Sandon

1945-S Lincoln cent, PCGS graded MS 66 RD:

To my knowledge, the only coins referred to as "burnished" uncirculated are the uncirculated Silver Eagles (ASEs) with "W" mintmarks that the mint has sold directly to collectors since 2006. I've never seen much difference between their surfaces and those of the bullion issue ASEs without mintmarks that are sold in bulk through distributors. I've never heard of "mint set" coins other than the 2005-10 "satin finish" pieces being struck or handled differently than coins issued for circulation. Those made in recent years usually appear to have been struck from newer dies, but similar looking pieces can be found in uncirculated rolls. The "mint set" coins aren't always fully struck and are often bagmarked or otherwise imperfect. Neither the "Redbook" nor other coin guides nor grading services make any distinction between uncirculated coins taken from mint rolls or bags and those removed from "mint sets". Not necessarily. An uncirculated coin is simply one that has no observable wear. A coin can go through several transactions before it will acquire observable "rub" or wear and could be wrapped in a mixed roll including circulated coins of various dates before acquiring such wear. Obviously, however, a coin that comes from a mint bag or rolls packaged directly from such bags would almost always achieve an uncirculated grade.

Yes, coins in uncirculated coin a.k.a. mint sets are generally the same issues as the coins issued for circulation, with the exception of coins issued in 2005-2010 uncirculated sets, which were made with what the mint called a "satin finish" that is somewhat duller in appearance than the coins issued for circulation.

The 1926 is an example of a Variety 2, recessed date style Standing Liberty quarter of 1925-30. If your question is about the coin's authenticity, you should only compare it to coins of that variety and preferably of the same date. The 1916-17 Variety 1 has many design differences from the Variety 2, and there are enough differences in fine details even between the rare 1916 and the 1917 Variety 1 issues that it is sometimes possible to distinguish dateless 1916s from 1917s. Based on the photos, the 1926 in the initial post appears to be genuine and in Extremely Fine condition. However, one can't definitely authenticate coins from photos, and nowadays coins of all types and conditions are subject to being counterfeited.

I've never heard of anyone trying to "pop" plating blisters, which, if successful, would result in a damaged coin. They are identified by their appearance, which, to my eyes, is distinctly different from die cracks. It's hard to tell for sure from photos, but I stand by my original answer that the obverse exhibits a linear plating blister and the reverse a small die crack.

As stated in the Cherrypickers' Guide and elsewhere, the best way to identify a so-called 1970-S "Small Date" cent is to look at "LIBERTY" instead of focusing on the date. The lettering is thinner and weaker on the "Small Date" than on the 1970-S "Large Date" or on 1970 cents from the other two mints.

1958 proof Lincoln cent, NGC graded PF 68 RD. (The hairline scratches are on the holder, not the coin):

1811/09 Capped Bust dime, NGC graded VF 30. A scarce issue.

I'm not sure how this thread has been "hijacked" when all the replies are to content that you posted. I agree that it is extremely important for all collectors to become familiar with and experienced in grading (not "gradings") the coins that they wish to collect, but this includes learning to detect impairments that likely reduce a coin's value. I note that all of the coins whose photos you have posted here appear to have been "cleaned" based upon their unnatural color and/or extensive hairlining. I have frequently recommended that collectors obtain and study a recognized photographic grading guide such as The Official American Numismatic Association Grading Standards for United States Coins (7th ed. 2013) (the ANA Grading Guide) or Making the Grade from Amos Press or at least consult PCGS Photograde online. Learning how to grade also requires "hands on" experience with actual coins that have been graded by third-party grading services or reputable dealers, requiring attendance at such venues as coin shows and coin club meetings. Apart from the Wikipedia article you have mentioned in posts in other topics, what resources do you recommend?

Based on the photos, I think that the raised line across the obverse of varying width is most likely due to a defect in the copper plating on this 1984 cent. Such defects are quite common on earlier (1982 to mid 1990s) copper plated zinc cents. The narrow raised line on the reverse that runs from the right side of the base of the Lincoln Memorial to the rim, on the other hand, is likely a die crack. Neither of these defects is usually regarded as a significant "mint error" that would be of any value to knowledgeable collectors. The coin might bring a small premium as a novelty. You are welcome to collect such coins if they are to your liking.

With regard to purchasing coins that are more valuable than the seller thought them to be due to the seller's lack of knowledge or attention, I have no qualms about doing so when the seller is a coin dealer or holds him or herself out to be knowledgeable about coins. This is known as "cherrypicking". If the seller is someone who makes no claims about having knowledge about coins but has coins and wants me to make an offer for them, I pay a fair at least wholesale price, or if, as is usually the case, I have no interest in acquiring the coins, I inform the person what fair prices would be and who would be likely to pay them. In the first example above--the garage sale where the apparently unknowledgeable sellers have a 1955 doubled die cent included in a lot of coins for $20--I would, believe it or not, inform the sellers that they have a rare coin worth substantially more money and offer a fair price. In the other cases, where the person is dealing at a trade show and should have had sufficient knowledge to be a dealer in those goods, I would remain silent and pay the asking price.

The generally used terminology is "no drapery", which means no drapery hanging from Liberty's elbow, which in this case would have been caused by an overpolished die, unlike some Seated half dollars dated 1839 and Seated half dimes, dimes, and quarters dated 1838, 1839, and some 1840s, which featured a different design. You can, in fact see the drapery from the elbow in the abrasively "cleaned" 1877-S Seated half dollar whose photos are posted above, though weakly. The WB-13, shown in the following photos from PCGS Coinfacts at https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1877-s-50c-wb-13-type-2-very-small/572255, shows no sign of the drapery and clearly had a different reverse than the posted coin. On the posted coin, the mintmark slants noticeably to the right, while on the WB-13 it is upright and farther to the left. The posted coin isn't a WB-13.

1828 large date Capped Bust dime (JR-2), the only known "large date" dies, PCGS graded G 6:

For me, this would be true for coins viewed "in hand" but not from photos alone, at least not where the coin was uncertified. For example, a coin can be extensively hairlined, but the hairlines can be invisible when viewed or photographed from certain angles, giving the coin the appearance of a gem. The same coin can look completely different in different photos for many other reasons. I've occasionally been disappointed with certified coins bought on the basis of auction photos and attend lot viewings and coin shows to obtain coins after in-person examination whenever possible. I've sometimes gotten good deals on coins that were better looking in-hand than in their photos, as the photos may have weakened the online bidding.

I'm wondering whether the OP and/or @VKurtB are being facetious. I recall both of them advising newer collectors, as I do, that one can't accurately grade coins, especially those that are uncirculated or nearly so, from photographs and that in-person inspection is essential for grading. This is especially true when one is looking for uncertified coins that could realistically receive unusually high grades from grading services. The single, uncropped photos of each side of the 1910 Lincoln cent, which were taken from an angle, show a coin that would likely receive a "brown" (BN) rather than "red and brown" designation. Some "BN" copper coins also realize high prices; but, although the luster on this coin looks nice in the photos, in my experience they usually have a bluish or violet color. The obverse has some flat spots on Lincoln's cheek and beard, which suggest "rub" and wouldn't preclude a "mint state" grade nowadays but could lower it. The coin also has several small obverse "carbon spots" near the rim beneath the "0" in the date. Even these factors that we can see in the photos don't seem to make a "68" or even "67" grade likely. As for @VKurtB's suggestion that the coin could be a proof, this is highly doubtful as it lacks the broad rims and grainy surfaces of a matte proof issue.

This 1946 Lincoln cent is corroded and has no collector value. It's what we call a "cull". If you seriously thought that this is a mint error, you have a great deal to learn. Resources such as error-ref.com have already been suggested in your previous posts. I can suggest additional resources if you are interested in learning from legitimate sources.

CDN publishes The Coin Dealer Newsletter, better known as the "Greysheet", the quarterly CPG Coin & Currency Market Review, and similar publications. I don't know how this will turn out, but it is preferable to Whitman being acquired by a general publishing company that would be unfamiliar with the standards and needs of the numismatic community. This is what happened to Krause Publications, whose publications have largely vanished from print.

Welcome to the NGC Chat Board. As previously suggested, please crop your photos so that to the greatest extent possible they depict the coin you want to show us and not the surface on which it sits. The vast majority of the coins we see on this forum that are described as "mint errors" by those who post them are instead coins that have been damaged after leaving the mint or coins that have been altered to resemble mint errors. Based on the current photos, which don't permit us to see much detail, your 2019-P Roosevelt dime looks like it could exhibit more than one kind of error, which is highly unusual and in itself suspicious. (If the "blob" on the upper right reverse is a clear, shiny material above the coin metal, at least this characteristic is definitely an alteration, whether or not acetone removes it.) I suggest that you show the coin to a coin dealer or collector who is familiar with mint errors, who could be found at a larger coin show, or you could check with your local dealers. If there are no such shows or dealers in your area, I suggest that you contact Sullivan Numismatics of Land O Lakes, FL, www.sullivannumismatics.com, (931) 797-4888. On the website, go to the "Customer Service" tab and click "Contact Us" for instructions on sending questions about and photos of your coin. You can also look for other dealers in this specialty on the NGC coin dealer locator at Find Coin Shops & Dealers | Coin Dealer Locator | NGC (ngccoin.com) or through the website of the Professional Numismatists Guild at www.pngdealers.org. I would not risk submitting the coin to a third-party grading service such as NGC, PCGS or ANACS for error attribution without obtaining an expert opinion that it is actually a mint error.

I agree that there is nothing interesting or significant about this coin and would like to note that what is depicted on the reverse of the Roosevelt dime is an oak branch, not a whole oak tree.

The gold coins are essentially bullion value pieces with one possible exception. (I assume that they are genuine, which they appear to be, but claim no expertise in authenticating foreign gold coins.) The three sovereigns (British gold coins with a face value of one pound) each contain 0.2355 troy ounce of gold, which is currently at a historically high price level near $2,000 per troy ounce due to the turmoil in the Middle East. At today's price--it changes daily--they are each worth $467.86 in gold. The 1912 appears to be About Uncirculated but shows no premium over bullion value in the World Coin Price Guide below uncirculated. The 1959 appears to be uncirculated and lists $500 in MS 63 (Choice Uncirculated) grade. The 1930-SA (Pretoria, South Africa mint), which is the possible exception, appears to be Choice About Uncirculated and has no list price in the guide below nominally uncirculated MS 60 but lists $1,400 in that grade. The French 1911 20 franc "Rooster" contains 0.1867 troy ounce of gold. It appears to have been polished or "cleaned" as well as mounted. Its value would be limited to bullion value, about $371 at today's gold price. The remaining coin that hasn't been specifically commented on, a well-worn (About Good to Good) 1902-H Canadian dime, struck at the Heaton (Birmingham, England) mint, has no current list value below Fine ($9) and is likely only worth its current silver value of around $1.50.

Unfortunately, even the "very basics of coin grading and valuation" have become somewhat complex due to the adoption of the numerical grading "system" in the 1980s and its evolution, but as it appears you don't intend to become a serious collector but just want to get some idea of the value of your grandfather's coins, here are some tips. For U.S. coins, a current (2024) or recent edition of A Guide Book of United States Coins, commonly known as the "Redbook" is indispensable to learn the basics of U.S. series and how to identify valuable dates, mints and varieties. It is available from its publisher at whitman.com, as well as from other booksellers and numismatic book and supply dealers. As I assume you don't want to buy other numismatic books and subscriptions such as a print grading guide and a current price guide, I recommend that you refer to PCGS Photograde (https://www.pcgs.com/photograde) for a basic photographic guide to grading U.S. coins and to the NGC U.S. Coin Price Guide (NGC Coin Price Guide and Values | NGC) for a retail price guide, although this guide, as well as the similar (but generally higher) one at pcgs.com are generally for certified coins. NGC also has a World Coin Price Guide (NGC Coin Price Guide and Values | NGC), in which the coin descriptions also generally include the bullion content of gold and silver coins. Unless your early 1900s British and Australian gold coins (sovereigns?) are rare dates or in uncirculated grades, their value is likely largely determined by the amount of gold they contain. "Cleaning" refers to any abrasive or chemical process that alters the surface of a coin and devalues it in the eyes of collectors, who seek coins with original surfaces. It includes wiping a coin, even with a cloth, which can leave undesirable hairline scratches. Don't do it.

I looked in the NGC Census, not the NGC Coin Explorer, and thought I saw several 5FS and 6FS designations for coins in the AU 53-58 range, which surprised me. I don't see them now. Sometimes I've had trouble loading pages from the census, and the lines and columns "hang up" and don't line up properly.

"Full steps" terminology generally applies to uncirculated Jefferson nickels, many of which, especially those dated from 1950 to 1970, were not sufficiently well struck to show at least five of the steps on Monticello. NGC has certified a few About Uncirculated pieces as having 5 or 6 full steps (a waste of grading fees), but they are unpriced in the NGC Price Guide and other price guides. The 1943-S wartime composition example (35% silver) shown here grades no better than Extremely Fine, which lists $1.50 In Coin World and $2 in the NGC Price Guide. It is doubtful that a dealer would pay more than its silver value ($1.31 today), probably less.

1831 large letters Matron Head large cent (N1), uncertified, Extremely Fine: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

Your photos should be from directly above the coin, not at an angle, show the entirety of each side of the coin, and show as little of the surface on which it sits as possible, like this photo of an uncirculated example of a 1972-D Kennedy half dollar: You mean, "would a grade from a third-party grading service increase its value?" Anyone who has sufficient knowledge to arrive at a reasonable grade for a coin is a grader. My answer is an emphatic NO! Coin collecting, the hobby of kings, goes back for several thousand years, about as long as coins themselves. The first service that encapsulated the coins it authenticated and graded (PCGS) only opened for business in 1986, some fifteen years after I began collecting. Collectors and dealers determined what they were willing to pay for coins based on their own knowledge and taste, and they still do. Third-party grading services supposedly provide an unbiased opinion of the authenticity and grade of coins because they are neither the seller nor the potential buyer, but they may be reluctant to grade conservatively because they do not want to displease regular submitters. Their opinions are just that--opinions. Grading is highly subjective, and many coins graded by each of the major services have repeatedly been removed from their holders--the jargon is "cracked out"-- and awarded a range of different grades by the same or different services. Major auctions may feature successive lots of the same issue with the same grade awarded by the same service, and the prices realized for these lots may differ significantly based upon the bidders' evaluations of each particular coin. A coin is what it is, without regard to what is printed on a grading service label, and its value is determined by what knowledgeable collectors are willing to pay for it.