Sandon

I won this 1920-S Lincoln cent in a 2x2 holder as a door prize at yesterday's coin club meeting. I grade it Choice Very Fine, with some areas of dirt or verdigris but otherwise a nice brown example. It is only worth a few dollars, and I have a somewhat better (Extremely Fine) example in the album collection I formed decades ago, but I thought this one notable for a well-formed date and mintmark and even strike. This issue often comes with a "mushy" appearance.

Here is your "credible explanation": See What is an Adjectival Grade? | NGC (ngccoin.com), where NGC explains, "For some bulk submissions, NGC will allow the submitter to request that only the adjectival grade be printed on the NGC certification label. This is generally done only for large submissions of relatively common coins. The coins must still meet NGC’s requirements for the numeric grade range for that adjectival grade. . .. UNCIRCULATED is often paired with the additional qualifiers of BRILLIANT, CHOICE, or GEM. NGC considers BRILLIANT UNCIRCULATED to be any coins that would grade from 60-70 on the Sheldon Grading Scale. CHOICE UNCIRCULATED is considered to be any coins that would grade from 63 to 70. GEM UNCIRCULATED (sometimes indicated as GEM UNC or GEM BU) is used for coins that would grade from 65 to 70." Presumably, a bulk submission coin graded "UNCIRCULATED" would be a lower end mint state coin that would have been graded no higher than MS 62 if submitted for numerical grading. I understand that it would be scored as a "MS 60" in the NGC Registry. NGC has been offering this service for bulk submitters for some time. It is not uncommon to see Morgan and Peace dollars and modern issues in NGC holders with these adjectival grades.

I generally agree with what @Coinbuf has stated. NGC would charge a minimum authentication and grading fee per coin of $19 (Modern tier) for coins dated from 1965 on and $23 (Economy tier) for earlier dated coins, plus a $10 per order processing fee and a minimum $28 per order return shipping fee. See NGC Services and Fees | NGC (ngccoin.com). This would be in addition to your own shipping costs. Based on what little I can see from your group photo, your coins appear to be mostly or entirely low value pieces with retail values ranging from a few cents to a few dollars of the type collected by child, beginner, and casual collectors and kept in these stapled cardboard holders or coin albums or folders. Placing these coins in grading service holders would not increase their market value and might even reduce their salability. You would lose a great deal of money if you were to submit such coins. One of the holders in your photos purportedly contains a "proof" 1916 Buffalo nickel, which is highly unlikely. Only 600 such pieces were struck as proofs, known as "matte proofs", as opposed to over 63 million regular 1916 Buffalo nickels. A dealer would be highly unlikely to sell such a rare coin in a stapled 2x2 holder. I enlarged the photo as much as possible, and the coin it contains appears to be worn, damaged, and corroded, while a proof would have been sold to a collector of that time and likely carefully preserved to this day. However, if you post clear, cropped photos of each side of this coin on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum, we might be able to offer an informal opinion as to whether the coin may be a proof. Like all meaningful endeavors in life, being successful as a coin collector (or perhaps eventually dealer) requires a great deal of study and experience. If you are interested in learning about U.S. coins, please see the following forum topics to obtain print and online resources from which you may obtain the essential knowledge that you will need:

As previously stated, please post full, cropped photos of each side of the coin, not just close-ups of the area on which you are focusing. Sometimes other parts of the coin provide significant clues. Based on the photos, the coin just shows scrapes inflicted after the coin was struck, with the displaced metal moved to the side of the scrape. It does not appear to be either a die variety or a mint error.

Please post inquiries about additional coins as separate topics. Please also provide cropped images of the entirety of each side of each coin. Your 1964-D nickel is definitely not a D over S. It may be a faintly repunched "D" mintmark. It doesn't match either of the varieties listed on NGC VarietyPlus. See Jefferson Five Cents (1938-Date) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). (The first variety, FS-501, has no photos on VarietyPlus, but I checked it against photos in The Cherrypickers' Guide to Rare Die Varieties.) You can compare your coin to the repunched mintmark (RPM) listings on varietyvista.com and doubleddie.com to see if you can find a match.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. First of all, I think you mean to suggest the coin is an S over D, as the coin is clearly a proof struck at the San Francisco mint with the normal, blobby "S" mintmark used at that time being the predominant image. More importantly, the coin does not show any evidence of a "D" underlying the "S", only a small defect in the punch used to enter the mintmark into the die that appears as a small, raised line in the upper loop of the "S". (The "S" punches had been used for many years and had deteriorated, resulting in their finally being replaced in 1979, with the new punch first appearing on 1979-S "type 2" proof coins.) No overmintmark variety is known to exist for bicentennial quarters. Here for comparison is an NGC VarietyPlus photo of the mintmark on a 1955-D, D over S nickel (FS-501). The "D" is the predominant image, and you can clearly see remnants of the underlying and partly effaced "S" above, to the left of, and within the "D".

