Sandon

Here is a photo of a 1983 cent, courtesy of the NGC Coin Explorer: Your coin has been mutilated, likely from having been run over by motor vehicles, and the date and other features that might have identified it are severely damaged, but from what can be seen, what is left of your coin's date doesn't seem to match. The "9" appears to be too closed and pointed at the inner curve, and the "3", assuming that that is what it is, looks too high. The date appears to be of a thicker style from before the 1982 "small date" master die, also used in 1983, was adopted. Unfortunately, the lettering and other features that might have aided in identification look too badly damaged to tell for sure. Given that many billions of "copper" (technically brass or bronze) Memorial Reverse Lincoln cents with an official weight of 3.11 grams were minted from 1959 to 1982, the odds are extremely high that this coin is not a 1983 struck on a leftover brass planchet but is a coin of some other date. I highly doubt that any reputable grading service would certify it as such or that any knowledgeable collector would value it as such. What you believe it to be is up to you.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Please post full photos of both sides of a coin about which you have questions. Based on what I can see, your coin doesn't exhibit any anomaly of sufficient significance to be classified as a mint error. The "E" in "E PLURIBUS UNUM" appears to have been flattened by a nick or scrape. The designer's initials "FG" (for Frank Gasparro) are weak or missing due to a weak strike or a filled die, but this is generally considered to be a quality control issue, not a mint error. Such coins are sometimes offered for a small premium and collected as a novelty.

1869-S Seated Liberty quarter in old small ANACS holder graded "EF details, cleaned & scratched, net VF 20". A scarce issue:

1951-S Lincoln cent, PCGS graded MS 66 RD:

Welcome to the NGC chat board. As the "NGC Registry" forum is for topics relating to the certified coin registry, this topic would probably have best been posted in the "U.S., World, and Ancient Coins" forum. You should probably consult with a lawyer before taking other action regarding this dealer's alleged misconduct. If it appears that his actions constituted a crime, this matter, may, of course, be referred to the local authorities. You could also report the matter if it may be a crime to the Numismatic Crime Information Center, Numismatic Crime Information Center – Targeting Numismatic Crimes Around the World. If the dealer is a member of the American Numismatic Association (money.org) or the Professional Numismatists Guild (pngdealers.org), you may wish to check out the grievance and arbitration procedures offered by those organizations.

Welcome to the NGC Chat Board. You appear to have a legitimate error coin--an unusual occurrence on these forums--that was not only struck well off center but also misstruck on the other side, perhaps by being struck over a previously struck piece in the coinage chamber. (Take another look, @Mike Meenderink .) It is clearly a coin from the Philippines when it was under U.S. sovereignty. If it is a 50-centavo piece struck after 1906, the diameter should be 27 mm. It looks a bit small. Another possibility would be a 20-centavos dated from 1903-06, which would be 23 mm. In addition to obtaining additional responses on this forum, you may want to post this for additional opinions on the CONECA forum at https://board.conecaonline.org/forum (free registration required) and/or show it to Jon Sullivan, a respected errors dealer, at https://sullivannumismatics.com/contact-us/. It would be difficult for me to place a value on this piece, as no two error pieces are alike. A piece featuring two different errors could command more of a premium than just an off-center strike. Mr. Sullivan should have some idea of its value.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Your 1982-D Lincoln cent is a large date. See the following infographic to tell the difference between the large and small dates: Note especially the difference in distance between the "2" and the rim and the difference in size of the upper loop of the "8". If you're trying to find a 1982-D small date "copper", please note that only two are known. You would probably have a better chance of winning a major lottery prize than finding another one.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Your 1983-P quarter does not exhibit any mint error. It has both circulation wear (Extremely Fine or so condition) and has numerous nicks and scratches from contact with other coins and objects. It was likely struck from worn dies, as many of this issue were, which explains the flatness and blurriness of some of the letters. I can see nothing unusual beneath "IN GOD WE TRUST" or the "19" of the date. Although quarters and some coins from 1983 (and 1982) are worth a nice premium in or close to uncirculated grades because the mint did not sell uncirculated coin sets in those years, a 1983-P quarter with this much wear and damage is still only worth face value. If you save any coins from your accumulation of change, it should be those that appear to have been taken from fresh, uncirculated rolls, not worn, beat up pieces like this. It is extremely unusual to find any significant error coin in change; I've never found one in 53 years as a collector, and I only know of one other collector who ever has. Moreover, mint errors are an advanced topic requiring more basic knowledge about U.S. coins, such as types, dates, mints, major varieties, grading and especially how coins are manufactured. Please see the following forum topics for legitimate print and online resources from which you may obtain such knowledge: Your education should also include attendance at such venues as coin shows and coin club meetings, where you can examine a variety of coins and speak with experienced collectors and dealers.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Your coin is a 1960-D (Denver mint) Jefferson nickel, which had an original mintage of 192,582,180 pieces. It is worn down to Fine condition, with surface damage. It has no collector value in this condition and is still worth its face value of five cents.

I don't recall seeing "DDO" in the title when I wrote my initial response. I see no doubling of any type on this coin, but the poor resolution of the photos would likely preclude seeing all but a major doubled die. If you're thinking of the well-known 1955 doubled die obverse cent listed in major references, yours couldn't be one of them because it is a 1955-D (Denver mint), not a 1955 (Philadelphia mint). The 1955 doubled die obverse cent looks like this (NGC Coin Explorer Photo):

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Please try to obtain closer shots or better resolution for your photos and crop them like this: This appears to be a normal, well-circulated (Very Fine obverse, Fine reverse) 1955-D (not 1955) Lincoln cent, with a retail value of five cents. Dealers trade circulated common date wheat reverse cents like this in bulk (hundreds or thousands of pieces at a time) for a few cents each. Based on the photos, the dark areas on the coin appear to be stains or corrosion.

I agree that in its usual context the term "cleaning" refers to the removal of dirt rather than to abrasive or chemical alterations of a surface. Unfortunately, that is not how it is used by grading services or generally by the numismatic "industry". I'm simply trying to teach those who read these forums the terminology in common use, so that we can all understand each other. If it were up to me, I would not refer to abrasive or chemical damage to a coin as "cleaning" nor to the use of solvents to remove surface dirt or other contamination as "conservation". Nor, for that matter, would I use numbers to grade coins or have eleven or more grades for "mint state" and proof coins based on multiple subjective factors. It's not up to me or to the OP to make such decisions alone. Unfortunately, we need to distinguish between generally accepted practices and personal opinions and preferences. The latter are worth expressing in the hope that they may result in positive change, but the former must be understood to carry on a meaningful dialog in the first place.

The 1944-D "hand cut 'AW'" half dollar is a die variety for this particular issue that resulted from the designer's initials being strengthened in the die, so all of the coins struck from the die had this feature. It is not post-mint damage to a specific coin. NGC VarietyPlus describes the variety as follows: 1944 D HAND CUT "AW" 50C MS Cross Reference Fivaz-Stanton (NEW): FS-901 Diagnostics A worn reverse die on which the designer's monogram had been lost through erosion or polishing was crudely repaired with hand engraved letters. Comments This sort of repair is rather common on proof dies but is seldom seen on dies for circulating coins. Apparently, only the 1944-D issue is known with this feature. The "No AW", which is known on a few different issues, resulted from overpolished dies that were not strengthened to restore the initials. See Walking Liberty Half Dollars (1916-1947) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com).

Welcome to the NGC chat board. The Administrator will probably move it to a more appropriate forum next week. Your coin is an 1847 Braided Hair large cent in approximately Fine grade, with a retail value of $30 to $40. A dealer might pay about $20 for it. In the future, please use photos that show the coin in an upright position and that are cropped to eliminate the surface on which the coin lies.

I have only two holed coins in my collection, one being the rare 1795 "3 leaf" half dollar (O-111) about which I wrote a topic a while back. See HOL(E)Y THREE LEAVES! - US, World, and Ancient Coins - NGC Coin Collectors Chat Boards. The other is an 1865-S half dime with AU details for which I recall paying $2 as a teenager back in the 1970s. These are also quite difficult to find in any decent grade. I had a few others as a young collector but sold them for very little long ago. A hole is obviously a severe impairment, and a holed coin, in my opinion, should only be worth a fraction (well under half) of an unimpaired example with equivalent detail. The "investor" and "connoisseur" sorts of collectors are unlikely to consider holed coins. In my opinion, they are only worthwhile as "fillers" for coins one couldn't otherwise find or afford, such as my "holey" three leaf Flowing Hair half dollar.

This 2020 Silver Eagle exhibits strike doubling, also known as machine doubling or mechanical doubling and was not struck from a doubled die. See Double Dies vs. Machine Doubling | NGC (ngccoin.com). Its value is insufficient to warrant submission to a third-party grading service, and it would not be attributable by such a service as a die variety. There have been few significant doubled die varieties found on U.S. coins dated after 1996 due to the adoption of the "single squeeze" method of die manufacture. NGC VarietyPlus does not recognize any doubled die varieties for Silver Eagles, and the only variety that NGC attributes for that series is the 2008-W burnished uncirculated issue with the "Reverse of 2007." See Silver Eagles (1986-Date) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com).

1942-P proof wartime Jefferson five-cent piece, PCGS graded PR 66+. Proofs of this series aren't designated "FS", but if any truly has six full steps, this one does: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

I can only tell you what my actual experience was. The coin in question was a red and brown proof 1942 cent that I had won as a coin club prize some years ago. The coin had some PVC residue but, I am sure, no hairlines. I used Harco "Blue Ribbon", which was at one time a widely used PVC remover but which is no longer available because, I understand, its active ingredient, 1,1,1-trichloriethane, was banned by the EPA. The product was a liquid that also contained a lubricant and was to be applied by a soft cloth or cotton swab, and I used the latter. As I lightly rubbed the coin with a swab that had been immersed in the product, I noticed hairline scratches appearing in the fields only where and on the angle that I was rubbing. These hairlines remained after I had patted as much as I could of the product off the coin. Based on this experience, I am reluctant to rub a coin with anything, no matter how soft or wet, especially a coin with delicate surfaces.

I'm not an expert on ancient coinage, and hopefully some of the members who are more knowledgeable in this area will respond. However, the coppery color and grainy surfaces of this piece are good indicators that it is one of multitudes of replicas (fakes) made for sale as inexpensive souvenirs. A genuine tetradrachm of Alexander the Great would have sold for a lot more than $8.50 even thirty years ago.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. This is a uniface (one-sided) replica (fake), but not of a U.S. mint issued double eagle. It is modeled after the obverse of an 1854 Kellogg & Co. $20 gold piece, one of a number of issues by private assayers that operated in California during the Gold Rush era before the San Francisco mint was able to supply the demand for coinage. See 1854 KELLOGG & CO. $20 MS | Coin Explorer | NGC (ngccoin.com) for images of genuine pieces.

You might want to try uploading the photos again. This could be time consuming but might resolve the problem.

The NGC Registry forum is for topics directly related to the NGC Registry. This topic would receive better attention if posted in the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum or the "U.S., World and Ancient Coins" forum. The Administrator will likely move it after the holiday. The 2023 "Extra V" Lincoln cent would be classified as a die variety because it resulted from a characteristic of the obverse die and presumably would appear on each one of the perhaps several hundred thousand coins struck from that die. Doubled dies are classified as die varieties for the same reason. The term "mint error" is used for coins with significant anomalies that occurred during the production of the specific coin, no two of which are exactly alike. See Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com).

This is definitely not die doubling. It is most likely die deterioration doubling. Please see the following to learn about the differences between a coin struck from a doubled die and other types of doubling on coins that don't have collector value: https://www.doubleddie.com/144801.html. and links therein, especially the one on die deterioration doubling Double Dies vs. Machine Doubling | NGC (ngccoin.com) (Machine doubling, a.k.a. strike or mechanical doubling, is the most commonly seen form of "worthless" doubling.)

First of all, unless you want someone to steal your or your relatives' identities, I would definitely use the "Edit" function to remove the image of the estimated tax voucher. This is the third topic on which you have maintained that your circulated, damaged 1982-D small date zinc cent is something special notwithstanding the opinions to the contrary from PCGS, NGC and members of these forums. After at first insisting that you had discovered the third known 1982-D small date bronze cent notwithstanding that the coin's weight was below the tolerance for brass (95% copper) cents, you now claim it's something special because an XRF scan--which we have pointed out analyzes only the coin's surface, not its core--shows a 34% zinc composition. The coin clearly wasn't struck on a leftover 95% copper planchet or any other wrong planchet intended for some other issue of coin, which is what serious collectors would consider a significant and potentially valuable item. You admit to having intentionally scratched the coin, which likely exposed the zinc core in the area of the scratches and affected the results of the scan. The coin could have also received "brassy", instead of pure copper plating, as happens sometimes, especially in the earlier years of copper plated zinc cents. See https://www.error-ref.com/brassy-plating/. "Brassy plating" is considered by some a mint error, but it isn't widely sought after or valuable. See brass coins error or not. - Newbie Coin Collecting Questions - NGC Coin Collectors Chat Boards. It only appears to be of interest in uncirculated condition with its original, yellowish color, not as a brown, damaged circulated coin. As we have previously pointed out, your 1990 cent exhibits strike doubling, not die doubling. As I recall, I have previously provided links to resources that explain and illustrate the difference. "What it takes" is for you to take the time and make the effort to actually learn about coins and become experienced in evaluating them. It would also help for you to listen to what more experienced collectors--as well as two major third-party grading services--are trying to tell you.

I have seen a thoroughly moistened cotton swab leave hairline scratches on a proof coin even if lightly applied. I don't recommend it for any piece of significant value. The use of acetone, a solvent that dissolves or loosens surface dirt or other contamination from a coin isn't what is commonly referred as "cleaning", all of which is improper. In the numismatic context, "cleaning" refers to any abrasive or chemical process that physically or chemically changes the coin's surface as opposed to something like acetone that removes contaminants that haven't chemically bonded with the coin metal and become part of the coin itself.