Sandon

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.

Your coins are all large dates. Here is a small date. Note the shorter upper portion of the "6" whose upper right doesn't reach the right side of the "6" and the smaller space inside the "0".

This 1943-D cent is circulated (Extremely Fine or so) and appears to have been "cleaned". Even if not "cleaned", its retail (dealer sell) list value would only be 55 cents. See Lincoln Cents, Wheat Reverse (1909-1958) | Price Guide & Values | NGC (ngccoin.com). Please see my replies to your other topics. If you think that this coin was struck from a doubled die, please submit close-ups of the areas you believe show die doubling. I can see none in the current photos.

Yes, the coins have been encapsulated. Your friend should have expected the amount of the invoice, unless NGC determined that the coins had been submitted in too low a tier, about which he may have received prior notice.

Please review my reply to your topic about the 1982-D small date zinc cent. No, this 1983 cent would not be worth any amount remotely approaching what it would cost to submit it to NGC. Submitting coins to grading services is the last thing a new collector should be thinking about. First, you must acquire substantial knowledge of how to grade and otherwise evaluate coins yourself. Please refer to the following forum topics for trustworthy print and online resources from which you may acquire such knowledge: Your education will also require attendance at such venues as coin shows and shops and coin club meetings, where you can examine a variety of coins and speak with knowledgeable collectors and dealers.

This is the final stage before the coin is shipped back to the owner, at which time the awarded grades will be revealed. If the quality control inspection reveals some issue with the holder, description, or grade, it could revert to an earlier status to correct the issue, but most likely the next status will be "Shipped".

Your 1943 steel cent exhibits no mint error and has been plated outside the mint to make it look like an uncirculated coin whose zinc coating hasn't darkened. Countless thousands of such pieces were sold cheaply as "reprocessed" decades ago. The original surface would be frosty, not shiny like this coin. (The edge of a coin that hasn't been plated should be dull, not shiny, as the edges weren't zinc coated, and if the edge of yours is as shiny as the rest of it, that would be another indication that it has been plated.) If you submit this coin to NGC, it will be returned in a flip with a tag stating "NOT ENCAPSULATED--ALTERED SURFACE and no grade, but NGC will keep your money. Here are photos of a 1943 steel cent that PCGS graded MS 65. Its surfaces are bright and frosty, but not shiny:

Based on your photos, I see no evidence that this coin has a doubled die obverse or reverse. NGC VarietyPlus lists no doubled die variety for the 1982-D small date zinc cent and generally will not attribute varieties not included in VarietyPlus. See Lincoln Cents, Memorial Reverse (1959-2008) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com) and Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com). Your coin has a number of nicks and scratches, as well as many plating blisters, that would preclude it receiving a high mint state grade. (The photos also show it as having a peculiar pinkish color, suggesting that it has been "cleaned".) Based on the NGC Price Guide, even a 1982-D small date zinc cent graded MS 67 RD, a solid gem, would only have a retail value of $40, still probably less than the total cost (grading, processing, and shipping, not including the $18 additional variety attribution fee) of submitting it to NGC. See Lincoln Cents, Memorial Reverse (1959-2008) | Price Guide & Values | NGC (ngccoin.com). Such coins can often be purchased for well under list values. I purchased this 1984-D that NGC graded MS 67 RD, which is clearly better than your coin, for all of $7, well under the $25 NGC Price Guide Value, from a dealer's "cheap slab box" at a coin show: The reason that you see incredibly high prices for coins like this in extremely high grades (MS 68 and 69 RD) is that hardly any coins issued for circulation receive such grades from grading services, and you must be highly experienced as a grader yourself before you would be able to make an informed judgment as to whether your coin would have a realistic chance of receiving such a grade. Based on what I can see from your photos and my over 50 years of experience, your coin doesn't come anywhere near such a grade. If you insist on learning this the hard (and expensive) way, you are welcome to submit it.

Uncertified 1827 Square Base 2 Capped Bust half dollar, my grade Ch. VF details, "cleaned" and scratched. I bought this coin, now a duplicate, at a coin show circa 1978. I wasn't very particular in those days.

Contrary to what you may have read on some websites or seen in internet videos, it is in fact extremely unusual to find any significant mint error, die variety, or other coin with substantial collector value in circulation. I have now been collecting and studying U.S. coins and checking my and others' change for nearly 53 years and have never found any coin, error or otherwise, worth more than a few dollars. I know only one person who ever has. Since 2002 the U.S. Mint has had procedures that I understand make it nearly impossible for a major error of the sort that results in a misshapen coin from leaving the mint. I am told that, even before that, most such pieces were usually intercepted at banks and counting houses and sold directly to coin dealers. Most errors offered for sale, such as by Sullivan Numismatics, are in uncirculated condition. I'm not suggesting that you and your son stop looking, but you shouldn't expect much. It would be best for your son 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 and grading before getting into more advanced topics such as mint errors. (Do you have 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, 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.