Sandon

I believe it's "Service@NGCcoin.com". It probably isn't case sensitive, but the first part of the address is "service", not "services".

The date that you should see on the edge (along with the words "E PLURIBUS UNUM") is 2010, followed by a "P" (for Philadelphia) or "D" (for Denver) mint mark. Since 2009 the reverse on Native American dollars has been changed each year.

Alan K--The odd look of "IGWT" when compared to the genuine coins shown in the linked sites is one of many indicators that the original poster's coin is a fake, and a crude one at that!

You don't want to spend these, as the silver in them has value that substantially exceeds their face value. To determine this value, which changes daily, obtain the current spot price of silver per troy ounce from a site such as kitco.com and multiply by 0.18084 for a pre-1965 quarter, 0.07234 for a pre-1965 dime, or 0.36169 for a pre-1965 half dollar. This morning's silver price is $19.56 per ounce, which yields a value of approximately $3.53 per unworn silver quarter. There would be a slight discount due to weight loss from wear. Coin or bullion dealers would pay somewhat less than the spot value but likely still over $3 per quarter at current silver values.

Because of the risk that someone could try to pass off a polished or plated circulation strike as a proof, I'd recommend that you only consider one certified by a reputable grading service such as NGC, PCGS or ANACS. I don't know of videos showing these coins, but there are many photos of specimens, such as on the NGC Coin Explorer, PCGS Coinfacts, and the auction archives of the websites of major numismatic auction houses such as Heritage and Stacks Bowers. I don't recall these later proofs having broader borders than circulation strikes, unlike the 1913-16 matte proofs. However, the edge tends to be sharper (less beveled) than on circulation strikes, as well as the strike. I've never heard of one of these being offered with "moderate wear", but it's possible that a few so impaired pieces could exist. Hopefully, RWB's book would have diagnostics that would remain after the proof surface has worn off. I agree with VKurtB that no photo (or video) can fully do justice to any coin. Try to go to coin shows or other venues where you can see the coins in person. Here are the photos (courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries) of the 1937 NGC graded PF66 that I purchased earlier this year:

This is a rather crude imitation that was probably cast rather than struck. Compare it with the photos of a genuine specimen on the NGC Coin Explorer at 1927 S $20 MS | Coin Explorer | NGC (ngccoin.com) or those on PCGS Coinfacts at 1927-S $20 (Regular Strike) St. Gaudens $20 - PCGS CoinFacts (right click either link for menu to open). Just about everything is wrong (surface texture, color, weakness of details, size and style of letters, numbers and mint mark). It's probably not even gold. The correct weight would be 33.436 grams. The edge of a St. Gaudens double eagle should have the words "E PLURIBUS UNUM" with the words separated by stars. What's on the edge of this one?

As I understand it, the obverse ("heads" side) die was slightly slanted in the coinage press, causing the impression of a doubled rim on the left side of coins it struck. The outer rim was created by the "collar", the metal ring that surrounds the blank as it is being struck, and the inner rim by the edge of the die hitting the blank at an angle. (It also appears that the extra stress on the die caused a small piece to break out of the die between "B" and "E".) These are minor and fairly common errors on coins of that period (due to the quality control issues mentioned by Mr. Lange), and the coin is not valuable. If you find it interesting, however, you should keep it.

@Shawn1984--From what I can see from the photos, your 1900-O Morgan dollar appears to be genuine. It is simply a well circulated (Very Good or so) specimen of a common date coin worth $30 or so retail that there's no real incentive to counterfeit (except to circulate at face value a century or more ago). The date and mint mark styles, toning and other characteristics are as would be expected. The 1893-S is a key to the series, with even well-worn pieces worth several thousand dollars. They were all struck from a single obverse die on which the "3" in the date is slightly higher than the other numerals, unlike the one in the original post. The mint mark is also of the wrong style and closer to the wreath than on genuine specimens. The "look" of the coin (color and toning pattern) is also suspicious. Finally, so far as I know, no one has ever reported a dramatic multiple strike error on an 1893-S Morgan dollar!

If I could afford either of these coins, I'd pick the "High Relief" without hesitation. No proof 1950 Franklin half dollar could possibly be worth $17,000 or more to me! I'm quite happy with the one I've got graded PCGS 64, which as I recall cost around $400.

The NGC Registry isn't for buying and selling. It's for collectors to display their collections of eligible certified coins and compete for points and awards. Check out the "Coin Marketplace" forum of these chat boards, where you can post inquiries about numismatic items that you would like to buy, sell or trade.

A counterfeit triple struck 1893-S Morgan dollar! Perhaps now I've seen everything!

This coin is neither a doubled die nor a "double strike", by which I assume the poster means a coin that was struck twice. The coin exhibits faint "strike doubling", which results from a single strike where a normal die was slightly loose in the press, producing a "shelf-like" secondary image that is lighter and in lower relief than the primary image. On a doubled die, in which the double image is in the die itself, the two images at or about the same strength and relief. Strike doubling is common and worth little or no premium. NGC's photo of the date area of the very rare 1969-S doubled die cent follows. Note the equal height doubling of all the numbers, while the "S" mint mark, which was punched into the die separately, shows no doubling. Photos of the similar doubling on the obverse lettering can be found in the entry for this variety in NGC VarietyPlus. There are also photos in the "Redbook".

I think that the detail is more like VF30-35. Note the stronger hair and cotton leaves on the obverse and the complete feathers on the reverse as compared with the VF25 example. However, the coin has extensive rim damage, both nicks and lengthy scrapes, and almost certainly wouldn't numerically grade. It may also be "cleaned", but for reasons I've previously stated it's hard to determine this from the photos.

For some reason die chips that cause protrusions or blobs to appear on struck coins were unusually common on U.S. coins of most denominations struck during the 1950s and early 1960s. These chips often clogged letters and numerals and, as I recall, were the stated reason for the 1960 small date cent being replaced with the large date version. A number of these chips also formed between the "B" and "E" of Lincoln cents, creating the impression of a letter "I". These became known as "BIE" or "LIBIERTY" errors or varieties and were quite popular with collectors during the 1960s and 70s, though never of much value. Frank G. Spadone's Major Variety & Oddity Guide (2d ed. 1963) (anyone remember this book?) listed "LIBIERTY"s/ "BIE"s for cents of 1952, 52-S, 53, 53-D, 53-S, 54-D, 54-S, 55-D, 55-S (with or without filled "9"), 56, 56-D (with or without repunched "D"), 57, 57-D, 58-D, 59, 60-D and 62. Pieces dated 1956 and 1957 from both mints appear to be the most common with "BIE". Although most errors or varieties resulting from die wear aren't considered significant today, looking for them in change or inexpensive groups of coins was one of the really "fun" parts of coin collecting that many of us seem to have forgotten about. Perhaps this fad can be revived, as the coins can be easily "cherrypicked". (Please don't submit these to grading services, as I don't think they'll recognize these as errors or varieties, and the expense would diminish the "fun"!) I found the following examples of "BIE"s in the wheat cents I've accumulated from circulation over the decades: 1. 1956 "BIE" with protrusion from "B" and " clogged bottom of "R" 2. 1957 "BIE". The coin is somewhat corroded, but the chip is quite prominent. Another chip clogs the top of the "5". 3. 1957-D with partial "BIE", clogged lower "B", and blob at bottom left of truncation of Lincoln's bust Feel free to post photos of any "BIE"s or similar pieces you have or your comments.

I'm not sure why this old thread was revived, but @EagleRJO's comments are correct. I knew that the coin had been recolored but didn't have a better one to submit at the time. I recently acquired this 1850 graded MS64BN by PCGS. (Photos are courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.)

See my response to Geno g's post of the same date with images of similar 1971-S cents and asking if these and 1969-S are worth submitting for grading. (If he is under the impression that this 1969-S cent--all 3 photos appear to be of the same coin--is the rare doubled die variety, it definitely isn't!)

This still appears to be a chip or sunken area on the die, not an overdate or something else of great interest or value. (Scrap or other foreign matter on the die would result in a depression on the struck coin, not something raised.)

Geno g is apparently a new collector who thought that all "S" mint coins are valuable. This is an old and all-too-common misconception. The U.S. mint at San Francisco (then technically an assay office) made hundreds of millions of cents with the "S" mint mark for circulation each year from 1968 to 1974. The mint issued over 544 million 1969-S and over 525 million 1971-S cents, and collectors and dealers saved many 50 coin rolls and 5,000 coin bags of bright red uncirculated pieces, which are more than sufficient to fulfill collector demand. Lightly circulated brown specimens like those shown in this and Geno g's other post are collected mostly by young collectors and others who prefer to collect coins from circulation and have little or no value above face. (They may be worth saving for their copper content.) The only ones that might be worth sending to a grading service would be coins that are not only red uncirculated but are spot and virtually mark free gems likely to grade "67" or higher. Relatively few qualify. Coin collecting can be an enjoyable and rewarding pastime, but knowledge is all important to make it so. Geno g may wish to refer to some of the print and online resources referred to in the following article I posted: Questions of this nature are also better posted on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" or "U.S., World and Ancient Coins" forums.

Cents and other U.S. coins dated from about 1956 into the early 1960s frequently developed die chips causing numerals and/or letters and other features to appear clogged or have protrusions like these. Your coin appears to have such chips around the date and the lower loop of the "B" in "LIBERTY" and also around Lincoln's chin. I think that this phenomenon is all that your coin exhibits, although it's possible that close-up photos of the affected areas could show something else. There was a fad of collecting these coins decades ago, with the most popular being cents (most often 1956-Ds) that had a chip between the "B" and "E" of "LIBERTY', which was called a "BIE" or "LIBIERTY" error. The coins never had much value, however, and the fad is long gone. If you find them interesting, you're welcome to collect and enjoy them. Added 10/3/22--This thread inspired me to create a new topic about the "BIE" and "LIBIERTY" die chip varieties, with photos of 1956, 1957 and 1957-D examples that I found in my box of common wheat cents taken from circulation over the decades. This topic is posted at

The coin has no better than XF details. The obverse shows significant wear on the hair, cotton bolls, and leaves and on the reverse on the eagle's breast and head. I can see no mint luster, which should appear in the fields on an AU coin that isn't more darkly toned than this one. The photos are inadequate to make any meaningful evaluation of the coin's originality or authenticity. (Remember that counterfeit dies are often modeled from genuine coins, so the die variety isn't determinative.) I do see some (1) "shininess" and (2) indications of streaks that at different lightings and angles than shown in the photos could be revealed as hairlines, either of which would designate the coin as "cleaned". I would never buy such a coin without the opportunity for in-person examination or, at a bare minimum, better photos in terms of lighting and more photos showing views from different angles.

Photos of Felix Schlag's original models that I've seen feature the narrow "8" in the date. The mint didn't adhere to it in subsequent years ending in "8". Incidentally, coins dated 1943 feature a round top "3", although the flat top "3" returned in subsequent years ending in "3".

This coin doesn't have either die or strike (machine) doubling. The faint image around some of the letters is likely due to die wear and is called "die erosion". The clog in the top of the "8" is a die chip as noted by Fenntucky Mike. These chips appear frequently on cents from the mid to late 1950s and early 1960s, and there was a fad of collecting them decades ago, though not lately. The deformity of the "I" and "B" is most likely damage. Of the various forms of doubling that can appear on coins, only a true doubled die, where the doubling is the result of improper die manufacture, may have value in the numismatic market. Such doubling is usually on one side of the coin and is found on all specimens from the die. The doubling is clear and has about the same depth as the primary image. The 1972 doubled die cent shown below is a good example. Note the crisp, clear doubling of all of the letters and numbers on the obverse, while the reverse is normal.

Allow me to provide a different opinion. In my view, it makes no sense to submit recently issued modern coins that you received in original mint packaging for third party certification. There is no question as to their authenticity, and virtually all of them are Superb Gems, with large numbers grading "70", which are virtually indistinguishable from nearly all of the others, which are graded "69". (I store mine in mint packaging or mint capsules, except for pieces I've bought for registry sets, with some "70s" costing less than their current grading fees!) Once you've paid the grading and processing fees and shipping and insurance costs, you would likely make little or no profit by selling the certified pieces grading "70" at wholesale prices to dealers or through auctions after commissions. Any pieces grading "69" or lower would likely be salable only at a loss. Dealers may be able to submit the coins more cheaply than you can. You should ask the dealers to whom you might sell the coins what they would pay for uncertified pieces and what they would pay for pieces already graded "69" or "70" before attempting to submit them yourself. I don't know why your sets are "unopened". They should have been inspected when received in case any coins were missing or damaged, as has happened. The mint's return privilege is only seven days.

@schism--Please see my response of today on your posting regarding a 1996-P quarter for references to websites and publications from which you may gain the knowledge I presume that you're seeking. I've been a collector for over fifty years and agree that all of the coins you've posted are either severely damaged and/or struck from worn dies, not numismatically desirable or valuable errors or varieties. It's not possible to explain "why" to someone who lacks basic knowledge without providing a very lengthy explanation, as well as showing many coins exhibiting known error characteristics. We're volunteers who are taking the time to help you, which you should appreciate. This will be my last effort to do so.

I'll assume that @schism is seriously attempting to obtain information about how to identify and attribute mint errors. The website "www.error-ref.com" appears to have a comprehensive listing of various types of errors and die varieties, with photos. @Oldhoopster has previously mentioned "www.doubleddie.com", which is authored by John Wexler, a recognized expert, although this site concentrates on die varieties and errors, not striking errors. I recommend that @schism as a new collector also learn about U.S. coins more generally. To that end I recommend he refer to the books and online resources mentioned in the following post that I made on this forum: