Sandon

I saw the photos of this 1942 proof set on the PCGS forum. I think that the cellophane is original and that the coins have likely been together since 1942, but the staples were almost certainly replaced at some point. The bluish toning on the silver coins is typical of coins that have been stored for a long time in these cellophane wrappers, although it may have resulted more from the tissue paper in the original box than from the cellophane. I hope that someone can post a set that includes the original square box and tissue paper in which these sets were originally shipped. I have a dim recollection from a coin show long ago (mid-1970s?) of seeing an original 1937 proof set in cellophane wrappers like these, which the dealer had allowed me to remove from the box and tissue paper. Perhaps a few such sets still exist in the original packaging, probably forgotten about among heirlooms handed down to generations of non-collectors. In 2019 I examined an originally packaged 1954 proof set that was included in a decedent's estate. The date of the set was stamped in blue ink on the top of the box, and the plastic sleeves containing the coins were of a soft, pliable plastic instead of cellophane. Otherwise, the packaging was identical to what I recall for the 1936-42 era proof sets, including the tissue paper in which the sleeves were wrapped. The coins in the 1954 set were absolutely untoned and pristine notwithstanding their 65 years of storage in the original packaging.

I've also been unable to view the photos on the initial post and have instead received the following error message: This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below. <Error> <Code>AccessDenied</Code> <Message>Access Denied</Message> <RequestId>82WTKPQZN3PY44JF</RequestId> <HostId>m92DRFUdn4Gk6ZbadopNAyT9JG07tOGH+SUNkv3xCa40iOc0wXer0gnHeUZ6HdkCeblYrHXdyi0=</HostId> </Error> I'm using a Windows 10 PC and the Microsoft Edge browser. Does anyone know how to correct this problem? I recall seeing 1936-42 era proof sets in the original square paper boxes and cellophane sleeves decades ago, although not lately as most were moved to lucite holders and then to grading service holders. I'd like to compare this one to what I remember. (I'll try the site that @FlyingAl just posted.)

Based upon the photos, which show no disturbance of the copper plating or displaced metal around the depression across Lincoln's bust, I think that this is an example of a type of mint error called a "strikethrough", which results from a foreign object, such as a bit of scrap metal, being on the die or planchet as the coin is struck. This creates a depression on the struck coin in the outline of the foreign object. This type of error usually isn't valuable, but it is interesting. (A "die gouge" would result in a raised area on the coins struck from the die.) I assume that none of the other coins in the roll shows this strikethrough. It is possible that the foreign object was present for one strike or for multiple strikes, as on the much older cents about which I wrote in the following topic:

I have the following observations on this topic: 1. When you post an inquiry about a coin on these forums, please post cropped photos of both sides of the coin. I have seen coins that have had the reverse planed off or otherwise tampered with or damaged in a manner that would reduce their weight. The only observations I can make about this 1953-D cent from its uncropped obverse photo are that (1) it has likely been "cleaned" or polished, resulting in an unnatural color, (2) the rim has been nicked or perhaps filed on the left side and (3) the rim is a bit wider on one side, which usually indicates that it was struck from a misaligned obverse die, which isn't considered a mint error. The difference in the rim size might also indicate that it was struck on a slightly undersized planchet, but this isn't a conclusion I'd even suspect without seeing the other side of the coin. 2. Per my older (1985) edition of the Coin World Almanac, the official weight for a 95% copper bronze or brass cent minted between 1947 and 1982 is 3.11 grams, with a tolerance of 0.13 grams, which would bring a freshly struck coin weighing as little as 2.98 grams within this tolerance. Your coin, which is worn down to Very Fine or so grade, may have a filed rim and has been cleaned to boot is only 0.22 grams lighter than the weight allowed for an uncirculated coin, assuming that your scale is accurate. This is rather slight evidence for you to conclude that "this coin is a different composition." Unless it is noticeably thinner than a normal cent of this era, it may not even be from thin planchet strip. 3. @Coinbuf--The Coin World Almanac also indicates that the U.S. Mint produced a total of 193,673,000 coins for foreign countries in calendar year 1953. It does not provide the specifications for these coins or identify the mints at which they were produced. Before spending money on metallurgical testing for this coin, you might want to research whether the Denver mint produced any coins for foreign countries in or around 1953 that would have used copper colored planchets roughly the size of those for Lincoln cents and would have weighed approximately 2.70 grams. Only if such coins were produced would there be any real possibility that a 1953-D cent could have been struck from a planchet of a different from normal composition. The U.S. Mint (usmint.gov) would likely be the best source from which to obtain this information, or perhaps @RWB, a numismatic researcher who participates in these forums, would know. 4. If you think that we are unduly skeptical, please understand that we see numerous claims of the discovery of rare and new errors and varieties, very few of which ever prove to be true. If you do have the coin analyzed, please inform us as to the results.

Per the "Redbook", the 1869 two cent piece had a reported circulation strike mintage of 1,546,500 pieces, and "600+" proofs. Only the 1864 had a mintage approaching 20 million pieces (19,822,500).

1805 quarter dollar, now NGC graded F 15:

Welcome to the NGC chat board. If you're referring to the mark near the "9", it is post-mint damage caused by a hit by a punch or other tool. This coin is simply a worn and damaged 1967 quarter. To learn about mint errors and varieties, so that you may recognize significant ones should you be fortunate enough to find them, please refer to the following resources: 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) Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com) For a comprehensive description of known error types, see error-ref.com. Other useful sites include doubleddie.com and varietyvista.com.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. The "Coin Marketplace" forum is limited to posts offering to sell or buy numismatic items under the rules stated in the lead topic on this forum. Questions about coins should be posted under either the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum or the "U.S., World, and Ancient Coins" forum. Please post clear, cropped photos of the obverse and reverse of the coin about which you are asking questions, not distant blurry photos like these that show mostly the coin's holder and the surface on which it sits. If I assume that your photos were taken with the two sides of the coin oriented exactly 180 degrees apart (the "coin turn" used on U.S. coins), your 1908 quarter eagle shows a minor die rotation of just a few degrees. Such rotations are relatively common and generally not worth a premium. Please note that there are numerous counterfeits of Indian head quarter eagles, so it might be advisable to have the coin examined by a third-party grading service.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. While NGC doesn't provide free opinions, you can post inquiries like this on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum or the "U.S., World and Ancient Coins" forum for opinions from other forum participants. While photos inherently have limitations, your 1799 Draped Bust dollar may have Extremely Fine details but appears to have an unnatural color and surface texture indicating that it has been harshly "cleaned". This would appreciably reduce its desirability and value. The coin would still have sufficient value to make its submission to a grading service worthwhile, as professional authentication is important for these coins. This one appears to be genuine, but there are many counterfeits.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. It would be helpful if you could post cropped photos of the entire obverse and reverse of the coin, as there could be die markers on areas other than the date that would aid in identification. Your photos of the date area do not appear to match any of the varieties for 1882 Shield nickels on NGC VarietyPlus or PCGS Coinfacts for which photos are available. (Perhaps another forum member will have access to a publication or website with photos of additional varieties.) See Shield Five Cents (1866-1883) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com), 1882 5C (Regular Strike) Shield Nickel - PCGS CoinFacts (click on "Show Related coins and Varieties"). As the U.S. Mint hand punched dates into each die until about 1908, there are many varieties that show evidence of repunching or other artifacts of the die making process, including unlisted ones. The "2" in your coin's date doesn't appear to have been punched over a different digit.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. In the future, please post cropped photos of the entire obverse and reverse of a coin about which you have questions. The "doubled" area of the rim on your 1991-D cent is likely from a slightly misaligned obverse die that struck the coin at a slight angle. This is also very common, not valued by knowledgeable collectors, and considered a quality control issue rather than a mint error. I concur with those who have previously responded regarding the other issues you raised. NGC would not attribute either of these coins as a mint error. If you submitted them, you would be spending $37 per coin in grading and attribution fees, plus the $10 per order processing fee and shipping and insurance costs to encapsulate coins worth face value. To learn about mint errors and varieties, so that you may recognize significant ones should you be fortunate enough to find them, see the following resources: 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) Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com) For a comprehensive description of known error types, see error-ref.com. Other useful sites include doubleddie.com and varietyvista.com.

To continue with coins from my Whitman bookshelf album collection of BU 1938-64 Jefferson nickels, here are the coins dated 1942, a transitional year with four different issues: 1. 1942 (pre-war composition), a nice piece with clean surfaces and nearly 5 full steps, for which I paid all of $1 in 1990. 2. 1942-D, a better date in the context of this common series, for which I paid $20 in 1991, tying it with the 1939-S as the second most expensive coin in the album. This is a nice example with nearly 5 full steps. It has developed some light mostly bluish toning. 3. 1942-P (wartime composition), the first U.S. coin with a "P" mintmark. I obtained this one in 1987 for $9. 4. 1942-S with a flat area on the steps but an interesting meandering die crack that nearly bisects the reverse from top to bottom, acquired in 1991 for $7.

You can view this information for individual sets by clicking "Set History" at the top right of the first page.

Based upon the photos, this 1869 two cent piece appears to be a proof striking, probably either brown or red and brown in color. It has no wear, but I could only guess at a numerical grade without being able to see the coin at different lighting angles.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. The blue discoloration on your 1999 Georgia state quarter is corrosion, possibly copper-nickel chloride, from the coin having been exposed to chemicals in the environment, possibly from having been buried in the ground or immersed in chlorinated water, after it left the mint. As such, it is undesirable to knowledgeable coin collectors and worth only its face value of 25 cents. Unfortunately, there are many false and misleading articles and videos about coins on the internet, to which you have no doubt been exposed. While NGC does not offer free advice, you may post your questions and photos on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum, and we (volunteer forum members) will endeavor to answer them. Please post clear, cropped photos of both sides of the coin about which you have questions. In the meantime, here are some links to resources from which you can obtain accurate information about actual mint error and variety coins and U.S. coins generally: 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) Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com) For a comprehensive description of known error types, see error-ref.com. Other useful sites include doubleddie.com and varietyvista.com.

1883 Liberty Seated dime, NGC graded MS 63 (old holder):

@xinfantry--Welcome to the NGC chat board. @VKurtB--Although Morgan dollars dated 1896, 1900, and 1902 with "micro O" mintmarks are now generally believed to be contemporary counterfeits made for use as money, the 1899-O micro Os are regarded as genuine, with five different recognized die varieties listed as VAM nos. 4, 5, 6, 31 and 32, the VAM 6 reverse having been used as the model for the counterfeits. See 1899 Micro O Guide - VAMWorld (ec2-13-58-222-16.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com). The mint mark punch used appears to have been the one meant for use on Barber quarter dies of that era. (Note, however, that in recent years it is likely that counterfeits all dates and mints of Morgan dollars have been produced in Asia.) Most 1880-O Morgan dollars also have a "micro O" mintmark, and I have never before heard of anyone doubting their authenticity. The larger "O" used on most 1899-O Morgan dollars is the same or very similar to that appearing on all other New Orleans mint pieces dated from 1885 to 1887 and 1890 to 1904 (and some 1884-Os and most 1888 and 1889-Os), so it shouldn't be difficult for @xinfantry to find an example to compare with the coin he is being offered. The photo is too blurry to tell for sure, but it appears to me to be the more common larger "O".

Welcome to the NGC chat board. The 1921 Morgan dollar is the most common Morgan dollar and one of the most common of all U.S. silver dollars, only the 1922 and 1923 Peace dollars possibly being more common. Millions of them still exist, and they are readily available in circulated and in most uncirculated grades short of Gem Uncirculated from most coin dealers at coin shops and at coin shows. You should be able to buy a circulated one for $30-$40 and an average uncirculated (MS 62) one for around $60 at current, inflated retail prices. I think that you likely misunderstood your relatives. Ask them what they mean by "complete". Does the collection include such rare dates as an 1893-S (worth $4,000 in well-worn condition), an 1889-CC and an 1894? Could they possibly mean that they lack a 1921 Peace dollar, which is considerably scarcer than the 1921 Morgan, or the 1921-D or 1921-S Morgans, which are common but not as common as the 1921? If you would like to acquire resources from which you can learn the basics about U.S. coins, please refer to the following topic on this forum:

It's a nice Capped Bust half dollar. In my experience it's not unusual to find pre-1837 U.S. coins that are somewhere in between two listed die states. Dies wore slightly with each strike, and it might not be feasible to list and describe every noticeable change. I've been reviewing a 1970 "Revised Edition" of the Overton book, which lists only O-101 and not O-101a for this variety. However, regarding the obverse die Overton stated, "Some show a fine crack from edge through star 11 to curls." For the reverse, Overton commented that "Late states show a die crack through 50 C. across leaves and to UNI." Apparently, Overton recognized that not all pieces showed either no cracks or the cracks on both sides. The obverse crack apparently developed first.

I would normally agree with those who said that this is a case of uneven mixing of the gold and copper in the blank from which this coin was struck, but as the coin is supposed to be composed of .9999 fine gold, this hardly seems possible. The lesson here is that one should carefully inspect and, if possible, photograph coins before sending them to a grading service, so that you can make a case that any change in their condition occurred while they are in the hands of the grading service. The "68" grade suggests that the coin already had the area of discoloration when it was graded. NGC has only graded 2 Caroline Harrison pieces as PF 68, 43 as PF 69, and 307 as PF 70. The NGC Price Guide lists a PF 68 at $1,115, a PF 69 at $1,265, and a PF 70 at $1,750, a seemingly unrealistic premium. Even if it could be proven that the coin didn't have the area of discoloration when submitted, it couldn't be proven that the coin would have otherwise graded "70", so in any event a claim would hardly have been worthwhile.

For the benefit of those who don't realize that @J P M is joking, this really isn't possible, as the San Francisco die would have had an "S" mint mark, and this "D" mint coin has no evidence of an over-mintmark, which would have involved a trip to the Philadelphia mint at that time. (I don't recall there being any over-mintmarked U.S. coin after the 1955-D, D over S nickel anyway.) However, the apparent notching and sharp doubling on some of the lettering of the motto and the "Y" in "LIBERTY" is why I'm not willing to dismiss the possibility that this coin is a doubled die.

1873 with arrows Seated half dollar, now NGC graded XF 45:

Usually, when someone claims to have discovered an unlisted doubled die on these forums, it is easily seen to be a case of strike doubling, die deterioration doubling, or just the poster's imagination. I'm not sure about this 1976-D half dollar, which in some places appears to resemble a doubled die. It may be worthwhile to have it examined in-hand by an expert, perhaps at CONECA or doubleddie.com. (I know that Wexler himself has retired.) I wouldn't send it to a grading service without an independent expert's opinion that it is a doubled die. Does anyone have suggestions as to whom@blinewalker should show it?

Since 95% copper alloy ceased to be used in 1982, cents have been made from solid zinc blanks that have been electroplated with copper. If the electroplating process isn't done correctly, there can be a poor bond in some areas between the zinc and the copper plating, which turns into a raised "bubble" or, more correctly it seems, blister when the coin is struck. This occurred to many cents dated from 1982 until the mid-1990s, some of which appear to be covered with bumps and blisters. The electroplating process has improved since then, but it still happens from time to time, more often in one area as on your 1997-D cent. I've taken this explanation from a post by @Coinbuf on the following topic, which includes a link to an article in Coin World:

As others have indicated, this 1964-D cent appears to have been sandwiched between two other cents and squeezed together in a vise or otherwise compressed. A coin that was double struck at the mint would have two raised images facing the right way, not backwards, incuse (sunken) images. The coin has also been damaged in other ways. To learn about mint errors and varieties, see the following resources: 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) Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com) For a comprehensive description of known error types, see error-ref.com. Other useful sites include doubleddie.com and varietyvista.com. I strongly recommend that you learn more about U.S. coins and the minting process generally. See the following topics on this forum: