Sandon

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Please post photos of the reverse of the coin as well as the obverse. Additionally, please crop your photos so that they are almost entirely of the coin instead of the surface upon which it sits. Several of the photos are too blurry to be of any use. Based on what I can see so far, this 1994-D dime appears to have been damaged by its being punched by a hard object it after it was struck and not a mint error.

I'm having this problem as well. I can't get to the "My Competitive Sets" page through the registry profile or by entering the address into my address bar either.

The description of the "VarietyPlus" service states that "[t]he VarietyPlus fee applies when requested regardless of whether NGC determines the coin to be a recognized variety." See NGC Services and Fees | NGC (ngccoin.com). Unless you want to waste money, you shouldn't request this service regarding your Morgan or Peace dollars unless you have determined that the coin is a recognized VAM variety that NGC will attribute, which I understand are mostly limited to the "Top 100" and the "Hot 50". See United States Categories | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com) for a list of varieties (mostly with photos) that NGC will attribute. See www.vamworld.com for photos of all VAM varieties.

I've never seen any study of this issue, and I really don't care. I'm concerned that newer collectors dwell on what I see as trivial matters like this and look for any minor anomaly as something "special". To me what is special about wartime "nickels" is that they were made in an unusual composition to conserve nickel and copper so that they could be used for wartime production needs. They are literally "history in your hands". The wartime production exigencies led to both high mintages and many irregularities in the coinage, some of which such as the 1942 over 1 dime and 1943 over 2 "nickel" overdate varieties are certainly interesting, but a relatively minor die rotation isn't very interesting, at least to me.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Apparently, @Fenntucky Mike confused this $10 gold piece with a $5 gold piece. Your 1900 $10 gold piece contains contain 0.48375 troy oz. of gold, which at the current gold price is worth $929.55. See U.S. Gold Coin Melt Values | Gold Coin Prices | NGC Coin Melt Value. These coins have retail list prices between $1,100 and $1,200 in circulated grades, so it is possible that you might be able to get something more than gold value for this uncirculated piece with a single obverse scratch. This is a good example of why you should not submit coins to grading services unless you yourself have sufficient knowledge of grading and other aspects of coin valuation to determine their approximate values yourself. One of the many things you would need to know is that while grading services will give mint state and other numerical grades to coins that are extensively bagmarked or otherwise abraded by contact with other coins, a coin like this with a light, thin but noticeable staple scratch will usually be considered impaired and "details" graded. You would have been better off showing it to coin dealers or experienced collectors for an opinion. However, it is at least arguably worthwhile to have gold coins certified to authenticate them. If there are coin shows in your area, I would take this coin to the dealers at the next show and get their offers. You could also take it to local coin shops. Bear in mind that this coin's value is largely related to the price of gold, which changes daily.

Die rotations of this degree are fairly common. I can't be sure from your photos what the "line that goes out to the 4" is, but it may be either (1) a "strikethrough" of a sliver of stray metal that was lying on the planchet or die when the coin was struck or (2) a lamination in the metal of the planchet itself. Wartime five cent pieces are composed of an unusual alloy of copper, silver and manganese. The mint had difficulty mixing this alloy, resulting in frequent planchet laminations (slivers of metal that partly or completely detach from the coins' surfaces.) These aren't considered to be mint errors unless they are particularly severe and usually aren't too valuable even when they are.

The U.S. mint did not issue official uncirculated coin sets, usually called "mint sets", for sale to collectors in 1982 or 1983. A number of dealers assembled and sold unofficial sets like these, many of which contained the various cent varieties. As I recall, Congress then enacted a law requiring the mint to offer both proof and uncirculated coin sets each year beginning in 1984. Visitors to U.S. mint and related facilities, including the Philadelphia and Denver mints and, I think, the Treasury Building in Washington, D.C. could purchase "souvenir sets" for each mint in those years that were packaged similarly to uncirculated coin sets and which contained one coin of each denomination plus a bronze medal commemorating the mint whose coins were in the set. I obtained the 1983 P and D souvenir sets during a visit to the Philadelphia mint that year. I seem to recall that the 1982 souvenir sets didn't contain half dollars because none had yet been coined when the sets were assembled.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. The U.S. mint began striking cents on copper-plated zinc blanks during the latter part of 1982. It took until the mid to late 1990s for the plating process to be perfected, with the result that many, if not most, of the pieces struck during the 1980s and early 1990s display what appear to be blisters, bubbles or other raised shapes through the plating layer. Knowledgeable collectors regard this as a quality control issue rather than a mint error, do not give these pieces a premium value and usually prefer pieces without these plating defects. Your 1988-D cent has About Uncirculated details with damage showing on the reverse. It is only worth its one cent face value. If you find the plating defect around the mint mark interesting, you are welcome to collect it. It is a large one!

I agree that "Labeling Errors" would be a better name, or perhaps "Grading Service Goofs". I just used the terminology that NGC uses.

I'm under the impression that the term "OGH" means "old grading [service] holder" not "old green holder". I'm sure I've seen Stacks Bowers, at least, use "OGH" for lots housed in older ANACS and NGC, as well as PCGS, holders. The confusion likely stems from the PCGS holders with green labels, last used in 1998 except for "retro" versions, qualifying as "OGH" under either definition. I strongly recommend that you collect coins, not grading service holders, and learn to evaluate the coins in the holders without undue reliance on the grade stated on the holder and without regard to the age of the holder. If you insist on collecting coins in "old holders", Stacks Bowers (stacksbowers.com) and possibly other auction houses hold "Old Holders" auctions from time to time. Coins in these holders are mostly widely dispersed and often held in collections (like mine) for decades. Others have been "cracked" out" of the holders and resubmitted in the hope of the coins receiving higher grades. Most new dealer inventory consists of coins that have been recently submitted, often by the dealers offering the coins.

This is not the original "doily" holder used for a brief period in 1989. See PCGS Museum of Coin Holders: Generation 2.0, 1989. This is a "retro doily" label offered by PCGS a few years ago--2017, I've read--to commemorate the original "doily" label. The holder housing your 1937 dime is except for the label the "Generation 6.0" holder used from 2015 to 2020. See PCGS Museum of Coin Holders: Generation 6.0, 2015-2020. The differences are particularly apparent when you "flip" the images to view the backs of the labels, which are completely different.

It is particularly interesting that you posted this topic today, as NGC just posted "updated" rules regarding mechanical errors. NGC’s Mechanical Errors / Returns Policy | NGC (ngccoin.com). See also NGC Guarantee | Coin Certification Guarantee | NGC (ngccoin.com) at section 12 under "WARNING THIS GUARANTEE IS LIMITED." This appears to be a reversion to NGC's traditional policy regarding such labeling errors, which had been recently changed to require that such errors be submitted for correction within some ridiculously short period of time after receipt from NGC, 14 or 15 days as I recall. They can once again be submitted for correction at any time without charge, although you still have the hassle and expense of shipping them to NGC. There is still a 14-day limit for returning coins due to "holder defects". I assume that NGC's reversal of its policy resulted from a substantial number of complaints about the time limit, as it would prevent subsequent owners of these coins from having erroneous labels corrected without substantial cost. I've seen such errors in ANACS, NGC, and PCGS holders. Unfortunately, new or casual collectors often rely on what is printed on the label and sometimes don't realize that the coin has been misdescribed. The NGC Guarantee--and as I recall PCGS's as well--don't provide for compensation in these circumstances but only provide for free reholdering. While the mechanical error was significant in the case you describe, 1875-S quarters being much scarcer than 1875-S twenty cent pieces, you should consider renaming this topic "Mechanical Errors", as it would likely attract more long-lasting attention.

A coin with a "matte" or "sandblasted" finish--two different processes as I understand @RWB--has a dull, granular finish. This coin is quite shiny, and only the images taken through the flip show any granularity, which is also seen on the surface of the flip itself. It is just an ordinary 1976-D Lincoln cent. Why do people like the OP feel compelled to mislead the public about coins? This topic is a good example of why we advise new collectors not to watch YouTube videos, other than those posted by trusted organizations.

What is left of the date on this corroded and pitted cent doesn't match that of a 1965, as shown in the photo below from @Coinbuf's registry images. The image of Lincoln also doesn't appear to match that of a cent from the 1965-67 era, which was more spread out. The lettering is also more distant from the rim than it would be on a 1965. It's interesting that the OP hasn't shown photos of the reverse. Could this coin be a 1955-D or other pre-1959 Lincoln cent with the wheat stalk reverse?

@HuntLoco--Welcome to the NGC chat board. Please compare your item to the photos of a genuine Continental Dollar shown in my post on this topic from June 24th. Your piece is almost certainly one of the countless "replicas" sold as souvenirs over the years. They have no value. Please also note that you should never allow a coin you think may have value to be in contact with your bare hands, as your skin secretes oils that can react with and discolor coin metal. If you must touch such a coin, hold it only by its edges.

The coins listed in the Redbook along with the regular issues, such as the 1917, 1936, 1955 and 1972 doubled die cents, are die varieties, not mint errors. Recent editions of the Red Book include a brief overview of mint errors as Appendix A. Although you may occasionally find minor mint errors and die varieties in coins taken from circulation, it is highly unlikely that you will ever find one of the more valuable ones. In 52 years of collecting and checking change, the best--and minor--errors I've found are a blank cent planchet and two broadstruck quarters, perhaps worth a few dollars each. However, another long-time collector I know received a Lincoln cent that had been overstruck by Jefferson nickel dies, a fairly significant mint error, in change at a supermarket a few years ago. The coin has been certified by NGC. Many die varieties of U.S. coins not listed in the Redbook can be found on resources such as NGC VarietyPlus. United States Categories | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). For further information, see the following resources: 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) Error-ref.com provides comprehensive information about mint errors for those who understand the basics. I concur that the 1957 cent has been damaged and is not a mint error. The 1936 cent is normal and has a nearly Extremely Fine obverse and a weaker reverse grading Fine to Very Fine.

1950 Jefferson nickel, PCGS graded PR 65:

1835 half cent, NGC graded MS 65 RB in an older holder from 1992. The coin has less original color than these photos would suggest and now might only receive a "BN" designation. However, this is a truly uncirculated coin showing no high point wear or "rub". Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

1834 half cent, PCGS graded MS 62 BN, with observable high point wear. This is one of those "sliders" that grading services give grades as high as MS 63 if they are older U.S. coins, especially those from before 1837 or so. Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

In my 52 years of experience, I've found that although coin dealers vary widely in knowledge, opinions and professionalism, most of them aren't determined to cheat you. However, the best defense is to educate yourself and not remain a "novice". If you don't own at a minimum a recent edition "Redbook", a grading guide, and a subscription to a current price guide, I recommend that you obtain and study them. Here is a link to a topic describing these basic print resources, as well as some online substitutes: Both PCGS (pcgs.com) and the American Numismatic Association (money.org) offer online videos and other resources that may assist you in learning grading and detecting "cleaned" and otherwise impaired coins. "Cleaning" is among those issues about which even experienced collectors and dealers sometimes disagree. I have a custom registry set depicting coins in my collection that grading services described as "cleaned", most of which I bought already so graded because I found them suitable nevertheless. Characteristics of "Cleaned" Coins - Custom Set (collectors-society.com) You can also compare these coins with numerically graded coins in my competitive sets at Sandon's Competitive Sets | NGC (ngccoin.com).

Unfortunately, your 1921 Morgan dollar has uncirculated details but has been harshly "cleaned" or "whizzed". Note the unnatural sheen, the parallel hairline scratches across Liberty's face and neck in your lower obverse photo, and the different appearance in the areas around the devices that were protected from the wire brush or other abrasive surface used to accomplish the "cleaning". It would only be worth silver value. I recommend that you go to a coin show or other venue where you can compare this coin with uncleaned, third-party or otherwise professionally graded uncirculated Morgan dollars. You can't see everything from photos, but here are photos of a 1921 Morgan dollar that NGC graded MS 64: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

Grading services routinely return many coins whose inexperienced--and sometimes even experienced--submitters thought were "very appealing" with "details" grades as "cleaned" or otherwise impaired. The "coloring in the fields" (toning) appears to be irregular, which together with the coin's unnatural sheen is often indicative of "cleaning". Unless you have a substantial amount of experience grading coins yourself, you should not be considering submitting coins to grading services. If you want to sell the coin, you should offer it to dealers and decide whether the price they offer you is sufficient, bearing in mind what the grading and processing fees and shipping costs would cost you and that it would take several months to receive the coin back from the grading service.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. When you post a topic about a specific coin this forum, it is best to ask us what you want to know about the coin and not just ask for general feedback. I'll try to provide information you most likely want. While your photos are sufficiently clear, they should be cropped so that the photos are almost entirely of the coin instead of mostly of the surface on which it sits. Based on the photos and the weight you stated, your 1832 Capped Bust, close collar strike dime appears to be genuine. However, the authenticity of a coin cannot be determined without in-person examination. The coin has Extremely Fine to About Uncirculated details but appears to have been polished or chemically "cleaned" to an unnatural brilliance, which could significantly reduce its market value. There are seven listed die varieties of 1832 Capped Bust dimes (JR-1 through JR-7), none of which appears to be particularly distinctive. (The varieties are likely based on slight differences in position of the date, stars, and/or lettering.) Unfortunately, the book that contains written descriptions of each variety and may provide rarity information, Davis et al., Early United States Dimes 1796-1837, is difficult to find; but NGC VarietyPlus has photos of all but JR-4. Early Dimes (1796-1837) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). PCGS Coinfacts has photos of the JR-4 and likely the others as well. 1832 10C JR-4 (Regular Strike) Capped Bust Dime - PCGS CoinFacts. Relatively few collectors actively collect early dimes by die variety.

@J P M--Aren't these "bars" caused by die chips, like "BIE" Lincoln cents, which are caused by a die chip between the "B" and "E" of LIBERTY?

Welcome to the NGC chat board. You cannot enter more than one coin of the same date and mint (or that otherwise corresponds to a specific slot in the registry set you are trying to create) into the same registry set. You would have to create multiple sets, either in the same or different set categories. Just as a Morgan dollar album would only have one opening for an 1880-S, a date and mint Morgan dollar registry set only has one slot for an 1880-S. If you have coins whose holders include "Top 100" or "Hot 50" VAM die variety designations, there are categories with separate slots for such coins of the same date and mint but different VAM designations. There is also a separate category for San Francisco mint Morgan dollars in which you could use a different 1880-S than in a full date and mint set. You can also use multiple examples of the same date and mint in one per date or certain other categories of sets shown under the "Morgan dollars" categories, as well as in type sets. Please note also that you cannot use the same coin in more than one set in the same category.