Sandon

By way of comparison, PCGS graded this 1853 quarter eagle AU 53. (The weakness in some of the details, especially on the reverse, is due to strike, but it would still be XF by my standards.) I bought it mostly because of the interesting repunched date, which isn't mentioned on the holder. Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

You might post this same question on the "Ask NGC/NCS" forum. Presumably, NGC doesn't find this variety to be popular or interesting enough to include in "VarietyPlus". NGC policy also states that "[w]ith few exceptions, NGC will not attribute die varieties that require greater than 5x magnification to be clearly recognizable." What is a Variety? | NGC (ngccoin.com) This level of magnification is too low, in my opinion. ANACS is the most "variety friendly" grading service. As I understand it, ANACS will attribute all varieties recognized in the Cherrypickers' Guide, all VAM dollar varieties, and other recognized varieties.

Based on the photos, both of these 1916 "Mercury" dimes should grade in the AU 58 to MS 62 range by current grading service standards. (I would grade both AU by the standards I learned years ago.) Neither coin has "full split bands" although the second coin shown is very close.

This 1903 Barber quarter has Extremely Fine details but has definitely been cleaned, with an unnatural color. Refer to my comments on your 1856 quarter eagle with regard to "cleaning".

In terms of details, the 1856 quarter eagle would grade Ch. XF (45) by the standards I learned in the 1970s and 80s but would probably receive a grade at the AU level today. The coin does appear to have been abrasively "cleaned" based upon the unusually dull surfaces considering the level of detail and the extensive hairlines going in the same direction. It's probably worth $500 or more retail even as a net VF, and it's arguably worthwhile to have all gold coins certified nowadays if for no other reason than to authenticate them. You should submit it, if you decide to do so, with a group of coins at the same tier level or through a dealer to save on the processing fees and shipping costs. If you choose to submit yourself to NGC, first carefully review the various topics under the "Submit" tab at the top of the NGC home page. The term "cleaning" refers to a wide range of chemical and abrasive treatments that alter the appearance of a coin in ways that are now found to be unnatural and undesirable to most collectors. Even experienced collectors and grading services may disagree over whether a particular coin has been "cleaned". This is another reason why you should try to examine a number of coins that have already been professionally evaluated. While photos provide limited information, I have a custom registry set that tries to explain and illustrate with pieces from my collection the various appearances that will likely result in a coin being regarded as "cleaned". Characteristics of "Cleaned" Coins - Custom Set (collectors-society.com).

I think that your coin would likely grade in the AU 55-58 range, as based on your photos it shows a fair amount of "rub". It also appears to have been "dipped" in a tarnish removing solution, which might result in it receiving a "details" grade as "cleaned". It has some field to device contrast but likely not enough to call it "prooflike" and definitely not "deep mirror prooflike". (DMPL or DPL). I wouldn't submit it to a grading service. I recommend that, if possible, you attend coin shows and see what NGC and PCGS graded Morgan dollars (including those with PL and DMPL designations) actually look like in various grades, as it is difficult to understand the differences from even the best photos. However, PCGS Photograde (PCGS Photograde Online - Estimating Coin Grades Has Never Been Easier) is a start. (While only valuable coins are worthy of submitting to grading services, every coin is "worthy of grading"--by you!) You have, however, correctly identified the coin as an 1878 7 tailfeathers, reverse of 1879. I have met some collectors who have spent a great deal of money on Morgan dollars who would be unable to do so.

The third and final proof only three cent nickel, the 1886, had a reported distribution of 4,290 pieces, over 50% more than that of the 1878. The NGC Census reflects 1,136 numerical grading events plus two occurrences of "details" grading, while the PCGS Population Report indicates an additional 1,494 numerically graded submissions. The combined total grading events by the two services is 2,630. It appears that pieces qualifying for a "cameo" designation are rare, with 93 at NGC and 100 at PCGS and that pieces qualifying for a "deep" or "ultra" cameo designation are extremely rare, with none so yet designated at NGC and one solitary piece at PCGS, a PR 66 DCAM. The vast majority of submissions grade at both services 64, 65, or 66, with 67s being relatively few. As with the 1877s and 1878s, the highest numerical grade awarded to date is "68", with 5 grading events at that level at NGC (one a cameo) and 4 at PCGS. While many 1886 three cent nickels have mirrorlike surfaces, many others are satiny, and I have seen some that had frosty luster like regular issue uncirculated coins. My example shown below, NGC graded PF 66 and acquired at the same 2003 A.N.A. convention auction is mirrorlike and attractive, with lightly frosted devices:

