Sandon

Welcome to the Forum. Your coin is definitely not the rare 1812, 2 over 1, Large 8 variety (O-101 or 101A). It is a non-overdate 1812 small 8 variety. Compare the size, shapes and locations of the numerals relative to Liberty's Bust with the photos on @EagleRJO's post. Note particularly how the peaks of the "1s" in the date on your coin point upward, while the peaks of the "1s" on the coins in the photos point downward, as well as the difference in the size and width of the "8". The date position doesn't match the 1812, 2 over 1, small 8 (O-102 or 102A) variety either. The elongated areas under the second "1" and "2" are indicative of a worn die, not an overdate. The "stained" area on the reverse is likely corrosion, which can't be removed without damaging and devaluing the coin. If it is foreign matter that isn't chemically bonded to the metal, it might be removed by an acetone bath. Never use anything that abrasively or chemically alters the coin metal!

Perhaps this is the first recorded mention by mint personnel of what collectors refer to as "clash marks". This variety is catalogued today as 1891-O VAM 1A, a "Top 100" variety, which also has four die states. A weaker 1891-O "E" clash is catalogued as VAM 3A, a "Hot 50" variety.

You might get a better response to this topic if you post it under the "U.S., World and Ancient Coins Forum". This forum is for questions and matters pertaining to the NGC Registry. (I primarily collect U.S. coins.) Welcome to the NGC chat board!

There are so many thousands of different types and varieties of ancient coins that it would be extremely difficult to define the parameters of how many slots a set would have or what coins would qualify for a particular slot. Think of all the different portrait styles and reverses of the denarii or other issues of any longer-ruling Roman emperor! The grading of these coins is also very complex, and it would be difficult to program the number of points that would be awarded for any particular coin in a manner that most participants would regard as fair. I doubt that either NGC or PCGS will ever offer competitive registry sets for ancient coins. (I don't think PCGS even certifies/grades ancients.) NGC does offer the option to create custom sets that allow a collector the opportunity to display a collection in accordance with the collector's own taste. NGC awards several prizes for custom sets, including one for "Best Ancient Custom Set". See The NGC Registry Awards | NGC (ngccoin.com).

I've never approved of the numerical grading system because the use of numbers implies that the process involved is an objective or scientific one, which coin grading can't be. I also disapprove of the large number of grades, which increase the subjectivity of grading. The more grades there are, the more opportunities there are for reasonable minds to disagree with them! In this case professional graders at a single grading service--maybe the same graders--viewed a coin twice within the same year based on the labels and determined it to be Choice About Uncirculated on the first occasion and a scruffy Uncirculated piece on the other. I always use my own experience and judgment in evaluating a coin and have no qualms about disagreeing with the grade given on that little paper tag. I recall that in the late 1980s or early 1990s, the staff of Coin World sent groups of coins to each of ANACS, NGC and PCGS, recorded the grades given, then cracked the coins out and resubmitted them, sometimes to a different service and sometimes to a service that they had been graded by before. Some coins varied in grade by as much as three or four grading numbers even at the same service, and several were given numerical grades on some occasions and returned ungraded as "problem coins" on others. (NGC and PCGS didn't give "details" grades at that time.) I hoped that this revelation would explode the myth of third-party grading, but it has continued and expanded to this day. Most collectors just want someone else to do the work for them. I do like the "oval O" varieties found on a small minority of 1888-O and 1889-O Morgan dollars, which most likely resulted from the New Orleans mint's use of leftover dies from 1884, the last year the oval mint mark had regularly been used. It's also possible that the old oval punch was used on a few dies prepared in 1888-89. As I recall, they're usually well-worn and a great find in AU or Uncirculated.

Last year's Deluxe or "Mega Red" edition of the Redbook (7th ed. 2021) contained special sections on silver and modern dollars and devoted 38 pages (pp. 799-837) to Eisenhower dollars. It includes a number of lesser-known varieties that aren't listed in standard guides and don't have established market values. These include Peg Leg varieties for the 1971-D, 74-D, 76-D Variety 2 and 78-D (no photos). (The "peg legs" are most likely the result of dies that were heavily polished during their preparation, not worn.) There is also the website of the "Ike Group", www.ikegroup.info, which I understand has comprehensive research about the series. (Users have to agree to various terms and conditions before accessing the information on the site.) It is important to note that there were numerous changes made to the design details of the Eisenhower dollar in 1971-72, for a total of four different obverse types and five different reverse types. The 1972 (Philadelphia), for example, used three different reverse types, one of which, the "Variety 2" or "Reverse D", is worth a premium in standard guides. Some of these changes affected the shapes and thicknesses of letters and are to be distinguished from a peculiarity of a particular die such as a "peg leg". I reiterate that it's essential to have basic references such as the standard "Redbook" and a grading guide and to acquire basic knowledge of coins before getting into more advanced or esoteric areas like spotting minor or new varieties or errors on a particular series. It would be like a child trying to take high school courses without attending grade school!

Your coin may be original, but it doesn't appear to be a high-grade specimen (MS66 or higher). I recommend that, if possible, you go to coin shows in your area and look at certified specimens or uncertified pieces in the inventories of reputable dealers of the coins you want to collect or already have. In addition to reading about coins, you have to learn what they're supposed to look like. You may also benefit from joining a coin club. I happen to own a 1943 steel cent certified MS 66 by PCGS, for which I paid $50 just to be able to fill a registry set slot for the type. While the photos don't show the exact appearance of the coin, note the quality of the strike and the bright, frosty (not shiny) surface.

Enormous numbers of 1943 zinc coated steel Lincoln cents from all mints that darkened have been re-plated. They are essentially worthless. I can't tell from your distant, blurry, overexposed photos whether yours is original or re-plated. An original piece is bright but frosty, not shiny. Even if original it wouldn't be worth third-party grading unless it graded MS 66 (just barely worth it) or higher (rare). A legitimate uncertified uncirculated specimen can be bought for a few dollars and stored in an inexpensive holder or album. A grading service holder isn't airtight and wouldn't necessarily preserve it any more effectively. If you want to spend $50, please spend it on some of the resources to which I directed you, or at least on a coin worth at least $50!

The bottoms of the "E" and "R" are weak and blend into Kennedy's hair on most of the 1970s Kennedy half dollars I checked after reading this. Yours may also have been struck from a somewhat overpolished or worn die on which the area of the "R" and Kennedy's hair beneath it were weakened, which are common occurrences. The mint periodically replaces the master die from which "hubs" and then working dies are prepared, and this area was stronger on half dollars of the 1980s. The "Peg Leg R" Eisenhower dollar variety is found on a 1971-S silver clad coin that the mint sold to collectors for a premium. It was not issued for circulation and would almost certainly not be found among copper-nickel clad (red rimmed) "Ike" dollars that you might have obtained from circulation. @Posso--I've tried to impress upon you the importance of "book learning"--some of which can now be done online--and experience in gaining an understanding of what sorts of coins are considered interesting or valuable by most serious collectors. You've stated that you don't yet even have a standard "Redbook", yet you believe that you can frequently find all sorts of significant errors and varieties in pocket change. Please study or at least refer to some of the resources to which I and others have directed you before claiming to have made some great find.

Your posts asked us to identify the "variety" or "error", not whether the coin was genuine. I, among others, realized that there were differences in the design details and thought that it might be some previously undiscovered and perhaps rare prototype design like the 2000-P Sacagawea dollars with boldly detailed tail feathers. Obviously, the 1975 date on the obverse would have aroused more suspicion that it just wasn't real.

The 1839 is a "Booby Head". The point at the back of the bust is visible even in this low grade. There should be no line on the reverse under word "CENT". The "Silly Head" has a line under "CENT". You're correct that the 1840 is a "Small Date".

It depends upon what you mean by "varieties". If you're talking about determining whether you have any rare dates or grades or "naked eye" varieties of value, a "Redbook", grading guide and current price list are basically all that you need to do this yourself. Grading and determining whether the coins are impaired takes some experience, which you can acquire by studying these resources and by examining the coins. (As I recall, I previously referred you to my "Resources for New Collectors" topic.) If you're talking about attributing these coins by the many hundreds of different "Sheldon" (1793-1814) and "Newcomb" (1816-57) die varieties, this requires specialized reference books and experience and may be difficult to do from photos. It's often difficult or impossible to do on well-worn coins and always difficult to do on most pieces dated after 1836, as all elements of the dies except the date were at that point punched from a single "hub", so the only differences are the placement and occasional repunchings of the date and die polish marks and die cracks that are often invisible on worn or corroded coins. Relatively few of these varieties are worth a significant premium over common varieties of the date in equivalent and, as they are rare, they are seldom found. While NGC "VarietyPlus" and PCGS Coinfacts have photos of many of these varieties, they do not include the written descriptions that explain what characteristics to look for to attribute the coins. Someone might have the time to attribute all of them, but I don't. I can tell you what books you need if you're interested in attributing them yourself and are willing to spend $100 or more for them. (There may be an online attribution site of which I'm unaware.) While I was typing this reply, you posted photos of a number of these coins. They are mostly common dates that are severely impaired by corrosion, heavy damage, or holes. Such coins are referred to as "culls" and are of little value (a few dollars apiece to a young collector). They are probably unattributable Several others are excessively worn (Fair to About Good) and also of little value. The 1810 may be worth $20 or so to someone notwithstanding the hole. The 1838 and the 1847 are, based on their obverses, in collectible circulated (Fine to Very Fine) grades for budget collectors. You can look up the values in a current price guide. The 1834 whose reverse you posted is an 1834 large 8, small stars, medium letters "Redbook" variety, probably a common N-3. (The N-4 is only slightly scarce.) It's impaired by scratches, and the missing "One Cent" is almost certainly due to wear or damage. The 1839 and the 1840 are also varieties that are listed in the Redbook. What are they? Post your answer, and I'll tell you if you're right.

My 1984 4th edition Coin World Almanac shows the official weight for an 1840-1935 silver dollar as 26.73 grams with a tolerance 0.097 grams. This would result in a minimum weight of 26.33 grams, which is, given the inexactitude of scales, close enough to the 26.3 you got. The specific gravity is stated as 10.34 with no tolerance given. The coin appears--insofar as I can tell from your photos--to be a genuine Philadelphia mint Morgan dollar of this era based on its luster, striking quality, crispness, fine details, surface preservation, and rims. (The coin may have been "dipped".) I suggest that you may have not performed the specific gravity test correctly. In over fifty years of collecting, I have never weighed or tested the specific gravity of a coin! I doubt that grading services do this routinely either. Traditionally, one learns counterfeit detection by studying the characteristics of genuine coins versus counterfeit or altered pieces. Experts can usually tell what mint struck an uncirculated Morgan dollar just by looking at the obverse based upon characteristics such as the texture and quality of the luster and how beveled the rims are. I admit that the widespread counterfeiting of even common date coins like this one in China over the last decade or so should make one somewhat skeptical about everything, but collecting wouldn't be "fun" if one had to weigh and test the specific gravity of every coin! Based upon the holder and capsule in which your 1887 Morgan dollar is housed, I assume that it was acquired from a mass marketer who sells large quantities of common coins to the general public. Such marketers usually don't employ experts who can spot all counterfeits or problem coins, and their offerings are usually way overpriced. I would avoid such sellers.

As I understand it, yes. I would just call coins legitimately graded "68", "69", and "70" "Superb Gem" (proof or uncirculated, as the case may be) and leave it at that!

Tarnish, oxidation or "toning"--whatever you want to call it--is ultimately inevitable for any silver, copper, or nickel alloy coin that is exposed to the atmosphere. Older coins that have remained brilliant without being "dipped" have usually been stored for most of their existence in bags or rolls surrounded by other coins, with little air getting to them. How quickly and intensely they change likely depends on how they are stored. A grading service holder or other inert plastic holder should slow down the process considerably, unless there was some corrosive substance already on the coin or the air surrounding it in the holder is humid or polluted. The worst thing you can probably do is "dip" a coin to remove existing toning, as the stripped surface is likely to re-tone rapidly and unattractively, and the "dipping" will mute the coin's original luster. I have stored uncirculated coins of various compositions in Whitman and similar albums housed in safe deposit boxes for decades with all but a few of them developing little or no toning or other deterioration, a notable exception being several copper-plated zinc cents from the 1980s and 90s, which have corroded around the edges. However, I don't recommend album storage for more valuable coins. While the classification of various forms of "toning" as "original" or "artificial" and whether or not they are attractive is a subject of much disagreement, I think that most collectors would regard the appearance of the 1900 British shilling as "original" and appealing. I would store it in its holder in a cool, dry place and, apart from checking on it periodically, leave it alone.

The depressed area and surrounding raised metal in the "S" are clearly from a nick or gouge. The coin isn't "off center" either. The obverse die was slightly misaligned, meaning that it wasn't mounted in the press so as to be perfectly perpendicular to the coins it was striking. Coins struck from misaligned dies are quite common and generally command no premium. They are considered to be examples of poor quality control rather than mint errors. An off-center strike would be off center on both sides of the coin. Here are NGC photos of a 1988-D Kennedy half dollar that was struck about 80% off center: While this is a particularly dramatic example, the two sides would always be about equally off center. (I previously placed this response under the duplicate post.)

Copper-plated zinc planchets are plated before they are struck into a coin. A dent or hit usually won't remove the plating but instead pushes the plating in along with the zinc. It takes a pretty deep scratch or gouge to remove the plating. As for the "toning" from the coin darkening from finger oils, beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder!

The depressed area and surrounding raised metal in the "S" are clearly from a nick or gouge. The coin isn't "off center" either. The obverse die was slightly misaligned, meaning that it wasn't mounted in the press so as to be perfectly perpendicular to the coins it was striking. Coins struck from misaligned dies are quite common and generally command no premium. They are considered to be examples of poor quality control rather than mint errors. An off-center strike would be off center on both sides of the coin. Here are NGC photos of a 1988-D Kennedy half dollar that was struck about 80% off center: While this is a particularly dramatic example, the two sides would always be about equally off center.

I don't think that this is true. I presently have three first rank sets, and each one has a mixture of NGC and PCGS graded coins. (The sets are 1811 Mint Set, 1815 Mint Set, and New Orleans Type Set.)

Welcome to the NGC Chat Boards. Obviously, we would need a photo of the coin to give you any opinion. Please note that this portion of the forum is for questions about the NGC Registry, not for questions about specific coins. Please repost your question with the photo under the "U.S., World, and Ancient Coins" forum or under the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum.

No. It appears that an NGCX 9.9 would be equivalent to a "69". An NGCX 9.0 would be equivalent to a "60". Circulated grades go from 1 to 8.8. See NGCX - An New 10-Point Grading Scale for Coins | NGC (ngccoin.com). Personally, I think NGCX will simply introduce more confusion about grading.

In comparing the photo with a Philadelphia circulation strike and a clad proof in a 1975 proof set that I had handy, I noticed that the "E" and the "S" in "STATES" in the coin in the photo nearly touch the flagpole between them, while on the coins I compared them with these letters are farther from the flagpole. (Based on its coloration and frost, the coin in the photo appears to be an uncirculated 1976-S silver clad example.) Is @RWB suggesting that the design was modified for different issues of Bicentennial half dollars? If so, I've never heard of this before. Is it a new discovery?

Your 2021-P dime appears to have a number of obverse "die chips" (the raised bumps) as well as the usual nicks and abrasions from contact with other coins. Die chips generally don't add much value either, although it's unusual to see this many of them. Grading services generally won't attribute these either. With regard to resources that you should have to learn about U.S. coins, please see (click on) the topic that I posted on this forum: You don't need to have coins third-party graded to protect them! Mylar (not vinyl) coin flips, hard plastic holders, and coin albums are far less expensive alternatives. The Whitman and Amos Advantage websites referred to in my "Resources for New Collectors" topic carry such holders. They can also be purchased at coin shops and coin shows.

It's pretty obvious to me how this likely happened. The obverse of the coin was lying obverse up on a hard, rough roadway pavement, likely the type of asphalt paving that is mixed with stones. The coin was run over by one or more motor vehicles. The soft rubber tires yielded enough to the harder coin metal so that the obverse detail wasn't much affected, but the pressure from the weight of the vehicle against the hard surface bent the coin slightly toward the obverse. The road surface and any dirt or grit lying on it severely damaged the reverse of the coin, and embedded traces of the road material such as asphalt into it. The damage also made the coin more susceptible to corrosion. As a result, the reverse shows severe damage, flattening, and embedded foreign matter and/or corrosion. A 1962-D cent is composed of 95% copper alloy, with the remaining 5% being a mixture of zinc and tin, or if made later that year, just zinc. It doesn't contain any precious metal or chrome! Please read the "Redbook". At least one of our contributors, @EagleRJO, collects these "parking lot" or "roadkill" coins for fun. Perhaps he can confirm what I've said and contribute some similar photos.

This is almost certainly some sort of fake. I doubt the seller is being truthful about seeing it struck at the Carson City mint museum. As I recall there were some cancelled dies found buried near the mint some years ago, but they were rusted and wouldn't have produced a "coin" that looked like this.