly used by collectors of colonial and early (pre-1837 or so) U.S. coins, on which the handmade nature of the dies from separate punches for letters, numbers and devices enables the relatively easy identification of the dies from which a particular coin was made. These dies were also subject to rapid wear but for reasons of economy were often used until they shattered. The term "die pair" refers to the pair of dies (obverse and reverse) from which a coin was struck. For example, what is referred to as obverse A of a particular date of large cent might have been paired with reverses A, C, and F at different points in the obverse die's use, with the resulting varieties being referred to as die pairs A-A, A-C, and A-F as well as by their usual Sheldon, Newcomb, or other reference numbers. The different pairings are sometimes referred to as "die marriages". The term "die state" refers to the condition of the dies from which a coin of a particular variety was struck. An early die state would usually be a coin struck early in the use of the dies showing few or no die breaks or clashes and little or no die erosion or other signs of wear on the dies. A middle die state would be identified by cracks, clash marks, and/or other signs of die wear in particular places and of particular sizes or severities. A late die state would be identified by more serious cracks that may have culminated in pieces of the die falling out resulting in blobs on the coin called "cuds". (In some cases, the mint tried to extend the life of dies by polishing or grinding them down to remove clash marks, while also removing some design details, with coins struck from these reprocessed dies also identified as die states.) The "terminal" die state would be the latest die state known to exist, with the dies apparently about to shatter. For some issues, researchers have described a large number of die states. I'm not sure to what post in this topic this inquiry relates. St. Gaudens double eagles aren't usually collected by die pairs or states, although they are known to exhibit die cracks. I've never seen one with clash marks, but they probably exist. Clash marks occur on coins minted to this day, although they aren't as common as they were on older series.

@B.C-- I didn't previously post in this topic. Could you please post a photo of the entire holder, including the coin and its label? If there is any strikethrough error, it must be at the center of the affected area and hard to discern from your photos. Most of the discoloration is clearly toning/corrosion. The foreign matter that caused the strikethrough could have been struck into the coin and chemically reacted with the surrounding coin metal. Would it really be fair to accuse our members of incompetence under these circumstances? In any event, if the coin was already certified as an error, you didn't need their help and wasted their time. The "67" grade would be unusually low for a modern proof coin, of which most typically grade "69" and most of the rest typically grade "70". This lower than usual grade would likely be due to the unattractive toning around the strikethrough.

I'd like to see a photo of the entire obverse of your 198? cent. The line, if raised as it appears to me, may be a legitimate, though not particularly valuable, error resulting from the die having been damaged by some hard object before the coin was struck. If the line is incuse (sunken into the coin's surface) it could be a fairly common error resulting from the coin being struck through a thread or other piece of foreign matter that was lying on the die or the planchet. (If the coin is a 1982 or later copper-plated zinc cent, the line could just be a defect in the plating, such defects having been very common in the early years of this composition.)

It appears that someone painted this coin with a gold colored paint or polish. You can see places where the paint has chipped off, and the original copper plating is still present. I can think of no way that the gold color could have been created during the minting process.

If the coin were struck missing a clad layer, the affected side of the coin would be copper red. This coin has a scratch and, as stated by others, has "toning" or other discoloration.

Collectors' issues of platinum bullion coins made since 1998 have featured annual commemorative reverses instead of the flying eagle and rising sun used on the regular issues. The 2008 reverse commemorates the judicial branch of government and depicts the traditionally blindfolded--and thereby impartial--allegorical figure holding the scales of justice.

According to the "Redbook", this collectors' issue (identified by the "W" mintmark) had a mintage of only 2,481. If you like to collect such issues, it's a "keeper". After all, no more than another 2,480 collectors can own one at the same time. I don't know whether there will ever be a great deal of demand for them.

You appear to have a normal 1972-S cent, of which nearly 377 million were minted and worth less than a dollar in most uncirculated grades. The oils from your fingers are likely turning it brown and reducing whatever value it had toward face value. The disturbed area on the reverse appears to be damage. If it's an error, such as die chips, it's a minor one that grading services won't attribute. God helps the knowledgeable, not the misinformed and the gullible!

I just purchased this uncirculated 1897 Liberty nickel with a decent strike at a coin show. PCGS graded it MS 64. The only significant distractions are a few marks at the lower rear of Liberty's face, the abrasions above the "V", and the toning spot on the "V".

Canada issued "large" (larger than quarter) size cents from 1858-1920 and small cents from 1920-2012. They were mostly mass produced. As I recall, among cents that would have been taken from circulation, only coins dated 1922, 23, 24, and 25 are worth significant premiums (a few dollars or more). Full red uncirculated coins may be valuable if they grade high enough, as can some special issues such as proofs, errors, and varieties. Check your coins on the NGC World Coin Price Guide, which can be found by going to the NGC home page (www.ngccoin.com) and going to "Price Guides" under the "Resources" tab at the top of the page.

As I recall, the Treasury preserved two 1933 double eagles in the 1930s and gave them to the Smithsonian Institution, which has displayed them. After the Langboards lost their case and the government kept their ten, a collector surrendered another one to the government. Accordingly, there are fourteen known pieces, only one of which can be privately owned. Regarding this topic more generally, coin collecting is one area where in some cases supply does create its own demand. A 1901 Morgan dollar, a coin with a high mintage of which relatively few survived in uncirculated grades, presently lists $3,000 MS 60, $7,000 MS 62 and $10,000 MS 63. There is a tremendous demand for these coins, and it would probably take the find of a number of thousand-coin bags to have much downward effect on the price. The find of only a few thousand pieces might actually make the price increase because a number of collectors and speculators would enter the market and attempt to purchase examples. It is well known that nearly the entire 1.1 million coin mintage of 1884-CC Morgan dollars still exists in uncirculated condition, yet it now costs over $300 to purchase a low-end example!

Grading services don't attribute most die varieties unless the submitter requests such attribution and pays an additional fee for it. ($18 at NGC.) This sometimes enables astute collectors to "cherrypick" varieties on certified coins. Washington quarters made for circulation from 1932-1964 generally have a low relief "Type A" reverse. The dies for reverses of proofs dated from 1937-1964 (not 1936) were made from a higher relief "Type B" reverse with slightly different details. A minority of Philadelphia mint circulation issues from 1956-1964 also have the "Type B" reverse and are believed to have been minted from retired proof dies that were still suitable for making coins for circulation. There is a fad of collecting the "Type B" circulation strikes, although none appears to be rare. The Type B reverse is attributed by the clear separation of the "E" and "S" in "STATES" as shown in the NGC "VarietyPlus" photo below. (On Type A pieces, these letters nearly touch.) I identify the "Type B" reverse more readily by the higher relief in the leaves of the crossed branches below the eagle.

If I understand your post correctly, you are asking (1) whether NGC uses computers to grade coins and (2) why grades of NGC graded coins appear to be inconsistent to you. (I'm a collector, not an employee of NGC.) 1. No, computers are not used to grade coins. Some years ago, PCGS spent a great deal of money trying to develop a computerized grading system. It was a failure. The answer to your second question explains why. 2. The grading of coins is inherently subjective and dependent on a number of factors whose evaluation varies with personal taste. For uncirculated or unworn proof coins, factors include surface preservation (the number, severity and location of marks, abrasions, and light scratches), the fullness of strike, the nature and quality of luster, the presence or absence of "toning" and whether it is considered to be attractive or unattractive, and the coin's overall "eye appeal". For this reason, I have always regarded the use of numbers to grade coins to be wrong, as it implies that an objective or scientific process is involved. A grade assigned by a grading service is simply the consensus of several experienced graders employed by the grading service who have examined the coin under low magnification. The coin that you regarded as "dirty" may have been regarded by the graders as attractively "toned" or as simply "original" for the grade it received. Ultimately, your collecting should be driven by your own educated evaluation of a coin, not by the number on a little paper tag.

It's unclear what "skills" (knowledge) you presently have or what your collecting interests presently are. If you're a new collector, you need to know the basics about U.S. coins and their grading before you go on to more advanced areas such as the attribution of early U.S. coins by die variety. The submission of coins to third party grading services like NGC is only worthwhile for those who have sufficient knowledge to know that their coins are of sufficient value to justify the substantial cost involved. See the topics under the "Submit" tab on the NGC home page regarding the services available and their cost. In my opinion, your 1812 half dollar isn't worth this cost as it would come back Fine or Very Fine "details" graded due to the corrosion and probable improper "cleaning", and having it attributed would be a waste of an additional $18 as it's a common die variety. Its retail value is probably less than $100. Are you familiar with and have access to resources such as those described in the following topic that I posted in this forum?

The sawdust may have been used to absorb spills of oil and other liquids on the mint's floors so that they could be more easily cleaned up.

The reason for all of the varieties is that the dies for early (pre-1837 or so) U.S. coins were each made from separate punches for the devices, numbers, letters and stars, so each die showed various design elements in different positions in relation to each other and sometimes other distinctive characteristics. For early (1794-1836) half dollars the varieties were catalogued by Al C. Overton in a book first published in the 1960s, hence the "O" numbers. The letters following some numbers indicate a later "die state" of the same numbered variety, with the die showing cracks, clash marks, or other signs of wear or damage. The Overton book, which unfortunately I don't have, describes the most important characteristics, but I do have an auction catalog (Jules Reiver collection) that describes some of them. (I have collected Bust half dollars by the varieties listed in the "Redbook".) It's difficult for me to attribute your coin just from the photos, especially when I have to switch screens.You may have better luck comparing your actual coin to the photos. O-103 on the reverse has "a pair of small die lumps below the "I" in "AMERICA", which I can barely see on the VarietyPlus photo but can't make out on yours. The most important characteristic for the O-109a die state are on the obverse a "round lump at [to the left of] star 10" (the third star from the top on the right side) and on the reverse "heavy reverse die defect marks or lumps above and below the eagle's left (facing) wing and extending to the olive leaves". You can see these characteristics in the VarietyPlus photos, but I don't see them on your coin. The pertinent area of the reverse is obscured by the area of corrosion. VarietyPlus has no photo of the early O-109 die state. (Check PCGS "Coinfacts".) In any case, are no rare varieties of the non-overdate 1812, although the O-104 is somewhat scarce (Rarity 3).

The term "cleaning" is confusing because the removal of surface dirt or other foreign matter from a coin without abrasively or chemically altering the surface of the coin--cleaning in a literal sense-- isn't considered improper "cleaning" but is instead referred to as "conservation". However, both of the examples you have given would be considered improper "cleaning" and would devalue the coin. Wiping a coin, even with something soft, leaves fine scratches on the coin known as "hairlines" that are undesirable. It constitutes abrasive "cleaning" if the hairlines are sufficiently extensive or noticeable. (If a coin is wet, pat--don't rub--it dry.) Metal polish chemically alters the surface of the coin, leaving a very unnatural appearance, and the application of the polish is abrasive as well. Collectors want original surfaces, not surfaces that are damaged or chemically contrived. For a fuller explanation and a number of examples of "cleaned" coins see my custom registry set "Characteristics of Cleaned Coins" at Characteristics of "Cleaned" Coins - Custom Set (collectors-society.com) (right click link for menu to open).

@EagleRJO-- Actually, the "small 8" and "large 8" nomenclature that is used for 1811 Bust half dollars and the 1812 overdates isn't popularly used for other 1812 varieties, so I probably shouldn't have referred to the original poster's coin as a "small 8" variety. However, the "8" on his coin looks narrower and thinner than the "large 8" 1812 overdate varieties or the 1811 large 8s. There also seems to be some variation in the date punches used for the eight non-overdate 1812 varieties. I don't think I have the software to draw a line through the numerals as you do or the time to do a full comparison.