Sandon

I don't think that the ghostly image well to the southeast of the primary image indicates a repunched mintmark ("RPM"). This is more likely from die deterioration and frequently appears around mintmarks. An RPM is generally much crisper in appearance and closer to the primary image. I checked the three major 1943-D RPMs shown on VarietyPlus, only two of which have photos, but I was able to find photos of the third in the Cherrypickers' Guide. I also checked the numerous 1943-D RPMs listed on Wexler's Die Varieties (doubleddie.com) and Variety Vista. See Lincoln Cents, Wheat Reverse (1909-1958) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com), https://www.doubleddie.com/887255.html, http://www.varietyvista.com/02a LC RPMs Vol 1/RPMs 1943D.htm. None of these varieties appears to match your coin, but you may want to check these yourself, including the various "die markers" shown by Wexler. If by "worth bothering with", you mean submitting to a grading service, the answer even if the coin were identifiable as an RPM, the answer would be no. In the case of a steel cent, the oxidation is literally rust, and this coin could only be "details" graded as environmentally damaged. NGC only attributes the varieties shown on VarietyPlus.

If the A.N.A. continues to treat its volunteers badly, some day it may not have any.

2007 and certain other Presidential dollars without edge lettering have turned out to be relatively common and not worth the $37 in grading and error attribution fees, not to mention the allocable portion of the processing and shipping costs, that a collector member would have to pay NGC to grade and encapsulate such a coin. The NGC Price Guide lists George Washingtons at $60 in MS 65, but this price was last updated in 2014, and interest in them appears to have diminished since then. See Presidential Dollars (2007-2020) | Price Guide & Values | NGC (ngccoin.com). If you had to have one in a certified holder, however, it wasn't a bad deal. I have a lightly circulated (2008) Andrew Jackson dollar without edge lettering for which I paid $1. I got it at a bank when I bought some dollar coins to use as public transportation fare. I put it in a flip and haven't thought about it much.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. In the future, please post questions about coins, preferably with clear, cropped photos, on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum, where forum members, many of whom are experienced collectors, will endeavor to answer them. The coin you describe is a 2009 "Professional Life" reverse Lincoln cent, of which 316 million were made. It features one of four commemorative reverses that were used in 2009 to commemorate the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth and the centennial of the Lincoln cent. Although it isn't possible to evaluate this particular coin without photos, your coin is probably only worth its face value of one cent or not much more and wouldn't be worth the cost of submission to a third-party grading service such as NGC. If you are interested in learning the basics of U.S. coins and how to collect them, please refer to the print and online resources described in the following forum topic:

1827 Capped Bust dime, ANACS graded XF 45 in old small holder:

Proof sets and "mint" (officially uncirculated coin) sets are different sets containing different coins. Proof coins contain specially struck coins that have mirror surfaces and sometimes frosted devices and are specially handled, while "mint" sets generally contain examples of circulation quality coins. (From 1965 to 1967, the mint issued "Special Mint Sets" with somewhat prooflike coins as a substitute for both proof and "mint" sets.) However, even most "mint" sets are worth at least some premium over face value, and they occasionally contain coins that were not made for circulation. Current retail prices for these sets in their original government packaging are listed in such publications as Coin World (coinworld.com) and the CPG Coin & Currency Market Review (greysheet.com), which may require subscriptions. (I found a free summary of proof and "mint" set prices at https://www.greysheet.com/coin-prices/series-landing/united-states-proof-sets.) They are also listed in A Guide Book of United States Coins, commonly known as the "Redbook" (whitman.com), whose 2025 edition should be out by next month, though the prices will already be from several months earlier. (The 2024 or other recent edition would give you an idea of their values.) You could also post a listing of the types and dates of the sets you have, and we should be able to give you estimated values. The actual values of specific sets may depend on the state of preservation and particular characteristics of the coins they contain. For example, some proof coins dated before 1971 or so with "cameo" or "deep cameo" contrast as determined by an expert may be worth a substantial premium, and some proof sets may contain rare varieties. Those that have suffered environmental damage would be worth less than list values. You may want to take at least some of these sets to an appraiser after getting a basic evaluation from a referenced source.

The exchange rate changes daily.

Regarding the 1969-D half dollar, the photo is much too small to see anything significant. Here are appropriately sized and cropped obverse photos of a 1969-D half dollar that I've had in an album for decades and of a 1969-S proof that NGC graded MS 68* (and for which I paid less than what it would have cost to submit it). On both of these coins, the second "9" in the date appears to have a somewhat different configuration that makes it appear "larger" than the first, and this was likely the case for every half dollar minted that year. A different date style on one or more obverse dies would have required more than one "hub" (die making die) in use for that year, and it is likely that any such variety would have been discovered before now. If you still believe that your coin is significantly different, please post a better photo of your coin, as well as of another 1969-D half dollar that you think would be "normal".

Welcome to the NGC chat board. A mint error of any significance, such as an off-center or multiple strike, a broadstrike, or a coin struck on a clipped, defective or wrong planchet, would be observable to the unaided eye. Die varieties, such as doubled dies, which would appear on a large portion if not all of the coins struck from a specific die pair, are regarded as significant by knowledgeable collectors and attributable by grading services only if they are observable at no or lower (5x-7x) magnification. Those that NGC is willing to attribute are listed, with photos in most cases, on VarietyPlus, Countries | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). Most of what I see on the extremely magnified photos you have posted appears to be the result of die deterioration, which is extremely common and generally commands no premium. It would be best for you to learn the basics of collecting U.S. coins, such as the history of U.S. coins, types, which dates, mints and major varieties are valuable, grading and basic authentication before getting into more advanced topics such as mint errors and die varieties. It is also essential for you to have knowledge of how to grade and otherwise evaluate coins yourself before you even think about submitting coins to grading services. Do you have basic references such as a recent edition of the "Redbook", a grading guide, and a subscription to a current price guide? See the following forum topics for suggestions of basic print and online resources: If you want an overview of what constitutes a mint error and how to distinguish between mint errors from die varieties, see the following articles on the NGC website: 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) For a comprehensive treatment of mint errors, see the site error-ref.com.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Your question would be best answered by those of our members who collect ancient coins, such as @JKK. (Your topic title might attract more attention from these members if edited to indicate that what you want to start collecting is Roman coins.) As it is always best to "buy the book before the coin", acquiring some of the books mentioned in the following article would likely be the best place to start: https://coinweek.com/ancient-coin-books-a-collectors-reference-library-for-classical-numismatics/. The series entitled Roman Coins and Their Values by David Sear is especially well known.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Before you send coins to third-party grading services such as NGC, it is essential that you have the knowledge and experience to approximately grade and otherwise evaluate coins yourself, or at least have them examined by someone who does! Otherwise, you will almost certainly waste a great deal of money. If you submitted these valued as genuine coins, it would cost you hundreds (or regarding the 1943-S cent, thousands) of dollars in grading and processing fees and shipping costs, and without knowing how to grade yourself, you would have no idea what value to place on them to begin with. See NGC Services and Fees | NGC (ngccoin.com). Grading services keep your money without regard to their findings. Regarding the 1943-S cent, first hold a magnet to it. If the coin sticks to or is attracted by the magnet, it is one of the many tens of thousands of ordinary zinc-coated steel cents that has been copper plated for sale as a novelty or to deceive. If it doesn't, there is a remote chance (like buying a winning multistate lottery ticket) that it is a genuine and extremely rare 1943-S cent struck on a leftover bronze planchet. I would then have the coin weighed on a properly calibrated, good quality digital scale, and if it weighs between 2.98 and 3.23 grams (official weight of 3.11 grams, plus or minus 0.13 gram legal tolerance), so inform us, and I will recommend the next steps you might take. Please note that we have received a number of claims of discoveries of 1943 bronze cents on this forum, none of which has so far turned out to be true. Your purported 1796 Draped Bust, small date and Letters silver dollar is undoubtedly a counterfeit, likely one of those mass produced in China over the past twenty or so years. It has the odd color and weak details of one of these counterfeits, as well as short dentils with a raised rim indicating that it was struck in a "close collar", which wasn't used at the U.S. Mint in 1796. Just looking at the reverse lettering, its positioning doesn't match any of the known die varieties of these coins, the BB-62, 63, or 66, all of which used the same reverse die. (There are likely to be other details on both sides that don't match genuine coins.) Here are NGC photos of a genuine BB-63: @Mike Meenderink --The 1796 dated coin whose photo you posted is that of a quarter dollar, not a silver dollar. I'm also not sure how the photo of genuine 1943 and 1943-S bronze cents in a holder is instructive to the topic author as to why his coin is unlikely to be genuine.

1834 Capped Bust half dime, PCGS graded MS 62 in old green label holder:

@Henri Charriere and @GoldFinger1969--As stated in the initial post, my grandparents saved a total of $75 face value in gold, which as noted was legal. I ultimately received $30 in face value (the two eagles and two half eagles shown here), and the remaining $45 have been distributed among my first cousins. My grandparents never dealt in coins or knew much about them. When my grandmother gave me the 1907 "Indian" eagle as a birthday gift in 1973, she thought that she was giving me $10!

The photos I originally included in this topic when I originally posted it nearly a year ago didn't include one of the coins that was passed down to me through my grandparents, as I hadn't had an opportunity to retrieve it from a safe deposit box and photograph it. It is a 1910-S "Indian" Head eagle, the only "S" mint coin among the gold coins my grandparents saved. It is also one of the most worn of these coins that were actually used in commerce. I grade it Extremely Fine.

What you've bought is a true "pig in a poke". While I recall a fad decades ago of collectors and dealers buying and selling purportedly "unopened" proof and mint sets and even GSA silver dollars, I haven't heard of this much in recent years. The $125 you paid for the 1955 proof set is full retail--Coin World Values has them at a range of $120 to $130--and you have no assurances of the actual contents of the box. I would never buy coins that I haven't had an opportunity to examine in person or at least through high resolution photos. I would require opportunity to inspect such sets before buying them. What is the point of collecting coins if you can't look at and admire them, anyway?

1836 Capped Bust half dime (large "5C."), PCGS graded AU 53: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

There seems to be some consensus that any toning that is created intentionally, even if gradually, is "artificial" but no agreement as to how one can distinguish such toning from the "natural" kind based upon examination of the coin after the fact. This shouldn't be very reassuring to anyone who may be willing to pay a premium for a coin because of its toning, which is why I would be very reluctant to pay such a premium. Here is an 1887-S Morgan dollar graded MS62 in an early small ANACS holder from about 1989-90, when ANACS was still owned by the American Numismatic Association. (The background of the label is printed with "Official ANA Grade" and the hologram on the back reads, "American Numismatic Association".) The coin already had some toning when I acquired it in 1997, and the toning has become more intense since that time. (A crack on the side of the holder may be permitting air intrusion.) The toning is on both sides but considerably more advanced on the lower portion of the obverse. Presumably, this toning is "natural", but how could one tell for sure?

I purchased this 1903 Indian cent at the ANA convention in August 2003. It is housed in an old, small size ANACS holder conservatively graded MS 63 RB with a full strike and nearly full mint "red". It cost me all of $50.

1834 Large Date, Large Letters Capped Bust half dollar (O-102), PCGS graded AU 58: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

I assume that you are referring to the original mint packaging for U.S. proof sets issued from 1936-42, 1950-54, and some 1955s. I've been unable to locate pertinent photos. Such packaging consists of a small square cardboard box, in which would be enclosed the five coins (cent through half dollar), each in a separate cellophane or, for later (1950s) sets, soft plastic sleeve. The sleeves were fastened with staples and the five sleeves wrapped together in tissue paper and packed into the box. If what you saw differs from this description, it would not be the original packaging or at least not completely so. Most sets of this era, especially the earlier ones, were long ago removed from this original packaging and placed in privately made hard plastic or other holders, and more recently many pieces have been encapsulated by grading services. Coins kept in the original packaging differ in their state of preservation. Some have become toned, spotted, or hazy, while others remained more or less pristine. Sometimes the staples rusted and adversely affected the coins. I've heard of sets where the coins had been removed, "cleaned" or switched with non-proofs, returned to their sleeves and re-stapled. However, in 2019 I saw an original 1954 proof set whose sleeves still contained five superb gem (Proof 67 or likely higher) coins that appeared unchanged from their time of issue. As both the original packaging and privately made holders are highly susceptible to tampering, you should carefully inspect the coins in any such sets that you are offered to ascertain that they are proofs and in decent condition. If you don't have the experience to make these determinations, you should consider purchasing these earlier proof coins in reputable grading service holders.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Your 2003-D Arkansas State quarter does not exhibit a mint error. After the coin left the mint, someone took punches with letters and a hammer and punched the name "JESSE" into the coin. This is known as a "counterstamp". The coin has also become somewhat discolored due to environmental exposure. Although some much older (most often early to mid-nineteenth century) U.S. coins that are counterstamped with the names of contemporary merchants or their products have a following among certain collectors, a modern coin stamped with a random name is just a mutilated coin worth only face value. Contrary to what you may have read or seen on certain websites, you are actually extremely unlikely to find any significant mint error or other coin of substantial value in your change. I have been collecting and studying U.S. coins and checking change for over 50 years and have never found any coin with more than a few dollars and know only one person who ever found a significant mint error. In 2002 the mint adopted procedures that prevent most major errors from ever leaving the mint, making it even more unlikely that you could find such an error from after that date. Mint errors are an advanced area of numismatics (the study and collection of coins). If you are interested in collecting U.S. coins, you must first acquire basic knowledge, such as the history and types of U.S. coins, how coins are made, and the grading and basic authentication of coins. Please see the following forum topics for trustworthy print and online resources that will enable you to obtain the necessary knowledge:

The clogged appearance may have been due to deterioration in the mint mark punch. Many "S" mintmarks from 1968-79 have this clogged appearance, which got worse as time went on.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Unfortunately, it is at best difficult to predict the numerical grades of mint state and proof coins based on photos, and to predict whether a coin would receive a numerical grade between "68" and "70" would, in my opinion be impossible to determine from photos. The grading of such coins involves in-person examination of the coin under good lighting from varying angles, both with and without magnification. (Although you have provided a number of photos, none of them both shows each full side of each coin and is cropped to show only the coin and not the surface surrounding it, as we prefer.) NGC has never awarded a grade of "70" to a proof Washington quarter dated before 1964. See Washington Quarters (1932-1998) | Coin Census Population Report | NGC (ngccoin.com) (click "PF" at top right). PCGS has graded a total of 29 pieces dated between 1960 and 1963 "PR 70" out of many thousands submitted. See https://www.pcgs.com/pop/detail/washington-quarter-1932-1998/112?ccid=0&t=3&p=PR. Just based on these statistics, your chances of receiving a "70" grade on any of these coins are at best slim and nil. For NGC to award a coin a "70" grade, the coin must show "no post-production imperfections at 5x magnification". NGC Coin Grading Scale | About Coin Grades | NGC. PCGS describes such a coin as "fully struck and lustrous, free of visual marks." https://www.pcgs.com/grades#grade70. Grading also involves subjective factors such as "eye appeal", which on a coin graded "70" would have to be exceptional. I note smudges and spotty toning on several of your coins, which could be regarded as negative factors that would prevent the award of a "70" grade. I doubt that these common proof coins would be worthy of submission, especially if your sole criterion is that they grade "70". (One of the 1962 quarters may be worthy of a "cameo" designation, and if you concur on in-person examination, check current price guides to determine whether the value would make submission worthwhile.) Here are photos of a proof 1963 quarter in my collection that NGC graded "PF 68" and which, based on the photos, looks at least as nice as yours:

When I began collecting U.S. coins as an older child in the early 1970s, most collectors preferred coins that were brilliant and avoided coins that had changed in color from chemical reactions with substances in the environments to which they had been exposed. Changes in color on silver and copper nickel coins were generally referred to as "tarnish" or "discoloration", and coins were regularly "dipped" in anti-tarnish solutions or "cleaned" to give them a brilliant, though usually not original looking, appearance. By the 1990s, however, collectors had come to understand that such changes are often inevitable and that dipping or "cleaning" a coin is likely to do harm rather than good. Many collectors came to regard what began to be called "toning" as a positive characteristic, especially if colorful. Nowadays, toned coins often realize premium prices, including some with heavy, dark toning that I regard as ugly. Inevitably, some unscrupulous persons began to treat coins with chemicals, blow smoke on them, and the like, to produce rapid changes in the appearance of coins that simulated the toning that occurs over time. Grading services claim to be able to tell the difference between "natural" or "original" and "artificial toning" and "details" grade coins determined to be in the latter category, with NGC describing such coins as "artificially toned" and PCGS using a less certain description of "questionable color". I have never read any satisfactory account of how "natural" and "artificial" toning can always be told apart, nor for that matter, just what processes that result in toning are to be regarded as "natural" rather than "artificial". For example, some older coin albums, such as those sold by Wayte Raymond during the second quarter of the last century, are known to promote distinctive patterns of toning on coins, and coins that were stored in such albums are often considered to have desirable "album toning". Yet if someone deliberately stores coins in such albums with the intent to create this type of toning, should the toning be considered "artificial" or "natural", and how could anyone tell the difference anyway? In or about 1974 an uncle of mine accompanied me at a coin show. He had a casual interest in coins and purchased for $4 an 1889 Morgan dollar that was then fully brilliant, untoned and perhaps previously "dipped", a "slider" that would now be called AU 58 or perhaps low-end mint state though not fully struck. My uncle liked to look at the coin from time to time and left it lying unprotected on a windowsill for an extended period. He was fascinated by the gradual changes in color on the side of the coin that was exposed to the open air and periodically turned the coin over to make the toning more even. By the time I received it about 35 years later, this once "white" coin looked like this: Dealers and collectors to whom I have shown this coin have differed over whether a grading service would regard the toning pattern as "natural" or "artificial". What do you think? How does your knowing that someone deliberately allowed the coin to tone affect your opinion?

Yes, this does appear to be the 1819, 9 over 8 "Redbook" variety (N1), although some of Newcomb's diagnostics are obscured by corrosion. All Matron Head cents before 1829 have large letters.