Sandon

The issue was the spelling of "bolls", not whether "bolls" or "blossoms" is the correct term. What is depicted on the Morgan dollar doesn't appear to match either the cotton blossom or the boll. I don't know whether George T. Morgan, who had immigrated from England, had ever seen live cotton plants or what botanical guide he had used. I actually don't have a "nickle", notwithstanding that a member of my coin club insists on spelling the word "nickel" that way.

Per the deluxe "Redbook", this set consisted of a proof Lewis and Clark commemorative silver dollar, which was available in other options and is one of the more common modern commemoratives, and a beaded leather pouch that was hand made by a Native American craftsman. As I recall, no two pouches were alike. I also recall that chemicals in the leather could cause the coins to tone unattractively, so it was a bad idea to store the coin in or near the pouch.

Coins made as proofs that have wear but are identified as proof strikes are given the same numerical grades as circulation strikes, with the "PF" prefix given by NGC and "PR" by PCGS. I own a slightly abraded proof-only 1877 copper nickel three cent piece that PCGS graded "PR 58". I've seen coins given the proof prefix with much lower numerical grades than that. I don't recall seeing how the grading services describe proof coins that have both wear and impairments such as "cleaning" or damage, but uncertified pieces have been described as, for example, "impaired proof, Extremely Fine details, scratched".

Actually, they're cotton bolls, a dictionary definition of "boll" being "[t]he rounded seed pod or capsule of certain plants, such as flax or cotton." American Heritage Dictionary (1973) at 148. I suppose at the stage where the cotton plant is in bloom, as depicted on the Morgan dollar, "cotton blossoms" is a more correct term. I'll give a "nickle" to anyone who proves me wrong about the spelling!

1879 proof Shield nickel, PCGS graded PR 64: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers.

1932-D Washington quarter, PCGS graded XF 45. (From these auction photos I thought that the vertical line to the left of "E" and through Washington's head was a die break, but it is actually a scratch. That's why it is always better to view coins in person before buying them.) Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. The "Redbook" mentions all of these issues, but I'll try to explain them in more detail. The 1976-S 40% silver proof Bicentennial Kennedy half dollar was issued in the three-coin silver proof sets that also contained similar Bicentennial quarters and half dollars. They are quite common, as the mint sold nearly 4 million of these sets. (There were also an uncirculated 40% silver version from similar uncirculated three-coin sets with over 4.9 million sets sold.) In 2014, the fiftieth anniversary of the Kennedy half dollar, the mint created new master dies for Kennedy half dollars that more closely resembled the original, higher relief design used in 1964-70. (Over the years, the dies had been modified on a number of occasions, with coins dated 1997-2014 being in especially lower relief.) The low relief dies were used to strike the regular 2014-P and D coins that were sold in rolls and bags and the "S" mint proofs that were included in regular clad and silver proof sets. The mint issued two special sets containing coins struck from the "high relief" dies, a two-coin set containing uncirculated "P" and "D" regular copper-nickel clad versions (197,608 sets reported sold), and a four-piece .900 silver set (219,173 sets reported sold) containing four coins each with different finishes, "P" (regular deep cameo proof), "D" (uncirculated, apparently designated "Specimen" by NGC), "S" (enhanced uncirculated), and "W" (reverse proof). The 2018-S silver reverse proof half dollar is from the ten-piece silver reverse proof set issued that year, with a reported distribution of 199,116 sets. All of these coins should be obtainable either as parts of their original sets or as certified coins if that is what you prefer.

It simply means that the mint distributed (sold) a total of 58,505 uncirculated Botanic Garden dollars and 189,671 proof Botanic Garden dollars. The uncirculated dollars were included in the 25,000 1997 Botanic Garden Coin and Currency sets, and the other 33,505 were sold as single pieces. (Only the 1997-P matte finish nickel was unique to the set.) The proof dollars were included in the 80,000 Prestige proof sets (p. 358), and the other 109,671 were sold separately.

Some proof modern commemoratives were struck at mints other than San Francisco, usually Philadelphia or West Point, with the appropriate mint mark. Both proof and uncirculated Botanic Garden dollars are "P"s. See p. 332 of your 2018 "Redbook". See pp. 314-51 for mint and other information through 2017. (You might want to consider buying a newer edition.)

NGC VarietyPlus describes the FS-104 variety as follows: "Minor doubling is visible in all obverse lettering and the date. Diagonal die scratches running through letter N in UNITED serve as an additional diagnostic for this variety." See Lincoln Cents, Memorial Reverse (1959-2008) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com) for photos. I can't see any doubling in your partial photo of the obverse, and without a photo of the reverse it isn't possible to check for the additional diagnostic.

If you can't afford such basic numismatic references as a "Redbook" and a print grading guide, please use the free reliable online resources to which we have referred you. If you can only afford to collect coins from change, you would do better to save uncirculated coins that you receive at the bank or from cashiers that have just come from rolls of new coins. They will make for a much more appealing collection than the worn and corroded or damaged pieces you have been showing us, may ultimately have some value, and will be preserved for future generations of collectors. Significant mint errors are hardly ever found in circulation, and without having basic knowledge about U.S. coins (types, dates and mintmarks and major varieties, grading, and the minting process), it is difficult to know what to even look for or to understand our explanations. If you aren't willing to take the time and make the effort to learn, we can't help you.

1939-D Jefferson nickel (reverse of 1938) Ch. BU, from my Whitman bookshelf album:

All "S" mint coins from 1994 are proofs and were issued in the proof sets of that year (clad, silver, and prestige). Only uncirculated coins are issued in "mint sets". The last "mint sets" including "S" mint coins are those from 1981, which included the 1981-S SBA dollar. See pp. 361-62 of your 2018 Redbook. (Subsequent editions include the all "S" mint 2017 "enhanced uncirculated sets" among the "mint sets", but the coins they contain aren't regular uncirculated coins.)

The Prestige proof sets issued most years from 1983-1997 contain the same coins as a regular clad proof set, plus a proof commemorative silver dollar. The silver dollars were also available in other options.

This 2019-W cent isn't worth the cost of third-party grading with or without the strikethrough! Even in MS 69 RD it would only have a retail value per the NGC Price Guide of $40.

The small depression is likely a "strikethrough" of a small piece of foreign matter on the die or planchet. It is a very minor and frequently seen anomaly and does not make the coin worth a premium, especially when it is this small.

As others have indicated, these can be the worst places to go to learn about coins, as many ignorant and dishonest people post disinformation. (There are legitimate websites and videos, such as those of NGC, PCGS, the American Numismatic Association (money.org), and major coin dealers and auction houses.) The links to the forum topics provided by @EagleRJO will provide you with reliable print and online resources to learn about U.S coins. You should learn the basics of how to identify, grade and otherwise evaluate coins from these resources before getting into advanced topics such as mint errors. However, some basic information about mint errors may be found in the following NGC articles: Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 1 | NGC (ngccoin.com) Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 2 | NGC (ngccoin.com) Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 3 | NGC (ngccoin.com) Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 4 | NGC (ngccoin.com) Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com) The site error-ref.com is considered comprehensive on this topic.

Your 1986 Lincoln cent is not an off-center strike. It was struck from a slightly misaligned obverse die that wasn't perpendicular to the planchet. Such coins are quite common and are considered to be a quality control issue rather than a mint error. They are worth no premium to knowledgeable collectors. On an off-center strike, both sides of the coin are off center, and it would have to show a good-sized unstruck area before it would be considered to be worth a premium, like this one taken from another forum topic:

1934 Light Motto Washington quarter, NGC graded MS 63 (older holder):

Welcome to the NGC chat board. What do you want to know about this coin?

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Hopefully, the grading services do not have preconceived percentages of submitted coins that should receive any particular numerical grade. Each coin should be graded on its own merits without regard to the grade given to other coins in the submission or other coins of the same issue. I am disheartened that so many modern collectors' issues are removed from their attractive and protective mint packaging, which is part of their historical context, and sent to grading services primarily, if not solely, for the purpose of getting the number "70" printed on a little paper tag, with those pieces that are found to only merit the number "69" or--horrors--"68" essentially treated as "culls" or "rejects". These grades are essentially indistinguishable from each other and should all be classified as "Superb Gem" Uncirculated or Proof and priced the same. I maintain that the "70" grade is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. I suspect that future generations of collectors will prefer these coins in their original packaging, which for some heavily "slabbed" issues may well be worth a premium.

1934-D Lincoln cent, NGC graded MS 65 RD (older holder):

I don't think that this 1955-D cent has a repunched mintmark. The depression to the facing left of the mintmark is most likely a scrape, although it could be a small planchet lamination. The coin also has what appears to be a die crack through the first "5" of the date. (A clash mark would generally be an outline of the design on the corresponding area of the other side of the coin.) You should collect whatever coins you find enjoyable collecting. Just don't confuse what you happen to enjoy with coins that are popular with most knowledgeable collectors and consequently have significant market value. If @Mike Meenderink or others don't find your topics interesting, they are under no obligation to respond to them.

True, but at least that way if the topic author offers the coins on eBay as is apparently his intent, prospective purchasers will be on notice as to what they're getting.

In response to @Henri Charriere's inquiries, the 1893-S half eagle has high point wear that is most obvious at the back of Liberty's hair and the bun, as well as the eagle's neck. Compare it to this 1886 that NGC graded MS 62, which is "baggy" but fully detailed: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers.