Sandon

The combination of the coin being polished and lightly damaged may reduce its wholesale value to around bullion, but that would still be around $230 at the current gold price. A dealer would try to get a premium. This month's Coin World lists common date Liberty head quarter eagles at $450 in F 12, but that is unrealistic in my opinion. I bought a 1902 that PCGS graded MS 64 from a major auction house in April 2021 for $530, including shipping.

I looked 1909 French Indochina 20 centime pieces up on the NGC World Coin Price Guide. World Coin Price Guide and Values | NGC (ngccoin.com). As noted by @Fenntucky Mike, there are two different types for that date, but neither matches your coin, a major difference being that the two recognized types state the fineness as "0.835 POIDS", while yours states it as "0.635 POIDS". As that weight wasn't established or stated before coins dated 1921, the most likely explanation--usually the correct one--is that the coin is a counterfeit. There is a faint chance that it is an unlisted restrike "mule", but I highly doubt it.

This denomination of U.S. gold coin is referred to as a "two and a half dollar gold piece" or as a "quarter eagle". The term "gold dollar" is used for the one-dollar gold coins issued from 1849 to 1889 and the gold commemoratives of the same denomination, composition and weight issued sporadically between 1903 and 1922. Your 1897 is considered a common date but a somewhat better one with a mintage of 29,768. Based on the photos, it appears to be genuine. It has About Uncirculated details. Based on the unnatural appearing shine, it was likely polished, which would result in a grading service details grade and qualifier of "polished" or "cleaned". It also has several small "digs" (pits) on each side, which could also result in a "damaged" qualifier.

I've also had the experience where I was trying to obtain an example of a relatively common coin and had an unexpectedly hard time finding one. Years ago, I wanted a decent circulated 1902-S Barber dime. For some time, the only ones I could find even at larger coin shows were either below Good, severely impaired, or Gem Uncirculated. After several years, in 1991 as it turns out, I was able to find a decent VG, which I still have. After I found that one, I started seeing a number of others that would have been suitable but didn't need one anymore. Lately, I've been trying to find a decent certified AU or lower end uncirculated 1853-55 arrows Seated dime for my registry type sets. I have an 1853 that would probably grade XF 45 or so but don't think it is worth submitting, and I have yet to find a certified one that I like for a reasonable price. I'm sure that with patience one will turn up. I suggest that if you just keep looking, you will find a suitable 1956-D quarter as well.

No. There were no U.S. dollar coins issued after 1935 (Peace dollar) and before 1971 (Eisenhower dollar). Check your "Redbook." Mint sets didn't include the Eisenhower dollars until 1973.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. In the future, please post questions about coins on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum, as this question is for matters relating to the NGC Registry. What you have is known as a "magician's coin" which is created outside of the mint by cutting two different coins in half and fastening the two different halves together for the purpose of performing tricks. The insides are often hollowed out. In this case the edge of the cent was also shaved so that it would have the same diameter as the dime.

Based on the photos, I think that your 1830, large 0 Capped Bust half dollar is probably genuine. If so, it has Very Fine details, but someone has tried to rub or scrape off some of the heavy toning, which would likely result in a "details" grade. An unimpaired Very Fine would have a retail (dealer selling) list price of around $125 or so, and this one would likely be worth a third or more less. I don't think it would be worth the cost of submitting to a grading service to determine its authenticity or the time and expense of submitting it for the various tests suggested by @Mike Meenderink. If you have access to a properly calibrated digital scale that weighs to at least the nearest hundredth of a gram, you might weigh the coin. The official weight for this type when first struck was approximately 13.48 grams. A worn one like this would probably be a little underweight. The "small reed lines" around the rims are generally referred to as "dentils". They are often weak or missing on pieces struck from worn dies, as is common on this type. The dentils also vary in length due to differences in centering of these "open collar" strikes. The stars are frequently elongated on the side facing the rim on coins struck from worn dies. These characteristics are not indicative of either contemporary or modern counterfeits. Here are photos of an 1811 large 8 half dollar that PCGS has authenticated and graded VF 30 on which the dentils are partly missing from the obverse and entirely missing from the reverse. Note also the weakness of some of the stars and lettering. These coins were struck on hand operated presses from dies whose lettering, numbers, and devices were all punched in by hand, so their quality and appearance differ widely.

Apart from the very vaguely prooflike surfaces and good strike, what is the factual basis of this assertion? If these were the main criteria for attributing an early U.S. coin as a proof, they would be far more common than the major rarities that they are generally believed to be. The NGC Coin Explorer states regarding the 1831 Capped Bust dime that "[t]he actual number of proofs for this date is uncertain, but a figure of around half a dozen is likely." 1831 10C PF | Coin Explorer | NGC (ngccoin.com). If you are comfortable with your opinion, you may wish to offer the OP a price worthy of a proof. The lowest price on the NGC Price Guide is $22,000 for a PF 63, but in all likelihood this possibly impaired one could be had for less. For that matter, my 1834 is also quite well struck and may have some slightly prooflike glimmers as well. Any offers?

I've seen a number of "uncirculated details" pieces in reputable certified holders with little or no luster due to cleaning. I've also seen dull uncirculated pieces graded MS 60 to 62. The OP's coin shows some luster between the stars and letters and has no observable "rub" or wear from circulation. I myself own an 1834 Capped Bust dime that I purchased NGC certified as "uncirculated details, improperly cleaned" that is fully detailed like the OP's but has little or no luster and some blotchy toning: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

This 1964-D nickel appears to have shelf-like strike doubling, a.k.a. machine or mechanical doubling on both the reverse lettering and the mint mark. A mint marked doubled die from before 1992 wouldn't show die doubling on the mint mark, as mint marks were not in the hub but were punched in separately. It is possible that a coin could have both a doubled die and a repunched mint mark, but the secondary image from either cause would be crisper and more rounded than that shown here.

In addition to the proof-only issues, the three-cent nickel series has three scarce issues, the 1883, 1884, and 1885, whose respective circulation strike mintages are reported as lower than their respective proof mintages. In each case, purported circulation strikes sell for much higher prices than purported proof strikes in equivalent grades. Many purported proofs are satiny or even frosty, and some purported circulation strikes are prooflike. All of these issues are generally well struck. Although grading services purport to be able to tell proofs from the much pricier circulation strikes, I have never heard or read any satisfactory explanation as to how this is done. Accordingly, I have chosen to collect these issues only in purportedly proof format. The 1883 has a reported proof distribution of 6,609 pieces, the highest for the series. This relatively high distribution, which is equal to that of the proof Indian cent of that year, is presumably due to the high demand for minor proof sets due to the three different types of nickels that ended up being issued in 1883. The circulation strike mintage is reported as only 4,000 pieces. Ron Guth, writing for PCGS CoinFacts, states that "most of the circulated examples have a small die crack at the top of the reverse, connecting the border and the left tip of the wreath, and another at 3:00. This may be a diagnostic for the Mint State versions, but we've seen some certified Proofs with these same cracks. It could be that at least one pair of dies was used to strike Proofs, then followed by some circulation strikes. If that is the case, there will be some coins of questionable intent, including those that are poorly made Proofs and/or Prooflike early strikes." (Emphasis added.) Would you really want to spend thousands of dollars on a purported uncirculated circulation strike as opposed to hundreds for a gem proof on these uncertain criteria? NGC has certified 1,685 (not necessarily different) pieces as proofs, including one details graded piece, with a grade range of "VF" to PF 68. PCGS has numerically graded 2,258 submissions as proofs with a numerical grade range of 30 to 68+. The combined number of proof certified submissions is 3,943. As with the other proof issues examined so far, the most common grade range is 64 to 66, with 67s being much scarcer and 68s very rare. Similarly, cameos make up only a small percentage of the certified population, with deep or ultra cameos apparently being very rare. The purportedly circulation strike certified population is much lower, consisting of 75 grading events at NGC, 13 of which are "details" graded, and 202 numerically graded submissions at PCGS, for a combined total of 277 at the two services. The grade range runs from VG to MS 68 at NGC and F 12 to MS 67+ at PCGS. (How can one tell that a well-circulated example, with no original surface, was coined as a circulation strike? For that matter, how likely is it that a coin of this vintage intended for circulation and not given special handling could grade 67 or 68?) My own 1883 three cent nickel, shown below, is PCGS graded PR 65 in an old green label holder. Purchased at a local coin auction in March 1992, it is the first proof example of this series I acquired. These coins actually went for more at that time than they do now, and the auctioneer had mistakenly listed the already much higher price for a MS 65, creating confusion. I would take a loss on it if I were to sell it today. The coin is nice, however. Based on its moderately mirrored surfaces, it was presumably struck as a proof.

In my opinion, a grading service would either give this 1831 Capped Bust, close collar strike dime a low mint state grade no higher than MS 62 or give it an uncirculated details grade as "cleaned". AU 58 or AU details are also possible results. The dull gray color, lack of mint frost or original toning, and scattered groups of hairlines suggest that the coin was "dipped" in an anti-tarnish solution, probably more than once, and was also likely wiped with a cloth. If you have ever seen examples of Choice to Gem Uncirculated (MS 64 or better) examples of this series, you will immediately see the difference. It's still a nice, well-struck piece for the right price, as most surviving examples are worn and/or impaired.

As NGC doesn't represent that its holders of any era will conform to any standard weight, I wouldn't consider the determination of the weight of a particular holder a worthwhile exercise. If you're concerned about the coin and holder being counterfeit, you should check the holder's serial number and grade on NGC Certificate Verification, which for a certification since 2009 or so should include a photo of the holder, including the coin in it. NGC Cert Lookup | Verify NGC Certification | NGC (ngccoin.com). It's also worthwhile, even if you only collect certified coins, to study the series you collect so that you know what genuine pieces are supposed to look like.

NGC probably wouldn't attribute this coin as a mint error because of the die break. NGC has stated that, "NGC does not recognize as mint error coins those with minor die chips, breaks and rotations, etc., that fall within our interpretation of mint tolerance. The determination of what constitutes a mint error is at the discretion of NGC." Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com). It wouldn't be worth the grading, attribution, processing and shipping costs ($37 in grading and attribution fees alone) in any case. The coin is still an interesting find that you might want to keep as a conversation piece, even though it probably isn't worth more than a few dollars.

I'm not sure whether most collectors would regard this as one of the "top unanswered questions in American numismatics", but I consider it important. There are a number of lower mintage Philadelphia mint issues from 1863 to 1890 that are more highly valued as circulation strikes than as proofs in equivalent or higher grades. These coins include copper-nickel three cent pieces of 1883, 84, 85 and 87, Shield nickels of 1879-81, silver three cent pieces of 1863-72, Liberty Seated half dimes and dimes of 1863-67, and Liberty Seated quarters and half dollars of 1879-90, as well as some other issues. Some purported proofs of this era have satiny or even frosty surfaces and sometimes weak or indifferent strikes, while some purported uncirculated circulation strikes are highly prooflike and well struck. In some cases, such as the 1884 three cent nickel and the 1880 Shield nickel, it is believed that all proofs and circulation strikes were struck from single pairs of dies, and for some other issues it is believed that some die pairs were used to coin both proofs and circulation issues. The grading services purport to be able to tell the difference between circulation strikes and proofs but do not explain how. (I don't think that checking whether the edge is squared off or beveled, if that's how they make the decision, would be a reliable indicator, as I've seen proofs with somewhat beveled edges and frosty circulation strikes with essentially squared off edges.) The issue is even more serious in the case of well-circulated coins whose original finish has worn off. The NGC Census shows, for example, circulated 1880 Shield nickels in grades as low as "PrAg" in both the "MS" and "PF" categories. In the NGC Price Guide, a circulation strike 1880 Shield nickel lists $1,100 in "PrAg" and $2,100 in Good, while the lowest proof grade listed is PF 60 at $300, with a Gem PF 67 listed at $1,400. I would consider a research project to determine (1) how grading services purport to tell the difference between such proof and circulation strike issues, (2) whether this method is valid, and (3) if not, whether there is any objectively reliable method to tell the difference a most worthwhile endeavor. As matters stand, I would only purchase attractive pieces certified or offered as proofs of these issues rather than paying a much higher price for any purported circulation strike.

1928-S Standing Liberty quarter, PCGS graded MS 63:

First of all, this 1901-O Morgan dollar isn't a weak strike. It's a well-circulated coin that is worn down to Very Fine or so grade. The strange markings on the reverse that have all but obliterated the words "ONE DOLLAR" do not appear to be a mint error but are likely the result of someone's crude attempt to convert the coin into a keepsake, which collectors usually call a "love token". The giving of engraved or otherwise altered coins as "love tokens" was a fad during the mid to late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Love tokens were most frequently created out of smaller coins such as Liberty Seated dimes and gold dollars but are known on coins of all denominations, including silver dollars. They are usually much better executed than this one, but I've seen crude ones like this as well. Perhaps the coin was created by or for a person whose name began with "L", explaining why that one letter was left intact. The wear on the coin may be due to the coin being carried as a pocket piece. I've also had sporadic problems uploading photos to these forums, which may be due to maintenance or other technical issues. Sometimes you just have to be patient. For future reference, you could have inserted the photos or additional language into your original post by clicking on the three dots at the upper right corner of the post and selecting the "Edit" option.

The coin is clearly a large date and worth face value. Check the guide posted by @EagleRJO.

@TheArtofHorror--Welcome to the NGC chat board. In the future, it would be better to post questions about specific coins as new topics in the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum. NGC does not give free advice about the authenticity or grade of coins and apparently does not respond to posts in this forum after responding to the original author of the topic. Your piece is almost certainly one of the extremely common "replicas" (fakes) that have been sold as novelties or souvenirs over the years. Compare its darkness, rough surfaces, and weak lettering and details with these photos of a genuine continental dollar from the NGC Coin Explorer:

If you're using the Google Chrome browser, try a different browser such as Microsoft Edge. I've never been able to get the NGC website to function properly using Chrome and use Edge to access it.

In the future, please post questions of this nature on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum. The lettering on the motto of your 2005-D cent appears slightly thickened, but this may be the result of a weak strike or "grease" on the die. There is similar weakness at the top of Lincoln's head. If it is a doubled die, it is a very minor one. As it isn't listed on VarietyPlus, NGC wouldn't attribute it. You might check doubleddie.com to see if there are any 2005-D Lincoln cent DDOs that match.

@Jason Abshier--In my experience, if a coin was left in the "dip" too long or wasn't properly rinsed thereafter, a grading service will "details" grade it as "cleaned". The OP's coin appears unnaturally bright to me and might or might not be numerically graded. @Shygirl2020!--Welcome to the NGC chat board. Please post your question as a new topic, not on another member's unrelated topic.

Try to crop your photos so that the photo is mostly of the coin, not the surface surrounding it. The photo should also be sharper. Your 1960 Lincoln cent appears to be a large date. Here is a photo of a small date: Notice particularly the size and shape of the "6", which is shorter and doesn't extend as far to the right as on the large date. For comparison, here is a photo of a large date (proof):

@Hoghead515--I have restored the deleted content. It is interesting, and it is instructive. One has to look carefully at all coins, including certified ones. What is printed on that little paper tag may not be correct. In this case a proof is, of course, more valuable than a circulation issue, and one wouldn't want to buy this coin priced as a proof. I have an 1867 Liberty Seated dime PCGS graded PR 62, but it is clearly an example of the F-102 (Greer 103) die variety, which is considered by both Fortin and Greer only to exist as a circulation strike. In this case, the circulation strike is priced much higher than the proof. Having the coin reexamined and its status corrected is something that I'll hopefully get around to.

Here are photos of an 1883-CC Morgan dollar graded by NGC in a GSA holder as MS 65 PL (not DMPL) and posted on another topic today by @MorganMan. You will note that the reflectivity is much greater than on your coin.