Sandon

1883-O Morgan dollar, PCGS graded MS 66:

2022 "mint" sets all have four crimped spots in the plastic around each coin that make it appear that the coins themselves have edge damage. You have to look closely to realize that the coins themselves are usually unaffected. There were many complaints about this last year. Fortunately, the 2023 sets don't have these crimps. The OP previously posted this same question and photo in the NGC Registry forum, and I advised her that such questions should be posted here My answer there follows: Based on your photo, which I viewed at its maximum magnification, I assume that you are referring to the shiny outlines around the fingers of Otero-Warren's clasped hands. I observed the same shiny outlines on both the "P" and "D" mint coins in my own 2022 "mint set". It appears to be just the reflection of light from these more highly polished areas of the dies, which would be raised on the dies rather than recessed as on the coins struck from them. This would not be considered an "error" or, more correctly for a characteristic of all coins struck from a given die pair, a die variety. See Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com). If you're seeing some other characteristic of the coin that you believe to be out of the ordinary, please provide better photos.

The most common Carson City ("CC") Morgan dollars are those dated 1882, 1883, and especially 1884, a majority of whose original mintages were still in U.S. Treasury vaults in uncirculated condition when the government stopped paying out silver dollars at face value in 1964. These coins, along with some better dates, were sold in a series of government sales between 1972 and 1980. You can buy a nice BU example (MS 63-64) of these dates for $325-$400, either in the government issued box or in a grading service holder. I recommend avoiding buying coins on eBay, except from sellers who are otherwise established, reputable coin dealers, such as those who are members of the Professional Numismatists Guild. Actually, there are no "rare" Morgan dollars by date and mint, at least in the sense that some other coins of which only a few pieces exist are considered rare. Even the scarcest dates, such as the 1889-CC, 1893-S, and 1894, have many thousands of pieces certified by grading services. They are just very popular and have heavy demand, resulting in high prices. Certain issues could be called legitimately rare in higher uncirculated grades, however.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Please note that the "NGC Registry" forum is for questions pertaining to the NGC Registry. Your topic would receive better attention if posted in the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum. The Administrator may move it there. Based on your photo, which I viewed at its maximum magnification, I assume that you are referring to the shiny outlines around the fingers of Otero-Warren's clasped hands. I observed the same shiny outlines on both the "P" and "D" mint coins in my own 2022 "mint set". It appears to be just the reflection of light from these more highly polished areas of the dies, which would be raised on the dies rather than recessed as on the coins struck from them. This would not be considered an "error" or, more correctly for a characteristic of all coins struck from a given die pair, a die variety. See Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com). If you're seeing some other characteristic of the coin that you believe to be out of the ordinary, please provide better photos.

I'm glad to learn of this! It would be a gross conflict of interest for a grading service to buy and sell coins, especially ones that that service had graded.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. The 1878-CC Morgan dollar in your photos appears to be genuine. The weight you report is near its statutory weight of 26.73 grams and within the legal tolerance of 0.097 gram. The coin has Extremely Fine to About Uncirculated details but has heavy marks on Liberty's face as well as rim damage. It also has hairlines that are sufficiently extensive that a grading service would likely describe it as "cleaned". The photos show it being improperly handled; a coin with collector value should never be touched with bare hands, except, if necessary, by its edges. I would give the coin a net grade of Very Fine, which has a retail list value in both the NGC Price Guide and Coin World of $200. I'm not sure how this price converts into euros, but I would probably "pass" on this offer and look for an unimpaired example of this popular but not particularly rare date and mint. If you wanted this coin as an example of a Morgan dollar rather than for its date and mint, you should probably look for one of the dates that is common in mid-level uncirculated grades like MS 64 (Choice to Very Choice Brilliant Uncirculated), which have current retail list values of $125 to $150 and might be available for less. "S" mint dates from 1879 to 1882 are in this category and tend to be particularly nice looking in this condition.

Please note that the "NGC Registry" forum is for topics related to the NGC Registry. Topics such as this one will receive better attention if posted in the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum or the "U.S., World and Ancient Coins forum. You should also post photos of both sides of a coin about which you have a question. (I'll explain why that is especially true for the coin you posted here.) Actual filled mintmarks may result from die chips, foreign matter on the die, or worn mintmark punches. They are generally worth little or no premium. A coin may also appear to have a filled mintmark due to damage or wear. The Morgan dollar whose reverse photo you posted has been harshly "cleaned" as well as circulated, which may have affected the appearance of the mintmark. Based on the "oval O" mintmark style, its date should be from 1879 to 1884 or possibly 1888 or 1889. Photos of the obverse or at least identification of the date would help in determining whether it is a known die variety listed in the VAM reference that had a filled mintmark.

I've seen threads go "off-topic" before but never like this! Why not continue the discussion in a "Star Trek" or "Advanced Physics" topic in the "Water Cooler" forum?

How is NGC "cheating" you if you overvalued the coin? Should they overgrade the coin to make its retail list value equivalent to your valuation, so that the person who buys it from you is cheated instead? You are paying a third-party grading service for its personnels' purportedly unbiased opinion as to the authenticity and grade of the coins that you submit. Grading, especially of unworn coins, is particularly subjective. If they were to reduce the fee otherwise you agreed to pay for giving the coin a lower grade than you expected, this would at least potentially create a conflict of interest in the form of an incentive to overgrade. The tier pricing system creates some risk of such a conflict in itself, but the alternative would be a flat fee system of likely $50 or more per coin, which would make it unfeasible to submit many lower value coins that--for whatever reason--many collectors want to submit. If NGC does find that you submitted a coin under the "Standard" tier deserves a grade with a market value of, say, $5,000, would it really be unfair for you to pay the $80 "Express" tier grading fee? If your coins are a "borderline" case that could grade in either of two tiers, I, too, would choose the lower tier. I would not submit coins that I know should grade well within the "Express" tier in the "Standard" tier. There is always a risk of loss, especially these days by delivery services, and you won't be able to claim an amount greater than your declared value. There is also the at least hypothetical risk that you will get only what you paid for. Unless your coins clearly have some sort of residue or surface contaminants that, unlike corrosion or damage, could possibly be removed through "conservation", I would not submit them with a request for NCS Conservation. "If NCS believes that conservation will not benefit a coin submitted . . ., it will be transferred to NGC for grading and a $5 per coin NCS evaluation fee will apply." NCS Conservation Services and Fees | NGC (ngccoin.com). I have never requested conservation, but NGC contacted me about my first submission to inform me that one of my coins should be "conserved" to remove "residue"; otherwise, it would not be graded. The coin, a 1913 Variety One Buffalo nickel, had some spots but also had rainbow peripheral toning of the sort that some collectors find highly desirable. I was curious and authorized them to proceed. The result was that the spots were replaced by pits, the toning was much paler, and the coin was graded "Uncirculated Details, Cleaned." I had spent more on "conservation" and grading than the coin had cost me in the first place.

Only NGC could answer this question. The NGCX FAQ page has the following response to it: "NGCX coins are not currently eligible for the NGC Registry. But don't worry – NGC will develop a platform for collectors of NGCX-certified coins to organize and display their collections." NGCX - A New 10-Point Grading Scale for Coins | NGC (ngccoin.com). I think that it has said this since NGCX was announced, and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for NGC to develop this platform, which may be separate from the NGC Registry and only for NGCX graded coins. It doesn't appear that NGCX has been widely accepted, and it likely never will be, which is probably why coins in NGCX holders are selling for less than those in holders using the 1 to 70 scale grades approved by the American Numismatic Association and used by all other grading services and most dealers and collectors. If you want to include your certified coins on the NGC Registry, don't buy them in NGCX holders.

The 1990-S "no S" proof cent was a modern proof striking with mirrorlike fields and frosted devices and lettering that creates a "cameo" contrast, as on this 2000-S proof cent: The 1990 cent that you found in circulation is in About Uncirculated condition and if struck as a proof should retain at least some of its mirror surfaces and frosted devices. It has none. It can't possibly have been struck as a proof. Moreover, the estimated 3,555 proof cents that the mint erroneously struck in 1990 without the "S" mintmark would have been included in 1990 proof sets (regular and Prestige) that were issued in hard plastic cases and sold to collectors. (One source--the 7th edition Expanded Deluxe Edition or "Mega Red" Redbook at p. 290, note x, indicates that no more than 250 of these sets actually left the mint.) To my knowledge, 1990 "no S" proof cents have only been found in such sets, not among circulating coins. These estimated 3,555 coins were out of a total proof production of 3,299,599 proof cents dated 1990, so even if all of them had left the mint only one out of about a thousand 1990 proof sets could have contained a "no S" cent. Although low value proof coins that were removed from proof sets are occasionally spent and found in circulation, what are the odds that someone would have spent a 1990 "no S" proof cent worth several thousand dollars and that you would be the person lucky enough to find it? In contrast, the Philadelphia mint struck over 4.9 billion 1990 cents without mintmarks for circulation. The coin in your photos is one of them.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. I agree with what @powermad5000 wrote, except I think that your photos show "strike doubling", a.k.a. machine or mechanical doubling rather than die erosion (deterioration) doubling. See Double Dies vs. Machine Doubling | NGC (ngccoin.com). In either case, such forms of doubling are not worth any premium to knowledgeable collectors. Minor doubled dies that would require the level of magnification that you used to discern aren't worth much either. Generally, a die variety that requires more than 5-7x magnification to see won't attract much attention to collectors, and NGC will generally only attribute varieties that are listed on NGC VarietyPlus. See What is a Variety? | NGC (ngccoin.com). I have been collecting coins and checking change for over 52 years and have never found any die variety, mint error, or other coin of any significant value in circulation. I only know one person who ever has, another longtime collector who received an uncirculated Lincoln cent that had been overstruck by Jefferson nickel dies in change at a grocery store--a once in a lifetime event, if ever. You shouldn't need any magnification to recognize such a major mint error, should you ever be so fortunate as to find one. All coins that you want to collect "benefit from grading", not by a third-party grading service, but by you, once you know how. A coin should be worth at least several hundred dollars to be worth the cost of third-party certification, and you would need to grade and otherwise evaluate it yourself before you could make a reasonable decision that it is likely to have such value. Please see the following forum topics for print and online resources from which you may obtain the knowledge you will need to become a successful collector:

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Clash marks as on your 1984 Lincoln cent result from the dies coming together without a planchet (blank) between them. Parts of the design from each die transfer to the other and appear on subsequent coins struck from the die pair. They are interesting but relatively common. (A "mule" is a very rare type of mint error where the obverse of one type of coin is paired with the reverse of another. You won't find any.) You should post questions about different coins as separate topics. Circulated 1943 zinc coated steel cents like those you found are very common and worth about 25 cents each. If you want to collect U.S. coins, you should learn how to identify, grade and otherwise evaluate them yourself. These topics provide information about print and online resources that should help you do so: It is also helpful to attend coin shows and coin club meetings, where you can examine a variety of coins and speak with knowledgeable collectors and dealers. Hopefully, you can find some in your area.

1917 Variety One Standing Liberty Quarter, NGC graded MS 64FH:

Actually, he's Roger W. Burdette, a well-known numismatic researcher and author whom the American Numismatic Association awarded this year's "Numismatist of the Year" award. See Roger Burdette: The Numismatist of the Year - US, World, and Ancient Coins - NGC Coin Collectors Chat Boards. Not everyone on the forum agrees with all of his opinions, but I agree with the opinion he stated here.

New collectors and the general public need to understand that nowadays serious collectors prize coins that have original surfaces and avoid those whose surfaces have been damaged by "cleaning". Those who think they should "shine up" their coins are likely destroying much of whatever market value the coins would otherwise have had. I'll repeat what I wrote recently on another thread on the same subject: The term "cleaning" is itself a misnomer because a process that solely removes surface dirt from a coin without affecting the surface of the coin--literal cleaning, such as by using a solvent such as acetone--is not included in this term. Instead, "cleaning" in its negative numismatic context means a variety of chemical and abrasive processes that chemically or physically alter the surface of the coin itself, resulting in an unnatural or unattractive appearance. This includes a number of different appearances, such as the following: 1. Heavy hairlining from abrasive processes such as by scrubbing the coin even with a cloth or rubbing it with a pencil eraser or the like. To the naked eye, this includes an unnatural "whiteness" that appears at different angles as the coin is rotated in the light and an unnatural, unattractive grey color in the abraded areas that is unlike the natural, darker or brownish greys of unimpaired circulated or toned coins. 2. Blotchiness or unnatural brightness, shininess, or dullness from various types of chemical treatments or polishes. To compound the ambiguity, grading services do not treat silver coins that have been carefully "dipped" in anti-tarnish solutions as "cleaned", although such "dipping" may reduce the numerical grade they award the coin. However, coins that have a "washed out" appearance due to being dipped too many times or for too long will likely be deemed to have been "cleaned". (Dipping is unacceptable for copper and apparently copper-nickel coins and will almost certainly result in a "details" grade as "cleaned" or "recolored".) "Cleaned" coins vary in appearance from hideous to fairly attractive depending on the nature and severity of the "cleaning". In my opinion, the more attractive ones are collectible at an appropriate discount. Additionally, even experienced collectors and dealers may disagree over whether a particular coin should be described as "cleaned" and, if so, the severity of the "cleaning". I have a "Custom Set" on the NGC Registry that includes only coins that NGC or PCGS "details" graded as "cleaned" and a few that were numerically graded but that I regard as "cleaned". Characteristics of "Cleaned" Coins - Custom Set (collectors-society.com) Hopefully, the photos and descriptions in this set will provide you with some guidance. However, you will need to examine a number of original and "cleaned" coins in person to really understand the differences. For NGC's explanations, see the following: NCS Conservation: Effects of Improper Cleaning | NGC (ngccoin.com) NGC Details Grading | NGC (ngccoin.com)

I purchased this semi-key date 1895-O Morgan dollar uncertified at a local coin auction in October 2000 as Extremely Fine. Last month NGC awarded it an equivalent grade of XF 40.

1925-D Indian quarter eagle, PCGS graded MS 62:

As the coins you want to submit are gold and you believe them to be worth no more than $3,000, the least expensive tiers in which to submit them would be the "Gold" tier ($35 per coin), which is for all gold coins valued at no more than $3,000; or if the coins are dated 1965 or after, the "Modern" tier ($19 per coin), which is for all such coins valued up to $3,000. See NGC Services and Fees | NGC (ngccoin.com). For Modern (1965 or after) coins, the NCS fee is $12. See NCS Conservation Services and Fees | NGC (ngccoin.com). You should value each coin at its retail list value, such as on the NGC Price Guide, at whatever grade you believe it is most likely to receive. If you don't know enough to determine this, you should either consult with someone who does or refrain from submitting coins to grading services. (You could post photos here, and we could give you some idea of the likely grade range and value.) I highly doubt that NGC or the shipper would automatically pay you the amount you put down on the submission form in the event the coins were lost or destroyed. If NGC had already graded the coins, your reimbursement would likely be based upon their market value at the grades awarded. If they had not yet been graded, you would likely have to prove their probable market value based on such evidence as photos and invoices. I always photograph coins that I submit. If you undervalue a coin, in my experience there is some leeway before NGC bumps the coin to the next tier. I have submitted two coins in the "Economy" ($300 maximum value) tier that NGC gave higher than expected grades in which they were worth about $500 each and had no additional charge. However, I submitted a 1795 half cent with surface roughness that I knew would be "details" graded--I thought VF or at most XF details--under the "Standard" tier, which NGC graded "AU Details, Corroded" and bumped up to the $80 "Express" tier. If you reasonably believe that the coins are worth no more than $3,000 each, you should use whichever of the "Gold" or "Modern" tiers is appropriate.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. This forum is for topics related to the NGC Registry. Your topic would receive better attention on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum or the "U.S., World, and Ancient Coins" forum. The Administrator will likely move it to one of them. I happen to have photos of a 2021-S proof Crossing the Delaware quarter, which appear below. It appears that Washington as depicted has a cuff on his coat and what I assume is a frilly shirt cuff. If you are claiming that your coin is different in some way, please provide pertinent, cropped photos. Whether or not the clothing is historically accurate, if it is depicted this way on all of these coins, including the hundreds of millions struck for circulation at each of the Philadelphia and Denver mints, there would be nothing "special" about it.

1925-S California Diamond Jubilee commemorative half dollar, NGC graded MS 64:

I purchased this 1891-O Morgan dollar uncertified from a June 2000 Goldberg auction, where it was graded MS 63 and noted as having an unusually good strike for an 1891-O, which is notorious for most surviving pieces being poorly struck. This coin is remarkable for having nearly full hair details over Liberty's ear and clear feathers on the eagle's breast. Last month NGC awarded it only an MS 61 grade, likely due to scratches on Liberty's face and a somewhat "dipped" appearance, but I still regard it as a premium piece due to its strike. Interesting "Tidbit": Redeemed and melted Trade dollars provided the source of silver from which many 1891-O Morgan dollars were coined, but it is impossible to determine whether the metal in any particular coin came from that source.

I understand that all "Cheerios cents" are ordinary "close AM" 2000 cents. You should be able to tell which variety your examples are yourself. (I recently bought an uncertified BU 2000 "wide AM" cent at a coin show for $5.) NGC would charge an $18 "VarietyPlus" fee in addition to the $19 Modern tier grading fee per piece to attribute them as "wide AM"s. Lincoln Cents, Memorial Reverse (1959-2008) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). From my perspective, what makes "Cheerios" cents of interest is their original packaging. I don't know why anyone would want a grading service to remove them from this packaging, stripping them of their historical context. I suspect that future generations of collectors will value them more highly in that packaging than in a grading service holder in which they were placed decades later that represents they originated in such packaging. Your 1943-D steel cent appears to have a reverse planchet lamination, a minor mint error. I'm not sure that its surface is original, and if it has been re-plated, NGC will return it unencapsulated as having an "altered surface" while keeping your grading ($23 "Economy" tier) and $18 error attribution fee. (If the edge is shiny rather than dull, it has likely been re-plated.) My 2023 "Redbook" (p. 443) lists a steel cent with a lamination as having a retail value of $15, so why would it be worth spending $41 plus processing and shipping costs to submit it to NGC? If you decide to proceed, I wish you well, but it is highly likely that only NGC will profit from your submission.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Please be advised that the Coin Marketplace forum is for buying or selling coins. If your intent was to offer it for sale, you must comply with the rules stated in the Coin Marketplace Guidelines at Coin Marketplace Guidelines - Coin Marketplace - NGC Coin Collectors Chat Boards. The piece shown in your photos is not a U.S. coin and has no value. It is not a dollar, nor was it made in 1865. It crudely imitates the design of a Washington quarter dollar, the earliest of which are dated 1932.

Your coin appears to me to have been partially dissolved in acid or otherwise severely corroded rather than being a mint error. It doesn't resemble any of the pieces illustrated as examples of split planchets on error-ref.com, whether the planchet split before or after striking. See https://www.error-ref.com/?s=split+planchet. These coins have striations on the split side only, not the uniformly grainy surface on both sides of your coin. See also the example shown at Adjustment Strikes, Struck Thrus and Other Mint Errors | NGC (ngccoin.com). If you decide to proceed with submitting this coin to a third-party grading service, please inform us of the service's determination.