Sandon

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Die cracks are very common on both old and new U.S. coins and unless especially advanced (as where a piece of the die has actually broken out, forming a "cud") generally command little or no premium among knowledgeable collectors. You are welcome to collect them if you find them interesting. I do not see anything else unusual (including the relief of "LIBERTY") on your 2015-P Roosevelt dime. Contrary to what you may have read on some websites, it is extremely unusual to find any valuable mint error, die variety, or other rare coin in circulation. I haven't found any such coin in nearly 53 years of searching through change and accumulations of coins. I know only one collector who ever has, the find being a Lincoln cent overstruck by Jefferson nickel dies received in change and worth perhaps a few hundred dollars. I understand that most such errors were found at counting houses or by bank tellers before reaching circulation and sold to coin dealers. In 2002 the mint instituted procedures that prevent most significant errors from leaving the mint in the first place.

Coins struck through blobby foreign matter, often generically referred to as "grease", are fairly common and nothing new. They are not considered major mint errors or generally worth much of a premium, although I haven't seen many with the coin struck through foreign matter on both sides. I found various progressions of a similar obverse strikethrough on a variety of 1856 large cent. See 1856 Large Cent Mystery - US, World, and Ancient Coins - NGC Coin Collectors Chat Boards.

This appears to be a nice AU 1865 copper nickel three cent piece, the most common date but certainly a great purchase for a dollar!

@J.H.X.--Welcome to the NGC chat board. If you want to post photos of a coin and ask questions about that coin, please do so as a new topic, and include full, cropped photos of each side of the coin as well as any close-ups. Based on the photos you posted, there is nothing special about your 1964 Kennedy half dollar. It has normal frosty luster, the usual strike with weakness at the bottom of the shield, and extensive abrasions indicating that it originated in a regular mint bag of several thousand coins. The patches of die polish marks do not make the coin special; many coins show die polish marks when reasonably new or repolished. The so-called "SMS" pieces have a uniformly satiny finish with essentially continuous die polish in the fields, a full strike, and are in very high grade, indicating special handling. As I pointed out on another recent thread that you have reviewed, another perfectly ordinary coin in my own 1964 mint set displays some of the so-called "die markers".

Welcome to the NGC chat board. No, it can't be, because even from uncropped photos I can see that your 1982-D cent is a large date. See the following comparison, courtesy of @EagleRJO:

If your 2023 proof silver eagle actually had the proof "Morgan dollar" reverse, now that would be something!

Yes, it is just due to an overpolished die, which tends to occur more often with proof issues, whose dies are highly polished. My PCGS certified 1941 proof half dollar happens to be one of them but is unattributed on the holder, as many likely are, and I did not pay a premium for it. Grading services charge an additional fee ($18 at NGC) to attribute a variety like this one, and it often isn't worth it. A substantial percentage of proof 1941 half dollars appear to be of this variety.

I was able to view the NGC certification verification photos for the number provided by @Henri Charriere by entering "NGC Details" as the grade. It is an 1803 large cent graded Fine Details--Damaged. The coin was graded by NGC in 2011, and the photos from that time weren't very clear, but I can see that the coin has at last three noticeable dents on Liberty's portrait, which are the likely cause of the details grade. NGC is no less strict on this type of damage today. If you resubmit the coin in or out of its current holder, you will almost certainly get the same result. Grading services generally do not provide explanations for grades assigned, and I doubt they have the graders' notes from 2011. The majority--perhaps the vast majority--of early (especially pre-1816) U.S. copper coins have surface issues that preclude numerical grading. If you look at the NGC census for numerically versus "details" graded pieces, you will find that the "details" graded pieces are often in the majority, despite most submitters hopefully having the knowledge not to submit most such pieces that have substantial impairments.

The Administrator has established a topic for all new competitive registry set requests. Go to Need a new NGC Registry set? **Please remember to include your NGC certification numbers in your request! ** - NGC Registry - NGC Coin Collectors Chat Boards. As indicated, you should include the serial numbers on the holders of coins that you believe should be included in such a set. Have you added these coins to your "coin list" (My Competitive Coins) in the Registry and used the "Add to Sets" function to check whether these coins may be included in existing registry set categories?

@Jason T--Welcome to the NGC chat board. This topic is a duplicate of one posted on the (more appropriate) Newbie Coin Collecting Questions forum, where replies were posted by several forum members. Go to https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/432705-questions-about-verifying-an-ngc-slabbed-purchase.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. While "mechanical" or clerical errors on grading service labels would be a fine topic for the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum or the "U.S., World, and Ancient Coins" forum, it probably won't receive much attention on the "Coin Marketplace" forum, which is supposed to be for "buying, selling, and trading coins". These types of errors, which are all too common, are one of many reasons why collectors must learn to identify, grade, and otherwise evaluate coins for themselves, even if they only collect third-party graded coins.

The 1830 "medium letters" cent is represented by one die pairing, designated Newcomb ("N")6. The obverse die was also paired with a large letters reverse (N5). Dies for U.S. coins before 1837 were made from individual punches for the devices, letters, numbers, so they are attributed by comparing the positions of certain letters, numbers and/or stars in relationship to other design elements. Unfortunately, the excessive wear and damage on the coin you posted make attribution very difficult, if not impossible. Most of the stars and letters are worn off, and the date is so worn that it isn't clear from the photo that the date is 1830. What lettering that remains is so flattened that it isn't clear to me whether the coin has the "large" or "medium" lettering style. Newcomb describes the diagnostics of the reverse as "tenth berry between AM; base of R above E; very small plain center dot" and "[f]ine crack through tops of ATES of A". See photos at Coronet Head Cents (1816-1839) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). It appears that there is a dent in the area where the berry between A and M would be, any center dot has worn off, nor can I see the crack. Even if the coin were attributed as an N6, it would only be a "filler". A full "Good" lists $135 in Coin World; this one has Fair to About Good details and is holed, otherwise damaged, and "cleaned". I lack this "Red Book" variety myself but wouldn't pay much for this one in or out of a grading service holder.

1876-CC Liberty Seated quarter, PCGS graded XF 40: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

I can suggest several reasons: 1. Rare coins are just that--rare, while coins by date and mint made since at least the 1940s are not. The mintages of most coins minted since the 1940s have been quite high compared those of many earlier issues, and since the mid-1960s the U.S. mint has regularly turned out tens of billions of coins per year. Moreover, collectors, dealers, and speculators began putting away numerous rolls and bags of uncirculated coins beginning in the mid-1930s, which provide most of the supply of pieces sought by serious collectors today. Even issues that have low mintages by modern standards, such as 1950-D nickels (2.6 million) and 1955-S cents (44.6 million) are still available in quantity in most uncirculated grades due to the hoarding of rolls and bags of these coins, especially by those who discovered that they were "low mintage." Pieces that have suffered the rigors of circulation are only sought by young, casual and budget collectors. If you were lucky enough to find a worn but undamaged 1950-D nickel in change, which is quite unlikely, you would have a coin with a retail value of perhaps $5. 2. Coins composed of silver were withdrawn from circulation, largely by non-collectors, in the mid-1960's due to their silver content being worth more than their face value. By the time I began collecting in 1971, one hardly ever received a silver coin in change. My earliest silver "Mercury" and Roosevelt dimes and Washington quarters were circulated pieces given to me by my grandmother, who had saved about $10 to $20 in face value of silver coins when she learned that they would no longer be minted, while I had to buy others to fill my albums from coin dealers for three- or four-times face value. While one might very rarely find a worn, common date silver coin in circulation today--usually a coin spent by someone who didn't realize that it was silver--collectors almost always have to buy them from coin dealers, with the uncirculated coins that originated in hoarded bags and rolls being the focus of serious collectors. 3. Young and casual collectors and non-collectors also withdrew from circulation any coin with an obsolete or unfamiliar design or that seemed old from their perspective. In the early 1970s one or two out of a hundred cents was still a wheat reverse cent, mostly dated from 1940 to 1958, and I saved several hundred of them, which I still have, now worth all of a few cents each. I also saved hundreds of circulated Jefferson nickels dated from 1939 to 1960, still mostly worth no more than face value. I understand that worn Indian cents and Buffalo nickels were still seen in change in the 1950s, but by the 1970s to find one would be a real treat. So many of these coins were withdrawn from circulation that they may still be bought with ease from dealers in bulk lots of hundreds of pieces. (I actually found a Very Good or so 1929-D Buffalo nickel in my father's change in 2010, not long before he died; the coin was minted in the year of his birth but is still only worth a dollar or two.) 4. I understand that most major mint errors that escape mint inspectors are found by bank and counting house personnel and sold to coin dealers, which explains why most such errors offered for sale are in uncirculated condition. In 2002 the mint instituted rigorous procedures that have largely prevented errors that result in misshapen coins, such as broadstrikes, multiple strikes, and coins struck on planchets intended for other denominations, from leaving the mint in the first place. The "single squeeze" method of die preparation has greatly reduced the number of doubled die varieties of any significance from being created in the first place. The purported errors and varieties that we see posted in this forum on a regular basis tend at best to be minor anomalies of no real value. Occasionally, rare coins do turn up in estate sales and the like by sellers who are not familiar with coins. Some years ago, a member of my coin club purchased a mixed lot of mostly well-worn common date Indian cents at such a sale. He found that the lot included a Flying Eagle cent dated 1856 with somewhat rough surfaces, which he assumed to be counterfeit. I examined the coin and was amazed to find that it had the characteristics of a genuine example. My acquaintance submitted the coin to NGC, which authenticated it and, as I recall, graded it Fine details, environmental damage. It was sold for around five thousand dollars.

Both types are "authentic", but strike doubling a.k.a. machine or mechanical doubling is caused by movement of a die that is slightly loose in the press, which is very common, while die doubling is caused by doubling in the die itself and may command a premium. Another source with descriptions and photos you might want to review on this subject is at https://www.doubleddie.com/144822.html. Also see the related topics regarding worthless "die deterioration doubling" and "abrasion doubling" linked at the bottom of that page.

You're trying to compare two coins that appeal to two largely different groups of collectors, those who try to obtain coins with the highest awarded numerical grades for their registry sets and those who collect mint errors. (The NGC Registry doesn't even allow coins attributed as mint errors.) The NGC Price Guide has no price for a MS 68 graded 1976 clad Bicentennial quarter, while the PCGS Price Guide lists it at $4,500. Each error coin is essentially unique and commands its own price, so you can't compare this particular coin with the certified populations of pieces graded "MS 68." You could check auction records for each of these coins and determine what each has actually realized at any public sale. Which one is "more rare and valuable" is inherently a matter for conjecture.

The only thing of any numismatic interest about this 1995-P nickel is the die crack running from the edge of the coin to Jefferson's nose. Die cracks are very common on both old and new U.S. coins and unless extreme generally add little or no collector value. The coin can't have a "plating" issue because only copper-plated zinc Lincoln cents made since the latter part of 1982 are plated. (1943 steel cents are zinc coated and are sometimes "replated" to simulate their original bright appearance.) Please check your "Redbook"--I assume you have one--for basic information about the composition and other specifications of U.S. coins. There you will find that "nickels" are composed of a homogeneous (solid) alloy of 75% copper, 25% nickel, which darkens (corrodes) when exposed to certain environmental conditions. It is possible that the alloy wasn't properly mixed, but this would be difficult to determine on a circulated coin and usually wouldn't be of much interest anyway. The shallow shelf-like doubling at Jefferson's brow is strike doubling a.k.a. machine or mechanical doubling. This is considered worthless doubling. See Double Dies vs. Machine Doubling | NGC (ngccoin.com). If you don't at least have a recent "Redbook", a grading guide, and access to current price lists, please advise so that we may refer you to forum topics where you may learn how to obtain these and other essential resources.

The coin just took two big hits on its edge after it left the mint, as indicated by the displacement of metal with the previously struck design elements underneath. The only error it remotely resembles, a rim "cud" from a piece broken off of the die, would not show a depression on the rim itself.

In fact, there is an old (going back to the 1950s or before) and well-known saying among collectors, "There is no Santa Claus in numismatics!" Another such saying is, "Buy the book before the coin!" The two sayings go together. I began collecting decades before the publicly available internet existed, but knowledge and experience were just as important then as they are now. The only difference is that you can obtain some of this knowledge online if you know what sites to use. Many of them in the two forum topics to which I referred you in your previous topic. There are coins suitable for every budget. I suggest that you go to a coin show or coin shop in your area, look at the selection of lower priced coins, and around and speak to the dealers and experienced collectors you meet there. There is no charge to admire the more expensive ones either. I don't know where you're getting your pricing information. This month's Coin World lists an uncertified 1964 cent grading MS 63 RB at 30 cents retail and an MS 65 RD at $4. The NGC Price Guide, which assumes that the coins have been certified at a cost of $23 per coin grading fee alone, lists a full red MS 63 1964 cent at $7.50, markedly less for red and brown and brown examples. See Lincoln Cents, Memorial Reverse (1959-2008) | Price Guide & Values | NGC (ngccoin.com). A third-party graded MS 65 RD lists $15 and a MS 66 RD lists $30 and still not worth the cost of certification. Such pieces come from untouched uncirculated rolls and bags, not from circulation.

There is very little chance that you will ever find anything of substantial value looking through change or accumulations of common coins. I have been collecting coins for nearly 53 years and have never found any coin worth more than a few dollars. I know only one person who ever has, a collector of many years who received a Lincoln cent that had been overstruck by Jefferson nickel dies in change at a grocery store, perhaps worth a few hundred dollars. Such an occurrence is at best a once in a lifetime event. When I receive uncirculated coins taken from a fresh roll at a bank or store, I do save the most mark-free and well-struck pieces so that they might be cherished by future generations of collectors. They are unlikely to be of much value in our lifetimes. Have you checked the resources to which I referred you in a previous topic and at least obtained a "Redbook", a grading guide, and a subscription to a current price guide? Your best option is to acquire the knowledge necessary to make wise purchases that may appreciate over the years.

I acquired these four 1939-45 PCGS MS 66 RD graded Lincoln cents at a coin show last weekend. All but the 1945-D are in holders from approximately twenty years ago.

Assuming that the multiple images are all on the coin and not the result of reflections between the coin and its holder, I agree that this is likely all strike doubling from multiple motions of a loose die. Proof coins may be struck more than once to bring out the detail fully, making such multiple shelf-like images more likely.

While sharper close-ups would help, it still appears just to be a normal "D" mintmark with a scrape. The depressed area around the mintmark resulted from metal being displaced by the mintmark being punched into the die, which was done by hand before the early 1990s. This displaced metal is raised on the die and appears as a depression on the coins struck by that die. It is extremely unlikely that a "D over S" overmintmark variety, if one existed, would not have been discovered by now. If you mean this seriously, please understand that it would be an extraordinary occurrence to find any mint error, die variety, or other coin of any great value in circulation or among accumulations of common coins. I haven't found anything worth more than a few dollars in this manner in nearly 53 years as a collector and only know one person who has, that coin being a cent overstruck by nickel dies that is worth perhaps a few hundred dollars. You would do better by learning as much as you can about coins from books, reliable online resources, and by studying the coins themselves and speaking with knowledgeable collectors and dealers. You can then make wise purchases of pieces that have a good chance of appreciating over time. Do you have, at least, a current or recent edition of the "Redbook", a current price guide, and a grading guide?

The pictures are too blurry to tell for sure, but it appears just to be a damaged mintmark. Please transmit images directly from your computer instead of camera shots of the images on the screen. Additionally, please post cropped images of each full side of the coin.

None of us is claiming to have a 1964 mint set containing so-called "SMS" coins. You are. Based on your photos, your sets do not appear to show either the "smooth satin like appearance with the rims being very square and sharp" nor the "die polishing lines throughout the coins' surfaces" that are per PCGS the defining characteristics of these pieces, along with special handling that the known examples received. Your coins show only scattered die polish marks, as frequently seen on fairly new dies. The photos posted on this topic of authenticated examples show an appearance quite different from that of your coins. Here are full photos of the Philadelphia half dollar in my 1964 mint set, which I was able to illuminate more fully than yours: If your coins have this same type of bright luster, they just can't be considered for consideration as so-called SMS pieces. I also took a closeup of the area of rays 11 to 13 where they meet the stars. NGC refers to the reverse with breaks in the rays as a "Type 1 reverse" but does not indicate that this reverse is unique to the so-called "SMS" pieces. My coin appears to have this same reverse: My coin also shows at least a trace of the "small raised defect that appears to hang from the crosslet of the 4" that Ron Guth stated on the PCGS Coinfacts page is a diagnostic for the so-called "SMS" pieces: If your sets contain so-called "SMS" pieces, perhaps my set does too. It seems that there a lot of them, though.