Sandon

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Please note that the "Coin Marketplace" forum is for offers to buy or sell coins for stated prices and otherwise in accordance with the posted "Coin Marketplace Guidelines". Questions like yours about coins should be posted in the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum. Your cent is dated 1990, not 1960, and it most certainly isn't a proof. Spotted and fingermarked as it is, it would "go for" one cent.

1965 Special Mint Sets are common enough. Coin World gives a retail price range of $12 to $14 for sets in original packaging as shown by @J P M. You shouldn't have much trouble finding a BU example of the regular issue (about 65.9 million minted) either. The rare so-called 1964 "SMS" coins were so named that out of speculation that they were some sort of trials or prototypes for the 1965-67 Special Mint Set coins, but they are quite different looking, and there is no evidence that they had anything to do with the 1965-67 coins. See 1964 50C SP | Coin Explorer | NGC (ngccoin.com) ("Description & Analysis"). Ongoing research suggests that they were just ordinary strikings from new dies.

It's hard for me to say, as I don't collect this sort of coin. If it is being offered for sale, it depends whether you think it is worth the price. Coins struck from misaligned dies generally aren't worth much if any premium, but the severity of the misalignment, the loose strip of metal, and especially the fact that it is a proof striking add interest. Let's see what some of the other forum members think.

This quarter appears to have been struck from a severely misaligned obverse die and rather unusual for a proof coin that should have been subject to careful inspection. I have a similar looking 1988-P quarter with the same "finned" high rim on part of the affected side but without the loose strip of metal. Do you have this coin or is it being offered for sale online? It isn't possible to offer an opinion as to the coin's grade without in-person inspection, especially when the choice is between "69" and "70".

2021-S proof "Crossing the Delaware" quarter, my grade Superb Gem Proof, in proof set:

I agree that this coin is in the wrong slot. The Administrator, @Ali E, will likely respond next week, but here is another way to ask for a correction of an issue of this sort without using the public forum. While logged in, click open the page for the coin, either in your set or your coin list (My Competitive Coins). Below the description and certificate number you should see a blue link reading "Wrong Coin/Grade?". Click that link and, if your coin is being identified as an ordinary 1997-P nickel, select the option, "The coin description is wrong", enter the correct description into the dialog box that follows, and submit it.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. We cannot assess whether or not your 1969-S cents are of the extremely rare FS-101 doubled die obverse variety without clear, cropped photos of each side of each coin, as well as any pertinent closeups. Suffice it to say that, though not impossible, it would be incredibly unlikely that you have found one, much less two, of these pieces in circulation. Claims of finding such pieces on this and similar forums have invariably turned out to be coins featuring strike doubling, a.k.a. machine or mechanical doubling or other forms of "worthless doubling". See Double Dies vs. Machine Doubling | NGC (ngccoin.com) and https://www.doubleddie.com/144801.html. For photos and a description of the diagnostics of a genuine 1969-S DDO cent, see Lincoln Cents, Memorial Reverse (1959-2008) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). Tip: If doubling shows on the mintmark of your coins, they are not of the doubled die variety, as the mintmark was punched into the die separately. Both NGC and PCGS would normally "details" grade and encapsulate a coin that has been scratched. Where did you get different information about PCGS? If it is fairly certain that your coins are actually of the DDO variety, they would likely still be worth thousands of dollars each even if impaired. A major coin dealer or auction house could confirm your discovery and submit the coins to either of these services for authentication and grading. If they are not of the DDO variety, you would be wasting a great deal of money (likely over $100 per coin) on pieces worth only face value.

"They" didn't miss anything. NGC requires the payment of an error attribution fee (currently $18) to attribute a mint error such as a severe die break or a substantially rotated die. The submitter probably didn't want to pay this fee, in which the case NGC does not make the attribution. (The holder style and six-digit serial number indicate that this coin was submitted many years ago.) NGC will attribute a coin as having been struck from rotated dies only if the coin shows at least 15 degrees of rotation. See the recent article Mint Error Coin Chronicles: Rotated Dies Error | NGC (ngccoin.com). Without seeing a reverse view of the coin in its holder, we can't tell whether the rotated die might have been attributable. Generally, "NGC does not recognize as mint error coins those with minor die chips, breaks and rotations, etc., that fall within our interpretation of mint tolerance. The determination of what constitutes a mint error is at the discretion of NGC." Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com). As you enjoy collecting coins with these features, it might be better for you that they are not commonly attributed, as sellers would then be more likely to ask for a premium for coins with them. Isn't it better that you can just "cherrypick" what you like from uncertified and unattributed certified coins for a more favorable price?

Welcome to the NGC chat board. If you want to offer a coin for sale on this forum, you are supposed to comply with the rules set forth in the posted guidelines, including stating an asking price. See Coin Marketplace Guidelines - Coin Marketplace - NGC Coin Collectors Chat Boards A circulated 1966 half dollar like yours is only worth its silver value, currently about $3.40, and is unlikely to attract a buyer here. A coin or bullion dealer in your area would be a better choice for selling it.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Traditionally, coins made at the Philadelphia mint, which was the first U.S. mint location and the primary rather than a "branch" mint, bore no mint mark. The "P" mintmark first appeared on wartime composition five cent pieces coined in Philadelphia from 1942-45 to distinguish them from regular composition pieces. In 1979, the "P" appeared on Susan B. Anthony dollar coins minted in Philadelphia and has been used on all denominations except the cent since 1980. (The "P" mintmark appeared on Philadelphia cents dated 2017 to commemorate the mint's 225th anniversary.) Therefore, your 1973 dime (mintage 315,670,000) and 1975 dime (mintage 585,673,900) are normal coins minted in Philadelphia for circulation and in worn grades like yours are only worth face value. The 1975 "no S" proofs about which you have heard were coins minted in San Francisco with a mirror finish and sold to collectors in sealed proof sets. The "S" mintmark was left off the die by mistake, and nearly all of the coins struck by this die were evidently intercepted by mint inspectors before release. Only two proof sets (2,845,450 sets issued) containing a "no S" dime have ever been found.

1995-S silver proof Kennedy half dollar, NGC graded PR 69 DCAM:

My digital microscope can't take a full image of a coin larger than a nickel on its stand, so I place it on a stack of books of necessary height to capture larger coins. The scope has a broad range of focus and was marketed as being able to photograph coins, so I don't know why it was equipped with such a short stand.

Error-ref.com classifies the "ridge ring" as a form of severe or "design devouring" die wear that is commonly seen on copper-plated zinc cents. See https://www.error-ref.com/?s=design+devouring+die+wear. Coins struck from worn dies generally do not command a premium.

Although the obverse by itself could be interpreted as a possible retained "cud", the photos of the reverse and the edge make it clear that this is edge damage. This coin is a good example of why we ask that those with questions about possible mint errors post full photos of both sides of the coin and of the edge if pertinent.

Your coin is a 1945-D wartime composition five cent piece, not a 1943-D. Per the "Redbook", these coins, dated 1942-45 with large mintmarks above the dome of Monticello, were composed of an alloy of 56% copper, 35% silver, and 9% manganese instead of the normal copper nickel (75% copper 25% nickel) alloy. Both the copper nickel and wartime composition coins have a standard weight of 5 grams. These coins are bright when in uncirculated but rapidly stain and darken in circulation or from improper handling. Your coin has a normal appearance for an About Uncirculated or so coin, with stains from people's fingers. Where did you hear about a "war nickel" on a copper planchet? It is possible that a few such pieces were struck on bronze cent planchets (3.11 grams), but such coins would be undersized due to the smaller size of the planchet and would be copper colored ("red" and/or brown). It is also possible that such a coin could have been struck on a copper alloy planchet intended for a foreign coin then being struck by the U.S. Mint, but it would also be copper colored and likely of a different size.

If NCS determined that the coin wouldn't benefit from "conservation", you should have only been charged a $5 evaluation fee instead of the $25 minimum "standard" conservation fee. See NCS Conservation Services and Fees | NGC (ngccoin.com). If they charged you the conservation fee, they presumably did something. I think it is reprehensible that NGC misattributed this Fugio copper as a "Pointed Rays" variety when a glance at the standard "Redbook" would have revealed it to have "Club Rays." I don't think that either "top tier" grading service does a good job attributing or grading early coppers, which are really a specialty of certain traditional numismatists and were fine in their paper coin envelopes with handwritten notes. Most of them have surface issues that preclude numerical grading and/or striking issues that make them very difficult to grade. I wouldn't bother with the expense of shipping it back for correction. (If you attend one of the major shows where NGC accepts submissions, you should be able to submit it for "mechanical error" correction without the shipping cost.) Otherwise, you might consider removing it from its incorrectly labeled holder and placing it in your own holder with a correct attribution.

Be careful about buying these otherwise common date certified coins with high numerical grades and very high list values! Prices realized at auction for these coins may vary widely and may decline as the popularity of certain series or issues wane or as their certified populations in these high grades increase. Both PCGS and NGC have records of sales by major numismatic auction houses on their websites. NGC's listing for 1950-D nickels is at 1950 D 5C MS | Coin Auction Prices | NGC (ngccoin.com). It is difficult to estimate the resale value for a coin like this at any given time, unlike a coin in a more typical mint state grade, unless there have been a number of recent auction sales at around the same price level. Note also that while NGC classifies "full steps" Jefferson nickels as either five full steps (5FS) or six full steps (6FS), PCGS classifies both groups together as "FS". Some of the higher prices seen for PCGS "FS" coins may be for coins that were judged by buyers to have six full steps.

I'm sorry if the previous replies appear harsh to you. The obverse impression on the coin you posted does not resemble that of any other coin and does not appear to have been created during the manufacturing process. Someone may have taken a metal stamp or other hard object and impressed it into the coin by beating it with a hammer or squeezing it in a vise. I see some swelling on the reverse portion of the eagle's right (facing) wing opposite the impression from the pressure, which would not occur if the impression had been created while that side was seated on the reverse die. Although it is possible for a struck coin to be struck multiple times (see https://www.error-ref.com/?s=multiple+strikes) or struck over another struck coin or planchet in the press (see, for, example, https://www.error-ref.com/?s=external+disc+impression), such pieces look nothing like the coin you posted. Apart from the impression, your coin does in fact have numerous nicks, scratches, and abrasions that would result in its being classified as damaged in any case. Please refer to the resources on grading to which I referred you in replying to one of your previous topics.

The coin is clearly damaged, perhaps run over by vehicles on a road where the obverse was lying on gravel that caused the indentations. Some members of this forum collect such mutilated pieces as "parking lot coins", although the attraction of doing so escapes me.

I certainly wouldn't try it, as it is likely to damage the coin. The reference is to a clear plastic cleaner and polish such as Meguiar's PlastX, which is most commonly used to clarify automobile headlights, and which can be used on other clear hard plastics such as grading service holders to reduce dullness and minor scuffs. While a "70" grade awarded by a "basement slabber" such as SGS isn't of any real significance, those given by top tier graders such as NGC are supposed to be. NGC graded this 1998-S silver proof dime PF 70. Two tiny ticks can just be seen on Roosevelt's face under the 5x magnification, at which NGC claims the coin should appear flawless, although they don't show on the photos. I have yet to see any coin that I could describe as flawless.

Yesterday I went to the Mint's website to subscribe for a couple of regular (clad coin) 2024 proof sets, which are scheduled to be released in March. The final step in submitting an online order is an acknowledgement of certain terms of sale, including that the purchaser is over 18 years of age, accepts the Mint's privacy policy, and the like. Yesterday, however, I noticed that an apparently new term had been placed directly above the "accept" button. The version of this term that I copied from the terms and conditions under the "Customer Service" tab of the website reads as follows: "The customer assumes the risk of loss during transit. Issues arising from delivery need to be resolved with the shipping carrier." The terms and conditions also indicate that the Mint ships packages uninsured. Years ago, the Mint used to ship more expensive packages through insured registered mail, but apparently no more. As the Mint chooses the carrier and uses different carriers--I have had orders shipped to me in recent years through the U.S. Postal Service, Fedex Smartpost (shipped primarily through Federal Express but delivered by the Postal Service), and UPS--it seems profoundly unfair that the mint would place this burden upon its customers. This is especially true for more expensive bullion and commemorative products, which I don't buy but whose individual purchase prices may run into thousands of dollars. When added to the currently outrageous prices for some mint products, such as $130 for silver proof sets that sold for $56.25 as recently as 2020 and $50 or more for clad commemorative half dollars, I am finding the proposition of continuing to order anything but the least expensive items (annual base metal proof and uncirculated coin sets) from the Mint quite unpalatable. A number of topics on these forums have noted the marked increase in difficulties with deliveries by various carriers in recent years. Although I doubt that complaints from a few small Mint customers would make any difference, perhaps the threats of or actual cessation of business by numerous customers, including dealers who order in bulk, would lead to a change in policy. In any event, I did want to make it known that if you buy U.S. Mint products, "you pay your money and you take your chances."

1967 SMS Washington quarter, PCGS graded SP 66, purchased for all of $6 some years ago:

Yes, the 1886-O also has an unnatural, appearance and has also been polished or "cleaned", with Very Fine details. It also has a dent in the hair above the eye. You must learn to distinguish between original and "cleaned" or polished coins, which is sometimes difficult even for experienced collectors. This can't be learned entirely from photos, and you should attend coin shows and other venues where you can examine coins in hand. However, I created a custom registry set with an explanation of what to look for and photos and descriptions of "cleaned" coins from my collection, these being mainly rarer pieces or pieces that I bought at an appropriate discount. See Characteristics of "Cleaned" Coins - Custom Set (collectors-society.com).

The 1884 Morgan dollar is a relatively common date that is readily available unimpaired through mid-uncirculated grades. An unimpaired XF currently lists $32 in Coin World and $50 in the NGC Price Guide. This coin has an unnatural, and, therefore, undesirable appearance. This coin was being offered in part for its "VAM" die variety as listed in the guides originally developed by Van Allen & Mallis, with the "Hot 50" perhaps being less sought after than the "Top 100". It is not a coin I would buy for its type or date. I would recommend that you avoid impaired pieces and buy the best pieces that you can afford. That being said, it's hard to buy any silver dollar these days for under $30. Although ANACS, unlike NGC, PCGS, or CAC Grading, gives a numerical grade to "details" graded coins, an impairment always reduces its value and often its salability. There is no precise way to calculate the value of an impaired coin, or any coin for that matter, but I would subtract one to two grades in pricing this one from a price list. A coin with a severe impairment such as a deep scratch or a hole with Extremely Fine details might be valued as a Good or even less.

A coin that has been abrasively treated with metal polish is regarded as impaired and would be "details" graded by a grading service as "polished" or "cleaned". This would obviously reduce the coin's value, but it would be difficult even to guess by how much without at least seeing its photos. Sometimes, cheap can be expensive. As for "cheep", that is strictly for the birds!