Sandon

The coin is a 2006-S proof Nevada state quarter, presumably clad as it is in a blue colored proof set frame. (The silver sets were in red frames.) Nearly 2.9 million were minted. The die that struck this one was used longer than it should have, as it does appear to have cracked. In the language used by collectors of earlier (mostly pre-1837) U.S. coins, it would be considered a "late die state" rather than an error or a variety. Some late die states of early U.S. coins are sought after, such as the late state of the 1807 50/20 C. (die variety O-111) half dollar on which obverse die cracks have formed a "beard" beneath Liberty's chin, this "Bearded Goddess" state having been designated O-111b. Grading service labels refer to such pieces by the O-111b reference and/or the "Bearded Goddess" popular name on a separate line from the line stating the grade. The die variety and state reference and popular name are part of the description of the coin, not part of its grade. As others have pointed out, a die crack is unrelated to the grade of a coin. Few collectors of modern (or even later nineteenth century) coins are interested in specifically collecting pieces exhibiting die cracks that have not caused pieces of the die to actually fall out and form a "cud". If enough collectors were interested in finding 2006-S Nevada quarters with this particular crack and paying a premium for them, and it became listed in popular references such as the "Red Book" or the "Cherrypickers" Guide", perhaps with a popular name such as "shooting star", it is possible that NGC and/or other grading services would identify this die state on the holder by name or reference number. Now, what name would one care to give to my 1894 proof Liberty nickel that exhibits die cracks on the reverse connecting the letters "TATES OF AM"? It is interesting to see such cracks on a coin with a reported mintage of only 2,632 pieces, but it's unlikely to be considered anything special either. (Photo courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.)

I'm not sure what "opinion" you wanted, but the illustrated coin appears to be a crude (probably cast) counterfeit! If it is a genuine coin, it has been damaged, likely by heat that nearly melted it. It has also been bent. If you have any other question, please ask it!

Actually, this one looks pretty nice and original to me. Unimpaired circulated copper-nickel cents range in color from beige to fairly dark brown. It's no wonder you're attracted to the cleaned ones!

Your latest 1858 small letters Flying Eagle cent appears to have uncirculated details, but the streaking and glossiness on the obverse don't look right. The coin may have been "cleaned" or may not be genuine. I'd have to see the actual coin (not photos) at different angles to get a better idea.

In case anyone reading this doesn't already know it, a 1927 St. Gaudens double eagle can't have been minted in Dahlonega, as that mint last produced coins in 1861! The "D" mint mark has been used to identify coins struck in Denver since 1906. The original poster has repeatedly insisted that he has an 1870-S Seated dollar that has no legible mint mark. He now claims to have a 1927-D double eagle that has no legible mint mark either but insists that these coins are what he purports them to be because of "die markers" he purports to show in blurry photos in the case of the dollar while citing no numismatic reference (book, other publication, or website) depicting or describing these markers. The mint marks are clear on all known examples of these rare coins, as can be seen in the photos on the NGC Coin Explorer, PCGS Coinfacts, and the catalogs and archives of numismatic auction houses

I happened to have my 1997 "Botanic Garden Coinage and Currency Set" handy and scanned the obverse side of the panel with the coins. These sets are the sole source of the special 1997-P nickels now designated "Specimen" ("SP") by grading services. As you can see, the mint referred to the 1997-P nickel as "uncirculated" and as a "matte finish or mint state Jefferson 5-cent piece" and explained how the special finish had been created. The mint never described these coins as "specimens", "proofs", or "specimen proofs"!

No 1880-S Morgan dollar has ever been designated a "proof"! NGC has certified 1,989 pieces as "deep mirror prooflike", while PCGS has certified 2,967 pieces as "deep mirror prooflike", totaling 4,956 grading events. These two services combined have also graded 16,185 pieces of this issue "prooflike". Many older coins of some issues struck for circulation were made with mirror surfaces and often frosted devices. They are not proofs, which were specially struck using specially prepared planchets, special equipment, and multiple strikes and were then specially handled to avoid abrasions. They usually have other characteristics, such as squared off (not beveled) edges and a different "look". The next time you have an opportunity to do so, compare a Morgan dollar designated "deep mirror prooflike" (usually an early "S" mint like the 1880-S) with an actual Philadelphia mint proof. You should perceive significant differences in the surfaces and strike, as well as the usual absence of bag marks on actual proofs. The only branch mint Morgan dollars that have been recognized by some numismatists as "proofs" per the deluxe "Red Book" (and as to which there is documentation confirming that proofs were authorized and issued by the mint), are very rare examples of the 1879-O (4 known, said to have been struck to commemorate the reopening of the New Orleans mint), 1883-O (12 said to have been struck, 2 certified), 1893-CC (10 to 12 said to have been struck to commemorate the closing of the Carson City mint) and 1921-S "Zerbe" proofs (5 known; called "specimens" or "special strikings" by some numismatists). There are controversies regarding some Philadelphia mint issues of the nineteenth century that were issued in relatively small numbers for circulation and also as proofs, often from the same dies. In these cases, it is often the circulation strikes that are more valuable, yet many circulation strikes are prooflike, while some proofs are satiny, not mirrorlike! Many pages could be written about these controversies. Recent issues made specially for collectors are an entirely different matter, as proofs and other special strikings are always distinguishable from circulation quality coins. They are best referred to by the names given by the mint, not as "specimens" or as "proofs" when that was not the name used. Sorry, it doesn't matter what you think they look like!

Is an 1880-S Morgan dollar that is a "deep mirror prooflike" with deeply mirrored fields and fully frosted devices also to be considered a "proof"? Isn't "proof" a method of manufacture, not just a way a coin looks?

@Errorists ' coin is a 2019-W "Enhanced Finish" one-ounce "American Liberty" High Relief gold coin. Both the Deluxe "Redbook" a.k.a. "Mega Red" (7th edition 2021) and the current issue of Coin World price this coin in the "MS" (mint state or regular strike) column, not the proof column. Apparently, the mint didn't call this coin a "proof", although what appear to be mirrored fields and frosted devices make it look like a proof, presumably due to differences in the manufacturing process. (I've never personally inspected one of these coins.) NGC added to the confusion with the "SP" ("specimen") designation instead of simply using the mint's already confusing "Enhanced Finish" nomenclature. Since it wasn't issued by the mint as a "proof", NGC hasn't given a "proof" an "SP" designation.

"SP" means "Specimen", however defined, not "Specimen Proof". A proof is not a "specimen" nor vice-versa. In my opinion, the grading services should use whatever nomenclature the issuing mint used for the issue, not make up their own. Coins that the U.S. mint describes as "Enhanced Uncirculated," for example, should not be designated "SP" by a grading service. A die crack is not part of the grade of a coin, so it should not be included as part of the grade. A coin with a significant error for which there is an established market may be separately described on another line of the grading service holder. There is no such market for minor die cracks. If you enjoy collecting them, it's better for you that there isn't, so you can purchase them for no additional cost. As you can see these cracks by examining the coin yourself, what do you need this characteristic described on a grading service holder for a substantial fee? We're still waiting to see the coin that you say is from a proof issue that the grading holder described as "SP".

@Errorists--What "West Point proof coin with a SP designation" do you mean? Can you show us a photo of the coin in its certified holder or at least describe it. A die crack generally doesn't qualify as a desirable error or variety and isn't--nor should it be--referred to on a grading service holder.

The term "specimen" is sometimes used to designate a coin that is some sort of special striking or was deliberately made with a special finish but is not a proof. I don't think that the U.S. Mint has ever used the term "specimen" to designate a coin that it has sold to collectors or distributed for circulation, but grading services have used the abbreviation "SP" to designate some non-proof U.S. coins such as those from 1965-67 Special Mint Sets, and, as I recall, some "matte finish" uncirculated coins such as the 1998-S silver Kennedy half dollars that were paired in a set with RFK commemorative silver dollars. A "specimen" is considered a separate issue from a "proof" of the same design, date and mint. Their respective values are determined by supply and demand in each case, so there could be no general rule as to which of a "proof" or a "specimen" would be the more valuable.

The doubled profile is from strike doubling and is common on Capped Bust half dollars and other coins of this era. It's not "recutting". I don't see any extra curls in the area you circled, which includes the center dot, a remnant of the die-making process, which is also common on pieces of this era. You can check the die variety on NGC VarietyPlus or PCGS Coinfacts. If you determine that this coin is from a new die or new die marriage, it would be worthwhile to have a grading service verify your findings. It doesn't appear to be a significant (very early or very late) die state.

@EagleRJO--There are so many deceptive counterfeits of the Pratt Indian Head quarter and half eagles nowadays, and they now cost so much that I would no longer risk buying an uncertified one.

@hixxstersmine-- Please post your questions about coins on one of the forums, such as the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum, not in someone else's journal. Your photos of the 1943 cent are too dark for me to offer any meaningful opinion, but many thousands of dark or rusted 1943 zinc-coated steel cents have been privately processed, replated and buffed to appear uncirculated. They are identified by a shiny rather than frosty surface and are considered to have an altered surface. It's possible that NGC was wrong, but they have to go by what they can see. There's no way for them to verify that your father got it "fresh from the mint" in 1943 and no one has done anything to it since. FYI, here's what an uncirculated 1943 steel cent is supposed to look like, this one graded MS 66 by PCGS.

The 1858 small letters Flying Eagle cent you purchased has extensive corrosion, pitting and surface roughness, probably from being buried in the ground. I don't think it's even worth the "Good" money you paid for it. To me it's a $5 or so "junk box" item that is worse than the one that was cleaned. I once again implore you to spend your money on books about coins and your time on learning about them by looking at them (not just photos) and speaking to experienced collectors and dealers before doing any more coin buying! FYI, this photo shows what original, unimpaired surfaces look like on a lightly circulated copper-nickel (Flying Eagle or 1859-64 Indian) cent.

This is a 1917-D Variety One Standing Liberty quarter that has a bad enough scratch that it probably wouldn't receive a numerical grade from a grading service. From the photos it appears to have been improperly "cleaned" as well, meaning that the surfaces have been altered by chemicals or abrasives, which would also negate a numerical grade. It has approximately Extremely Fine details, which unimpaired would mean a retail value of approximately $175. This one is probably worth more like $50 due to the impairments. I included a link to a post on basic resources for new collectors in one of @JessicaJoe's other posts, to which she should refer to acquire basic knowledge about coins. Here are photos of a 1917 Variety One quarter graded MS 64 FH (full head details) by NGC as an example of a coin that is worth third-party grading.

This appears to be a worn--more like VF than AU--and "cleaned" 1921 Peace dollar that NGC put in a holder merely to identify it as having come from a large hoard of various U.S. coins that was dispersed by StacksBowers from the old Stack's location on W. 57th St. in New York City eight or nine years ago. Many of these coins were given numerical grades by NGC and put in a holder with a red-outlined label saying "Stack's W. 57th St. Collection" and a photo of the storefront. This one is a "cull". Yes, all 1921 Peace dollars were struck in higher relief than those regularly issued from 1922-35. They're common enough that you should buy a better one.

These are privately made novelties, not coins, which are by definition made by governments as legal tender. They have little or no value.

In my opinion no coin with a numerical grade less than "67" can be presumed to be a "gem". Even then you have to examine the coin and decide if you agree and it's to your taste.

It's obvious to me that NGC chose the date 1982 as the earliest date for "NGCX" grading because that was the first year of modern commemoratives that would routinely qualify for high grades. No or almost no non-proof 1982 Lincoln cents will qualify for the "perfect [under low magnification]10" grade that I'm sure the hucksters who will sell NGCX holdered pieces will promote to the numismatically ignorant public as some sort of investment.

I recall that it was later in 1944 the U.S. government first took the position that 1933 double eagles hadn't been legally issued and began confiscating them. Prior to that several of them were sold in the open market. One of them had been sold to King Farouk of Egypt, who had obtained an export license for it. This is the only known example that is now legally held by a private owner, after the government settled the case over its confiscation due to the export license. The settlement required the party from whom the coin had been confiscated to split the proceeds of sale with the government. The purchaser had to pay an additional $20 [!] to the government to monetize the coin.

It doesn't appear that there are many currency collectors on the forum. I'm not an active collector of currency either but have some knowledge about U.S. currency. The low serial number notes that some collectors covet are much lower numbers than you have here, usually numbers 1 (especially) through 10 or so, not four digits. Repeater notes are popular as novelties but not particularly valuable either. It helps for the note itself to be valuable, which these are certainly not, even in Crisp Uncirculated condition. Each of these notes is probably worth only a modest premium (a few dollars to $50), but I'm no expert. I would recommend that you contact a currency dealer such as Executive Currency (Frederick and Bianca Bart), 586-979-3400, bart@ExecutiveCurrency.com, Facebook.com/ExecutiveCurrency; or Denly's of Boston,781-326-9481, tom@denlys.com, www.denlys.com. I've spoken to Mr. Bart at coin shows and made one of my few currency purchases from him. Both dealers have advertised in Coin World for many years. They may be willing to give you estimated values or purchase offers.

If you like this coin and were willing and able to pay a price that is higher than the current and often inflated PCGS Price Guide list price, that is all that should matter to you! If you're a collector who intends to own and enjoy the coin for many years and isn't hoping to profit from it any time soon, your purchase is a reasonable one. To my eye, though, the coin seems to be quite bagmarked and somewhat hairlined, though not excessively so for an MS 62 grading service grade. Based on the photos, it also appears to be somewhat "washed out" in appearance, which, along with the hairlines, suggests that the coin has been dipped and lightly wiped to remove toning, though not to an extent that a grading service would call it "cleaned". On the positive side the coin appears to be legitimately without circulation wear and well-struck. Truly uncirculated Seated dollars other than the 1859-O and 1860-O are hard to come by, even though the 1871 is the most common "with motto" issue. I wouldn't have paid a premium price for it and would have more likely purchased a less marked and more original looking XF or AU example for a much lower price. In the final analysis, the desirability of a coin is all a matter of individual taste that can't be dictated by the number on a grading service tag.

The 1858 Small Letters Flying Eagle cent appears to feature common strike doubling from a die that was loose in the press and is not a doubled die. Note how the secondary image is much shallower than the primary image. On a doubled die both images are about the same depth. Based on the photos, it has obviously been "cleaned" or polished based upon the overly bright and shiny surface. Its approximate grade would be Extremely Fine Details.