Sandon

Yes. The "Redbook" lists this issue separately and refers to it as having a "matte finish". These pieces are also unusually well struck and generally in better condition than the regular circulation strike pieces (over 722 million minted in total) included in uncirculated coin sets. They were only issued in this Thomas Jefferson Coinage and Currency Set, of which 167,703 were distributed. The similar 1997-P matte finish piece was only issued in the Botanic Garden Coinage and Currency Set, with a distribution of only 25,000 sets. (I was lucky enough to get one from the mint at the time of issue.) The package for the 1997 set states regarding the included "Uncirculated 1997 Thomas Jefferson Nickel", "[t]o produce this matte finish or 'mint state' Jefferson 5-cent piece, both the obverse and reverse dies are frosted using a combination of aluminum oxide and silver dioxide sprayed under high pressure. Only one other Jefferson 5-cent piece has been minted using this procedure, for the 1994 Thomas Jefferson Coinage and Currency Set."

Near the other end of the condition scale from the "Poor 1" and damaged 1837 Seated half dime just posted, here's an 1838 PCGS graded MS 65: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

VAM is a listing of known die varieties, not an authentication guide, at least not for a high mintage date like the 1900 (8,830,000). VAM 1 for this issue, as for most others, is a generic "Normal Die C3 Type Reverse" listing that likely includes multiple die pairs with no significant characteristics enabling them to be told apart, as is to be expected from hubbed dies. VAMWorld acknowledges that the die study for this date has not been completed. http://ec2-13-58-222-16.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com/wiki/1900-P_VAMs. I can't tell from the photos whether the coin is genuine. It is not one of the obvious fakes that we frequently see on the chat board. It does appear to be unusually devoid of the bagmarks that are to be expected on Morgan dollars and somewhat "mushy" in appearance in areas other than its high points. As large numbers of counterfeit coins of both rare and common issues have been produced in China since about 2005, it is advisable, especially for new collectors, to obtain uncertified coins from reputable sources, as well as develop basic authentication skills.

1837 half dime, now NGC graded AU 53. I purchased this coin uncertified from a 2002 Bowers & Merena sale, where it was conservatively graded "EF 40".

I'm going to be the "odd man out" here. I think that the "9" in the 1957-D Lincoln cent that the OP asked about actually does have a die chip clogging its upper portion, as is very common for cents of this era and especially those dated 1957. I've seen others like it. I think, therefore, that @dprince1138 was correct in this case. Unfortunately, like the boy who cried "wolf", he has posted disinformation so many times that he has discredited himself to an extent that no one believes anything that he says. To the OP--Die chips like this are not regarded as significant mint errors, command no premium, and will not be attributed by grading services. "NGC does not recognize as mint error coins those with minor die chips, breaks and rotations, etc., that fall within our interpretation of mint tolerance." Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com). However, there was once a fad of collecting a similar, common type of die chip on cents of this era, as discussed in the following topic:

Though presumably unintentionally, "prince" by posting a photo of a coin with an actual die crack has provided an opportunity to compare a linear plating bubble with a die crack. Note how the plating defect is softer and otherwise different in appearance than the die crack, which was formed by metal being squeezed into the crack as the coin was being struck and is much sharper. Another important characteristic of die cracks is that they appear at various stages on a number of the coins struck from the same die, unlike a plating defect, which would be quite unlikely to appear in the same place and otherwise identically on different coins. I doubt anyone has ever seen a 1983-S proof cent with an identical anomaly in exactly the same location as the OP's. In contrast, the obverse die cracks on an 1837 large date Liberty Seated dime, all of which were struck from a single die pair (F-101), appear on a number of these coins and in this state are designated F-101b. See https://www.seateddimevarieties.com/pictorial/1837.htm. I happen to have an example of an F-101b graded XF 45 by PCGS, showing the same crack as on the partial photo of a different coin posted by "prince". (In this state the coin actually has two intersecting cracks.) Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

@angeldoze--Welcome to the NGC chat board. Please note that this topic is from over three years ago. If you found a gold-colored 1979-P Susan B. Anthony dollar that looks like the one originally posted, it is, as indicated in this topic, a coin that was privately plated after leaving the mint for sale as a novelty. It would have no collector value and is likely worth only its face value of one dollar. If it is something else, please create a new topic on this forum with clear, cropped photos of each side of the coin so that current forum members can see it and advise you.

I have no idea what the OP means by these subtypes or major varieties being "undocumented", as each one of them is listed and described in as basic a reference as the standard "Redbook", for example the 2023 edition at pp. 208-212. Although the information is generally accurate, there is nothing new about it.

Your 1921 Morgan dollar has already been examined and certified as a regular strike by PCGS, a top tier grading service. The obverse appears to be prooflike (not to be confused with a Zerbe "proof" or special strike), but presumably the reverse was insufficiently mirrored for the coin to be designated prooflike. Although regular strike 1921 Morgan dollars with prooflike surfaces on both sides are decidedly scarcer than frosty or one-sided prooflike ones, they are much more common than Zerbe special strikes. NGC has certified 797 1921 regular strike Morgan dollars as prooflike and 160 as deep mirror prooflike. Morgan Dollars (1878-1921) | Coin Census Population Report | NGC (ngccoin.com). PCGS has certified 451 regular strikes as prooflike and 19 as deep mirror prooflike. https://www.pcgs.com/pop/detail/category/744?l=morgan-dollar-1878-1921&ccid=0&t=3&p=MS&pn=4. Zerbe special strikes have an estimated total population of 100-125 coins, with 55 certified by NGC and 91 by PCGS, which totals likely include coins graded by both services. See 1921 MORGAN ZERBE $1 PF | Coin Explorer | NGC (ngccoin.com), https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1921-1-zerbe-special-strike/7341. One would expect them to be traceable to old collections whose collectors obtained them as special pieces in 1921 and not turn up with no such provenance. It is impossible even to make a guess as to the nature of your coin from the small, uncropped photos you have provided of the coin in its holder. It is extremely unlikely that this coin is an unattributed Zerbe "special strike", but grading services have been known to make mistakes, and extremely unlikely things have been known to occur, though rarely. See 1921 Morgan silver dollar authenticated as Zerbe proof | NGC (ngccoin.com). I recommend that you conduct further research as to the distinguishing characteristics of these coins and study high resolution photos of authenticated Zerbe strikes, such as those on the PCGS Coinfacts page previously linked. If you are convinced after such study that your coin has the exact die markers and other characteristics of a Zerbe strike, I suggest that you show the coin to an experienced and reputable coin dealer, such as a Professional Numismatists Guild member, for an expert opinion as to whether the coin is likely to be a Zerbe strike and, if so, how best to proceed to have PCGS or NGC confirm this finding. See Jeff Garrett: The Art of Rare Coin Submissions | NGC (ngccoin.com), https://www.pngdealers.org/af_memberdirectory.asp.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. The question you asked about "having it graded" is not what you meant to ask. What you meant was, "should I submit this coin to a third-party grading service?" Every person who wants to become a coin collector must learn how to grade coins, as well as how otherwise to identify and evaluate them. It should have been graded by you once you acquired the knowledge and skill to do so. Without such knowledge, you are unable to determine whether this 1900 Morgan dollar has sufficient value--at least several hundred dollars-- to make the cost of such submission worthwhile. Submitting coins to grading services is the last thing a new collector should be thinking about! Based on the photos, your coin has About Uncirculated details but, as stated by @JKK has been abrasively "cleaned", as shown by the whitish appearing hairline scratches on and around Liberty's face. Even if it were an unimpaired AU, it would have a (somewhat inflated in my opinion) retail list value (dealer sell price) of only $50-$60 on the NGC Price Guide. "Cleaned" it is worth $30, perhaps less. The NGC grading fee alone would be $23 at the "Economy" tier and, assuming that you already have a paid NGC membership would also involve a $10 per order processing fee, $28 per order return shipping fee, and your own cost of shipping the coin to NGC. Please refer to the following forum topics for references to appropriate print and online resources from which to learn about U.S. coins. You should also attend such events as coin shows and coin club meetings, where you can examine a variety of coins and speak with experienced collectors and dealers. See my and others' replies on the following recent topic: Age old question for a beginner how to tell if a coin has been cleaned - Newbie Coin Collecting Questions - NGC Coin Collectors Chat Boards See also my NGC Custom Registry Set Characteristics of "Cleaned" Coins - Custom Set (collectors-society.com).

Welcome to the NGC chat board. The raised area on the cent in your 1983 is a defect in the copper plating. As you may know, the copper plated zinc cent was introduced in the latter part of 1982, and it took the mint's contractors who supply the planchets (coin blanks) some years to perfect the process, resulting in many of the cents dated from 1982 to at least the early 1990s having such defects, even proofs. Such defects are considered poor quality control rather than mint errors. They do not give the affected coin a premium value and are usually a negative factor, not a positive one. They will not be attributed by grading services such as NGC. For more information, see https://www.error-ref.com/?s=plating+blister This is definitely not a die crack!

1890 Liberty nickel, ANACS graded MS 62 (old small holder): Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

@dprince1138--Here are the rules created over the years by @Idhair, the author of this topic, as I understand them. He should correct me if I'm wrong. 1. Except as stated below, each photo of a coin must be followed by a photo of any coin or token of the same date or any coin of the same type. A "type" includes subtypes, so, for example, a Liberty Seated half dollar may be followed by any other Liberty Seated half dollar, whether with or without motto, with or without drapery, or with or without arrows or arrows and rays. 2. Early types may also be followed by photos of other early coins of the same denominations, so that, for example, a photo of a half cent may be followed by a photo of any other half cent, without regard to type. Other such early types include large cents and Draped and Capped Bust types. (I advise that the full range of such types be listed.) 3. Gold is "wild", meaning that a photo of a gold coin may also be followed by a photo of another gold coin of any type. 4. Tokens are also "wild", meaning that a photo of a token may be followed by a photo of any other token, as well as a photo of any coin with the same date. 5. Though perhaps never explicitly stated, you should allow at least one other member to post a coin after posting one yourself. Although your post of an excessively worn 1877-S Seated quarter was permissible, you should not have posted the photo of an 1877-S half dollar without allowing another member to post in response. It appears based on early pages of the thread that foreign coins and tokens are allowed, although they usually do not appear here. The last coin posted having been dated 1867, here are photos of an 1867 Liberty Seated dime graded PR 62 by PCGS, although as it is clearly from the F-102 (Greer 103) dies, it should have been classified as a circulation strike: The next coin can be any Liberty Seated dime (legend or stars obverse) or any coin dated 1867.

1877 proof-only Shield nickel, the key to the series by date, PCGS graded PR 63, which I acquired from the August 2021 ANA Convention auction. This coin was catalogued as having come from Q. David Bowers's own collection and is quite attractive for the relatively low grade, which is probably due to some light reverse hairlines.

The date on this excessively worn (Poor to Fair details) and scratched Indian cent appears to be 1882. It definitely isn't an 1888, much less an 1888, 8 over 7, as the last feather in the bonnet points between the letters "I" and "C" of AMERICA. This feather points between "C" and "A" on all coins minted after 1886. Check your "Redbook". If you don't have one, please get one.

First of all, do not hold a collectible coin in your bare hands except, if you must, by its edges. That's how they become discolored and worn. Gold is more resistant to discoloration than other coinage metals, but it is very soft and wears easily. The more wear or "rub" a coin has, the lower its grade. Generally, a new collector has no business submitting coins to third-party grading services, at least without expert assistance, as the determination that the coin is of sufficient value to submit--at least several hundred dollars--requires the collector to come up with an approximate grade for the coin and otherwise evaluate it. Your photos are too grainy for me to make a close examination of the surfaces of the coin, but it appears to have at least About Uncirculated details (numerical grades 50, 53, 55, and 58), though possibly "cleaned" or polished, which would reduce its value. (In grading terminology, your phrase "really good condition" is meaningless, as a coin that grades Good--numerical grades 4 and 6-- is well worn.) With regard to it having no mintmark, that is to be expected, as all genuine 1915 quarter eagles were minted at the Philadelphia mint, which used no mintmark at that time. The value of the coin would be at least $400, which is sufficient for submission if desired regardless of the grade. This coin should be submitted more to authenticate it than to get an opinion as to its grade. The Indian Head quarter eagle type is one of the most frequently counterfeited series among U.S. coins, and the 1915 is one of the more frequently counterfeited dates, ranking number 12 among NGC's list of the top 50 most commonly counterfeited U.S. coins. Top 50 Most Commonly Counterfeited U.S. Coins | NGC (ngccoin.com). A newer collector should not purchase an Indian Head quarter eagle that has not been certified by a reputable grading service. I strongly recommend that you refer to the resources identified in the forum topics I linked in my reply to your previous topic, such as a "Redbook" and a grading guide, to obtain the knowledge you will need to become a successful collector.

1854 half cent, NGC graded MS 62 BN:

No. There is no known overdate for the entire Lincoln cent series from 1909 to date, and this coin shows no indication of being an overdate. (What is the underlying earlier date, and where do you see its digits?) The faint ghostly image above the letters in the motto are likely the result of die deterioration, also known as die crumbling (worthless) and are definitely not a doubled die, which features crisp, clear doubling with both images at about the same level as on this "Redbook" listed variety 1972 doubled die obverse cent: There are a number of ignorant and dishonest people who post disinformation about coins on the internet along with others who post legitimately. Additionally, if you try to understand advanced topics like die varieties and mint errors without mastering more basic topics such as grading and the minting process, you are in the position of a person who hasn't completed elementary school taking graduate level courses!

Welcome to the NGC chat board. As one who had been collecting coins for nearly fifteen years before PCGS, the first third-party grading service that encapsulated coins, opened for business early in 1986, I am dismayed that new collectors seem to believe that coins can only be graded by such services. It only makes financial sense to send coins worth at least several hundred dollars each to grading services, and you must have the knowledge and skills to grade and otherwise evaluate coins yourself to determine whether they have those values in the first place. Submitting coins to grading services is the last thing a new collector should be thinking about! Assuming that you already have a paid NGC membership, NGC would charge you a minimum fee of $23 per coin to grade these coins under its "Economy" tier, as well as a $10 per order processing fee and a $28 return shipping fee, to which would also be added your cost of shipping the coins to NGC. See NGC Services and Fees | NGC (ngccoin.com). As pointed out, none of the coins whose obverse photos you have posted would be worth anywhere near the $23 grading fee alone. If you want to collect U.S. coins or even determine the values of coins you already own, your time and money would be much better spent on learning from the print and online resources referenced in the following forum topics, as well as attending such events as coin shows and coin club meetings, where you can examine a variety of coins and speak with experienced collectors and dealers.

I would grade this 1921 Morgan dollar About Uncirculated, with a retail value per Coin World of $30 or so. Bear in mind that this is the most common Morgan dollar. If you are interested in collecting coins, it is essential that you learn how to grade them. If you don't yet have a printed photographic grading guide, PCGS Photograde is a good online reference to start with. https://www.pcgs.com/photograde.

I am quoting what I said before because, unfortunately, the photos you posted show that your coin is an example of the pieces to which I was referring. The coin definitely has wear on the high points, such as Liberty's hair and the eagle's breast. It has no better than lower end About Uncirculated (AU 50-53) details and is definitely not uncirculated. From what I can see--the photos aren't great--it has a "washed out" appearance with an unnatural shine that leads me to conclude that a grading service would likely designate it as having been "cleaned". (Compare this to the original luster of the MS 63 graded 1883-O posted above.) The rim appears to have been filed, which can also lead to a "details" grade. It appears to be a genuine 1884 Morgan dollar, but I can't evaluate from the photos the possibility that the mintmark was added. In the unlikely event it received a "straight" AU 50 or better grade, it might be barely worth the grading fees, but I wouldn't submit it. I recommend that you attend coin shows or other venues where you can see examples of uncirculated Morgan dollars of this era to become familiar with what they are supposed to look like. These photos of an 1888-O that NGC recently graded MS 64 show the hair, breast feather and other details that a reasonably well struck, uncirculated example of a piece of the design used from 1879-1900 (and some 1878 Philadelphia and 1901-02) should look like:

This is a fairly advanced die break. If the die continued in use much past this point, the area within the break would fall out, resulting in a blank raised area known as a "cud". Die breaks are fairly common and generally not worth much, if any, premium. You should not hold a collectible coin in your bare hands except, if you must, by its edges. The oils in your skin can react with the coin metal, causing discoloration and even corrosion over time.

My knowledge of U.S. history, going back to high school and including my own reading, enhances and is in part the source of my appreciation of numismatic items. There is a brief overview of this period in the standard "Redbook", 2023 edition at p.17.

By "DD", did you mean a doubled die or a repunched mintmark ("RPM")--in this case a repunched "D"? Your photos aren't clear enough to see whether your coin has a repunched mintmark. Doubled dies are the result of the "hubs" that are used to make working dies being moved between impressions on the die blank. Until about 1992 mint marks were separately punched into each die by hand. A repunched mintmark resulted from the punch being shifted between blows. These are different types of die varieties (not errors).

Could this be the result of a misaligned (slanted) obverse die, resulting in the wide rim one side of the obverse and the weakness in the date area? Whatever the cause, I would tend to classify this coin as an example of poor quality control rather than as a mint error of any significance or value.