Sandon

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:

Welcome to the NGC chat board. This is clearly damage. Based on the photos, it appears that someone drilled or punched a hole into this 1936 Buffalo nickel and then filled the hole with glue or some other reddish substance. Soaking the coin in acetone might remove this substance, though a holed common date coin would be of little value.

An overdate (or a doubled die) is categorized as a die variety, not as a mint error, so you should have checked "VarietyPlus" on the submission form, not "Mint Error". See Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com). You should always check "VarietyPlus", which lists all of the known varieties that NGC will attribute, before submitting, and note the variety on the submission form. I think it was unfair for NGC not to attribute this coin just because the wrong box was checked (if that is what happened), as you paid the same $18 fee. I recommend contacting NGC customer service to see if any accommodation can be made. You should be able to resubmit the coin in its current holder and at least not have to pay the grading fee again. Edit: Per VarietyPlus, there is no fee required to attribute the 1942-D, 2 over 1 "Mercury" dime, so you should be able to argue that the coin should have been attributed as part of the grading process and the label should be corrected without charge. See Mercury Dimes (1916-1945) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). In the future, please crop your photos so they give us a better view of the coin and show as little as possible of the surrounding surface, like these photos of an example of the (Philadelphia) 1942, 2 over 1.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Please note that the NGC Registry forum is for questions relating specifically to the registry. Your topic would receive better attention if posted in the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum or the "U.S., World, and Ancient Coins" forum. Without photos, preferably of the full obverse and reverse of the coin, it really isn't possible for us to understand what the "markings" to which you are referring look like. I don't even know whether your 1972-S Eisenhower dollar is the proof or uncirculated version. I'm unclear as to whether you're referring to a single 1972-S or to a 1971-S as well. The proofs that came in brown boxes and hard plastic holders of all dates from 1971-74 often developed a bluish, whitish or yellowish haze, and the uncirculated coins of the same dates that came in blue envelopes and soft plastic holders often developed spots or some brownish tarnish-type "toning". Coins in grading service holders can also tone or otherwise change in appearance over time. I assume that by the coin being "professionally cleaned" by NGC, you mean that it was "conserved" by NGC's affiliate NCS. It's hard for me to understand how these common coins would be worth even the minimum $25 conservation fee in addition to grading and related fees unless the submitter was sure that they would achieve unusually high grades.

1952-S Washington-Carver commemorative half dollar (mintage 8,006), NGC graded MS 66 notwithstanding heavy abrasions on Carver's face:

Based on the photo, this coin does appear to be a 1942-D, 2 over 1, "Mercury" dime, but I would also appreciate seeing photos of each full side of the coin. Both the 1942, 2 over 1 variety and the less obvious 1942-D, 2 over 1 variety were presumably created accidentally at the Philadelphia mint late in 1941 when dies for both years were being prepared, and obverse dies that had received blows from a 1941 dated hub then received blows from a 1942 dated hub. The "4" on the 1942 dated hub was had a slightly different shape with a longer upright and appears doubled on both coins. These varieties have been classified as doubled dies as well as overdates, although a doubled die typically results from blows to create a die by the same hub in different positions.

@JDBradford--Welcome to the NGC chat board. It is better to start a new topic on this or the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum when you have a question about a specific coin. Mint records indicate that 1886 copper nickel three cent pieces were only struck as proofs, so your coin would be classified as a circulated proof. NGC Certificate Verification more accurately describes it as "PF 40". See Verify NGC Certification | NGC (ngccoin.com). The NGC census only lists the 1886 as a proof and currently shows 23 pieces numerically graded in circulated grades from Fine through AU 58. See Nickel Three Cents (1865-1889) | Coin Census Population Report | NGC (ngccoin.com).

Based on the photos, this is simply a normal though worn 1982-D large date cent. Most of these were made in brass (95% copper, 5% zinc) alloy, but a sizeable number were also made in the then new copper-plated zinc composition. Both are common and have no collector value in this condition. The brass pieces have a better "ring" when dropped on certain surfaces. This infographic below shows the different types of 1982 cents made for circulation. Only the 1982-D small date brass (copper), struck accidentally on leftover blanks (an eighth variety), would be valuable, but only two have been discovered so far.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. No, these coins are not worth submitting to a third-party grading service, which is what I assume you mean by "having them 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. Although these Lincoln cents appear to be uncirculated, they are very common dates of which many uncirculated bags and rolls were saved. They have abrasions, carbon spots, and other issues that would likely result in grades of no higher than MS 64 RD (RB in at least the case of the 1956) and would be worth no more than a few dollars each. The NGC "Economy" tier grading fee for each of these coins would be $23, to which membership and processing fees and shipping and insurance costs would also be added. Such coins may be collected and enjoyed in coin albums or other appropriate holders. If you are interested in learning about and collecting U.S. coins, we can direct you to appropriate print and online resources. You only need to ask.

While your 1966 Special Mint Set dime is clearly not struck from a doubled die reverse, I think that it is more likely an example of common strike doubling, also known as machine or mechanical doubling, than it is of die deterioration doubling. The photos are somewhat overexposed, but the secondary image appears to be shallow and shelf-like, which is indicative of strike doubling, which results from a die that is loose in the press rather than from doubling in the die itself (a doubled die) or from a deteriorated die (ghostly secondary images). Both strike doubling and die deterioration doubling are forms of "worthless doubling" that, unlike doubled dies, generally have no collector value. Coins struck from doubled dies generally exhibit crisp, clear doubling, with both images on about the same level and "notching" between the images. You may find the following resources helpful in learning how to distinguish doubled dies from the far more common forms of (worthless) doubling: Double Dies vs. Machine Doubling | NGC (ngccoin.com) 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. It is unlikely that there would be a significant doubled die variety on a 1966 Special Mint Set coin that has not already been discovered. Most significant varieties are listed and usually illustrated on NGC VarietyPlus. See Roosevelt Dimes (1946-Date) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com) for Roosevelt dime varieties. Less significant (and sometimes controversial) varieties are listed on doubleddie.com and varietyvista.com.

1873 with arrows Liberty Seated quarter dollar, ANACS graded XF 40 (old small holder):

If the quarter is thin and underweight, the likely explanation is that it was damaged by acid or some other corrosive chemical, which would also explain the weak, uneven lettering, odd looking surfaces, thin rims, and what appears to be some of its copper core showing through. If the reeding on the edge is weak or the coin is smaller than normal in diameter, these factors would also be indications of acid damage in these circumstances. See https://www.error-ref.com/acid-shrunk-coins/. (The official weight of a clad quarter is 5.67 grams, with a tolerance of 0.227 gram providing for a minimum weight of 5.443 grams.) This coin does not resemble an error coin of this type that would be underweight, such as one struck from a thin planchet or one missing part of the outer clad layer. See https://www.error-ref.com/rolled-thin-planchets/, https://www.error-ref.com/partial-clad-layer-before-strike/. The cent does not resemble any error that I have seen in over fifty years as a collector. The fact that the anomaly is on both sides and shows the struck design underneath indicates that it did not occur when the coin was struck. The study of mint errors is an advanced topic in numismatics that requires background knowledge, especially of how coins are manufactured. The error-ref.com site to which I have referred is fairly comprehensive but may be difficult to understand without some background and experience. For generally correct information about mint errors at an introductory level, see the following: Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 1 | NGC (ngccoin.com) Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 2 | NGC (ngccoin.com) Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 3 | NGC (ngccoin.com) Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 4 | NGC (ngccoin.com) Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com)

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Neither of these coins appears to exhibit a mint error. The 2014-D Shenandoah quarter was most likely coated or painted with some substance, and the 1977-D cent may have been struck hard with a blunt object or subjected to high heat. Such events would have occurred after the coins left the mint. Contrary to what you may have seen on the Internet, it is highly unusual to find any coin with a significant mint error in circulation. Most such pieces are intercepted by bank or counting house personnel and sold to coin dealers before entering circulation, and in 2002 the mint instituted procedures that have kept most such pieces from leaving the mint in the first place. It's O.K. to keep on looking, but don't expect to find anything of value.

1935-D Texas Centennial commemorative half dollar, PCGS graded MS 65 in old green label holder:

Please refer to the following forum topics to locate basic print and online resources from which you may learn about U.S. coins: