Sandon

It is a close AM, as it should be. The A and M nearly touch. To my knowledge, no one has ever found a 1999-D cent with a wide AM. What source, if any, told you that the 1999-D cent is known to exist with a wide AM?

Supposedly, the graders at reputable grading services are not allowed to know whose coins they are grading. The contention that large submitters receive better grades than others is an often-repeated contention for which no one to my knowledge has provided credible evidence. A number of the several dozen coins from my collection that I have submitted to NGC received numerical grades higher than I expected, and I'm certainly not a large submitter. (I've had a few disappointing experiences as well.) On the other hand, I once heard a well-known representative of a major numismatic auction house complain that PCGS had refused to attribute certain early U.S. coins as proofs despite their having previously been attributed and sold as such; and I have read major auctioneers' catalog descriptions that questioned the accuracy of the grades given by grading services. The real problem as I see it is the interplay of (1) the complexity and subjectivity of the current numerical grading "system" and (2) the inherent pressure on grading services from all customers to satisfy them with generous grades. Experienced graders may reasonably disagree over whether a coin should receive a grade of, for example, 64, 64+, or 65. The difference in list prices from 64 to 65 may be substantial, and concern that any customer may go to a competitor could result in the coin being given the benefit of the doubt. Smaller submitters who think that their coins were just as nice as pieces sold by major dealers or auction houses at higher grades may assume that these large submitters receive special considerations, which is probably what leads to the contentions of favoritism in the first place.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. The coin was struck from worn dies, which on copper plated zinc cents sometimes results in a warped area near the rim. The presence of the rim indicates that the collar was in place, so the coin isn't broadstruck. I see no indication of its having been struck through any foreign object or matter. We can't tell whether the dies were rotated out of the normal "coin turn" orientation from the photos provided.

The onus isn't on us to explain why your perfectly ordinary looking 1964 Kennedy half dollar isn't one of the so-called (and misnamed) 1964 "SMS" coins. You're the one who is claiming that it is one, so the burden is on you to make a credible case that it is. Should you make such a case, then we might have something worthy of discussion. I assume that you would have carefully studied the available literature and photos regarding these extremely rare and controversial pieces before claiming that you have one. What characteristics does it have that distinguishes it from ordinary circulation strike pieces (over 273 million minted), and from what if any special provenance did it come that would support a position that it could be one of these purported special strikes? You have now claimed to have found three different extremely rare coins. What part of EXTREMELY RARE don't you understand?

See https://www.error-ref.com/?s=plating+blisters for an explanation of the cause of plating blisters on copper plated zinc cents.

It is copper (95% copper, 5% zinc) as indicated by its weight, assuming that the scale is accurate. The problem is that it is a Large Date. Of all the varieties of 1982 cents only the 1982-D Small Date copper, which was not intentionally coined, and of which only two have been found, is valuable. Most of the over 6 billion 1982-D cents minted are of the Large Date, copper variety, and the OP's circulated example does not exhibit an error of any type and has no collector value. The OP has nevertheless asked this same question on the Ask NGC/NCS forum and received the stock answer to the effect that if he wants the coin evaluated he must submit it and pay the fees and other costs. To the OP--Please study the following graphic, which will confirm that your coin is a common Large Date: Note particularly the differences in distance of the "2" to the rim and that the upper loop of the "8" on your coin is nearly as large as the lower loop. If you still want to spend a great deal of money to have a coin worth face value encapsulated in a grading service holder, that is your choice. The money you would save would be better spent on books and subscriptions that would enable you to evaluate coins yourself, including those (some free) identified on the following forum topics:

The term "cleaning" refers to nearly any chemical or abrasive process that affects the surface of a coin, even wiping the coin with a cloth. Today's collectors regard "cleaning" as an impairment that makes the coin less desirable and, therefore, less valuable. Coins can be "conserved" using solvents such as acetone that remove surface dirt without affecting the coin's surface and purportedly with processes used by experts. A circulated, damaged 1984 cent is worth only face value whether it has been "cleaned" or not.

As you can see, the NGC staff will not answer questions of this sort but will simply reply with a stock answer telling you to submit the coin, which will likely cause you to waste a great deal of money. The photos of your coin do not suggest that it has a mirror proof surface. It appears to have normal frosty luster, an ordinary strike and a beveled edge, as opposed to the mirror fields, very sharp strike and squarer edge of the Chapman proof Remember that Chapman proofs, of which ten to fifteen are thought to have been made, though possibly a few more, as opposed to 44,690,000 regular 1921 Morgan dollars, were sold to numismatists of that era and are highly unlikely to simply "turn up" among ordinary coins. See https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1921-1-chapman/7342. There is a tentative attribution guide to these coins at http://ec2-13-58-222-16.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com/wiki/1921-P_PROOF to which I would compare your coin before entertaining any notion of submitting it to a grading service. I would also try to show it to one or more numismatists who are familiar with authenticated examples.

1936-D Cincinnati Music Center commemorative (5,005 minted), PCGS graded MS 65. This may have been an early strike, as the coin exhibits numerous die polish marks, especially on the obverse:

1821 Small Date Capped Bust dime, PCGS graded F 12, very original in appearance and accompanied by an old Stack's envelope from a 1959 auction sale: Photos of the coin courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. I don't see doubling of any type in your photos. (What letters or other design elements do you think are doubled?) I do see a shiny substance covering much of the reverse that could be tape or glue residue and might be removed by soaking the coin in acetone. P.S. A doubled die is classified as a die variety, not a mint error. See Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com).

Your photos should be cropped as follows to just show the coin, not the holder and surrounding surface. The resolution would be better if the original photos had been taken closer and with the camera directly overhead. Your coin has an oval "O" of the style used on most New Orleans mint Morgan dollars from 1879-1884. A rounder "O" appears on a sizeable minority of 1884-Os and the vast majority of New Orleans mint Morgan dollars from 1885-1904. The oval "O" only reappears on a small minority of coins dated 1888 and 1889. (A "micro O" appears on many 1880-Os and a minority of 1899-Os). It is not unusual for the oval "O" to be at least partly filled, especially on coins dated 1884. While this could be due to die chips or foreign matter in the die, it may also be due to the mint mark punch wearing out, which could be an explanation for the rounder "O" punch being introduced in 1884. It is also not unusual for some of the leaves and other features on Morgan dollars of high mintage issues such as the 1884-O to have been partly polished out of the die. The dies may have been repolished to remove evidence of die clashes or other damage during production. The VAM world Morgan dollar die variety site lists numerous (numerical) varieties and several (alphabetical) die states for 1884-Os, though none is described in the catalog specifically by a filled "O" or overpolished leaves. http://www.vamworld.com/wiki/1884-O_VAMs. You may be able to determine the VAM variety of your coin by going through the specific descriptions and photos of the various varieties, but it does not appear to be one of the more sought-after varieties, which are usually referred to as the "Top 100", "Hot 50", or "Hit List 40".

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Notwithstanding the blurry and uncropped photos, I think that your SBA dollar is a 1979-S, of which over 109.5 million were struck for circulation. It's nothing special and is worth face value as a circulated coin. The "S" die punch had been in use for many years, and the mintmark often resembles a blob. It was replaced with a clearer "S" for some proof coins of 1979 and for all "S" mint coins in 1980. In the future, please try to provide better focused photos and crop them so that they show as little of the surface surrounding the coin as possible.

There is a 1989-D cent certified by PCGS as having been struck on a pre-1983 planchet and graded MS 65 RD that was sold by Heritage for $7,500 in 2018. https://www.pcgs.com/cert/10759563. Photos of this coin indicate that it has smooth surfaces without blisters, unlike the OP's 1989. See https://coins.ha.com/itm/a/1271-4767.s I highly doubt that (1) there would have been a leftover pre-1983 brass planchet that happened to still be lingering in a bin at the Denver mint in 1989 and was then struck and (2) that someone who inspected and weighed every coin that came into his or her possession would have happened to find it, in uncirculated condition, no less. I strongly suspect misconduct by mint personnel.

1845 Liberty Seated half dollar, PCGS graded XF 45:

This 1956-D cent is just severely corroded. Copper is a chemically active metal and will develop this roughness and pitting including the deep cavities on this coin from being buried in the ground, especially in a damp environment, or from exposure to other unfavorable environments or substances. Despite their difference in age, this cent's surfaces resemble those on this "filler" 1794 (Head of 1793) large cent, also likely a "ground find": Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

The information in your last post, which I assume is from PCGS Coinfacts, a legitimate source, is correct. The "seven varieties" don't include the extremely rare 1982-D small date copper because it wasn't intentionally made by the mint and is usually classified as a mint error.

Each mint error is unique, so it can be difficult to value any particular example. A generic "defective die" error on a copper plated zinc Lincoln cent lists $15 in the 2023 "Red Book." Sullivan Numismatics, a major error dealer and contributor to the error-ref.com site, might be able to give you an idea of your coin's value or make an offer for it if you want to sell it. See https://sullivannumismatics.com/contact-us/.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. As the NGC Registry forum is intended for topics pertaining to the certified coin registry, your topic would get better attention on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum. (The Administrator will likely move it there.) While we would need cropped, clear photos of each side of each of your coins to evaluate them, the answer to your question is almost certainly that none of these coins would be worth the substantial cost of submission to a third-party grading service, which is what I assume you mean by "worth grading". However, any coin that you want to collect is worth grading by you, once you have learned how. Before you even think about submitting coins to grading services, it is essential that you have a good understanding of how to grade and otherwise evaluate coins yourself. Many coins that are of insufficient value to justify third-party grading and encapsulation (at least several hundred dollars, in my opinion) may be enjoyably collected in coin albums or other appropriate holders. Very inexpensive ones may even be kept in cardboard 2x2 holders like yours, although there is the risk of scratches by the staples or the thin plastic cover tearing and exposing the coin to the environment. Please refer to the following forum topics that identify reliable print and online resources from which you may learn about how to evaluate and collect U.S. coins:

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Just click the link that the Administrator provided and provide the information requested at the bottom of the page at "Reply to This Topic". You would need examples of pertinent NGC certified coins of these types to provide the requested certification numbers. I assume that these are modern coins, not ancients, as there are no competitive sets for ancient coins.

The coins that you are posted are small dates, but, yes, the 1982 is common regardless of its composition, and the 1982-Ds are common if they are copper plated zinc, as they almost certainly are.

Respectfully, your worn and badly scratched 1976-D Bicentennial quarter is only worth its face value of 25 cents. Even almost all uncirculated examples of this issue wouldn't be worth the cost of submission to a third-party grading service, which is what I assume what you mean by "having it graded". Before you even think about submitting coins to grading services, it is essential that you have a good understanding of how to grade and otherwise evaluate coins yourself. Many coins that are of insufficient value to justify third-party grading and encapsulation may be enjoyably collected in coin albums or other appropriate holders. Please refer to the following forum topics that identify reliable print and online resources from which you may learn about how to evaluate and collect U.S. coins:

No, unless it had been struck on a leftover 95% copper, 5% zinc blank, which would weigh approximately 3.11 grams and likely have to pass other tests for authentication. Only two have been found. 1982-D small dates struck from the new copper plated zinc alloy (approximately 2.5 grams), like all other varieties of 1982 and 1982-D cents are extremely common and would only be worth face value in any condition that you could expect to find them in circulation. Yes. Based upon the quotation you are showing, the website you are looking at is apparently spreading false information. Over 10.7 billion 1982 (no mintmark) cents were made, all of whose four varieties (all possible combinations of large and small dates and the old 95% copper and new copper plated zinc alloys) are common. The majority of the mintage was of the old alloy, whose standard weight of 3.11 grams would be the same for all cents going back to 1865, except for 1943 steel cents. Please use accepted resources such as those I referred you to in one of your earlier topics and not random websites, some of which contain false or incomplete information. Have you at least obtained a "Red Book"? The 2025 edition is now available from its publisher (whitman.com) and elsewhere.

As acknowledged by the ANA Grading Guide (note at p. 240 of seventh edition) Capped Bust, lettered edge half dollars are frequently weakly struck in areas including the clasp and hair. The large amount of remaining luster on this coin indicates that the weakness on the clasp and surrounding area of the hair are due to striking weakness.

1877 gold dollar, mintage 3,900; now NGC graded MS 61: