Sandon

I found the following post by the administrator of the NGC Registry that should help you with this issue:

The problem is that a coin can be abrasively or chemically "cleaned" and then retone, either naturally over time or artificially with the "help" of a "coin doctor" who wishes to hide the "cleaning" from unsuspecting purchasers. It's hard to see the hairlining or other indications of cleaning under the toning without looking at the actual coin at different angles and lightings and not by just looking at a photo. (Even from your photo, I can see, as have others, that the toning is too irregular and the underlying surface too shiny to be original.) If you like it and are satisfied with the price you paid, that's all that really matters, however. It's still "history in your hands". Here's the obverse of an 1840-O no drapery Seated quarter that was obviously "cleaned" to an unnatural shade of grayish white but subsequently developed a band of rainbow toning. Lovely, isn't it?

I received this letter as well. I've been a mint customer since 1975, when the products offered consisted of clad proof and mint sets and the Bicentennial three-piece silver clad proof and uncirculated sets, which I recall began to be offered some time that year. Although the quality of most mint products has greatly improved since that time, the mint is now overwhelming collectors with too many different issues in too many different finish, mint, and packaging options. (Some of this problem is the fault of Congress for requiring the mint to produce commemorative issues in which the general public has little interest and a number of annual designs for quarters and dollars, the latter of which hardly circulate.) The worst problem, however, is the recent major price increases that are unwarranted by current precious metals prices. The worst offenders in this regard are the silver proof sets, whose price was suddenly increased from $63.25 to $105 a few months after the 2020 set became available. I had purchased these sets since 1992 but have not and will not purchase the 2021 or 2022 sets at this absurd price. Clad commemorative half dollars, which have long been overpriced, now cost about half of what the commemorative silver dollars cost, even though they contain no silver, and their intrinsic value is below face value! From now on my purchases will be largely limited to the clad proof and mint sets, with an occasional commemorative issue in uncirculated finish, as both their cost and mintages are lower.

If you mean a type set under the "circulated coins only" category, I think the answer is "yes". I have a Liberty Seated dime graded "PF 53" in mine. However, if you mean a type set in a "non-proofs" only category, the answer is likely "no", as a circulated proof is still a proof. The administrator may have additional input.

Agreed. The official weight for a newly minted bronze cent was 3.11 grams. Your weight of 3.03 grams is consistent with that of a worn bronze cent. There are rare Indian cents that were erroneously struck on silver dime planchets (blanks), whose official weight was 2.5 grams. Not only is your coin too heavy for that, but such coins are undersized and usually struck off center with a "spread out" appearance due to the striking pressure squeezing the blank outward because it was smaller than the cent dies and not restrained by the collar that surrounds the dies. The coin is also too "shiny" for a worn silver coin, indicating it was plated after the coin became worn. It has no more than novelty value to any knowledgeable collector. I don't think that people at your local coin shop were trying to cheat you. They were trying to tell you the truth. You may have accumulated many "pennies"--formally, the U.S. mint issues cents, not pennies--but it's not clear you have much knowledge about coins. If you would like to find resources from which you could obtain more knowledge and better evaluate your holdings, you might want to review the following article that I posted on this chat board:

The Grade: AU Details, Surface Damage (presumably genuine, as it wouldn't be worth counterfeiting) The Value: $1. Can be used as part payment for your fare on some public transportation systems. That's all, folks!

Here's what the widely collected 1972 doubled die obverse cent looks like, shown below. Note the crisp, clear doubling of all of the letters and numbers on the obverse, while the reverse is normal. There are less prominent (and less valuable) doubled die varieties of the 1972. Your coin is a 1972-D. I'm not aware of any significant doubled dies on a 1972-D, although there may be some minor ones listed in the resources shown by Oldhoopster. You seem to be a very new collector. You can find resources to help you learn about U.S. coins and collecting them in my article on this forum posted at

While there are reputable coin dealers who sell items through eBay, many of the other sellers are not knowledgeable, and some may be knowingly or unknowingly offering overgraded, impaired, altered or counterfeit material. Unless you are an experienced and knowledgeable collector, in my opinion it's too risky to buy coins through that site, except from otherwise well-known dealers. Although I'm not an expert on mint errors, I have seen pictures of coins with "extra letters" that resulted from a piece of struck scrap metal lying between a die and the blank from which that coin was struck. Such letters are usually incuse and backwards, nothing like the clear, straight "IBE" or the lighter "TRUST". It doesn't look like a legitimate double strike either, as only some parts are doubled, and none of the lettering or devices appears to have been crushed by the second strike. Based on the artificial (plated or otherwise altered) appearing surfaces, it's likely a concoction made outside the mint. It's nevertheless difficult to come to a conclusion from these photos. You would have to show the actual coin to an expert for a thorough opinion.

If you're asking about the address to submit coins to NGC for authentication and grading, I advise you to go back to the NGC home page and read the various topics under the "Submit" tab for instructions and a full understanding of the process and its cost before submitting. The address on the submission form is "NGC, P.O. Box 4776, Sarasota, FL 34230". This forum is for the NGC Registry. Questions about submissions would be better directed to the part entitled "Ask NGC/NCS" or, if you don't want all of us on the chat boards to see your inquiry, e-mail "Service@NGCcoin.com" or call 1-800-642-2646 during business hours.

Based on the photos the "mark" appears to be a streak of toning, formerly known as tarnish, on the coin itself. This is fairly common on silver coins and could easily result from a thin strip of something chemically reactive, such as paper, lying on the coin for a while. It shouldn't affect the grade at the "64" level and would likely have been taken into consideration in assigning that grade. If the streak is on the inside of the holder and not on the coin, you should be able to see this by looking closely at an angle. If the streak is a scratch or other damage to the coin, you should see an indentation on the coin.

Modern art and government medals made for collectors with a mintage of 75,000 are extremely unlikely to ever be considered "rare". Virtually the entire mintage is likely to remain in existence, and there aren't as many serious collectors of such items as there are collectors of legal tender coins. There doesn't appear to be much of an "aftermarket" for them either as compared to coins. I haven't even heard of people seeking high grades for them as for coins! (These should all be virtually flawless anyway.) As there is no question of the medal's authenticity, and it is already sealed in a protective capsule with a government box and certificate, I see no reason to spend substantial money over and above the mint's inflated price to send these to a grading service.

Preface: Experienced collectors who participate in this forum frequently endeavor to answer the questions of very new collectors who have little or no knowledge about coins. It is sometimes difficult to answer such questions without providing a very detailed explanation or leaving these collectors with an incomplete understanding of the issue. What follows is a modified version of an article I wrote for new collectors who join my local coin club. New collectors whose posts indicate a need for basic numismatic education could be referred to this posting so that they will have sufficient knowledge to ask good questions. As the resources I mention are hardly comprehensive, other members of the forum are welcome to add their recommended resources and other comments. SOME RESOURCES FOR NEW COLLECTORS Here are my suggestions for you as a new or returning collector regarding essential publications and online resources that will help you to learn about and enjoy U.S. coins and how to minimize ill-informed decisions in buying them in the contemporary numismatic market. There is a wise saying, "buy the book before the coin." I will also inform you regarding some of the websites and places you can purchase these materials. (I have no financial interest in any of the mentioned publications or companies, and they are not intended as an exhaustive list.) Printed Resources and Where to Purchase Them You should both read and carry wherever you may wish to view or purchase coins a recent standard (not for this purpose the very heavy deluxe or "Mega Red") edition of A Guide Book of United States Coins, usually referred to as the "Red Book." The standard Red Book is widely considered to be the best basic and portable guide to U.S. and colonial coinage and commonly collected territorial issues and tokens, with generally adequate historical information, photos, and basic (though not up to date) retail pricing for the most commonly collected grades of each date, mint and commonly collected variety of each series. Another essential book with which you should familiarize yourself and carry wherever you may purchase coins is a grading guide that includes both good quality photographs and descriptions of each adjectival grade from Poor through Uncirculated. I recommend The Official American Numismatic Association Grading Standards for United States Coins (7th ed. 2013) (the "ANA Grading Guide"). Other photographic grading guides that are currently in print include Grading Coins by Photographs by Q. David Bowers (2d ed.), which I haven't reviewed, and Making the Grade, which I understand to be a reprint of the articles on grading specific series published monthly in Coin World, which has good photos and descriptions but may not cover each grade, although unlike the ANA Grading Guide it does show photos of examples of some uncirculated coins in different numerical grades. You should also carry a current retail pricing guide anywhere you may consider purchasing coins. As the Red Book is published in April of the year prior to the date of the edition, it is not good for up-to-date pricing. It also does not price all adjectival grades for all series. Although to my knowledge the only complete pricing guides for adjectival and numerical grades are online, there are several decent guides printed monthly. I use Coin World's monthly Coin Values as well as the quarterly CPG Coin & Currency Market Review, which is currently distributed free at our club meetings and some coin shows. Coin Values is a strictly retail guide, while the CPG guide tends to include somewhat--but not always--lower prices that may be negotiated between dealers and collectors. I understand that the monthly edition of Numismatic News also includes a listing of retail prices, as does Coin Prices magazine. Bear in mind that list prices vary from guide to guide and that the price for any coin offered by a dealer or realized at auction may be higher or lower than that listed in any guide. Both Coin World and Numismatic News contain news articles about new mint issues and developments in the numismatic market, as well as educational articles about coins and currency, their grading, preservation and other important topics, as well as dealer advertising for coins, currency and supplies. I recommend a subscription to at least one of these publications. Coin World usually offers an annual subscription to the print issues of its monthly edition, plus online access to its weekly and monthly editions and other resources for a reasonable price at www.coinworld.com/subscribe. Subscribers to Coin World are eligible to receive discounts on numismatic books (including the Red Book and Making the Grade), albums and supplies at www.AmosAdvantage.com. Subscriptions to Numismatic News are available at www.numismaticnews.net, from which Coin Prices magazine is also available. The Red Book, the ANA Grading Guide and Collecting Coins by Photographs can also be purchased at retail from their publisher, Whitman Publishing, LLC, www.whitman.com. Whitman also sells other books, a popular line of coin albums, and coin and currency supplies. These publications may also be available from bookstores, at larger coin shows, and from online retailers. If you intend to become a serious collector, I do recommend buying from time to time--not each year--the "Mega Red" edition of the Red Book, which at 1,500 pages contains substantially more information about the various series of coins than the 364 page standard edition. (Each year's edition of "Mega Red" features a 500 or so page in depth study of one denomination, which has sometimes been republished as a separate book.) There are entire books dedicated to most U.S. series in which you may decide to specialize. You may also join the American Numismatic Association (www.money.org) (the "ANA") whose members receive (in print or online) The Numismatist, a more scholarly publication, and other benefits. Online Resources Two of the leading grading services, NGC (www.ngccoin.com) and PCGS (www.pcgs.com), offer valuable resources through their websites without charge. Except as otherwise indicated, each of these services is accessible through the "Resources" tab at the top of the NGC home page or the pertinent tab at the top of the PCGS home page. PCGS Coinfacts ("Coins" under "Facts" tab) provides a fairly comprehensive guide to U.S. coins by series, date and mint, and variety, complete with high resolution photos of coins of such issues and varieties that PCGS has graded. (There is now also a PCGS Notefacts for currency, but for now it only contains basic information about currency grading.) NGC has a similar guide, the NGC Coin Explorer, whose sophistication now approaches that of PCGS Coinfacts, though in my opinion PCGS still has better photos. The PCGS website offers a comprehensive photographic online grading guide ("PCGS Photograde") which is accessible farther down in the home page, under "PCGS Resources" then "Photograde", as well as from the bottom of the home page under "Resources". Both grading services also offer comprehensive and frequently updated price guides for certified coins in each numerical grade from 1 to 70 where the coins are known to exist. The PCGS "Population Report" and the NGC "Census" provide information as to how many of a particular coin issue have been graded by the pertinent service in each numerical grade. The NGC Census includes a separate listing for "problem" coins that were adjectivally graded. Both services also allow collectors to create "registry sets" of their certified coins in which they may display photos and descriptions of their certified U.S. and world coins and may compete with other collectors for points and awards. NGC permits both NGC and PCGS certified U.S. coins on its registry (but only NGC certified world coins), while PCGS only allows PCGS certified coins. You will find additional educational resources (videos, guides to collecting specific series, etc.) at the grading service sites. Another source for such resources is the ANA website, www.money.org, which you should explore. There are numerous other online resources of varying quality for both new and more advanced collectors of many specialties, about which you should learn as you progress.

In my opinion it makes no sense to submit modern coins you purchased from the mint for grading! You have no reason to question their authenticity. The mint provided you with protective and attractive packaging and certificates. The coins should be of very high quality and grade either "69" or "70", and even "70s" have gotten extremely common. (If you see obvious flaws, you should have returned them to the mint within the time allowed.) You already paid the mint an inflated price for them, so why would you want to spend additional money for grading fees, processing fees, shipping, and insurance? No dealer or collector, now or in the future, is likely to pay you extra for third party grading or a special label for these coins, which is just a gimmick by grading services to make more money. Collect coins, not grading service labels!

Here's an uncertified 1864-S Seated half dollar that I purchased last weekend at a local coin show. The large "S" and the small lump on the left side of the top of the "D" in "DOL." identify it as a WB-1. The dealer graded it VF. I would consider it to be F-VF by the standards I learned in the 1970s, but it's probably a VF 30-35 by the standards used by grading services today. It would probably be numerically graded despite some slight edge damage and surface issues, but it's going into an album with most of the rest of my Seated half collection. (The ones in NGC or PCGS slabs are in my Seated half dollar registry set.)

The ANA grading guide, regarding the obverses of these coins says that to grade F 12 says "more than half the details show in hair, drapery and cap" and "parts of ear and clasp are visible." For the reverse to grade F 12 "[n]early half the feathers are visible in the wings". For the VF 20 obverse "[d]rapery and lower curls are worn but bold. Ear, clasp and curls are worn but all plainly visible." Neither of the illustrated coins strictly meets all of the requirements for F 12 and certainly not for VF 20. The "Notes" in the grading guide for this series state that "[c]oins of this design are often weakly struck, particularly . . . in the clasp and hair." It's hard to tell the difference between wear and striking weakness on well circulated coins. This is why grading is so subjective, especially for coins made with older technology. From the standpoint of a prospective purchaser, it's wise to be conservative. The grading services often take perceived striking weakness into consideration. The coin whose photo you obtained from Coinfacts is a good example of a piece with original surfaces, unlike the abused coin in your first photo, but I wouldn't pay VF money for it either. Better struck pieces exist. Be choosy!

This documentation may have significance if it indicates that a coin came from a famous collection or was sold by a well-known dealer or auction house. Provenances are important to many collectors. I'm not sure what you mean by "packaging". Do not remove coins that are sealed in grading service holders (NGC, PCGS, ANACS, etc.) as doing so would void the guarantees of authenticity and grade afforded by those services. Coins should also not be removed from original government packaging. I'd need more information to give you a better response. (The one coin you refer to is likely worth several thousand dollars, over $1,700 in current gold value alone.)

Yes, this is the 1807 large stars, 50 over 20 variety, the most common 1807 Capped Bust half dollar variety. I hope you realize that this coin has been severely "cleaned" and appears to have solder or other foreign matter adhering to it, especially on the reverse. Because the 1807-08 coins are of a different style than the later ones and because they were often weakly struck in the centers to begin with, they can be difficult to grade. I'd say this one has no better than Fine details.

I think your friend is referring to the 1975 proof dime that was accidentally struck from a die that lacked the "S" mint mark. I'm sure he was joking! Only two of these are known to exist, and they were both found in mint issued proof sets, which are sealed in hard plastic holders, which is how collectors obtain proof coins from the mint. Unfortunately, all of the coins struck at Philadelphia for circulation in 1975 had no mint mark either. (Philadelphia began using a "P" mint mark for most coins except cents in 1980.) By "deeply mirrored fields" I mean the fields look like a mirror so that you can see your reflection in them, unlike the bright but non-reflective frosty or satiny finish that coins made for circulation generally have on both their fields and devices before they become worn. The 1975 "no S" proof dimes have the mirrored fields. There would be no way that a coin as worn and tarnished as yours could be identified as one of these, even if it had incredibly started out as a "no S" proof that was broken out of a proof set and spent. All dimes made for circulation dating from 1965, as well as the standard proof set, are made of "clad metal" consisting of outer layers of copper-nickel alloy bonded to a pure copper core. This format replaced silver in circulating coins. Proofs struck in this format are referred to as "clad proofs." (The mint has also offered more expensive proof sets containing silver coins since 1992.) I don't know what your friend is talking about referring to "non-proof versions." I suggest you start learning about coins by purchasing and reading a copy of the current standard edition (2023) of A Guide Book of United States Coins (commonly known to collectors as the "Redbook), which is available from its publisher at whitman.com or from most book retailers. You can also look at--and purchase if you wish--current year proof sets and other current coin sets from the mint at usmint.gov.

RJO-Eagle--You seem to believe that it is necessary to determine the die variety of a Morgan dollar in order to authenticate it. This generally isn't how it's done, especially for more common coins like an 1883-CC! In my VAM book, the first "variety" listed for every date and mint is "normal die", which doesn't refer to a specific die pair but refers generically to all die pairs that don't have enough distinctive characteristics to warrant a separate listing. For higher mintage dates (1886-O for example, notwithstanding its low mint state population) this listing could cover a large number of die pairs that have only minute differences in date and mint mark positions and aren't covered by any photo or description in the VAM book or website. The only Morgan dollar I know of where checking the die variety is essential to authentication is the 1893-S, all of which were struck from a single obverse die that per the VAM book "has a small, raised diagonal die polishing line in the top of T in LIBERTY." To get a better comfort level that you're buying a genuine uncertified coin--and you can never be absolutely sure, unless you bought the coin directly from the mint--you must look at a number of coins (not photos) to get a "feel" for what genuine ones look like. It's largely a matter of experience.

A coin that appears to be made of "blackened metal" when viewed at all angles is either severely corroded or has been painted or otherwise colored with something. (A coin can tarnish or "tone" to a darker color, but this has nothing to do with its being a proof.) A proof coin from 1975 would have deeply mirrored fields, usually with at least somewhat frosted devices (the portrait and other elements of the coin's design). Additionally, there should be an "S" above the date, the mint mark for San Francisco, where 1975 proof dimes--like nearly all others issued since 1968--have been made. The mirror fields would make the fields look "black" when viewed from an angle to the light, brilliant when the light source is directly overhead. The 1977 proof dime in the photos demonstrates this appearance. While typing the last paragraph I got your photo. Your coin is simply a well circulated (worn) and toned 1975 dime made for circulation at the Philadelphia mint, one of a reported 585,673,900 made that year. Spend it! If you're interested in becoming a coin collector, please advise. We can help you with acquiring the necessary knowledge.

I was using the actual VAM book, formally titled Comprehensive Catalog and Encyclopedia of Morgan & Peace Dollars by Van Allen & Mallis (3d ed. 1991). (I had to place my digital microscope on a pile of 6 books to get the accompanying photo and still couldn't get the top of the photo.) There are newer editions that have added additional varieties, as well as on the web sites. The photo of the mint mark in my book looks more like the photo on the likely counterfeit coin, but I think the difference is in the photos, not the coins. Notice, however, the distinct difference in the surface texture on all of the photos of genuine coins versus that on this likely fake! If you are a new collector and want to buy more expensive uncertified coins, you should only buy them from reputable, well-established coin dealers, not from random people who post on eBay. You should also only buy them after in-person examination. I'm sure that there are established coin dealers and coin shows in your well-populated area. Have you tried them?

I suspect that this coin is also a fake, though not because of the shape or position of the mint mark. The mint mark is a match to that shown for die variety VAM 3 (O Set Right, Tilted Left). However, other details of the reverse, such as the eagle's breast feathers and the shape of the gap between the eagle's neck and right wing don't seem to match the genuine article. The oddly prooflike surfaces are also peculiar, though some genuine prooflike (rare) and semi-prooflike 1903-Os do exist. The coin is also oddly devoid of the usual bag marks. This could be one of the newer, more deceptive Chinese counterfeits!

Per PCGS Coinfacts at https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1964-50c-sms/6844 a dozen or so pieces have turned up that are believed to be experimental strikes for SMS coins, but they were all obtained through a coin dealer who is thought to have obtained them from a mint employee. They aren't known to have been issued in 1964 proof sets like yours. I've seen proof 1964 Kennedy half dollars that aren't completely mirrored and have a little "cartwheel". This is probably due to high production. The plastic also makes them look a little dull.

Diamondslayer--Here are my comments on some points you made: 1. However many 1860-S double eagles exist or are in numismatists' hands, their price is determined by demand as well as supply. It is a better date but not an especially rare one in circulated grades, and a relatively small number of wealthy collectors endeavor to collect double eagles by date and mint, some of whom compete for "finest knowns" and wouldn't be interested in an AU 53. A population of 1,500 (if it were that low) isn't particularly small for such a coin. For every collector who specifically wants and can afford an 1860-S, there are probably hundreds who want and can afford a 1909-S V.D.B. Lincoln cent, 1916-D "Mercury" dime, or 1893-S Morgan dollar, to name a few. Tens of thousands of each of these coins exist, but they command high prices even in worn grades that increase over time. In 1999 I purchased an 1869 silver three cent piece graded AU 58 by PCGS. This coin had an original mintage for circulation of 4,500, but as the "Redbook" states regarding silver three cent pieces, "[n]early the entire production run of non-Proof coins from 1863 to 1872 was melted in 1873." NGC and PCGS have numerically graded 148 pieces, with an additional 12 NGC "details" graded. Few collectors try for a complete set of three cent silvers. I paid $437 for the coin in 1999, and it presently lists $1,500 on CPG. (They rarely trade, so even current price lists aren't reliable guides.) This coin is much rarer than the coins I mentioned or even such rare coins as a 1901-S Barber quarter or 1916 Standing Liberty quarter yet sells for far less than they do in equivalent grades due to the much lower demand. 2. I don't know anything about the standards or institutions by which diamonds are "graded" or otherwise evaluated. Perhaps there are objective criteria by which all competent diamond experts would agree on the "grade" of a particular diamond. That's not so with the grading of coins! Whether numerical (especially) or adjectival, the grading of coins is inherently subjective and varies even among experienced numismatists, including those employed by grading services. There are simply too many factors to consider, such as contact marks and other abrasions to which even uncirculated coins are subject (number, size, location, severity), luster, strike, toning, originality, and the especially nebulous "eye appeal". There's also wide disagreement over whether certain impairments such as "cleaning", "artificial toning", "stains", or "damage" exist on a coin or whether the impairment is sufficiently severe to warrant giving the coin a "details" grade. The proliferation of numerical grades has made the process even more subjective. Coins have been graded by a particular grading service, "cracked out' and given a grade several points higher or lower by the same grading service, with neither grade necessarily being "wrong". Ironically, there's much less subjectivity when dealing with modern proof, commemorative and other coins made solely for collectors, which are carefully handled and encapsulated at the mint, but because nearly all of them are nearly flawless and fully struck there's no good reason to send them--especially the ones you bought from the mint--to a grading service! 3. I began collecting coins as a child in 1971, 15 years before third party grading and encapsulation began at PCGS and before grading guides had standards for the grading of uncirculated coins. You had to learn about coins by examining them and reading about them and then collect them in accordance with your own informed judgment and taste. You still do! What's on a grading service tag is someone else's opinion, not necessarily yours! Most of my coins, including some rare ones, are uncertified and will likely remain so. They look nicer in albums and take up much less space in my safe deposit boxes than they would in bulky "slabs". 4. If you're still unable to create new threads, make sure you're "signed in" on that screen. I hope this helps!

If it were genuine, I'd say somewhere in the XF range, partly because it has no luster as you'd expect on an AU and as the PCGS photo shows. However, this fake probably never had any luster or any additional design detail and may be "as struck" (or "as cast".) It's not an appropriate piece from which to learn grading.