If you are a new collector and have just received your first "Redbook" and loupe (note spelling), submitting coins to third-party grading services is the last thing you should be thinking about, with the exception for coins that are of substantial value regardless of grade and are frequently counterfeited such as the quarter eagle you recently inquired about. Very, very few modern coins made for circulation would be worth the cost. Based on your photos, the 1976 coins you show, which I assume you removed from 1975 and 1976 mint sets, have too many abrasions and inadequate luster to grade better than MS 64, and several pieces seem to have surface residue as well. The coins placed in these sets did not receive special handling at the mint. None is likely to be worth the $19 per coin grading fee at NGC, much less the processing fee and shipping costs. (Both complete sets in their mint packaging are obtainable for less than $19 in total!) Such coins would have best been kept in their original mint packaging, and since they have been removed are best enjoyed in albums or other appropriate holders. (The residue might be removed by soaking the coins in acetone, the proper use of which flammable substance may be found in other topics on these boards.) You can find guidelines for the grading of mint state coins in the A.N.A. grading guide, of which you should obtain a copy. NGC provides brief descriptions for each grade at NGC Coin Grading Scale | About Coin Grades | NGC. PCGS Photograde has photos of each series in the various mint state grades at https://www.pcgs.com/photograde. There is also the PCGS video series mentioned in another reply. However, neither written descriptions, photos, nor videos are adequate to demonstrate or teach the differences among the various grades from 60 to 70, which are dependent upon a combination of largely subjective factors. Learning to grade mint state coins involves in-hand examination of coins at different lighting angles and comparison with professionally graded pieces. You should attend coin shows or other venues where you can examine certified pieces at various grades. It will likely take some years of careful study before you will develop sufficient skills to determine approximate grades for mint state coins.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. The trade dollar is, unfortunately, one of the most widely counterfeited U.S. coins. This one isn't deceptive if you know what the genuine pieces look like. The reverse features an imitation of the "Type 1" reverse with a berry below the eagle's claw that wasn't used on coins dated after 1876. Even if that were not so, the weak rims, stars and lettering, lumps of extra metal in places, and odd color and surface texture indicate at a glance that it is not a genuine coin. Please refer to the print and online resources identified in the following forum topics to acquire the knowledge that you will need to collect U.S. coins: You should also attend such venues as coin shows and coin club meetings where you can examine a variety of genuine coins and speak with knowledgeable collectors and dealers.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. As a new collector, it is very important for you to learn the basics of collecting U.S. coins, such as types, dates and mints, major varieties, grading, and how coins are made. It is actually very unusual to find any significant mint error among circulating coins, and the collection of mint errors is a specialty of some more advanced collectors. The following forum topics identify trustworthy print and online resources that will enable you to obtain the knowledge that you will need: You will also benefit from attending such venues as coin shows and coin club meetings where you can examine a variety of coins and speak with knowledgeable collectors and dealers.

1876 Type 2 Liberty head double eagle, now NGC graded AU 58:

Die cracks like these are extremely common on Peace dollars, especially on higher mintage dates such as the 1923. I've seen many dated 1922 and 1923 with a thin crack like this across Liberty's neck, and I'm sure that Messrs. Van Allen and Mallis and their successors on the Vam World site have as well. It's unlikely that such cracks, probably found on a number of well-used obverse dies, would be given a VAM designation. There are some 1923 VAM-1 (normal dies) subvarieties based on die breaks that are much heavier or thicker than these commonly seen cracks. See http://www.vamworld.com/wiki/1923-P_Die_Breaks. They are really die states, not die varieties. As you enjoy finding coins with die cracks like these, you may want to think more about whether it would be desirable for such coins to be designated as die varieties. Presently, you can easily "cherrypick" them from dealers' stocks without paying a premium. If they were given a designation, dealers would demand a premium for them even though they are common.

The "LM" numbering system for Capped Bust half dimes comes from the book Federal Half Dimes 1792-1837 by Russell Logan and John McCloskey, published in 1998. The book likely contains written descriptions of the diagnostics for the different varieties, as well as enlarged photos of them. Unfortunately, a copy of this book may be hard to find. However, you can find photos and sometimes brief descriptions of most, if not all, of the varieties of these coins on NGC VarietyPlus and/or PCGS Coinfacts. The dies for U.S. coins before about 1837 were made from separate punches for the devices, letters, numbers, and stars, so each die usually has some element in a different position than others. To attribute a die variety on such a coin, you must take note of the distinctive differences that distinguish one variety from another and match your coin to the correct variety. In this case, you have already identified the obverse die of your 1834 half dime as the "3 over inverted 3" variety found on both LM-1 and LM-3. Therefore, you just have to identify the reverse die from which your coin was struck. By looking at the photos on VarietyPlus, I have identified your coin as an LM-1. See Early Half Dimes (1792-1837) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com) (page 2) and click each variety to see the photos, which can then be clicked to enlarge. On the LM-1, the last "A" in "AMERICA" is separate from the top arrow as on your coin, while on the LM-3 that "A" touches the top arrow. Additionally, on the LM-1, as on your coin, the top right serif of the "C" in "5C." touches the end of the olive branch, while on the LM-3 the serif doesn't quite touch the branch. If you study the photos, you will likely find other characteristics that can serve as diagnostics for the two varieties.

You need to create the label that you insert into the other part of the flip yourself. It can be printed or legibly handwritten. If you are submitting only one coin, place the seven-digit number on the form, followed by a dash and the line number "001" on the label.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. As others have stated, your 1971-D half dollar was very likely struck on a normal planchet, but its surfaces have corroded, probably from being buried in the ground. The outer layers of a clad coin are composed of a 75% copper, 25% nickel alloy. This alloy interacts with chemicals in the ground and other environments and forms chemical compounds on the surface, darkening and/or developing bluish green corrosion in this way. I have observed this on both clad coins like this and on nickels, which are composed of the same copper nickel alloy in their entirety, that have been dug from the ground. I don't think that @Mike Meenderink 's explanation is accurate and request that he refer us to a reliable source for this explanation.

1852 Liberty quarter eagle, currently uncertified, my grade Choice AU:

@CIII--Actually, I thought the 1914-D was a quarter eagle because it looked so small. (That's why I don't post photos of slabs.) However, @Idhair has established "gold is wild", meaning that a gold coin can be followed by a photo of any other gold coin.

The grading service population reports can't really provide guidance as to how rare or common a coin like this is. Many coins as common as BU war nickels aren't submitted in the first place but are kept in albums like mine or other holders. Others are submitted multiple times and each submission recorded in the report. Very few circulated examples are submitted. Even at ANACS, the submitter must choose to pay an additional fee to have a variety attributed, so the plain "1944-S" listing could include a number of pieces with the "reverse die break". A "reverse die break" isn't really a specific die variety at any rate, as a number of different dies could have developed similar die breaks.

I think that an example of this subject is exemplified by the following topic that I posted last May:

NGC generally doesn't attribute coins with die cracks as either die varieties or mint errors. Die varieties that NGC will attribute are listed on VarietyPlus. See Jefferson Five Cents (1938-Date) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). A coin where the crack had developed into a "cud" with part of the die broken out might be attributed as a mint error. On earlier (mainly pre-1837) U.S. coins, the development and progression of die cracks are one of the factors used to classify different "die states" of specific die varieties.

Yes, the 1979-S proof half dollar features the "Type 1" "S" mintmark from a worn punch that had been used for many years. The depression around the mintmark that I assume you are referring to as a "box" was created by metal on the die being displaced by the punch and raised on the die so that it appears as a depression on the coin. Check each coin in the set, as some 1979 proof sets had "Type 1" mintmarks on some coins and "Type 2" mintmarks on others.

1911 Indian head quarter eagle, NGC graded MS 63: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

1867 Shield nickels with rays, PCGS graded MS 63: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

1926-S Oregon Trail Commemorative half dollar, PCGS graded MS 64:

The two 2015-P dimes, which apparently came from the same obverse die, appear to have been struck through foreign matter that adhered to the die, sometimes generically referred to as "grease". Such an anomaly is also sometimes referred to as a "filled die". See generally https://www.error-ref.com/?s=struck+through. This is a longstanding and common issue. I posted a topic about such an issue concerning several 1856 large cents from the same dies. See 1856 Large Cent Mystery - US, World, and Ancient Coins - NGC Coin Collectors Chat Boards. These "strikethroughs" or "filled dies" are usually of little or no interest to serious error collectors and generally command no or at most a small premium. There may be exceptions for extreme or spectacular cases. The two 1983-P dimes are simply slightly weak strikes that may be due to die wear, slightly misaligned dies or other causes. There is nothing "weird" about the mint marks that I can see. They seem normal for the small "P" punch that was used at that time. I would spend these dimes. Be careful not to confuse minor errors or quality control issues like the "strikethrough" or "filled die" on the 2015-P dimes with significant mint errors sought by serious collectors. An introduction to and basic listing of such significant types of errors are provided in "Appendix A" to the Redbook (pp. 440-443 of the 2023 edition). Such errors are very rarely found in pocket change. Most are likely intercepted at counting houses or by bank tellers and sold to coin dealers before entering circulation. The "Redbook" indicates that since 2002 procedures instituted at the mint have prevented most types of these errors from even leaving the mint. I have been collecting coins and checking change for nearly 53 years. During that time the only mint errors of any significance I have found are a blank cent planchet and two broadstruck quarters, each worth no more than a few dollars each. I only know of one significant error found in circulation, a struck Lincoln cent that had been overstruck by Jefferson nickel dies that a member of my coin club received in change at a supermarket a few years ago. It has been certified by NGC and is probably worth several hundred dollars. Such finds are at best a once in a lifetime event.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Please post cropped photos of each full side of the coin. The closeup you posted is somewhat blurry, but the shallow secondary image on the left facing side of the "E" appears to be strike doubling, a.k.a. machine or mechanical doubling. Die doubling would be crisper and deeper and should have "notches" between the images. Compare it with these VarietyPlus photos of the 2009-D Duke Ellington DDR quarter, one of the few significant doubled dies made since the mint adopted the "single squeeze" method of die making in 1996: