Sandon

Numismatic guidebooks tend to list pieces that are both rare and popular. As we've tried to explain, coins struck from rotated dies, especially in a medallic alignment and on modern coins, may be scarce, but they have never attracted a substantial following among collectors of mint errors, unlike coins struck on the wrong planchets or in the wrong compositions, struck multiple times, struck over previously struck coins of different types, or struck from severely defective dies. If your coin is worth $30 to $50 as some knowledgeable members have stated, I'd say that's pretty good for a circulated 1970-D quarter, which would normally be worth face value. If you like this type of error, you are welcome to collect them, and you should be able to find them from time to time at venues such as coin shops and coin shows at a reasonable price.

I'm not sure what this topic has to do with the controversy regarding the definition of "Specimen", as to my knowledge there are no alleged "Specimen" strikings of three cent nickels. The 1885 three cent nickel has a reported mintage of only 1,000 circulation strikes, the lowest number for the series, and 3,790 proofs. NGC has certified 41 submissions as circulation strikes, including 4 "details" graded pieces, and 1,105 submissions as proofs in all categories, while the corresponding numbers for pieces submitted to PCGS are 140 certified as circulation strikes and 1,454 as proofs in all categories. The combined grading event population is 181 circulation strikes and 2,559 proofs. Those that were designated circulation strikes have a grade range of Fine to MS 66 at NGC and Fine to MS 67 at PCGS. About 90% of proofs graded by both services are non-cameos, with nearly all the rest designated cameo and deep or ultra cameos in low single digits. Like the other dates reviewed in this topic, most proofs grade 64 or 65, with pieces graded 66 also frequently encountered, 67s much scarcer, and top of population 68s in single digits. Some circulated pieces are also included in the proof populations. I have seen no published criteria for determining whether an 1885 three cent nickel was struck as a circulation strike or a proof. I have observed that at least two different obverse dies were used to strike this date, one of which has the "1" nearly touching the bust and the other with the "1" farther from the bust. Most of the pieces certified as circulation strikes whose photos I have seen appear to have been struck from the die with the "1" nearly touching the bust, but some, such as the piece graded AU 55 on the PCGS Coinfacts image page, are of the "far 1" variety. Images of Three Cent Nickel 1885 3CN - PCGS CoinFacts. Pieces designated as proofs are also seen from both obverses. Images of Three Cent Nickel 1885 3CN - PCGS CoinFacts. The photos also reveal that unworn pieces given either designation may have a satiny finish instead of the frosty finish associated with circulation strikes or the mirrorlike finish associated with proofs. Nevertheless, pieces certified as circulation strikes sell for multiples of the prices realized for those certified as proofs in equivalent--or even much higher--grades. For example, Coin World Values currently lists a VG 8 circulation strike 1885 at $1,250 (none listed as certified by NGC or PCGS in that grade) and a Proof 65 at $625, or half as much. Last week, Stacks Bowers actually sold a piece that NGC certified as MS 61 for $5,040. https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-13WLAP/1885-nickel-three-cent-piece-ms-61-ngc. My own 1885 three cent nickel, acquired at a 2015 auction, is certified as--and appears to be--a proof that PCGS graded PR 64, with mirrorlike fields and somewhat frosted devices. It has some weakness at the upper obverse rim and Liberty's hair. I have seen similar striking irregularities on other pieces designated as proofs of this date, although the weakness varies in location. This coin was struck from the "far 1" obverse. Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

I just purchased this 1936 Cleveland Centennial/Great Lakes Exposition commemorative half dollar at a local coin show. PCGS graded this coin MS 64. The dealer from whom I bought it also had an example of this issue that PCGS had graded MS 66 for a reasonable price, but it was noticeably more bagmarked than this coin, which I found more desirable. (The MS 66 coin had a duller surface that may have been more "original", while this coin may have been carefully "dipped".)

If the doubling to which you are referring is on the mintmark, it isn't a doubled die because until about 1991 mint marks were separately punched into working dies after the dies had been impressed by the hubs. It could be a repunched mintmark (RPM). There could also be die doubling on other elements or strike (a.k.a. machine or mechanical) doubling on such elements and the mint mark as well. Unfortunately, the photos aren't clear enough for me to see whether this coin has any doubling or other anomaly.

I have two reasons: 1. As the grading services have no stated criteria for telling 1883, 84, and 85 three cent nickels struck for circulation from those struck as proof and admit that they are "difficult" to tell apart, the coin you buy in a grading service holder that purports it to be a circulation strike may in fact have been struck as a proof. Why pay a much higher price for it than for a coin of the same date in an equivalent grade in a holder that designates it as a proof? In the unlikely event that anyone discovers a reliable (or at least consistent and generally accepted) method to tell them apart, you may discover that your "circulation strike" would now be classified as a less valuable proof. 2. Although "proof" is defined as a method of manufacture rather than a grade, coins that were struck as or appear to be proofs tend to be superior in strike and overall appearance than those struck for or appearing to have been struck for circulation. Nineteenth century collectors apparently considered proofs to be the same issue as circulation strikes of the same date and denomination and tended to only collect proofs as the best examples of those issues. This view apparently persisted well into the twentieth century. The Louis E. Eliasberg, Sr. collection was considered to be a "complete" collection of U.S. coins by date and mint even though many of the Philadelphia mint issues were represented only by proofs. Today's collectors consider proof and circulation strike coins to be different issues, but where it may not be possible to tell them apart, wouldn't you rather have a beautiful, fully struck gem quality example with a proof designation than a lower grade, less attractive example for a much higher price just because the grading service holder designates it as a circulation issue? I'll pick up this topic with a discussion of the 1885 three cent nickels and then turn to an examination of dates with larger circulation strike mintages.

What you need to understand is that the value of a coin, like everything else, is determined by the combination of supply and demand. It is my impression that rotated die errors aren't particularly popular with error collectors. Just because you've never seen one before doesn't mean that a knowledgeable collector would be willing to pay you a substantial amount of money for it. I suggest that you obtain a professional opinion about this coin from a dealer who specializes in mint errors. One such dealer is 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.

@Mike Meenderink --Can you cite any recent auction or other verifiable sales records for comparable common date, modern circulating issue coins struck in a "medallic alignment" realizing such a high price? Would you be willing to pay the OP that much for it? @Kassi24--The article you showed is from 1999, when State quarters were new and very popular. The article doesn't mention any actual sale price for this Pennsylvania quarter purportedly struck from rotated dies, and I've never heard of it, so it has never become a well-known or popular variety. (I've been collecting coins for over 52 years.) It's not that unusual for coins to be struck from rotated dies.

Unquestionably, the 1869 Seated Liberty dollar that is the subject of this topic is a scarce and desirable coin. Unlike abundantly common Morgan dollars, Seated dollars, by issue or as a group, are legitimately scarce. Although the 1869 issue has a relatively large mintage of over 423,000 pieces, it is believed that most were exported and melted. Perhaps no more than a few thousand exist in all grades, including impaired examples. This coin is also likely among the best 100 or so of the surviving pieces. That, however, does not mean that it is necessarily correct to describe it as "uncirculated." Based on the photos, the coin lacks luster and shows a flat gray color on the high points of Liberty's right leg and breast and the highest points of her hair. There is similarly a lack of luster and some flatness due to "rub" at the tops of the eagle's wings and on the high points of the feathers of the neck and wings. These are among the high points where wear first appears as still described in the A.N.A. grading guide for determining whether a coin is AU or uncirculated. By the standards I--and presumably @RWB-- learned in the 1970s, such a coin is a Choice AU or "slider" and should not be graded "uncirculated". The grading services and the dealers who largely support them describe coins with "rub" like this with such euphemisms as "roll friction" and give such coins numerical grades as high as MS 63. (Compare this coin to the MS 65 and higher graded examples on PCGS Coinfacts, which are correctly described as "uncirculated" by traditional standards.) The fact is that there are very few truly uncirculated coins among earlier U.S. coins, and most of those awarded lower mint state grades by grading services would have been graded AU by pre-1986 standards. When @RWB described this coin as a "really nice AU coin" he intended it as a compliment. So do I.

These medals would be graded under the "Modern" tier, which includes the following items: Modern All US or world coins struck 1965 to present (except patterns, die trials, etc.), or US or world tokens and medals struck 1990 to present, both private and official. See NGC Services and Fees | NGC (ngccoin.com) (Emphasis added.) I don't know why anyone would want to remove these items from their mint packaging and send them to a grading service, but that is for you to decide. I advise you to review the various topics under the "Submit" tab on the NGC home page so that you will appreciate the requirements and expenses involved.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Please note that it would be helpful if you would include clear, cropped photos of each side of a coin about which you have questions. (In this case, a photo of the coin's edge would also have been helpful.) If you have what you describe and it is genuine, it is usually referred to as a "rotated die" error. If the rotation is in fact a full 180 degrees from the "coin turn" in which U.S. coins are normally struck, it is referred to as a "medal turn" or "medallic alignment". Coins struck from rotated dies are fairly common and not considered to be major errors, but a fairly recent coin like this struck in a full "medal turn" would likely command some premium. Unfortunately, I have no data on recent sales for such items, but I doubt that such a coin's value would exceed $100. NGC would certify this coin as a mint error under the criteria stated for rotated die errors, which follow: "Rotated dies: All US Mint coins are struck with coin alignment. That is, when the coin is flipped from top to bottom, the reverse will be properly oriented. This is the opposite of medallic alignment, which has both the obverse and reverse oriented the same way. Rotated die errors tend to occur when a die is installed improperly or is loose and rotates on its own. It is much more common on early US Mint coinage. NGC will recognize rotated die mint errors only if there is at least 15 degrees of rotation." See Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 1 | NGC (ngccoin.com).

Sorry, but this coin is clearly a large date. None of the characteristics to which you refer resembles that of the "small date" hub. I've never had any trouble distinguishing either variety from the other since these coins were issued in 1982. They just look distinctly different to me at a glance. I suggest that you stop focusing on individual numerals and letters, as this method seems to be confusing you, and instead place a known example of each variety side by side and take into your mind an image of each individual coin as a whole, or at least each one's entire date. Hopefully, you will then learn to recognize each one.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. As the NGC Registry forum is for topics pertaining to the NGC coin registry, this question should have been posted and would receive more attention on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum. The Administrator will most likely move it to that forum by early next week. I'll attempt to answer your question and then give you what I believe to be some very important advice. I assume that NGC did not give this coin a cameo ("CAM") or ultra cameo ("UCAM") designation, which would result in higher list prices. The only retail price guide to which I have ready access that provides prices for certified coins given "plus" grades is the PCGS Price Guide, which also tends to have the highest--in my opinion, often too high--prices. An 1882 Trade dollar (a proof-only issue as are all after 1878) graded "66+" currently lists $16,500 on the PCGS Price Guide. (The grades for coins graded "66" and "67" on that guide are $14,250 and $25,000 respectively. Coins given "plus" grades usually price closer to the lower than to the higher grade.) The NGC Price Guide lists this issue at $13,500 in PF 66 and $25,000 in PF 67. The Summer 2023 CPG Coin & Currency Market Review, in contrast, lists this issue in "66" at $9,750 and "67" at $19,800. Although CPG purportedly lists dealer to dealer prices, I have purchased coins at major auction venues and from dealers at below CPG and other list prices. You must bear in mind that the value of a coin, especially a more expensive coin such as this one, is not completely determined by any price guide or the grade awarded it by a grading service. Sophisticated buyers determine the prices they are willing to pay for coins upon their personal evaluation of that particular coin, often based on many years of experience. Coins at these price levels are often sell at auctions held by major numismatic auction houses such as Heritage, Goldberg, Great Collections, and Stacks Bowers. Auction records for such sales are compiled most currently on the PCGS website at Auction Prices Realized - PCGS Auction Prices. You may wish to review these records for 1882 Proof Trade dollars at and around this grade level. There are frequently wide variations in prices realized for coins of the same issue in the same grade awarded by the same grading service even at the same sale. Proof Trade dollars are sometimes unattractively toned or not fully struck even when awarded relatively high grades such as "66+". Coins that sophisticated collectors consider unattractive often sell for below list prices. I am concerned that as someone who is relatively new to buying coins and is unaware of how to access the major price guides, you are considering buying such an expensive coin even if you can easily afford it. There have been instances of counterfeit or overgraded coins being placed in fake or tampered with grading service holders. At a minimum, you should verify that the coin matches its description (and photo if graded after approximately 2008) on NGC Certificate Verification. NGC Cert Lookup | Verify NGC Certification | NGC (ngccoin.com). If possible, you should also have an experienced collector or dealer who is familiar with proof Trade dollars examine the coin and provide you with an opinion. I would advise that you learn something about these coins and their appearance yourself through both reading and study of the actual coins before making a purchase at this level. Here is a link to a topic whose lead post provides some leads to basic resources, including print and online price and grading guides:

Also, take note of the following topic:

As I recall, a coin with very narrow reading on the edge was sometimes referred to as a "railroad rim" years ago, but this 1991-D dime wouldn't qualify. It seems to be within the norm for a coin made for circulation, whose edge is usually somewhat beveled.

The copper-nickel alloy (75% copper, 25% nickel) of which nickels and the outer layers of 1965 to date clad dimes and quarters and of 1971 to date half dollars are composed is chemically reactive and turns a dark red to black color like this when a coin is buried in the earth or otherwise exposed to corrosive substances. The "coating" consists of chemical compounds resulting from the corrosion process. It is of no interest or value to collectors.

There is more to the explanation than this. Two reasons are usually advanced for the issuance of Trade dollars. First, they were intended to facilitate trade in the Orient, especially with China. The Chinese were used to receiving payment in Mexican eight real pieces, sometimes called “Mexican dollars”, which weighed approximately 417 grains and were composed of .903 fine silver, containing 0.7859 troy ounces of pure silver. U.S. silver dollars weighed 412.5 grains, .900 fine, containing 0.77344 troy ounces of pure silver. While some quantities of Liberty Seated dollars had been exported to China, they traded at a discount. The Trade dollar, as proclaimed on its reverse, weighs “420 grains, .900 fine”, containing 0.7874 troy ounces of pure silver. It was hoped that at this weight it could compete with the slightly lighter Mexican coins. Second, and perhaps more importantly, they were intended to reduce the glut of silver resulting from the discovery of large amounts of silver in the United States, such as the Comstock lode. Silver mining interests supported the 1873 legislation authorizing Trade dollars. As the Mint Director's 1898 letter indicates, from 1873 to 1878, nearly 36 million trade dollars were minted for circulation. They reportedly received some acceptance in southern China but less elsewhere due to the unfamiliar design. While most were exported, others circulated domestically, as they were initially legal tender up to five dollars. The world price of silver continued to decline, so that Trade dollars became worth less than their face value in silver notwithstanding their heavier weight. Profiteers deposited silver at the mint for exchange into Trade dollars of equal weight, which they then spent at face value. To end this practice Congress in July 1876 revoked the legal tender status of Trade dollars. They continued to circulate at values less than a dollar that fluctuated with the price of silver. Some unscrupulous persons continued to pass them off at face value. Production of Trade dollars for circulation ceased following the passage of the Bland Allison Act that authorized the production of Morgan dollars in 1878, although the mint continued to produce and sell proof examples through 1883 (and unofficially in 1884 and 1885). The redemption of Trade dollars at face value, which is apparently referred to in the 1898 letter, was only allowed for a period of six months under the 1887 law that also repealed the Treasury's authority to issue Trade dollars. Thereafter, they were effectively demonetized and only worth their then low silver value. Reportedly, many 1891 and 1891-O Morgan dollars were coined from silver obtained from the redeemed Trade dollars, and apparently portions of the relatively high mintages of Liberty Seated dimes and quarters of that year as well. I derived this information from a presentation I made to a coin club a few years ago. I obtained it primarily from the following sources: Bowers, Q. David, Silver Dollars and Trade Dollars of the United States: A Complete Encyclopedia (Bowers & Merena 1993), Volume One at pp. 869-1086. Breen Walter, Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins (Doubleday 1988), pp. 466-70.

The availability of specific issues of Morgan dollars in various grades usually has nothing to do with their original mintage figures. Some dates with relatively low mintages such as the 1885-CC (228,000) and the 1899 (330,000) had large quantities preserved unissued in Treasury vaults as backing for currency (Silver Certificates) until as late as 1964. Others with relatively high mintages such as the 1886-O (10,710,000) and the 1901 (6,962,000) are relatively scarce today in any uncirculated or higher circulated grade, presumably because most of the stored portions of their mintages were melted down as a result of the Pittman Act of 1918, and surviving coins are mostly more worn examples from those that had previously been placed in circulation. Of the original 228,000 1885-CC dollars minted, 148,285 (approximately 65% of the original mintage) were still held by the Treasury in March 1964 and were subsequently sold to the public in the GSA sales of 1972-80, and some additional 1,000-coin uncirculated bags had reportedly been released and obtained by coin dealers during the 1940s and 50s. In contrast the Treasury had only one uncirculated 1889-CC dollar to offer in the GSA sales. Reportedly, some 1,000-coin bags of uncirculated 1889-CCs were released over the decades before 1964, and there are certainly tens of thousands of circulated coins in existence, as indicated by the NGC Census and the PCGS Population Report. Interestingly, the NGC Census shows about 6,200 coins awarded various numerical grades and 23,328 pieces given "Details" grades, indicating that many 1889-CCs have been "cleaned" or otherwise abused in a misguided effort to make them appear to be a higher grade. (The PCGS Population Report shows nearly ten thousand 1889-CCs numerically graded but does not report a "Details" population, which also likely includes many thousands of pieces. Some of the reported population consists of resubmissions of the same coin, but there are also coins certified by other services and uncertified pieces like mine.) There are no "rare" Morgan dollars by date and mint, at least among circulating (non-proof) issues. Even the 1893-S, which is definitely scarcer than the 1889-CC (and better referred to as the "king" or "key date" among coins made for circulation), has a likely surviving population of over ten thousand pieces. Some dates and mints, including the 1889-CC and the 1893-S but also including the 1884-S, the 1892-S and the 1901, to name some, could legitimately be called "rare" in higher mint state grades, but they are always available in quantity in circulated and sometimes in lower mint state grades. Morgan dollars sell for high prices due to high demand, which is at least partly fueled by mass marketer hype and widespread ignorance about how common they really are. If I were a new collector, I would rather spend my money on less popular coins that are truly rare (such as the AU 1871 silver three cent piece I bought today) than on any Morgan dollar at current prices.

Although a question like yours might have been better posted in the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum or the "U.S., World and Ancient Coins" forum, it is nevertheless a legitimate one. Some sellers, like some forum members, do not show certification numbers so that those who make fake grading service holders won't have serial numbers and grades that match genuine holders and coins. It is also possible that the seller has more than one coin to sell of this issue and grade and doesn't want to guarantee that a buyer will receive a specific coin. As you point out, this makes it impossible for prospective buyers to verify that the numbers and photos correspond to the correct coin on NGC Certificate Verification. If you don't like this seller's policy, the answer is simply to not buy from that seller.

1954-S Washington-Carver half dollar, now NGC certified MS 65:

The coin appears to be in a PCGS holder, so you should be able to find out whether PCGS described it as "cleaned" or otherwise impaired. The unnatural color and hairlines that run in the same direction indicate it has been extensively "cleaned". I have knowingly purchased "cleaned" coins for my collection with an appropriate discount if I find them to be reasonably attractive, unlike this one. My own 1889-CC dollar, purchased uncertified several decades ago, should grade an unimpaired Fine or so and may be more desirable than this one with AU or so details.

@EagleRJO--I assume you're referring to the total of approximately 11 billion (10,712,525,000) 1982 and 6 billion (6,012,979,368) 1982-D cents of all compositions and varieties, for a total of approximately 16.725 billion pieces dated 1982. I still don't know to what the 20 million figure refers. If your point is simply that it would be a wild goose chase for one to attempt to find in circulation one of the presumably tiny number of 1982-D small date brass ("copper") cents issued out of the over six billion 1982-D cents issued over 40 years ago, then it is a point well taken.

If a dealer sent you a coin that was different from the one you ordered, you should notify the dealer of the mistake as soon as possible. The dealer should allow you to return the wrong coin at his expense and send you the correct one, or, if you are willing to keep the coin sent should credit you with part of the purchase price, as the coin you received is less valuable.

The mint has never broken down the mintages of 1982 and 1982-D cents by either composition or date size, but it was widely believed that none of the 1982-D small dates was struck in the brass (95% copper) composition until the two examples were discovered not long ago. It has been assumed that they were struck on a few stray brass planchets left in the bins. It is unknown how many were struck. @EagleRJO--Where did you get this figure of 20 million, and to what composition and variety does it refer?

@Ali E.--The 2004-D Extra Leaf High and Extra Leaf Low quarters are listed on VarietyPlus and classified as varieties rather than mint errors. State & Territorial Quarters (1999-2009) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). They already have dedicated slots for inclusion in the various "100 Greatest U.S. Modern Coins" registry sets and can also be used for the generic 2004-D Wisconsin quarters slot in Statehood Quarter and other registry sets. Either variety is apparently awarded extra points in Statehood Quarter sets, but it isn't possible to include them both or a "normal" one as well. Perhaps two additional slots should be added to these sets for these relatively popular two varieties, which are listed in the "Redbook". There don't appear to be any other varieties of Statehood quarters that are popular enough to include in a special set as requested by the OP, who might want to consider starting a "100 Greatest U.S. Modern Coins" set, which includes relatively common as well as rare coins. 100 Greatest U.S. Modern Coins, Fourth Edition Sets | NGC Registry | NGC (ngccoin.com). There are similar categories based on the preceding three editions of the book. You can also display these two coins in a Custom Set as suggested.

This 1835 large date, large 5C. Capped Bust half dime (the official name for U.S. silver five cent coins struck from 1794 to 1873) appears to be genuine based on the photos, but in-hand inspection is always important for authentication. It appears to be a match for die variety LM-3. See Early Half Dimes (1792-1837) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). The coin appears to have About Uncirculated details, but based on the odd gray color the coin may have been "cleaned". In-hand inspection would be necessary to get a better idea of this as well. If genuine and unimpaired, retail list prices for this coin are around $200 in Extremely Fine and $300 in About Uncirculated.