Although all of the coins posted on this topic appear to be genuine, most of those posted after the 1883-CC dollar appear to have been "cleaned", some of them harshly. This was a widespread practice during the 1950s, 60s and 70s, when the rolls and other pieces you bought from the estate were likely assembled. (The 1883-O and 1885-O Morgan dollars appear to be original, typical uncirculated (MS 60-63) pieces of these common dates, likely from the literally millions of such pieces that were paid out by the Treasury during the early 1960s.) Unfortunately, such "cleaned" pieces are now considered to be undesirable by most serious collectors, will not be numerically graded by grading services, and trade at a discount. I'm sure that the personnel of a major numismatic firm such as Heritage will confirm these facts. If you purchased these coins a while back for a reasonable price, you may still come out ahead, as most coin prices have gone up a good bit over the last few years. However, it is always preferable to learn how to grade and otherwise evaluate coins before you spend much on them, especially on uncertified pieces.

1936 Buffalo nickel, PCGS graded MS 65:

It's highly unlikely that this 1883-CC Morgan dollar came from an "unopened 1800's coin roll." According to Q. David Bowers, the vast majority of the original 1,204,000 mintage of these coins was stored for decades in the Treasury Building in Washington, D.C. in one-thousand-coin bags, with releases of significant numbers of bags in 1938-39 and again in the 1950s. When, in 1964, the Treasury stopped paying out silver dollars at face value, 755,518 of the 1883-CCs remained in the Treasury, about 62.75% of the original mintage. These and other Carson City Morgan dollars were placed in plastic holders and sold in a series of sales by the General Services Administration between 1972 and 1980. Bowers, Silver Dollars and Trade Dollars of the United States, Vol. 2 at 2350-51 (1993). Your coin was in all likelihood either from one of the earlier releases of bags or was removed from a GSA holder. The heavy scrapes on Liberty's cheek and the eagle's breast probably limit the grade to MS 61 or 62. There is no such thing as an "MS 70" 1878-1921 Morgan dollar. The coin is frosty as are most, not at all prooflike, much less "DMPL" (deep mirror prooflike). I see no lamination or other "error" either, only some light die cracks as are found on most of these coins. Whoever wrote these representations on the coin's holder was being less than honest. The coin has a current and inflated since the pandemic retail list value of approximately $300.

When you post photos of coins about which you have questions, please post full, clear cropped photos of each side of the coin. I see nothing unusual about the coin other than the green corrosion at the upper obverse, which is environmental damage, not an error. The photo of the reverse is too blurred and angled to make any meaningful observation.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. If you are a newer collector, the last thing you should be thinking about is sending coins to grading services. You need to develop grading and other skills relating to the evaluation of coins yourself, a process which will take some time and involve reading, the examination of a number of coins, and conversations with experienced dealers and collectors at such venues as coin shows and coin club meetings. Even those who are experienced can have unpleasant surprises when submitting coins to grading services. See Jeff Garrett: The Art of Rare Coin Submissions | NGC (ngccoin.com). If you are just looking for better holders for your coins than stapled, cardboard "2 by 2s", there are far cheaper alternatives than sending these low value coins to a grading service. Do you own such basic resources as a recent edition of the "Redbook", a grading guide, and access to current printed or online price guides?

The photos are too blurry to tell for sure whether the anomaly is just a long, deep scratch or a strikethrough of a foreign object on the dies. There appears to be displaced metal on the sides of the anomaly, which would indicate a scratch.

There is a registry category for the 2021 and 2023 issues. See Morgan and Peace Dollars, Modern Issues, 2021-Date, Complete Sets | NGC Registry | NGC (ngccoin.com).

Welcome to the NGC chat board. When you post photos of coins about which you have questions, please post full, cropped photos of each full side of the coin, not just a close-up. Based on what I can see at present, this apparently well-circulated Jefferson nickel has a number of scratches in the date area, as well as raised areas that may be post-mint damage. They may also be small rim cuds and/or die chips, but none of these would be regarded as significant mint errors by knowledgeable collectors or grading services.

In my opinion, no. Collect coins, not grading service labels. There doesn't seem to be much of a market for these special labels a few years after the sets are issued.

[Original content restored 8/10/23, 9:08 PM]: The weakness at the tips of some of the feathers and the diamond design on the ribbon suggest that the coin is not a proof strike. The pinkish color suggests that the coin may have been "cleaned". I would need to see the coin in-hand to get a better idea as to both of these issues.

The 1836-37 Capped Bust, reeded edge half dollars with the denomination expressed as "50 CENTS" had a much narrower, shallower rim on the reverse than the obverse. This weak reverse rim didn't provide much protection for the reverse details, causing the reverse to show more wear than the reverse. The 1838-39 coins with the denomination expressed as "HALF DOL." have a wider, deeper reverse rim. NGC graded this 1836 reeded edge half dollar AU 53, but there is already a fair amount of noticeable wear on the eagle's feathers and less wear on the obverse. Note also the differences in the strength of the obverse and reverse rims. Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

Your "book", which I assume has clear plastic slides over both sides of the coins, is most commonly known as a "coin album". The holder shown by @J P M is usually referred to as a "coin folder". Coin folders are only suitable for low value, preferably circulated coins because the unprotected surface is easily exposed to one's fingers, other surfaces, and the open air, all of which can cause a coin to become worn, unattractively "toned" or corroded. While you can keep uncirculated or more valuable coins in coin albums, you should follow certain precautions. First of all, be very careful not to touch anything other than the edge of the coin with your bare hands while inserting it into the album. I usually place my hands in clean plastic sandwich bags before doing so and insert the coin with the untouched, bottom facing part of the top slide. It is also important to insert the coin deeply enough so that the top slide does not rub against the coin when you move it in or out. The slide rubbing against the coin can result in abrasions called "slide marks" that will reduce the coin's grade and value. Regardless of the types of holders you use, you should store your collection in a cool, dry place away from cooking or other smoke or odors. Humidity and smoke can be destructive over time.

The replies so far seem to be generating an increasing level of confusion, which I'll hopefully manage to clear up. After over 52 years of collecting, I still don't and never will know everything, but I'm pretty familiar with the types of packaging used for proof and uncirculated ("mint") sets issued by the U.S. Mint over the years. The standard "Redbook" describes these sets (pp.363-372 of the 2023 edition) but doesn't have photos of the packaging. Regarding the photos on your initial post-- 1. The two flat, hard plastic holders in the first photo with the word "WHITMAN" stamped on them are of privately manufactured, "Snap-Tite" holders sold by Whitman (whitman.com), which publishes the "Redbook" and other coin books, as well as selling coin supplies. The coins they contain were likely taken by a coin dealer or collector from rolls or bags of regularly distributed uncirculated 1968 coins, but there is generally no difference in quality between such coins and coins issued in U.S. mint packaged uncirculated coin ("mint") sets. (Coins in 2005-2011 dated "mint" sets, which were struck with a special "matte" finish, are an exception.) These sets don't appear to contain an example of one of each coin struck by each mint that year, as would an official "mint" set. 2. The second and third photos are of a U.S. mint packaged 1968 proof set and the blue envelope bearing the words "United States Proof Set" in which the mint issued it. Proof coins were first minted for public sale in San Francisco instead of Philadelphia in 1968. Each coin has the "S" mint mark. "S" mint cents and nickels were also made for circulation in 1968, while the dimes, quarters, and half dollars were only made as proofs and issued in these proof sets. The term "proof" refers to a method of manufacture, not to the coin's condition. Typically, as in this set, the proof coins have a very strong strike and mirrored surfaces instead of the flat, frosty luster and sometimes weaker strike of coins made for circulation. Some of the coins in your set also have frosted devices, which at that time only appeared on coins struck from newer dies. Nearly all U.S. proof coins issued since the mid-1970s have such contrast and are referred to as "cameo" or "deep (or ultra) cameo" proofs. 3. The third photo (the white envelope with the words "Treasury Department" and San Francisco address at the top left and "1968--U.C." at the bottom left and the two soft plastic panels of coins it contains) is of a U.S. mint packaged 1968 uncirculated coin or "mint" set. It contains the coins issued for circulation by all three mints that struck them that year, Philadelphia (cent, dime, and quarter), Denver (cent, nickel, dime, quarter, and half dollar), and San Francisco (cent and nickel), each with the appropriate mint mark. These are regular quality uncirculated coins, not proofs. 4. The fourth package bearing the words "1968 United States Mint Silver Proof Set" is privately issued and misleading. (Did it contain the officially issued 1968 proof set and original envelope referred to in paragraph 2?) The only coin in a 1968 proof set that contains any silver is the half dollar, and it is only "silver clad" with a net 40% silver content. The last proof set to contain 90% silver coins before 1992 was the 1964 set. ("Silver proof sets" offered by the U.S. Mint since 1992 in addition to proof sets containing coins of regular composition contain 90% or finer silver dimes, quarters, and half dollars.) Based on the "Certificate of Authenticity" that you show in a subsequent post, it was sold by "First Commemorative Mint" one of a number of private companies that mass markets coins to people with little knowledge of coins or their values, usually for outrageous prices. A 1968 proof set in its original mint packaging has a current retail value of $8 or so.

This coin is actually a 1917-C Newfoundland dime. Newfoundland is a Canadian province but was allowed to issue its own coins from until 1947. It has a mintage of about 250,000, and a moderately circulated one like yours lists for $5 on the NGC World Coin Price Guide. Canada NEWFOUNDLAND 10 Cents KM 14 Prices & Values | NGC (ngccoin.com). It's a nice find. Since I forgot to mention it previously, welcome to the NGC chat board.

The plastic capsule didn't come from the mint. Capsules like this were commonly used in vending machines years ago to house small items of merchandise, including inexpensive coins. The 1943 steel cent it contains has been re-plated or "reprocessed" to make it appear uncirculated. Actual uncirculated examples are frosty, not shiny like this one. Circulated ones are a dark gray color, often with rust.

No, the mint did not issue wartime composition (1942-45) "nickels" as sets. The mint first issued uncirculated coin or "mint" sets in 1947, first in cardboard holders and beginning in 1959 in soft plastic sheets. Any holder in which the seller is sending these coins is of purely private origin. As a new collector, you should be very careful about buying uncertified coins from sellers on eBay, unless they are well-known, established coin dealers. There are many ignorant or fraudulent sellers on eBay who sell, overgraded, impaired and counterfeit coins.

1913-S Barber quarter, PCGS graded G 6, 40,000 reported minted, the lowest mintage of any non-gold regular issue twentieth century U.S. coin. Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries, from whose auction I purchased this coin in 2018.

The second proof only three cent nickel, the 1878, has a reported distribution of 2,350 pieces, which is more likely accurate than the lower numbers in the "Redbook" for proof issues of previous years, all of which are followed by "+" signs in recent editions. NGC Census data reflects a total of 728 grading events with no pieces receiving a "details" grade. The PCGS Population Report reflects 1,068 graded submissions. The combined number of grading events for the two services is 1,796, as compared to the 1,153 for the more valuable 1877, so whatever the actual 1877 distribution was, it was likely smaller than that of the 1878. Combined data for the two services shows 1,334 awards of non-cameo grades (74.2%), 454 cameo designations (25.3%), and only 8 deep or ultra cameo designations (0.4%), 4 at each service. As with the 1877s, the most frequently awarded grades are 64 and 65, with a fair number of 66s, and 67s being very few in number. The highest grade awarded is again 68, with NGC reporting 4 grading events of a 68 CAM and PCGS reporting 2 non-cameo designations at the 68 level and 1 piece graded 68 CAM. I acquired my own 1878 three cent nickel at the 2003 A.N.A. convention auction conducted by Bowers and Merena. NGC graded PF 66, It has a somewhat satiny rather than highly reflective surface but is clearly a proof, with an absolutely full strike and some contrast between the fields and the devices. All of the 1878 three cent nickels that I recall seeing have the frosted area in the top loop of the second "8" visible on the photo of my coin, which presumably can be used as a diagnostic element of the obverse die.