Sandon

Welcome to the NGC chat board. NGC VarietyPlus lists three doubled die obverse (DDO) varieties for 1965 Washington quarters, but from what I can see from your photos, this coin doesn't match any of them and for the most part appears to have shelf-like "strike" or "machine" doubling on the motto, not a doubled die. See Washington Quarters (1932-1998) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). It would be helpful if you would post clear, cropped photos of the entire obverse and reverse of the coin so that we can see all of the diagnostic points for the various varieties for a more definitive answer.

I'm sure that those who I recall peddled 1973-S 40% silver proof "brown box" Eisenhower dollars for as much as $200 in the mid-to-late 1970s were happy with the quick buck they made as well, leaving those who bought and held them "to show the grandkids" with an item that sells for $25 or so in 2023 dollars in its original packaging and lists $90 in its highest listed grade of PF 69 UCAM in the NGC Price Guide. Other examples of coins that I recall priced high for a few years after a mint "sellout" or lower-than-expected mintage and then declined markedly in price once accumulations were dispersed and interest declined include 1975 proof sets, 2001 American Buffalo commemorative dollars (still worth a premium but not as much) and 2005 Marine Corps commemorative dollars. The ability to submit modern coins to grading services and further inflate the prices of those that grade "70" even when that is the predominantly awarded grade creates a further trap for the uneducated collectors who think that they should buy modern coins to hold onto in certified holders for inflated prices that likely won't last. If, unlike the OP, you are one of them, you should learn what is and isn't rare and what is and isn't worthy of third-party grading. Otherwise, you may find yourself the sort of customer whom P.T. Barnum referred to as "being born every minute."

It's certainly your right to submit these coins to a grading service if you choose to do so, but I would like you to know the pertinent facts. Do you know that the vast majority of each issue of 2021 dated "Morgan dollars" that have been submitted to NGC have graded "70"? Anniversary Coins and Medals | Coin Census Population Report | NGC (ngccoin.com). Whatever premium now exists is likely to evaporate once it becomes understood that this coin is not "rare" in this grade.

Quite to the contrary, it makes sense to submit higher value (say $500 or more) coins made for circulation that didn't receive special handling, especially if they are known to have been deceptively counterfeited or altered or if they can be difficult to grade or to determine whether they are impaired. This is why third-party grading was developed in the 1980s. None of these reasons applies to modern collectors' issues that have been obtained directly from the mint or from reputable dealers in their original packaging. Almost all of these coins are superb gems (69 or 70) and virtually indistinguishable from each other. I and other long-time collectors are befuddled by the fad of newer collectors spending their hard-earned money to submit such coins to grading services. For more on this topic, see the last few days' posts on the following topic:

Please note that the NGC Registry forum is for topics regarding the NGC Registry. Questions of this nature should be posted on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum. I checked this item on NGC Certificate Verification. NGC found it to be "damaged to resemble error", correctly I think. This is a good example of why you should learn how to identify likely genuine and significant mint errors before spending your hard-earned money sending them to grading services. NGC's examination of this worthless piece would have cost $45 in grading, error identification and PhotoVision fees alone ($19+$18+$8), plus its share of the processing and shipping costs on the order in which it was included. To learn about mint errors, see resources such as the following: 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) and other topics that are shown when "mint errors" is entered in the search bar on the NGC home page. For a comprehensive listing and description of mint errors, see error-ref.com.

Please note that the NGC Registry forum is for topics regarding the NGC Registry. Questions of this nature should be posted on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum. I assume that by "breakages" you mean brockages. This item does not appear to be a genuine brockage or other mint error and is likely an intentional alteration. To see what authentic examples of brockages look like, see Search Results for “brockage” (error-ref.com).

Early (especially pre-1837 or so) U.S. coins require knowledge and experience to evaluate. They are products of an earlier minting technology in which each die was made by punching in the devices, letters, numbers and stars with individual punches using die steel that was inferior to that used more recently. The coins were struck on hand operated screw presses on which the striking pressure could vary widely. As the dies wore, they cracked and eroded quickly and were sometimes polished or reworked in an effort to remove clash marks and other defects. Accordingly, even pieces struck from the same die pairs can vary widely in appearance. I look for the relative few that were well-struck from relatively new dies. I recommend that before buying examples of these series you look at a number of them, either in person at major coin shows or dealerships if you can or at least through high resolution photos such as those on the Stacks Bowers and other major coin auction house websites. I also recommend that you obtain or refer to some references on them such as the modern reprint of the Browning reference on early quarters (The Early Quarter Dollars of the United States, 1796-1838) (or the later reference by Tompkins, which I haven't reviewed). The photos on NGC VarietyPlus and PCGS Coinfacts are also useful. As a newer collector, you should only buy examples of these coins that have been certified by reputable grading services such as NGC, PCGS, and ANACS. Although I bought a number of these types of coins uncertified decades ago, the influx of fakes from Asia in more recent years combined with the much higher prices for these coins now makes certification highly advisable, especially for the inexperienced. Most of the surviving coins of these types have been tampered with in some way, including many of those that grading services have awarded a numerical (a.k.a. "straight") grade. Coins that are whitish or very light gray in color, show extensive hairlining, or have blotchy or cloudy toning have likely been "cleaned" in some way whether "straight" or "details" graded. I look for coins with an even brownish, medium gray or "gunmetal" coloration without underlying hairlines as likely "original". The vast majority of these coins have suffered some form of surface damage over the centuries, and the grading surfaces tend more lenient with them than with more recent series in awarding a "straight" versus a "details" grade due to nicks, scratches, and other damage. (Some of those that have been "details" graded aren't too bad looking, and I will buy such pieces for an appropriate discount, especially if they are scarcer dates.) Ultimately, you have to develop your own taste and not rely entirely on ours. This should make collecting more rewarding to you.

The best single book on U.S. coins generally would be a current (2024) or recent edition of the "Red Book", the standard edition for quick reference, the "Deluxe" or "Mega Red" edition for more in-depth information and more varieties. Neither edition is great for up-to-date pricing. I've posted the following topic on print and on-line resources for new collectors generally:

Coin collecting, the "hobby of kings", goes back thousands of years, as do coins themselves. Grading services that encapsulate coins have only existed since 1986, when PCGS opened for business. I don't think that any service that regularly even authenticated coins existed before 1972--the year after I started collecting--when the ANA started ANACS as a service that issued black and white photo certificates of authenticity. One avoided counterfeit, altered and overgraded coins by "buy[ing] the book before the coin," purchasing coins from reputable dealers, and learning as much as one could from books and periodicals, from study of the coins themselves, and from experienced collectors and dealers. This still works today. Collector versions of ASEs can readily be purchased from reputable dealers with their original mint packaging and certificates. All of the Asian-produced fakes I have seen so far have obvious differences from the genuine coins that should be evident to you if you have bothered to look at authenticated examples or even their photos, such as those on PCGS Coinfacts. Even if you buy mostly or only certified coins, there is no substitute for developing your own knowledge, judgment, and taste, which is, for me, what makes coin collecting worthwhile, any financial benefits being at best an afterthought. Before buying coins of any value, you should endeavor to learn about them and ultimately rely on your own judgment about their authenticity and especially their grade notwithstanding any grading service opinion. Evolve from being a "newbie". As I recall, when PCGS and NGC started business they initially wouldn't accept any coins dated after 1950, which date was gradually changed to 1964 and 1970 before the services eventually began accepting all modern coins. Third-party grading and authentication was believed to be suitable only for coins worth at least hundreds (more likely thousands) of dollars, especially those that were frequently altered or counterfeited or those where a point or two in grade would result in a substantial difference in market value. No one imagined then that people would remove common modern collectors' issues, nearly all of which are superb gems, from their mint packaging, pay grading fees and costs often exceeding their mint issue price, and then sell them for exorbitant prices. Whether or not to an insure a collection is an entirely different issue that depends on the value of the collection, how it is stored, and other factors. I had never heard of an insurance carrier requiring third party certification for generally low value coins such as ASEs. You may want to shop around for a carrier who has no such requirement.

If you purchase coins directly from the mint, they can't be counterfeit, and you can learn by studying them what genuine pieces look like. (Grading service holders have been counterfeited, along with the "coins" in them.) Your invoices from the mint should be adequate for insurance purposes. I started collecting long before grading services existed and am continually befuddled by the contemporary practice of taking already overpriced modern collectors' issues out of their protective mint capsules and paying the substantial cost of having them placed in grading service holders with grades of either "69" or "70", which are usually indistinguishable from each other. It will never make any sense to me.

1880 Shield nickel, PCGS graded PR 65. Gets us "back on track" and also sort of "follows" the erroneous post as it is a nickel and a proof. Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

@jesbroken--To "follow the lead picture post" means to post a coin of either the same date or the same type. A correct post would have been of either another coin dated 1880 or another Morgan dollar.

You posted photos of the same or a similar normal 1958 Lincoln cent on Friday with the same question. I'll give the same response: Your coin is definitely not, nor does it resemble, the extremely rare 1958 doubled die obverse cent, of which only three are known to exist and all of which, as I recall, reportedly turned up in the same place at the same time decades ago. It is extremely unlikely that any more will be found. This variety exhibits clear, crisp doubling on "LIBERTY" and the motto "IN GOD WE TRUST", as on this photo from NGC VarietyPlus:

Welcome to the NGC chat board. As indicated by others, to be classified as "full steps" by any grading service or knowledgeable collector, a Jefferson nickel must have at least five full steps, without anything, such as the nick on your coin, interrupting the complete lines indicating the steps. There are only two complete step lines on your coin, if that many. A coin with no mint mark is usually referred to only by its date, in this case just "1961".

See the following photo, courtesy of @EagleRJO for the various differences between the 1982 "large date" and "small date" hubs:

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Although NGC does not give free advice, you can post inquiries like this on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum. Please include clear, cropped photos of each side of each coin taken separately with the camera directly overhead, not a group photo taken from a distance and an angle and showing more background than coin. Even with the limitations of the current photos, the answer to your question is definitely NO! With the possible exception of the 1992-P quarter at top right, all of these clad quarters show wear or damage. The 1992-P quarter would likely grade no better than MS 64, with a retail value on the NGC Price Guide of $7.50. The 1982-D quarters appear to grade in the AU range, with retail list values of about $0.50 each. The 1972-D appears to be XF and worth face value. Submission of these coins would entail a $19 per coin grading fee at the "Modern" tier level, and $38 in per order processing and return shipping fees, plus your cost of shipping the coins to NGC. Hardly any modern coins made for circulation are worth the cost of third-party grading; and to identify plausible candidates, you would have to have substantial knowledge of coin grading yourself. You may find the following article by a highly experienced coin dealer of value: Jeff Garrett: The Art of Rare Coin Submissions | NGC (ngccoin.com) To start the process of learning to grade and otherwise evaluate coins, refer to the print and online resources described in the following topic: You would also benefit from attending venues such as coin shows and coin club meetings where you can see examples of correctly graded coins and learn from experienced collectors and dealers.

The problem is getting worse than you think. In some parking garages in my area, you can't pay with cash or a physical debit or credit card. You have to access your account through a smart phone, which I don't own and don't want. On the one occasion where I had to park in one of them, I was fortunately accompanied by a friend who had a smart phone. While U.S. currency is "legal tender for all debts, public and private", there is no pre-existing debt when one goes to purchase goods or services, so the vendor can legally refuse to deal with you unless you pay in the specified manner. I've read that some localities have enacted ordinances outlawing the refusal of cash for small purchases, but the U.S. government probably prefers the trend away from cash, which may make tax evasion more difficult.

According to the World Coin Price Guide (and the Standard Catalog of World Coins) upon which it is based, the 1947 Mexican 50 pesos had an original mintage of 309,000 pieces. An additional 3,975,654 pieces "most likely dated 1947" were struck between 1949 and 1972, and 473,900 more 1947 dated pieces were struck between 2000 and 2017. Both the originals and the various restrikes were made at the Mexico City mint, presumably based on the original master dies or artwork. I don't recall reading about any way to distinguish the originals from the various restrikes. On two occasions, once about 15 years ago and just recently, I have met non-collectors who had single 50-peso pieces dated 1946, the second highest mintage date (1,588,000). In the earlier case, after I explained how much gold the coin contained and what it was worth, the owner took it to a coin dealer, who found it to be genuine and paid the owner a fair price based upon the price of gold at the time. The piece I recently saw appeared to be genuine as well. As I recall, for some years before 1975, when all U.S. restrictions on the ownership of gold ceased, it was legal to own foreign gold coins dated no later than 1959, so these 50-peso pieces could be held by U.S. citizens, while later bullion coins such as Krugerrands (first minted in and dated 1967) could not. This likely explains the large number of 1947 dated restrikes.

The Mexican 50 pesos (dated 1921-31 and 1944-47, KM #481) and similar but undenominated pieces dated 1943 (KM #482) contain 1.2057 troy oz. of .900 fine gold. The pieces dated 1947 are largely restrikes made as late as 2013, but the earlier dates are likely contemporary to the dates they bear. I recall that certain earlier dates used to have premiums, but the NGC World Coin Price Guide now lists all dates at near their bullion value. Mexico ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS 50 Pesos KM 481 Prices & Values | NGC (ngccoin.com).

Old saying-- "There is no Santa Claus in numismatics." The only other possibility is that the seller had no idea whether the coin was genuine or what it would be worth if it was. In either case, this is why you should only buy coins from established, reputable dealers. FYI, this is what a genuine coin if this type would look like and the sort of photos we would need. (This 1796 large date, small letters was obtained from a major dealer in the 1990s and certified by NGC after I took the photos): Here's what the edge should look like, this from an 1800 silver dollar, which has the same edge style:

Yes, there's doubt, so pass! Moreover, under no circumstances should a newer (or nowadays even a more experienced) collector purchase a coin of this value unless it resides in a holder from a reputable third-party grading service such as NGC, PCGS or ANACS. It takes years of experience to develop sufficient knowledge and judgment to form a reasonable opinion as to the authenticity of such a coin and may require in-person examination and testing equipment as well. Your photo of the edge is too distant to be of any real value. (Never hold a coin that may have collector value with your bare fingers, except by its edge if you absolutely must. That's how they become worn and discolored.) If you are new to coin collecting, we can provide you with references to books and online resources that will help you learn. Out of curiosity, how much was the seller asking for this coin?

Welcome to the NGC chat board. To my knowledge acquired over 52 years of involvement in numismatics, there is no such person as a "licensed . . . coin assessor". While laws may vary from state to state, one can generally become a coin dealer who may conduct appraisals with standard business licenses for retail trade and no particular credentials. The list of dealers referred to by @Greenstang is of dealers whom NGC has authorized to accept submissions of coins from the public for NGC authentication and grading. It would help in making a recommendation if you could explain why you are seeking professional assistance. The best-known and probably most experienced dealer in the Washington, D.C. area is probably Julian Leidman (Bonanza Coins) of Silver Spring, Maryland. See his website at www.juliancoin.com for more information. Mr. Leidman is a member of the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG), a selective organization of coin dealers that requires its members to meet certain financial and ethical standards. You can find other PNG member dealers at www.pngdealers.org.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Please post cropped photos of this purported 1795 Draped Bust dollar taken with the camera directly over the coin and not from an angle. Additionally, please post a photo of or describe the edge of the coin. A genuine piece would have the words HUNDRED CENTS ONE DOLLAR OR UNIT with the words separated by decorative rectangles, circles and stars on the edge. Based on the current photos, the coin isn't an immediately obvious counterfeit as are many we see on these forums, but there are many fakes of these coins of varying qualities. The surfaces look somewhat peculiar for a genuine coin of this type. The positioning of the stars and letters appear consistent with the BB-51, B-14 "off-center bust" die variety, but there are counterfeits of this variety that were modeled from genuine coins. If the coin is genuine, the deep reverse scratches and other damage would result in a "details" grade and reduce its value, but it would still be worth enough (low four figures) to warrant professional authentication and grading by a third-party grading service such as NGC.

Presumably, Robert Ball Hughes (1806-68) was being paid for creating a model of what became known as the "with drapery" (at elbow) versions of Liberty Seated half dimes, dimes, and quarters minted from some point in 1840 on, as well as all of the regular issue Liberty Seated dollars that were first minted in 1840. This model was actually a completely redrawn version of Christian Gobrecht's original design concept, with a fuller figure of Liberty wearing heavier clothing and, for the half dimes and dimes, holding an upright instead of slanted shield. (The half dollars remained generally faithful to Gobrecht's original concept, with some additional drapery having been added at Liberty's elbow for most of their first-year issues of 1839.) The differences in the "no drapery" and the "with drapery" versions are readily apparent. Half dimes: Dimes: Quarter dollars: Photos, except for that of the 1839 dime, are courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries. The coins are currently in my collection.

Just because someone is offering coins for an outrageous price doesn't mean that they are actually being sold for that price. Strikethroughs are very common and are more in the nature of defects rather than notable or rare mint errors such as coins that are multiple struck or struck way off center.