Sandon

The Philadelphia mint reportedly coined 7,261,535,000 1989 cents, and the Denver mint reportedly coined 5,345,467,111 1989-Ds. Do you intend to "send in" every one that you find in change? You have presented no evidence whatsoever that this coin was struck in any unusual composition. Here is a cropped version of your largest photo, which though still blurry shows nothing remarkable about the date other than possible strike doubling but clearly shows the plating blisters that, even in the absence of an accurate measurement of the coin's weight, indicate that the coin was struck on a copper plated zinc planchet: Yes, we are all here to learn something. I've been collecting and studying U.S. coins for nearly 53 years and still have things to learn, but I'm sure that I could teach you a great deal if you were only willing to listen.

The "transition" had occurred back in 1982. If there were any 95% copper pieces struck at any mint in 1989, I haven't heard it from the numismatic press. Where did you obtain this information? Why do you believe that your 1989 cent was struck in the old composition? You don't state its weight, which would be approximately 3.11 grams if it were, as opposed to approximately 2.5 grams for the copper plated zinc composition that it should be. Even from the uncropped photos provided, the coin exhibits numerous plating blisters, which are indicative of its being a normal copper plated zinc example.

If this coin is a "mint error", then the Lincoln cents that PCGS used to illustrate the lowest grades of FR 02, AG 03, and G 04 were also "mint errors." See https://www.pcgs.com/photograde#/Lincoln/Grades.

What the OP is saying is largely supposition. He claims he has "evidence" but hasn't presented any that I've seen. I can provide a scenario that is just as likely and is based upon my own observations. Although many "mint sets" of this era have undoubtedly been cut up for singles or the silver in the half dollars, many of the coins they contained were sold separately and kept in coin albums or 2x2 holders, where most of them likely still reside. (I doubt that many dealers felt it necessary to spend the remaining 83 cents in face value.) Many other sets are still intact and in the possession of their original owners or their descendants. (I still have 1968 and 1969 sets that I received as gifts in 1972 or '73, and I think I have at least one duplicate 1968 set that I received as a coin club door prize years later.) Their sheer abundance and resulting low market values don't give much motivation to these owners to sell them, and those sets and singles that are sold or are otherwise held in dealer inventory provide a sufficient supply to satisfy collector demand at current prices. As I previously stated, the condition of the surviving coins and sets is a different issue, but "generic" uncirculated pieces are unlikely in my opinion to be valuable in the foreseeable future. Of course, if people who don't know better can be persuaded that they are scarce or rare and to pay high prices for them, as is the case with common date Morgan and Peace dollars, anything is possible.

Please compare your 1957-D cent to the coins posted on the following topic:

What is the factual basis of this statement? I assume that it is nothing more than a guess.

I read the date as 1917. Whatever its date, it is a well-worn coin that would grade no better than G 4. It may have been as well struck as the 1916-S shown by @Coinbufbut was extensively used in commerce as was common for coins of that era when even a cent could buy something.

Based on your photos, I see no indication that your coin was struck from either an obverse or reverse doubled die. (It would be extremely unusual for both the obverse and reverse of a coin to exhibit die doubling.) I see no doubling of any kind. NGC will generally only attribute varieties that are listed on VarietyPlus, and there are no listed varieties for 1993 cents. Lincoln Cents, Memorial Reverse (1959-2008) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). I understand that PCGS also only attributes certain (better known) varieties and that ANACS will attribute more minor ones, but they would have to be recognized by some respected authority or be a significant new discovery. Have you checked such sites as doubleddie.com and varietyvista.com, which list more varieties, for a match? You could also post photos that show where you see doubling for our opinions.

The mint reportedly sold 2,105,128 uncirculated coin sets in 1968 and 1,817,192 such sets in 1969, each containing an uncirculated Philadelphia dime. Even if collectors hadn't saved a single coin issued for circulation and assuming some attrition from "mint set" coins that were spent after people removed the half dollar for its silver, these sets are still in ample supply. They are easily found at coin shows from dealers who are willing to take them and other sources and list $6 to $8 in this month's Coin World. It's just not reasonable to suggest that these coins in their usual grades will ever be "rare" in any practical sense of that word.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. I'm sorry, but from what I can see in your photos, it appears that your coin has been damaged by immersion in acid that ate off much of its outer clad layers and reduced its weight. See https://www.error-ref.com/acid-shrunk-coins/. Although there are clad coins that were struck from blanks that lacked a portion of an outer cladding layer, the partial cladding would likely only be on one side, and the coin would not be this underweight or have a rough surface. Compare https://www.error-ref.com/?s=partial+cladding+layer. In the future, please try to crop your photos so that they give us a better view of the coin and don't show much of the surrounding surface and orient them in an upright position.

Isn't this the same coin that you posted yesterday at Error - Newbie Coin Collecting Questions - NGC Coin Collectors Chat Boards?

I've been following this topic and its predecessors but have refrained from participating until now. To the extent that the OP's position is that most modern (however defined) issues mass produced for circulation are scarce in what we would now call "gem" to "superb gem" uncirculated grades, I agree. However, it is unreasonable to expect that such coins would exist in any quantity in such grades. Most such coins probably graded no higher than MS 64 by current standards when removed from mint bags due to the abrasion that occurs throughout the minting and distribution processes and a large portion of them having been struck from worn dies to begin with. Most examples in mint sets have the same characteristics and sometimes scrapes from packaging equipment to boot. The focus of some collectors on "high grade" coins among circulating issues is, in my opinion, misguided. If you collect such coins, you must expect them to have some number of abrasions, striking weakness, and the like. I doubt that these coins will ever be scarce in the usual uncirculated grades. Although all coins gain some collector value when they become old enough and are "out of circulation", I don't think that any modern issues will be worth much in our lifetimes in circulated grades or for, that matter, some time thereafter. Unlike previous eras where coins were heavily used in everyday transactions and wore down to low grades within a few decades, many people today seem to dump their daily change into containers, let it accumulate for years if not decades, and finally take it to a bank or a "Coinstar" machine from which it may finally reenter circulation, however briefly. Many coins 40 or more years old would still grade AU, and I rarely see a coin that would grade below VF in detail. As a young collector in the 1970s and 80s, I noticed that certain recent coins had what I thought were "low" mintages (below 200 million) and made it a point to save every example I found. This included 1968-D and 1971 nickels, 1969 dimes, and 1968-D, 69, 69-D, 70, and 71 quarters. I also saved every "S" mint coin I found regardless of mintage, every "wheat" cent, and every nickel dated before 1960. Additionally, I saved and continue to save every decent looking uncirculated coin handed to me out of new rolls. The result is that I have tubes and bags of such coins in a closet that still have insufficient market value to even think about selling. I doubt that I'm the only one.

1896 Indian cent, ANACS graded MS 64 RB (old small holder):

Welcome to the NGC chat board and thank you for the clear photos. As the NGC Registry forum is intended for topics pertaining to the certified coin registry, your post would get better attention on the "U.S. World, and Ancient Coins" forum or the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum. (The Administrator will likely move it to one of them.) You appear to have a nice mint "red" uncirculated 1993 cent. If you found it in recent change, it is presumably from a roll that was kept until recently and for some reason was opened and spent. As 1993 Lincoln cents have a reported mintage of 5,684,705,000 pieces, it will never be a rare coin but is worth preserving in its current condition so that it may be enjoyed by future generations of collectors. If it has been touched by bare hands or certain other surfaces, it will likely spot and darken unless it is decontaminated. I recommend soaking it briefly in acetone or at least clean (preferably distilled) water, rinsing it in such water and patting (not rubbing) it dry with a clean tissue. Once dry, it should be placed in a mylar coin flip, coin capsule, or another appropriate holder or coin album. Hold the coin only by its edges.

1900 Barber quarter, NGC graded PF 64, in an older holder, apparently before NGC awarded "cameo" designations: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

The weak area on the reverse opposite the obverse "blob" supports this coin having a "cud". It's a nice find, especially from circulation.

I didn't have the slightest intention of offending you and am mystified by your response. I assumed that you posted these photos because you wanted to learn about what caused the apparent anomalies on this coin and any significance they might have. (If you didn't want our honest assessment, why post them?) If you review the information in the links I included in my reply, you will find some very interesting information about how these anomalies occur and how you might distinguish coins exhibiting them from a coin struck from an actual doubled die should you ever be so fortunate as to find one. Knowledge is essential in every endeavor in life, including endeavors intended for enjoyment. I suppose that as a new collector over fifty years ago, I could have reacted as you did when a more experienced collector tried to teach me something, but then I would have missed many great experiences. You should reconsider for your own sake. Based on my review of your posts, no one on these forums advised you to photograph coins at high levels of magnification. I don't know who did. I and others were just trying to educate you on this matter. If you find looking at such photos to your own liking, you are free to do so. (I use a digital microscope to photograph entire sides of coins, placing the microscope on a stack of books when necessary.)

Please post a more focused photo of the obverse, as well as a full photo of the reverse. This Washington quarter appears to have been struck from a die from which a piece broke out, which collectors refer to as a "cud". See https://www.error-ref.com/?s=ovoid+or+irregular+cud. However, it could also have resulted from an alteration, such as solder or some other substance being added to the coin. Better photos would reduce the uncertainty.

Please post cropped photos of each full side of a coin about which you have questions. Often, one "can't see the forest for the trees". Experts (such as at NGC and the authors of the Cherrypickers' Guide) agree that if a die variety can't be discerned at 5-7x magnification, it is probably not significant. It is unnecessary to use this level of magnification. Based on the photos, this coin appears to exhibit a combination of strike doubling (a.k.a. machine or mechanical doubling) and die deterioration doubling, both of which are common, generally have no collector value, and are referred to as "worthless doubling". See Double Dies vs. Machine Doubling | NGC (ngccoin.com) and https://www.doubleddie.com/144801.html and links therein on mechanical doubling (a.k.a. strike or machine doubling), die deterioration doubling, and abrasion doubling.

@IndigoSynergy--Just in perusing this month's Coin World Values, I see the following items, among others, listed at $80 or less: Large cents 1850-57 in EF and some earlier dates in VF back to 1838 Various Indian cents 1891-1909 in lower uncirculated grades 1864-68 two cent pieces in EF at $50-$75 (AUs of the 1864-65 at $85) 1865-72 and 1874 copper nickel three cent pieces in AU at $68-$75, some of these dates having mintages well below a million pieces EF Seated Liberty half dimes of various dates from 1842-73 at $60-$80 common date Shield nickels 1867-69, 82 at $75-$80 AU Liberty nickels 1900-1912 and the 1883 "No cents" in lower uncirculated grades BU Buffalo nickels of various dates 1913-38, some later dates in as high as MS 65-66 Capped Bust dimes 1829-37 in Fine, many with mintages of a few hundred thousand and only a small percentage likely still in existence in all grades. A number of dates of Liberty Seated and Barber dimes and quarters and Barber half dollars in better circulated grades and some scarcer dates in lower ones. Various twentieth century type coins and semi-key coins in better circulated or uncirculated grades The 1921 Morgan dollar, one of the three most common of all silver dollars, has a certified population at NGC alone of 162,128, with 70,531 graded MS 63 and 54,980 graded MS 64. Many uncertified pieces, including uncirculated ones, can routinely be found at any coin show or shop. Millions of them likely exist. The coin is simply too common in these grades for one to spend $80 on when there are so many more interesting and scarcer coins available for the same price or less.

I think that you can buy a lot more "coin" for your $80 instead of this extremely common coin in a very common grade.

As per VarietyPlus the 1942-D 2 over 1 dime is a "no fee" variety, an argument can be made that the failure to attribute this coin was a "mechanical error", although the overdate should have been noted under the "date" column of the submission form. I wrote this before the latest update but believe that this coin shouldn't require a full resubmission. Did you inform NGC that you believe this coin is a "no fee" variety?

You should have posted clear, cropped photos of each full side of this coin, not partial images as they appear on your computer screen. However, even these partial photos indicate that this coin is not a mint error but was intentionally altered outside the mint. As @Greenstang pointed out, it would be impossible for a coin such as a nickel to be accidentally overstruck by the dies for a smaller coin such as a dime. Moreover, the dime impressions are backwards and incuse, indicating that the nickel was squeezed together with a struck dime or dimes, not overstruck by dime dies. See https://www.error-ref.com/squeeze-job-or-vice-job-or-garage-job/, https://conecaonline.org/brockage-or-not-sandwich-coins/. If you still don't believe us, you can submit the coin to CONECA for examination. See https://conecaonline.org/examination-services/. You can also submit photos to Jon Sullivan of Sullivan Numismatics, a major error dealer and contributor to the error-ref.com site, for his opinion. See https://sullivannumismatics.com/contact-us/. You could also submit the coin to a grading service and spend a great deal of money to be told that what you have is a damaged, altered 1996-P nickel.

Although a coin could be struck through a staple, it would look nothing like this. This 1998-D nickel has simply been badly scraped and nicked.

1925 Lexington/Concord commemorative half dollar, NGC graded MS 64: