Sandon

I agree. Based on what I can see, I agree that the circular defect is likely post-mint damage. See if your photo software has a function by which you can resize the file size of the full images so that you can post them.

It is better to start a new topic when you post coins other than the one referred to in the topic title. Whatever its origin may have been, the 1847 Liberty Seated half dime has been severely worn, damaged, scratched, and "cleaned". The claim of origin is probably unverifiable. It shows no evidence of having been any sort of special striking. It is worth only a few dollars in this condition. FYI, here is what a coin of this type looks like in uncirculated condition, this one an 1844 that NGC graded MS 63: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

Significant rotated dies aren't that unusual on earlier U.S. coins. Although a medallic--or nearly medallic like your coin's--rotation would be of interest to some collectors, I've never heard of them commanding much of a premium. They're considered more of a curiosity than a "rare error coin".

Indian cents, 1859 (uncertified with XF-AU details) and 1909-S, now NGC certified XF 40.

I would need better photos to tell for sure, but it appears that this is an 1854 large cent on which the last digit has been partially effaced by scraping or other damage. (The coin has Very Fine details but has been "cleaned" or polished.) Please take clearer photos that are cropped to show to the greatest extent possible the coin and not the surface that surrounds it. It might also be helpful to remove the coin from the 2x2 holder before photographing it, removing the staples first so that they do not scratch the coin. FYI, here is an NGC photo of the obverse of an 1854 large cent that should enable you to see why your coin also appears to be an 1854:

This color designation is part of the grade of copper and certain copper alloy coins and is based upon their appearance, not their composition. The "Red Gold" designation you want would have to be based on the determination of the specific alloy used, which is part of the identifying description of the issue of the coin itself, not its grade.

1982 "no P" Roosevelt dime, PCGS graded MS 65:

Actually, the NGC Price Guide lists the 2015 silver eagle with a label proclaiming it to have been struck in Philadelphia at $650 in MS 69 and $1,500 in MS 70, still ridiculous prices to pay for that label and a coin that is indistinguishable from any of the 47 million pieces struck. Silver Eagles (1986-Date) | Price Guide & Values | NGC (ngccoin.com). An advertiser on some website such as eBay or Etsy can ask for any price. It doesn't mean that anyone was actually misinformed enough to pay it.

Although mintmarks were hand punched into dies until about 1992, dates were included in the master dies for each year after about 1908. That's why you don't see repunched dates or different date positions after that time. The extremely common low end uncirculated 1958-D cent posted isn't worth any premium due to the mint mark position. Its value is about 25 cents.

The strike suggests to me that the coin is a proof striking. Does it have a shiny surface at other lighting angles? The "tint" is likely just toning.

Your judgment should be based on facts and reason, not feelings. Encasing these coins in bulky plastic holders won't increase their value and will make them unacceptable to the numerous collectors who still prefer to collect such lower value coins in albums. The lowest grading fee at NGC for any of the coins you have shown would be $23, and, assuming that you already have a paid membership affording you submission privileges, each order would also involve a $10 per order processing fee, minimum $28 return shipping fee and your cost of shipping them to NGC. You have shown nothing so far that appears to be worth such cost. Wouldn't your money be better spent on books and subscriptions from which you could learn how to evaluate coins yourself or, if you prefer, on coins that have already been certified in higher grades?

This 1937-D (common date) Buffalo nickel appears to have uncirculated details but has obverse discoloration or staining that might preclude a numerical grade. If it received a "straight" grade, it would likely be MS 60 or so and worth about $20 retail. The NGC "Economy" tier grading fee alone would be $23.

This 1982-S Lincoln cent, like all other "S" mint cents since 1975, is a proof striking with mirrorlike fields and frosted devices issued in a proof set sold directly by the U.S. mint to collectors. It has developed some hazy toning and, unfortunately, appears to have been scratched, which makes it undesirable to collectors. I see nothing unusual about the letters in "ONE CENT".

Every coin you want to collect is "worth getting graded"--by you, once you have the necessary knowledge and skills. Without such knowledge, you cannot determine whether the coin would likely have sufficient value to send to a third-party grading service, which is what you really mean. Individual coins with values of less than at least several hundred dollars aren't worth the cost. Coins that have little are no wear are very difficult to grade from photos alone. They require in-person examination at different angles and magnifications before one of the now twenty or so numerical grades from AU 55 through MS 70, including "plus" grades, could even be estimated. We can only give you a rough idea of their grades. For example, the 1947 Walking Liberty half dollar, an example of which you show, has retail list values on the NGC Price Guide in uncirculated grades running from $35 in MS 60 to $33,500 for the finest graded MS 68. Walking Liberty Half Dollars (1916-1947) | Price Guide & Values | NGC (ngccoin.com) (From what I can see, your coin probably doesn't grade higher than MS 63.) Please refer to the resources in the forum topics linked in my reply to your previous topic. You should obtain a copy of a print grading guide or at least refer to PCGS Photograde online. Do the holders of the Walking Liberty half dollars that were "labeled DDO/DDR" identify a known doubled die by variety reference number? If not, the person who so labeled them was ignorant or dishonest regarding variety attribution. NGC will only attribute varieties listed on VarietyPlus, and there are none listed for 1941-D or 1947 Walking Liberty half dollars. Walking Liberty Half Dollars (1916-1947) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com).

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Bullion version American Silver Eagles, which have no mint mark, may have been made at different mints in some years but are not distinguishable from each other. Grading services have certified pieces as having been coined at specific mints based solely upon the coins having been submitted in sealed mint boxes that indicate the mint of manufacture. Those who--foolishly in my opinion--pay premiums for such pieces are relying upon the grading service's certification of the coin's origin. They are collecting the little paper tag in the grading service holder, not the coin itself.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. I agree that your purported 1894 Morgan dollar--a "key" date worth over a thousand dollars if genuine--is very likely a counterfeit. Some counterfeits are deceptive and require expertise or special equipment to detect. Others, like this one, are obvious to anyone who knows what the genuine coins look like. Before you try to collect in an advanced area such as die varieties of a specific series, you must learn more basic topics including coin types, dates and mints, grading, and basic authentication. We have an old saying, "buy the book before the coin"! Nowadays, some of your study can be done online. Here are some forum topics that will refer you to reliable print and online resources on these matters: Your study should also involve attendance at such venues as coin shows and coin club meetings, where you can see a variety of coins and speak with knowledgeable collectors and dealers.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. If you want to collect coins--much less "invest" in them--you need to learn about them. The collection of mint errors and die varieties have traditionally been the specialty of certain advanced collectors who had mastered more basic areas such as coin types, dates and mints, major varieties, grading, basic authentication, and how coins are made. (The terms "DDO", "DDR" and "FS" refer to die varieties, not mint errors. See Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com)) We have an old saying, "buy the book before the coin"! Nowadays, some of your study can be done online. Here are some forum topics that will refer you to reliable print and online resources on these matters: Your study should also involve attendance at such venues as coin shows and coin club meetings, where you can see a variety of coins and speak with knowledgeable collectors and dealers. With regard to the coins you have previously posted, the 1963 Washington quarter is a very common date. It appears to be in About Uncirculated condition and would generally only be worth its silver value, currently about $4.50. The coin appears to have shelf-like doubling on some of the reverse lettering, which is likely strike doubling a.k.a. machine or mechanical doubling, which is very common and has no collector value. See Double Dies vs. Machine Doubling | NGC (ngccoin.com). (Better photos might help.) It is not a match for the one DDR (doubled die reverse) variety shown on NGC VarietyPlus, which lists the die varieties that NGC considers sufficiently significant to attribute. See Washington Quarters (1932-1998) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). The 1950-S quarter appears to be in a low to mid-uncirculated grade, in which it would have a retail (dealer sell) value of $10-$15. There appears to be a depression in the field in front of Washington's eye, which is likely a "strikethrough" of some foreign object or substance on the die or planchet (blank), or perhaps a flaw in the planchet. Both of these phenomena are regarded as minor mint errors for which knowledgeable collectors will pay little or no premium. The 1991 Lincoln cent features a relatively common mint error called a "broadstrike" that results from the metal ring or "collar" that normally surrounds the planchet during striking not being present or having slipped. The 2023 "Redbook" lists a copper coated zinc cent broadstrike having a retail value of $8.

Here for comparison are photos of a 1960-D small date cent: Note particularly the more closed "9", the shorter, more curved top of the "6" and the smaller "0".

1925 Lexington-Concord Sesquicentennial commemorative half dollar, NGC graded MS 64:

Purchased uncertified as Extremely Fine at a March 2002 coin show, this semi-key date 1879-CC has a slightly glossy darkish color and light hairlining in the fields that NGC not unexpectedly interpreted as evidence of "cleaning" when I submitted it for certification last month. It also has some rim damage. However, now graded XF Details, Cleaned, it remains in my opinion a decent circulated example of this now rather expensive issue.

The remaining two better date Morgan dollars in my recent submission to NGC were designated "cleaned", but this was not entirely unexpected. This 1901-S came uncertified from a June 2001 local coin auction. I regarded it as low mint state, about MS 61, with a slide mark on Liberty's cheek. NGC graded it Uncirculated Details, Cleaned. The coin isn't extensively hairlined but has some hairlines on Liberty's face and a somewhat "washed out" appearance, probably from being dipped. The NGC staff apparently thought the color wasn't natural, but I know I've seen "S" mint Morgan dollars from the 1900-02 era with this look that were numerically graded.

1921 Alabama commemorative half dollar, NGC graded MS 64: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

Per the Coin World Almanac, the official weight of a Jefferson nickel is 5 grams, with a tolerance of plus or minus 0.194 grams. This means that an uncirculated nickel could weigh as little as 4.806 grams and as much as 5.194 grams. Your 1970-S nickel is well within the legal tolerance.

I've seen this effect on many "D" mint earlier date copper plated zinc cents. It is a plating defect and doesn't command a premium among knowledgeable collectors.

I'm hoping that the competition from CAC Grading will deter the other major services from raising their prices. Presently, CAC Grading's rates are slightly lower than NGC's or PCGS's, although those of us who aren't already CAC members can't submit directly. https://www.cacgrading.com/pricing. Historically, large submitters (dealers) have been perceived as at least tacitly pressuring grading services toward looser, not tighter, grading standards. If such large submitters believe that coins that they submit will regularly grade lower at CAC than at NGC or PCGS, will they still submit them to CAC? I doubt that most experienced collectors would be willing to pay a premium over retail list prices for a CAC graded coin in a given grade merely because of the holder it is in. They will only do so if they actually perceive the coin as pleasing for the grade. I haven't found most of the CAC stickered coins I've seen to be appreciably nicer than non-stickered examples certified by the same services in the same grades, and I'd rather find a coin I find accurately graded and attractive that isn't stickered or holdered by CAC than pay a premium for a CAC stickered or holdered coin in the same grade.