Sandon

If you're using a digital microscope, place it on top of one or more books or similar objects until it can image the entire coin. Mine won't image a coin larger than a nickel without doing this.

It is very difficult to grade coins from "head on", somewhat unfocused photos like these. We would need to see the coin at different angles, lightings, and magnifications to assess the number, location, and severity of marks and abrasions and the depth of the mirrors on the surface. Based solely on your photos, the coin could grade as high as MS 65 or MS 66. The obverse could qualify as a "deep mirror prooflike", but the reverse might only be "prooflike", which would lower the whole coin to a "PL" designation at a grading service. The 1880-S is one of the most common Morgan dollars in grades of MS 65 or higher. Most of the handful of Morgan dollars graded "MS 69" by NGC and PCGS are 1880-S. It is probably the most common Morgan dollar in PL and DMPL. Your coin has the "large S"--apparently a punch previously used on some "S" mint trade dollars--and not used on any other Morgan dollar, although both it and the "medium S" are common on the 1880-S.

The Jefferson nickel series was one of the first series that I collected as a young collector in the 1970s. Many earlier dates were available in nice BU condition for a few dollars or less. I have a complete uncirculated set from 1938 to 1964 in a Whitman Bookshelf album with a copyright date of 1960. I purchased most of the coins in the set in the 1970s and 80s, with a few of the better dates upgraded from circulated pieces no later than 1994. The album has preserved them nicely. I have no intention of submitting any of these coins for third-party grading but will post some of the better ones on this topic. I'll begin with the mintmarked pieces from 1938 and 1939. 1. 1938-D with minimal marks and light pastel toning, purchased between 1976 and 1984: 2. 1938-S, purchased in September 1984 for $7.50: 3. 1939-D, the closest thing to a "key" among circulation strike Jefferson nickels. I bought this nice example, which happens to be a "Reverse of 1938" for $32 in November 1994, making it the most expensive and the most recently acquired coin in the album. It upgraded a circulated piece that a dealer had kindly given to me as a "YN" in 1973 or 1974. 4. 1939-S, purchased in November 1992 for $20. This one has the Reverse of 1940 and also upgraded a circulated example.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Your 1979-D (?) Lincoln cent has been mutilated, apparently by being extensively scraped with a tool. It doesn't resemble any type of mint error. The tooling has affected the mintmark, which has been transformed into a shapeless blob. It was presumably a "D", as "S" mint coins were only made for inclusion in 1979 proof sets and are rarely found in circulation. To learn what mint errors look like and how they occur, including an overview of the minting process please refer to the following resources: Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com) Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 1 | NGC (ngccoin.com) (also referenced in the linked topic) Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 2 | NGC (ngccoin.com) Learn Grading: What Is a Mint Error? — Part 3 | NGC (ngccoin.com) Once you have learned the basics, the site error-ref.com provides a comprehensive listing of known types of errors.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. When I magnify the photo, I can see some slight "shelf-like" doubling on the date, which is indicative of "machine doubling" a.k.a. "strike doubling", which is caused by a die being slightly loose in the press, which is quite common and not worth a premium to collectors. Die doubling creates a much crisper, clearer and less shallow secondary image, with "notching" between the junctions of the primary and secondary images, of which the "Redbook" variety 1972 doubled die obverse cent is a good example: While more minor doubled dies may have a narrower "spread" between the two images and involve doubling on fewer letters, numbers or other design features, they are always clearer, crisper and less shallow than the secondary image on your coin. A listing with photos of the more significant known doubled dies on U.S. coins can be found on NGC VarietyPlus at United States Categories | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com) or under the "Resources" tab on the NGC home page. (NGC generally will not attribute a variety not on VarietyPlus unless it is added as a significant discovery. Websites such as doubleddie.com and varietyvista.com have more comprehensive listings of known doubled dies, including minor ones. It is unlikely that a new and significant doubled die awaits discovery for a coin dating from 1964.

