Sandon

For those who don't want to acquire Mr. Flynn's book, the PCGS Coinfacts page to which I provided a link includes an accounting from a 2005 auction catalog of the main theories regarding the production of these coins, (1) now mostly discredited, that they were minted to balance the San Francisco mint's books, and (2) that they were minted for presentation to VIPs, with or without the expectation that more would be coined later in the year.

Walter Breen, in his Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins (1988) at p. 271, wrote that Mint Director James Ross Snowden coined the term "trimes" for silver three cent pieces but acknowledged that this term has hardly ever been used outside of coin collecting circles, and seldom even there. He also wrote that the public used the term "fish scales" for them and that they were generally unpopular. Some of Breen's research has been questioned or discredited in recent years, so I am not sure whether or not this account is accurate.

1910 Liberty Nickel, NGC graded PF 63 (old holder) Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

The 1894-S Barber dime is one of the most famous rare U.S. coins, with approximately nine pieces known to exist today out of a reported mintage of twenty-four as indicated in the 1909 letter. It is on par with the 1913 Liberty nickel, "1804" novodel dollar, and 1907 Ultra High Relief St. Gaudens double eagle. (It is perhaps more worthwhile to own than the first two, as it is neither a clandestine issue nor a backdated presentation piece but was coined in the year of its date and reported in the Mint's records.) The last piece offered at auction, NGC graded PF 65 and sold in December 2020, realized $1,440,000. For the story(ies?) of this coin, see 1894-S 10C, BM (Proof) Barber Dime - PCGS CoinFacts.

Yes.

I've never had much difficulty distinguishing the so-called "large date" and "small date" 1982 varieties. They were made from different master dies, so the lettering and characteristics of Lincoln's profile are different, as well as the date. The following graphic provided by @EagleRJO shows a number of the differences:

Actually, it's upside down from what the expected orientation of clash marks would be and looks like someone's crude effort to scratch in "graffiti" to make the coin look like a mint error.

The 1884 three cent nickel had reported mintages of 3,942 proofs but only 1,700 circulation strikes. The NGC Census shows a total of 1,297 submissions graded in proof format, with a grade range of VF to PF 68. The PCGS Population Report shows a total of 1,636 proof graded submissions with a grade range of F 15 through PR 68. The total proof population between the two services is 2,933. As with other dates we've examined in this topic, (1) the vast majority of the proof populations have been graded from 64 to 66, with 67s much scarcer and 68s in single digits, and (2) the vast majority of these populations are graded non-cameo, with cameos having about 20% of the population of non-cameos, and deep or ultra cameos totaling 2 at NGC and 4 at PCGS. The circulation strike population is only 49 at NGC, ten of which are details graded, and 111 at PCGS, for a total of 160 grading events, some of which are likely multiple submissions of the same coin. The grade range of these circulation strike submissions varies from Fine through MS 67, with most awarded circulated grades. I recall reading that all 1884 three cent nickels, both proof and circulation strike, were coined from a single pair of dies but can't currently identify the source. (Feel free to post what you know about this issue.) The date, the only portion of the die that would have been punched in separately, appears to be in the same position on every example of this date that I've seen. The NGC Coin Explorer states that "[t]he typical 1884 is sharply struck from fresh dies and looks more like a poorly made proof than a true currency strike. Historically, there has been a great deal of misattribution between the two editions." Similarly, Ron Guth has written for PCGS Coinfacts, "beware of Proofs masquerading as Mint State examples...sometimes they are hard to tell apart, and the Proofs are worth much less than the Mint State versions." (Ellipses in original.) I defy anyone to state objective criteria to distinguish between pieces struck as proofs and as circulation strikes, especially for coins in circulated grades whose original finish has worn away. Nevertheless, purported 1884 circulation strikes list $1,250 to $1,600 in F 12 and $7,500 to $8,500 in MS 63 in various price guides, and certified examples have in fact sold for well into four figure prices in such grades at auction. In comparison, certified proofs list $500-$550 in "65" and $750-$850 in "66". In the absence of established objective criteria for distinguishing between proof and circulating issues, I recommend buying this date only as a proof. I purchased my own 1884 three cent nickel, which PCGS graded PR 64, at a 2015 auction for a total of about $333, including shipping. The coin is well-struck with nearly unblemished surfaces but has satiny surfaces with little reflectivity. Presumably, it was struck as one of the 3,942 proofs and not one of the 1,700 coins for circulation, but no one may ever know for sure. Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. It can be difficult to photograph uncirculated or proof coins or coins in plastic holders due to the glare that shines back from the coin and/or the holder. You need to use lighting that comes from an angle, such as from a desk lamp, instead of from directly overhead. You also need to improve the focus and clarity of your photos. This may require experimentation, editing and possibly better equipment. I don't see anything above the statue of Lincoln other than what appears to be a nick. What you claim to see can't be created during the minting process. I happen to have a photo of an uncirculated (MS 65RD) 1974-D cent in an NGC holder, which I took with an inexpensive digital microscope. My photos aren't of professional quality either, but they do show the clarity that amateurs like us can achieve with relative ease:

As the bullion versions of 2015 Silver Eagles have no mint marks or other known ways to tell at which mint facility they were coined from examination of the coins themselves, they should all be considered one issue with a reported mintage of 47 million pieces, the highest in the series through at least 2020. The "Redbook" and other printed guides properly make no distinction between them. The certification of alleged Philadelphia-minted pieces based on purported markings on the box out of which they came, which cannot be subsequently verified, is simply a marketing ploy. If you pay a premium for them, you are paying it for the printing on a little paper tag, not for the coin.

Many silver three cent pieces that I've seen display clash marks like this. The coin appears to have either AU or uncirculated details, but the photos are too blurry and too poorly lit to say more. It's often difficult to determine whether a coin has been "cleaned" from any photos, as assessment of a coin's surfaces require in-person examination from different angles, lightings, and magnification levels.

Although even from the very poor photos you've submitted, it doesn't appear that your circulated 1947-S cent exhibits clash marks or any other anomaly created during the minting process, it would have been helpful if you had provided clear, cropped photos of each side of the coin. Clash marks are quite common on U.S. coins of all eras and types. NGC has stated that "clash marks must be quite pronounced and unusual to be considered a mint error by NGC." Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 1 | NGC (ngccoin.com). Even if your coin displayed clash marks, it would be an unlikely candidate for error attribution.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Unfortunately, there are a few problems with your post. 1. This forum is for topics pertinent to the NGC Registry for NGC and (in the case of U.S issues PCGS) certified coins, not for posting photos of your uncertified coins. There are some long-running topics for posting such photos of defined types or metallic compositions of coins on the "U.S., World and Ancient Coins" forum. Otherwise, you should have included questions or comments about the coin along with your photos and posted it as a topic in either the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum or the "U.S., World and Ancient Coins" forum. (If you're trying to sell the coin, it should have been listed in the "Coin Marketplace" forum in accordance with the rules pinned near the top of that forum requiring a stated price and stating other criteria with which you haven't complied.) 2. Your coin isn't Indian. It's a 2005 United Kingdom (British) ten pence, worth no more than 50 cents in its circulated state. Great Britain 10 Pence KM 989 Prices & Values | NGC (ngccoin.com). It's unlikely any of our members would want to buy it. 3. If you think a coin has current collector value or you want to preserve it, do not touch it with your bare hands or, if you must, hold it only by its edges. The oils in your skin can discolor it, and rubbing it causes wear.

The certification date is only stated on copper, etc. coins affected by the ten-year guarantee expiration. However, it's probably a good idea to check Certificate Verification on any coin you purchase for the unlikely event that the holder has been counterfeited. For NGC certified coins, go to the "Resources" tab on the NGC home page and click "Verify NGC Certification". There are similar applications on the PCGS and ANACS websites. I checked your 1953 proof cent, and it was just encapsulated on December 29, 2022, so the guarantee is good for over another nine years. Oddly, however, the verification page doesn't include photos of the holder, as it should for pieces certified since approximately 2008.

Unfortunately, this coin would "have to be graded anew", not necessarily because of the cracked holder but because it was graded in 1997, more than ten years ago. The NGC Grading Guarantee (such as it is) doesn't apply to a copper, bronze, brass, or copper-plated coin that was encapsulated more than ten years, ago. Such a coin will be treated as a "raw" submission if resubmitted, even for reholdering. Verify NGC Certification | NGC (ngccoin.com).

Welcome to the NGC chat board. I agree that this 1955 Franklin half dollar is definitely a nice uncirculated circulation strike. A proof of this era--unlike some pieces from the nineteenth century--always has mirrorlike fields. Here is a 1956 proof which also happens to be a "cameo" with frosted devices, although most have shiny devices instead. Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

The likely reason is that the editors of the guide don't have reports of sufficient recent transactions at that grade level to determine a reasonable estimate of for what price such a coin would sell. You can try to research it yourself through data from prices realized by the major numismatic auction houses. PCGS compiles this data for coins graded by NGC and ANACS as well as PCGS at Auction Prices Realized - PCGS Auction Prices. (NGC also compiles this data at its website, but I've often found it to be out of date.) Another option is to check more than one price guide. I'm familiar with and consult the monthly Coin World Values, the quarterly CPG Coin and Currency Market Review, and the online NGC and PCGS price guides. These guides can vary widely.in valuations from coin to coin and grade to grade. The PCGS guide tends to be the highest, often too high in my opinion. In my opinion, the entire "top pop" fad is simply an outgrowth of a numerical grading system that has too many grades, especially at the uncirculated level, eleven whole number grades and nearly twenty when "plus" grades, which aren't recognized by the ANA grading system, are included. Coins are numerically graded based on a number of subjective factors, and a "top pop" grade is often based upon toning or other attributes that the graders, not necessarily you or me, found aesthetically appealing. The people who pay exorbitant premiums for "top pop" coins often have more money than numismatic knowledge or sense. They are collecting numbers on little paper tags, not coins. You should develop your own knowledge of and taste in coins and buy the ones you like at a price you can afford.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. In my opinion, your well-circulated (VG or so details) 1918-S half dollar does not exhibit a mint error. The design on the coin was stamped or engraved on the coin after it left the mint by someone who made sure it only appeared in the fields. Nothing that occurs during the minting process could result in this appearance. Moreover, the extraneous patterns appear to be less worn than the rest of the coin.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. As the NGC Registry forum is for topics relating to the NGC coin registry, this topic should have been posted on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum, where it will likely be seen by more chat board members. (The Administrator will likely move it there.) As a collector of U.S. coins for over fifty years, I agree. Respectfully, that is essentially all of your statement with which I agree. My answer to the question asked in the title of your topic is an emphatic NO! As a new collector who has not developed at least competent basic grading skills, the last thing you should be considering is sending any coins to grading services, at least not without the advice of an experienced dealer or collector. Moreover, in my opinion, no one should remove modern collectors' coins from their attractive and usually relatively compact mint packaging and send them to grading services to be placed in bulky holders. Virtually all of these usually common coins will grade "68", "69", or "70", all of which grades are hard even for experienced eyes to tell apart and would traditionally have been subsumed into the "Superb Gem" adjectival grade and priced the same. I consider the "70" grade, which the grading services base on a quick inspection under low (5x or less) magnification, to be nothing more than a marketing gimmick by dealers in modern coins and grading services. The only "70" graded coins I own I bought out of "junk slab" boxes at coin shows and paid far less than what it would have cost to submit them for grading. A large percentage of both proof (and lately even uncirculated) collectors' issues and bullion coins of recent years submitted to grading services have been graded "70", so for these issues, even if you consider the grade to be legitimate, it isn't rare. (Were you aware that PCGS alone has graded over 6.6 million coins--all modern collectors' and bullion issues--"70"?) Population Totals (pcgs.com). @Coinbuf is probably correct that most of these coins were hand selected by experienced graders, but they have become so numerous to make any premium valuation highly questionable. I don't know where you "learned" this, but it isn't necessarily so. Serious collectors don't take the grade on a grading service tag at face value. Non-modern coins of the same issue can vary widely in appearance (strike, toning, luster, abrasions, "eye appeal"), and anyone who has checked the prices realized at a major coin auction on successive lots of coins of the same issue given the same grade by the same grading service knows that such lots can realize markedly different prices. Grading service standards for the same grades have changed over time, and there has periodically been discussion of changing the 70-point numerical grading system to a 100-point system or, more recently, to a ten-point system with intermediate decimal points such as that offered by NGC to a group of modern coin dealers under the "NGCX" label. By the time your grandchildren inherit your collection the grades indicated on today's holders may be obsolete, just as the adjectival grading standards I learned in the 1970s are quite different from the standards used today. What is important is to learn about how to grade and otherwise evaluate coins yourself and develop good judgment and taste in selecting coins for your collection. Quality never goes out of style! We have an expression that goes back before my time, Buy the book before the coin! Nowadays some of your reading can be done online. I don't know what you've been reading, but the basics are described in the initial post on the following topic: For a more thorough discussion of the issues regarding the "70" grade, see the comments that I and others made in the following topic:

1945-D Walking Liberty half dollar, NGC graded MS 66, which I just purchased at an online auction: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries

To the contrary, the 1881-S is the most common Morgan dollar except for the 1921, and more have been certified by the major grading services than any other Morgan dollar. Check out the NGC Census and the PCGS Population Report. It's also one of the most common Morgan dollars in MS 65 or better grades and tends to be well-struck with attractive luster or proof-like, which makes it a common choice as a type coin.

One of the things that you must learn to be successful as a collector is how to look at coins. Some defects aren't readily apparent and are sometimes ignored, especially when the coin has other, positive attributes. I have to be careful myself about this after over 50 years of experience. I've missed things and so have top-tier grading services.

The coin is dated 1889 (common date), not 1899 (scarcer date). The coin has Extremely Fine to About Uncirculated details but based on the photos has a peculiar color that could indicate that it has been "cleaned" or otherwise abused. It also has a punch mark between the two obverse cotton leaves. The "two raised lines" on the eagle's breast are scratches. You can see the displaced metal along their sides. As a generic and somewhat impaired circulated Morgan dollar, it is worth about $25-$30.

You can use the "edit" function that appears when you click the three horizontal dots on the right-hand side of your posts to delete the wording and photos and replace the initial post with "DELETED--DUPLICATE POST" or the like.

This heavily circulated Lincoln cent has some sort of environmental damage from being exposed to a substance that reacted with the copper, zinc and/or tin of which it is composed. It is definitely not a mint error.