Sandon

Duplicate post of topic in Registry forum. See my answer there.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. I understand that "The Washington Mint" is a mass marketer of so-called "collector's items" that are usually of little interest to serious numismatists. The company's "certificate" accompanies items that the company is selling. It is not a third-party grading service such as NGC, PCGS, or ANACS that examines coins that belong to others, does not buy or sell coins, and provides a purportedly unbiased expert opinion as to the items' authenticity and condition. Without clear, cropped photos of each side of the coin, we can't tell whether it is a coin that was actually produced by or with the authorization of the Chinese government or is some sort of "reproduction" or privately manufactured or issued "collector's item". Additionally, please note that the NGC Registry forum is dedicated to topics pertaining to the NGC coin registry. Your topic should have been posted in the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. I'm pretty sure that your purported 1795 Flowing Hair half dollar is a counterfeit, probably of recent Asian origin. Among other factors, the weight is supposed to be approximately 13.48 grams for this issue, the edge lettering style is wrong, and the color and surface texture are suspicious. If you think that this is actually a genuine coin, you shouldn't be touching the surfaces with your bare hands.

Retail list values for an 1889-CC in F 12 run from $975 (NGC) to $1,500 (PCGS), with Coin World at $1,000 and CPG at $1,380. I generally regard a $500 retail value as the minimum for a submission to be worthwhile. (This coin cost me $195 in 1994 dollars.) I also purchased this 1885-CC in 1994, a few months before the 1889-CC. Although the 1885-CC is the third lowest mintage Morgan dollar (228,000), more than half of that mintage is believed to still exist in uncirculated condition. This one is prooflike but heavily bagmarked. I approximately grade it MS 61 PL. Edit 12/12/23: My estimated grade of MS 61 PL was close. NGC graded this coin MS 60 PL. I can now assemble a certified grading set ranging from MS 60 to MS 67. This is also the first coin I've submitted to receive a "PL" designation.

This 1889-CC is the most worn and the most sought after of the coins I intend to submit. (In my opinion, no circulation strike issue of Morgan dollar can be correctly called "rare".) I expect this one to grade in the F 12-15 range, although the few rim bumps and a possible light "cleaning" could result in a "details" grade. I purchased this 1889-CC in 1994, when they cost a lot less than they do now, Edit 12/12/23: NGC graded this coin F 15, my higher estimated grade.

I just took from a safe deposit box some of my better date Morgan dollars that I bought uncertified years ago and am planning on submitting to NGC, mostly out of curiosity. This 1879-O is the most common but also the most attractive of these coins. I bought it at a local auction in 2011. It should receive a "PL" designation or conceivably a "DMPL" designation, though I doubt it. The coin has enough "chatter" that I doubt the numerical grade will exceed "63", but the reverse looks especially nice. Edit 12/12/23: I submitted ten of my better Morgan dollars to NGC, nine of which received grades equivalent or close to those I expected. However, this 1879-O was returned unencapsulated as having an "altered surface". I think that someone may have applied some substance or done something to smooth out bagmarks on Liberty's face and/or increase its contrast with the fields. I recall being somewhat concerned about the coin looking "too good to be true" when I bought it, which turned out to be the case.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. This common date and worn copper-nickel clad Washington quarter has been mutilated and is only worth face value. Why did you think it had any collector value?

Adjustment marks are, unfortunately, common on early U.S. silver and gold coins. The pressure of striking generated by a screw press was inadequate to smooth out these file marks on the planchets. Notice how the marks are lighter in the fields, which received more pressure, than on the devices, where they are quite pronounced. As these marks were already on the coins when they were struck, they are not regarded as damage, although I think most collectors prefer examples that don't have them. This coin may have a few post-mint scratches or other damage in addition to the heavy adjustment marks, but the photos are inadequate to tell for sure.

Die chips are extremely common on U.S. coins, especially cents, from the 1950s and early 1960s. Coins with such chips have no premium value, although there was once a fad of collecting cents that have a die chip between the "B" and "E" of LIBERTY, which were known as "BIEs" or "LIBIERTYs". See "BIE" or "LIBIERTY" Lincoln Cents - US, World, and Ancient Coins - NGC Coin Collectors Chat Boards. The slightly distorted reverse lettering is likely the result of die deterioration and also adds no value. (Coins are struck from dies, while dye is used to color cloth.)

I gave high scores to the Gobrecht dollar (10), 1792 half disme and 1792 Birch cent (8 each) because they are coins whose originals I couldn't afford. Given the substantial changes in technology since these coins were made, I doubt that modern reproductions would look much like the originals. It also really doesn't make sense to reproduce these designs as larger size gold coins, which I would be unlikely to buy.

The official weight for a copper-nickel clad 1976-D Bicentennial Kennedy half dollar is 11.34 grams, while the official weight for the silver clad version intended to be minted only in San Francisco is 11.50 grams. Your coin is clearly of the copper-nickel variety at 11.31 grams with some wear and/or environmental damage. The anomalies don't resemble any known form of "mint error" of which I am aware and don't appear to be something that could have been created during the manufacturing process. The surface of the coin may have been etched by acid, although it is probably impossible to say for sure how the coin was damaged.

Would it be safe to assume (1) that much of the gold in these deposits came from the Klondike Gold Rush and (2) that the Seattle Assay Office received much of the gold from that source due to its relative proximity to the Yukon in Western Canada?

Although I voted on the assumption that this coin has been independently authenticated, based on the photos I would otherwise suspect it of being a cast counterfeit.

This topic is a duplicate post.

Welcome to the NGC chat board.' The authority you consulted is correct. This now dateless cent has been severely damaged and is worth face value. If you thought that this coin was a "mint error", please understand that a mint error is a coin that exhibits a major anomaly due to something that went awry during the manufacturing process. There are only a limited number of causes for mint errors, while the types of misfortunes that can befall a coin once it is in circulation are infinite. This coin does not exhibit any known form of mint error. If you want to learn more about mint errors or other numismatic topics, please let us know, and we can direct you to appropriate resources.

Part of the problem is that we're trying to compare coins from different years and sub-types (open collar strikes and close collar strikes), when different punches may have been in use, on coins in different conditions. There are also limitations in working from photographs instead of examining the actual coins. 1. Here is a photo I cropped from the VarietyPlus image of the reverse of an 1824/2, flat top 1 (JR-1): This "1" is the same or similar to the 1827 flat top 1 in the OPs last post but definitely not the same as the "1" on the initially posted 1832 that the OP is calling a "flat top 1", which has a small but distinct point on the upper right end of the top of the "1". Note also the shortened or missing right foot of the flat top 1 on both the 1824/2 and the 1827, which doesn't appear on the OP's coin. The "1" on the die that struck the OP's coin is evidently not from the same punch used on the 1824/2 or 1827 flat top 1's. 2. Here is the VarietyPlus cropped photo of an 1824/2, pointed top "1", JR-2: The left side of the "1" is clearly much more curved than what the OP is calling an 1832 "pointed top" 1. 3. Here is a photo I cropped from the VarietyPlus photo of the reverse of an 1832 JR-2, the second of the two examples shown there: This "1", which is the same or similar to that on the image posted as an 1832 "pointed 1" by the OP, doesn't match either the flat or pointed top 1's from the 1824/2 or 1827 issues, but I would describe it as "flat" due to the straight or "flat" top to the left side of the "1", followed by a steeper angle ending in a small point. On a coin as worn as the OP's, the straight and angled parts may have blended together and appear to be one line, but the point is still visible, so I don't think one can declare this to be some new variety and market it as such. The OP should check the images on both VarietyPlus and PCGS Coinfacts and see if the posted coin can be matched to any of the known varieties notwithstanding its wear and whether there are distinct differences in the "1s" of certain varieties without regard to wear. If you are unable to locate a copy of the JR "Dime Book" that we discussed in a previous topic, you may find additional images of attributed pieces on the auction archives of major auction houses, such as at ha.com and stacksbowers.com.

Not necessarily. There are many minor (and less valuable) doubled dies where the doubling is only in a few letters or other elements and/or involves a much closer, barely noticeable "spread" between the two images. The difference is how the additional images occurred. A doubled (or tripled, quadrupled, etc.) die is created during the die-making process when the "hub" is moved between blows, resulting in all coins produced from the die, at least in the earlier stages of its use, exhibiting the multiple images. This is quite unlike strike doubling, which results from a die being loose in the press, split plating in copper-plated zinc cents, or die deterioration "doubling", all of which are considered worthless. I use the 1972 FS-101 or "Redbook" variety doubled die as an example because the doubled die characteristics are so obvious and because it is an example of the type of doubled die that would tend to have substantial value. There are eight additional less dramatic doubled dies on 1972 Philadelphia cents listed on NGC VarietyPlus alone. Lincoln Cents, Memorial Reverse (1959-2008) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com)

I'm not sure from the photos whether this 1986-D cent exhibits strike doubling (a.k.a. machine or mechanical doubling) or split plating, either of which has no collector value, but it is definitely not a doubled die (not "double died"). A doubled die typically features crisp, clear doubling, with both images at about the same level, as on this "Redbook" variety 1972 doubled die cent:

The reason that the "Redbook" and other major guides distinguish between flat top and pointed top 1 varieties on these two dates is that one of these characteristics--a pointed top 1 on the 1824/2 and a flat top 1 on the 1827--is considerably scarcer than the other and is considered to have sufficient collector interest to warrant the listing. Such major guides do not list all varieties of early U.S. coins. I checked the six die varieties of 1832 Capped Bust dimes that have photos on NGC VarietyPlus, and all of them appear to have "flat top" 1s in the same style, which has a tiny point on the right side, as the one shown on the well-worn (Good or so) but apparently genuine example in your initial post. Early Dimes (1796-1837) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). You might want to do some research before making claims such as the one quoted above.

No, a circulated 1969-S Lincoln cent--or virtually any other coin you found in circulation--isn't worth submitting to a third-party grading service, which is what I assume you incorrectly mean by "getting it graded." If you want to collect this coin, which is worth at most a few cents, it should, indeed, be graded and otherwise evaluated by you, once you have the necessary knowledge and skills. Do you have a print grading guide or at least refer to PCGS Photograde online, https://www.pcgs.com/photograde? Respectfully, unless you have the knowledge and experience to grade and value coins yourself, and also understand the substantial cost of having coins third-party graded, submitting coins to a third-party grading service is the last thing you should be thinking about. A coin should be worth at least several hundred dollars before it is even arguably worth submitting, and if you cannot determine that value for yourself, you would likely just waste your money.

The 1981 Belgium 20 Franc coin (circulated) has a retail list value of 50 cents or so. See Belgium 20 Francs KM 159 Prices & Values | NGC (ngccoin.com).

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Unfortunately, the contents of your dresser drawer aren't going to make you rich, but they may lead you to an enjoyable pursuit. The piece dated 1776 is a crude reproduction (fake) of a 1776 "Continental Dollar", genuine examples of which are rare, but whose weak details and grainy surfaces identify it as one of the countless thousands of reproductions made over the decades and sold at souvenir shops and the like. It has no value. The 1976 Bicentennial Kennedy half dollar and the 2000-P Sacagawea dollar are circulated examples of common modern issues. Hundreds of millions of each were issued, and they are only worth their respective face values of fifty cents and one dollar. The circulated 1985 British pound has a retail list value of $2.50 in the NGC World Coin Price Guide. The last coin is a modern pre-Euro bronze Belgian 20 Franc coin, probably of low value and now demonetized. I can't read the date, which I would need to look it up. If you are interested in becoming a collector, the following forum topics will identify and inform you how to obtain some basic print and online resources from which you may learn what you need to know:

1833 Capped Bust half dollar, ANACS graded AU 50: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Please note that the Coin Marketplace forum is for buying, selling and trading coins in accordance with the posted Coin Marketplace Guidelines, with which your post does not comply. See Coin Marketplace Guidelines - Coin Marketplace - NGC Coin Collectors Chat Boards. If you have a question about this coin, it should have been posted in the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum. Your coin is a worn 1975 Roosevelt dime struck at the Philadelphia mint, which did not use a mint mark on dimes or most other coins until 1980. Nearly 586 million were made, and it is only worth its face value of ten cents in this condition. If you're thinking of the 1975 "no S" proof, of which only two are known to exist, these were specially made coins with a mirror finish that were issued in sets of proof coins in sealed plastic cases. Your coin isn't one of them.

Although I can't tell from the photos, it is possible that this 1983 cent has "brassy plating", which error-ref.com describes as "the product of a zinc contamination within the copper plating bath. The presence of the zinc produces a plating that has a slightly yellowish appearance compared with the normal copper with a red, orange or pinkish appearance. The zinc contamination comes from trapped zinc planchets that are retained and ultimately dissolved in the plating bath. They are often found on 1983 and 1998 Lincoln cents but could hypothetically be found on any year plated planchets were used", which would be from 1982 to date. https://www.error-ref.com/?s=yellowish+1983+cents To my knowledge, collectors don't attach any significant value to cents with "brassy plating".