Although it is entirely possible that the milling mark was created at the mint in the manner described by @RWB, I have seen circulated coins with plain edges that have milling marks from contact with other coins, which could not occur in this manner but presumably resulted from the mixing of coins of different denominations in a bag. As I recall, I have a lightly circulated 1850 half cent that has an obverse milling mark. I don't presently have the coin available to photograph but will check it the next time I go to the safe deposit box where it is stored.

The circled area almost certainly shows a "milling mark" (a type of "bag mark") where the reeded or "milled" edge of another coin (very likely another 1882-CC dollar) pressed against this coin while the two coins were part of a 1,000 coin mint bag, in which the coins were likely stored from the time they were minted in 1882 until they were sorted for sale by the General Services Administration in the early 1970s. Newly minted coins intended for circulation are packed together in large quantities, allowing the coins to scrape against each other, leaving such scratches and abrasions. This phenomenon is particularly severe in the case of Morgan and Peace dollars, which were packed into cloth bags of 1,000 coins each. Large numbers of these bags were then stacked on top of each other in Treasury and bank vaults in which they were stored for decades at a time and were tossed around when they were moved, resulting in coins that remained "uncirculated" but most of which were moderately to heavily bagmarked. One of the major factors for the grading of such coins is the number, location, and severity of such marks. Even Morgan dollars grading MS 67 or higher have a few bag marks, and the more heavily bagmarked coins will grade no higher than MS 62. As noted by others, please post clear, cropped photos of each side of each coin about which you have questions, not just closeups. See more generally the following topic:

You should be able to scan printed pages as ".jpg", which is supported.

1815 Capped Bust quarter dollar, PCGS graded F12 (old green label holder):

@Christoph1776--Welcome to the NGC chat board. I have the following observations regarding your claim of finding a 1973-D Kennedy half dollar on a silver clad planchet: 1. When you post an inquiry about a specific coin on this forum, please start a new topic instead of replying to someone else's old topic about another coin. 2. Please post clear cropped photos of each side of the coin about which you are inquiring, not just its edges and a very slanted photo of the obverse. 3. Your holding the faces of the coin between your bare fingers demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the proper handling of coins that are thought to be worth more than face value. If you must touch such a coin with your bare hands, hold it only by its edges. The oils on your skin will discolor and otherwise degrade and devalue the coin. 4. It is most unlikely that silver clad half dollar planchets would be present at the Denver mint in 1973, as production of silver clad pieces had ceased in 1970, and the production of Bicentennial silver clad coinage would not begin for some time and then at the Philadelphia mint (a few test strikes only), with production at San Francisco in 1975-76. The 0.16 gram difference in official weight between a silver-clad and copper-nickel clad piece is miniscule, and metallurgical analysis would be necessary to establish the coin's true composition. Based on the limited photos that you have posted, the color and surface texture of the piece are quite unlike those of either a silver-clad or copper-nickel clad Kennedy half dollar. It is likely a plated (or coated) copper-nickel clad piece as others have suggested. 5. The numismatic community and collector marketplace will not regard your find as genuine unless it is duly authenticated and is encapsulated by a respected third-party grading service such as NGC, PCGS or ANACS. I have been actively participating in these forums for about the past year now, have seen numerous posts by persons claiming to have found off-metal planchet or other new or extremely rare major errors or varieties, and so far none of them has been established to have been genuine.

Has NGC made a determination regarding this item?

1820, 20 over 19 curl base 2 Capped Bust half dollar, PCGS graded AU 53:

1814 large date Capped Bust dime that I purchased in 1997, presently out for grading:

The manual typewriters on which I first practiced dated from the 1940s or 50s and didn't have a separate key for the "1". You used the lower case "l" (L), which had the upper serif and a horizontal line at the bottom and was considered identical. No one was confused. I've only seen the capital "i" (identical to lower case "L" in this font) used in older typing like this letter. The electric typewriter that I bought in 1981 has a key for the "1", but most experienced typists considered it superfluous and found it easier to use the lower case "L".

You should learn what mint errors look like, especially if you can't post photos of your coins. The following resources may be helpful to you: Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com) 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) Once you have learned the basics, the site error-ref.com provides a comprehensive listing of known types of errors. Your question about 2005-S proof half dollars, "Do you know of any such error on these?", suggests that you are confusing a mint error, which is usually a defect affecting a single coin, with a die variety, which usually appears on each coin struck from a specific die pair. NGC VarietyPlus ("VarietyPlus" under the "Resources" tab near the top of the NGC home page) shows most of the better-known die varieties for each U.S. coin issue by series. The page for proof Kennedy half dollars shows no such varieties for the 2005-S. Kennedy Half Dollars (1964-Date) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com)

Two of these coins, the 1878 with no mint mark (Philadelphia mint), which is of the somewhat scarcer "7 tailfeathers, Reverse of 1879" variety, and the 1878-CC, would have some premium value; but, unfortunately, all of the coins appear to have been severely "cleaned", probably with silver polish. The 1878 has About Uncirculated details and would have had a retail value of $80 or more if unimpaired. The 1878-CC has Extremely Fine to About Uncirculated details and has a retail value of $225-$300 if unimpaired. I would reduce these values by half due to the "cleaning", and, of course, a dealer would pay a third or more less than that. The other three coins, a 1900-O, 1921-D, and 1921-S, are common dates with Extremely Fine or so details. They would be worth $35 or so apiece retail if unimpaired and probably would sell for around $20-$25 as "cleaned" examples. @JT2--I'd like to know where to buy even well circulated Morgan dollars for "$10 to $30" nowadays. My coin club would very much like to be able to obtain them for the lower end of these prices to use as door prizes. Their silver value today is $18.45.

As this forum is intended for questions pertinent to the NGC Registry rather than to list or sale prices of coins, in the future please post such inquiries on the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum or the "U.S., World, and Ancient Coins" forum, where it may get better attention. If you're referring to 2019-W Enhanced Reverse Proof Silver Eagles from the Canadian version of the "Pride of Two Nations" set that are now in NGC holders, there is a listing for several different "Canada Set" labels on the NGC Price Guide at Silver Eagles (1986-Date) | Price Guide & Values | NGC (ngccoin.com)

I wrote a brief essay on this very topic, which I entitled "Why Collect Coins?", over fifteen years ago. Here it is with a few revisions: Although some might point to the investment aspect of numismatics as a reason to collect, it is at best only a derivative justification. After all, if the only reason to collect were to sell for a profit, it would be nothing more than an application of the “greater fool theory” in which people buy something only in the hope that someone else will later pay more for that same reason. Such thinking amounts to nothing more than speculation and ultimately leads to those at the end of the chain taking a loss. For coins to be worth more than the greater of their face value or the value of their metallic content, there must be some other reason why people are willing to pay more than that in the first place. Speaking for myself, I can point to a variety of reasons. I have now been collecting U.S. coins for fifty-two years. I have for most of that time been quite interested in history and economics, both of which fields of study coins can teach us something about. I have used coins to explain historical events and economic concepts and developments. Numismatics is truly a multi-disciplinary area of study involving, in addition to history and economics, technology and the sciences upon which it is based such as chemistry and physics, and the fine arts. Yet the things that truly fascinate me about coins are less tangible and more difficult for me to explain. One such reason is diversity. Except for some modern issues for collectors that tend to all look like, each coin is different from every other in some respect, even from pieces produced by the same pair of dies. Across the whole spectrum of available examples are so many designs, methods of manufacture, die varieties, variations in strike, die state and luster, colorations, and conditions that I have never grown tired of looking at coins, whether old or new, mint state or well-worn, rare or common. Another reason is a wish to protect and preserve things that I enjoy so that others may enjoy them as well. As we all know, many coins have been destroyed or lost or have been ruined through circulation, use as jewelry, or improper cleaning or storage. I appreciate that previous owners of my coins took care to preserve them. I hope to keep my coins in the same condition as when acquired and eventually to pass them on to others who will hopefully do the same. My ultimate “reason” for collecting coins is simply that I enjoy it, just as most people find one activity or another to be enjoyable. Perhaps this is the ultimate reason for other collectors as well.

1850 large cent, PCGS graded MS 64 BN: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

Unfortunately, these distant, blurry photos don't allow us to evaluate the condition or even be sure of the mint mark on each of these coins. The photos we would need would be separate cropped photos of each side of each coin, something like this: They don't need to be this large, but do the best you can.

1854 half cent, purchased years ago as a Ch. AU and now NGC graded MS 62:

The likely explanation for this added slot is that in their earlier years the grading services certified 1939-S (and other 1939 and 1940) Jefferson nickels without noting which reverse variety they were. My latest standard Redbook (2023 edition) still doesn't have separate listings for the two reverse varieties or even mention them. This slot was likely added for those who wanted to add an undesignated 1939-S nickel in an older holder to the Registry. I wouldn't consider your set "incomplete" if you have the two different designated coins and don't have an undesignated one.

The only coin shown in the Coin World online article is an 1863 double eagle in an NGC holder described as "EXCAVATION RECOVERY--UNC". The coin has areas of dark discoloration or encrustation and heavy scratches. It is severely impaired. The fact that the coins are to be sold by a mass marketer who sells via television and print ads to the general public rather than by Garrett's firm or other major coin dealers indicates that most or all of the coins are similarly impaired. Many of the coins ordinarily wouldn't be worth much more than bullion value but will obviously be hyped to sell for multiples of that. The find is interesting as it appears that the coins were likely buried during the Civil War era.

When you have a question like this, the first thing you should do is consult A Guide Book of United States Coins, popularly known as the "Redbook". If you don't have one, you can get the current edition (2024) from its publisher at whitman.com or likely from other sources such as amosadvantage.com. This book is essential for basic facts about U.S. coins. 1973-S Eisenhower dollars were made in three formats, all for sale to collectors. 1. Copper-nickel clad proofs were included in 1973 proof sets that had a distribution of 2,760,339 sets. The mint sold these proof sets for $7 each. This was the first proof set to include an Eisenhower dollar. 2. Silver clad (40% net silver content) proofs were sold separately for $10 each and had a distribution of 1,013,646 pieces. They were packaged in hard plastic holders in a brown box with a red velvet lining. They had the lowest distribution of the silver proofs made from 1971-74 and for a few years thereafter were considered to be "low mintage". At one time they sold for as much as $200! Nowadays nice ones retail for about $25-$35 in the original packaging. 3. Silver clad circulation quality (uncirculated or "MS") pieces were sold by the mint in soft plastic wrappers enclosed in a dark blue envelope for $3 each, with a distribution of 1,883,140 pieces. Unlike the proofs, which have mirror surfaces and usually have frosted devices and lettering, they have normal frosty or matte-like luster without contrast between the fields and devices. They were not as carefully handled as the proofs and may have bagmarks or other abrasions as usually found on coins made for circulation. Pieces that receive very high grades from grading services sell for a premium.

I'll put this letter in historical context. Benjamin Harrison (1833-1901) served as President from 1889 to 1893. He was the grandson of William Henry Harrison, who had served as President for about a month in 1841 before becoming the first U.S. President to die in office. At the time this letter was written, Harrison was a prominent attorney and [name beginning with "R"] party activist in Indiana who had also served as an officer in the Union army during the Civil War. He subsequently served a term in the U.S. Senate from 1881 to 1887 before being elected President in 1888 despite receiving fewer popular votes than the incumbent, Grover Cleveland, who would defeat Harrison in his bid for reelection in 1892. Russell Benjamin Harrison (1854-1936), Harrison's son, would have been about 25 years old at the time of this letter. It appears that the elder Harrison was already well enough known in 1879 to be one from whom the Mint Director saw fit to curry favor. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Harrison