Sandon

@Coinbuf--The photo posted by @dprince1138 is a photo from the NGC topic I linked provided as an "[e]xample of machine or strike doubling". It is a close match to the flat, shelf-like strike doubling on the OP's coin. I don't know what his point is.

Since I forgot to mention it in my response to your previous topic, welcome to the NGC chat board. As others have indicated, please post clear, cropped photos of each side of a coin about which you have questions. I have over fifty years of experience collecting and studying U.S. coins. I'm still learning and always will be. As a novice, you need to follow the old adage of "buy the book before the coin", which today can include some online study. At a bare minimum, you need a current or recent edition "Redbook", a grading guide, and a current price guide. Topics regarding minor varieties and mint errors (like that in your previous topic) are for more advanced study, and you cannot really understand them without first mastering the basics of how coins are made, the history and types of U.S. coinage, what dates and mints and major varieties of the series you want to collect are considered rare, and how to grade and otherwise evaluate coins. Your education should also involve attendance at such venues as coin shows and coin club meetings, where you can examine a variety of coins and speak with knowledgeable collectors and dealers. Please see the following topics to obtain the appropriate print and online resources: Any coin you wish to collect would "benefit from a grade"--given by you, once you have learned the necessary skills. It would also benefit from being placed in an album or other appropriate holder. Grading a coin is not synonymous with submitting it to a third-party grading service, which is the last thing a novice collector should be thinking about doing. Your coin would have to be worth at least several hundred dollars to be worthy of submission from a financial perspective, and you do not have sufficient knowledge of grading or, in this case, variety attribution to make this determination. You would also need to be familiar with the practices and requirements of the grading service to which you would want to submit it. From what I can see from the photos, your coin is a common date, circulated copper-nickel clad Kennedy half dollar with strike doubling (a.k.a. machine or mechanical doubling), a common and worthless phenomenon resulting from a die being slightly loose in the coinage press. See Double Dies vs. Machine Doubling | NGC (ngccoin.com). It is neither a doubled die, which is a die variety, nor a double strike, which is a mint error, as apparently suggested by @dprince1138. As indicated by @Coinbuf, it is likely worth only face value, a fact that would not be changed by spending $75 ($19 "modern" tier grading fee + $18 variety attribution fee + $10 per order processing fee + $28 return shipping fee) if you were to make this a single coin submission to NGC, not including your cost of shipping it there. You may benefit from the following topic recently posted by a member who learned the hard way what happens when one submits coins to a grading service without adequate knowledge.

A week ago, I attended a coin show where a dealer had an uncirculated clad Roosevelt dime that PCGS had certified as having been struck on an "improperly annealed planchet". The coin had a uniformly bright coppery color on both sides but was of normal thickness and had a full strike. The dealer was asking $250 for it. I don't actively collect error coins and don't know whether this would be a reasonable price, although I suspect that there isn't a big market for a coin featuring such an anomaly among knowledgeable collectors. As I understand it, "annealing" is a process in which planchets are heated and then plunged into cool water in order to harden them prior to striking. Error-ref.com provides information on coins struck from improperly annealed planchets here: https://www.error-ref.com/?s=improperly+annealed. I can't tell whether the 2018-D dime in the initial post is simply discolored from exposure to environmental factors as is often the case, was improperly annealed, or exhibits some other mint error. I doubt that the coin is missing part of the cladding layer on one side and the entire layer on the other, as this would be very unusual, and the coin appears to be of normal thickness and, accordingly, has a normal strike.

It is my understanding that the "Accented Hair" variety is only known to exist on proof 1964 Kennedy half dollars (Philadelphia mint, of course), not 1964-D circulation issues. Do you have information to the contrary? The old-style ANACS holder says nothing about the coin having "Accented Hair" and identifies it generically as a doubled die obverse without stating the variety. Have you been able to identify which of the 18 different varieties listed on doubleddie.com it is? (VarietyPlus lists seven of hopefully the same varieties, one of which is described as a triple die obverse and another a quadruple die obverse! Kennedy Half Dollars (1964-Date) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com).)

Your question is problematic because in order to grade a coin on the numerical scale, especially an uncirculated or nearly uncirculated coin, one must study the coin from different angles and magnification levels. Parts of this 1973 cent can't be seen well. Based on what I can see, I would say that due to the scratch on Lincoln's coat, the slightly weak strike affecting the arches and steps of the Memorial, and apparent friction on Lincoln's beard, the coin would grade no better than MS 64 RD and possibly as low as AU 58.

Once again, I have to post the NGC Coin Explorer photos of the extremely rare 1958 DDO, FS-101.of which none has been found for decades, to demonstrate that the posted coin isn't one: The "FS" designations refer to "Fivaz-Stanton" numbers assigned to a variety in The Cherrypickers' Guide to Rare Die Varieties by Bill Fivaz and the late J.T. Stanton and published by Whitman, most recently in a sixth edition. Even if the posted coin were a doubled die, which it doesn't appear to be, you can't assign these numbers to varieties yourself. Many minor varieties aren't found significant enough to list in the Cherrypickers' Guide but may be listed on such websites as doubleddie.com and varietyvista.com.

1880-S half eagle, uncertified. I acquired this coin in October 1997 as Lot 1041 of the famous John Jay Pittman collection sale for $132, or a little over a quarter of its bullion value now. David Akers catalogued it as "Extremely Fine. Cleaned, now with dull medium orange gold color." The coin appears to be a lustrous AU.

You can see the second dot, likely a tiny die chip, if you look at the PCGS photo at its full resolution on Coinfacts. I didn't realize that you hadn't yet had an opportunity to examine the coin in hand. When you do, you should look hard at the area where the period should be. If you still believe it isn't a JR-6 or other listed variety, I recommend comparing the positions of each of the letters in the legend (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) in relation to the eagle and lettering in the scroll to the JR-6 and, if there is still no match, also the other reverse dies. If you are a member of the American Numismatic Association (money.org), you may be able to borrow a copy of the JR reference from the ANA library. A coin dealer in your area may also have a copy. It is sometimes not possible to definitely attribute these coins due to wear or environmental damage, such as where a raised crust has formed that obscures details, which is possibly the case here.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. This topic should have been posted in the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum, not the NGC Registry forum. Please post clear, cropped photos of each side of the coin so that we may assess whether it is, in fact a "small date", which is extremely unlikely. 1982-D cents composed of 95% copper alloy (brass), with an official weight of 3.11 grams and the "large date" obverse, are abundantly common. Copper-plated zinc examples with either large or small dates with an official weight of 2.5 grams are also very common. See the following graphic for the differences between the 1982 "large and small" dates, courtesy of @EagleRJO:

Sharper photos of the coin would help. Moreover, when you draw lines from point to point, draw them on the same angle, preferably perpendicular to the point of beginning, not on different angles as on your initial post. From some photos of the reverse used on the JR-5 and JR-6 reverse, it appears that there were actually two dots after the "C", with an even lighter one to the right of the primary one, as on this PCGS Coinfacts photo of a JR-6 graded MS 64. Could the primary period be hiding in the darkness or dirt?

Although it is somewhat difficult either to attribute or authenticate this coin due to the blurry photos and the heavy tarnish and/or dirt on the coin, it appears likely to be a genuine JR-6. (I consulted the 2002 Bowers & Merena auction catalog of the collection of Russell J. Logan, one of the authors of the "JR" reference, at p.264, as well as the NGC VarietyPlus photos.) The obverse appears to be from the die used for JR-6 and JR-8, whose most distinctive characteristic is that the bottom of the "3" in the date is lower than the other numerals. Most coins struck from this obverse also show some stage of a "die crack through the curls at back of [the] head from the ribbon to lowest curl", although I can't see this in the photos. Logan catalog, notes to description of lot 2101, his JR-6. On the reverse, also used for JR-5, "[t]he period in [the] denomination is weakly visible." Id. The positions of the numerals, letters, and stars also appear to match these respective dies. (Part of the confusion may stem from the first reverse photo in VarietyPlus for the JR-6 appearing to be of a JR-5.) The second set of photos follows: The "dentils", more accurately described as "border beads" on an 1829-37 "close collar" strike, appear normal for a coin worn to VF or so condition.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Have you compared your coin with the photos of the eight different "JR" reference die varieties of 1830 Capped Bust dimes shown on NGC VarietyPlus, seven of which are described as "Medium 10C.", including the two 1830/29 overdate varieties? Early Dimes (1796-1837) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com) You may also be able to find photos of these varieties on PCGS Coinfacts. https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1830-10c-medium/4516. These varieties may be described in more detail in Davis et al., Early United States Dimes 1796-1837 (1984) (the "JR" reference), a copy of which may be hard to find. Pre-1837 U.S. coins were struck from dies in which each element (devices, letters, numerals, and stars) was punched in separately, so coins produced from each die or die pair show differences in the positioning of these elements. Every once in a while, a new die variety is discovered, but you should ascertain that your coin does not match any of them (including die states reflecting differences that developed as the dies wore) before considering this possibility.

The 1963-D is one of those issues from the "BU roll craze" of the early to mid-1960s of which large numbers of 50-coin rolls and 5,000-coin bags were hoarded. Large quantities of uncirculated coins of these dates remain available. The vast majority of these coins are bagmarked and/or spotted and can't achieve sufficiently high grades, such as MS 66 or 67 RD, to justify the cost of third-party grading. They are usually sold uncertified for less than a dollar and collected in albums. The coin posted here exhibits numerous abrasions in the fields and a rim nick at 2:00. The pinkish toning suggests a "cleaning", which would preclude a numerical grade, or if interpreted as toning would preclude a full red (RD) grade. The highest grade I can even imagine this coin grading would be MS 64 RB (red and brown), which has an NGC Price Guide value of $5. See Lincoln Cents, Memorial Reverse (1959-2008) | Price Guide & Values | NGC (ngccoin.com). The NGC grading fee for this coin would be $23 at the "Economy" tier, plus its share of the $10 per order processing fee, $28 per order up to ten-coin return shipping fee, and the cost of shipping to NGC. Here are photos of a 1962-D Lincoln cent NGC graded MS 65 RD for which I paid $12.50 last year, below its current NGC Price Guide value of $15. It was either submitted as part of a discounted dealer "bulk submission" of 100 or more coins of the same type in which the dealer hoped enough pieces would grade high enough to make the submission worthwhile or by a collector without adequate knowledge of grading, who ended up taking the loss. Note the original full orange-red color of this coin and the somewhat better quality of the surfaces when compared to your 1963-D.

No, I am not seeing anything. To post photos, simply left click the "choose files" link at the bottom of your post and select (click on the image of) the appropriate files in your computer and then click "open" (on a Windows computer), provided that they are in one of the listed file formats, such as .jpeg, and do not exceed the 4.88 MB maximum file size. (Your software may be able to convert the file format or reduce the file size to meet the requirement.) Once the photos have uploaded, place the cursor in the place where you want to insert the photo and press the "insert" link at the bottom right of the icon of the photo at the bottom of the post to insert it. Note that you can add the photos to your original post in this topic by clicking the three little dots (. . .) at the right corner of the screen and clicking "Edit".

Only two 1975 "no S" proof dimes are known to exist, at least one of which was found in a mint packaged 1975 proof set. Both are in Gem Proof condition (PCGS graded PR 68 and PR 66), with their original mirror surfaces, and none has been found since 1984. See https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1975-10c-no-s/5254. The Philadelphia mint issued 585,673,900 1975 dimes for circulation, also without mintmarks. (The "P" mintmark was not used on dimes and most other denominations until 1980.) Presumably, any circulated 1975 dime found in circulation would be one of these Philadelphia strikes, and I am unaware of any numismatic reference purporting to explain how one could tell the difference. In what way? Can you show photos of other 1975 dimes that show how the initials differ from these two? Moreover, how do you know that all of the hundreds of millions of Philadelphia circulation strikes, which would have been struck from several thousand different die pairs, all had this same style of "JS" that differed from that of the "no S" proofs? You're proposing that you just happen to have found two 1975 "no S" proof dimes that were removed from 1975 proof sets and spent and now are well-circulated coins with no proof surfaces, but you can tell the difference between them and other well circulated 1975 dimes struck in Philadelphia. How likely is this?

Your photos are inadequate for me to make a meaningful comparison, but they don't seem to show the "extra columns" near the centers of Memorial bays 2 and 3 as shown for 1991-D WDDR-002 on doubleddie.com on the following image, nor the similar doubling in bays 9 and 10. Does the coin have the tiny die gouge beneath the "A" in AMERICA that is a marker for this die? See https://www.doubleddie.com/352301.html. We'd like to help you, but we really need better photos and clearer questions than you've been asking in your posts. Please review the following forum topic:

Your photos should be of the entirety of each side of the coin, cropped to show less of the surface on which the coin sits, and without the reflections of the lights from your camera. (If these coins are in some sort of clear holder, please remove them from the holder before photographing them, or illuminate them with a lamp aimed from the side.) The only possible doubling I can see in the current photos are some shallow, shelf like images, beneath the top of "T" in the first photo and the bottom of "CENT" in the second photo, which would be strike (a.k.a. machine or mechanical) doubling. In addition to the previously provided sources, the following article also gives a good overview of the differences between die doubling and worthless strike doubling. Double Dies vs. Machine Doubling | NGC (ngccoin.com)

Welcome to the NGC chat board. I'll endeavor to answer your questions in order. 1. If you're getting your prices from the NGC or PCGS price guides, bear in mind that these prices assume that the coins have, in fact, been graded and encapsulated by the service providing the pricing, even though this price would be far below the usual grading fee alone. A few years ago, I asked a dealer who was asking $7 each for common date 1940s Lincoln cents (such as 1940, 1947 and 1948) graded MS 64 RD (Choice to Very Choice BU) by PCGS how he could sell certified coins for such a price, and he replied that PCGS had charged him a $7 per coin bulk (100 coin or more) submission fee under which he had submitted a number of BU rolls of these coins, that he had hoped to make his money on the coins that graded MS 66 RD or higher, and that he was just trying to recover the grading fee on the typical coins that had graded below MS 65. (Collectors who only collect certified coins or want them for registry sets will buy them.) He also told me that so few pieces had achieved the necessary grades to be profitable that he would not do this again. Dealers typically sell nice, single red Ch. BU or better common date Lincoln wheat and Memorial reverse cents in cardboard 2 x 2 holders for far below the prices in grading service price guides to the numerous collectors who are happy to collect such coins in albums. If such a coin lists $5-$10 in MS 64-65 RD on a grading service price guide, an equivalent uncertified coin may be offered with an approximate grade for twenty-five cents to a dollar or two. Just what dealers or collectors will pay for your coins will depend on their dates and conditions, but don't expect anything like these "$5 to $10" per coin prices based on such price guides. (If the "$5-$10" prices are for circulated, better date or condition earlier dates, dealers might pay 50 percent or so of the retail prices for unimpaired, correctly graded pieces.) 2. Dealers (and some hoarders) typically pay 3 to 4 cents apiece ($1.50 To $2 per roll) for decent circulated common 1940-58 "P" (no mint mark) and "D" mint wheat cents, more for "S" mints and pre-1940s. Mass marketers sell large quantities of them. There isn't presently much of a market for circulated, common date Memorial cents. 3. No one can predict the future with any certainty. I save every copper alloy cent I receive in change. Ultimately, there is a market for everything.

I am in general agreement with @powermad5000's assessment of the grades of the Morgan dollars (VF and XF) but would like to see a better photo of the reverse of the 1899-O, as the mintmark doesn't appear to match either of the styles (normal round "O" or "micro O") known for that year. Counterfeit detection is a complex topic, but you can get some basic instruction here: NGC Counterfeit Detection | Identify Counterfeit Coins | NGC (ngccoin.com). It is important for every collector to learn what genuine examples of various types of coins look like to be able to detect at least the more obvious fakes. All coins are "worthy of grading"--by you, once you learn the necessary skills. Some collectors now take "grading" to be synonymous with submitting coins to third-party grading services, which is incorrect. These services didn't exist before 1986. Every collector should own and study a grading guide, which is as indispensable as a recent edition "Redbook". PCGS Photograde (https://www.pcgs.com/photograde) will do until you get one.

@powermad5000--Based on the photos, which are not well focused, the OP's coin does not appear to be of the variety you mention. There is just a slightly lighter color around the numerals, which is indicative of the adjacent plating being thinned by the pressure of striking and found on many zinc-coated steel cents of this era. I don't see any doubling or "notching" as on your photos of the FS-101.

Why did you think that this was anything other than a circulation strike? Actually, there were no proof coins issued dated 1965, 66, or 67. The "Special Mint Sets" issued in those years usually have a strong strike and a somewhat prooflike finish. This coin has a regular, frosty finish and some striking weakness, especially at the center of the steps on the reverse.

I think that what you're seeing on the "96" of the date is a slight defect in the copper plating of this cent and not any form of doubling, die or otherwise. A doubled die coin typically exhibits crisp, clear doubling, with both images at about the same level. This "Redbook" variety 1972 doubled die obverse cent is a good example:

There are nicks and marks on the mint mark, just as on the rest of the coin, which account for the misshapen appearance of the "D" mint mark. It is neither a mint error nor a die variety. Do you know what the differences are between the two? See the following: Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com).

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Based on your photos, which do not show the entirety of each side of these coins, these common date, circulated Lincoln, wheat reverse cents do not exhibit any mint errors. Their collector value is only a few cents each.

The 1960 large date cent in the previous post was privately counterstamped with an outline of Arkansas. Such pieces were frequently offered as novelties at gift and souvenir shops in the 1960s and 1970s. One of the most popular was "Kennedy looks at Lincoln", where a small left facing outline of JFK's profile was stamped into the right obverse field. These altered coins are of little interest to collectors and have little or no premium value. If you're hoping to find anything of value or interest in pocket change, which is pretty unusual at any rate, you're looking in all the wrong places. You would do much better to learn which types, dates, mintmarks, and major varieties of coins are sought by collectors, how to grade them, and how to recognize actual mint errors. See the following topics for guidance in this regard: