Sandon

It is not in any way an error, it is PMD caused by corrosion most likely from being buried.

Welcome to the NGC chat board.
   It would be extremely unusual to find even a single 1992 "close AM" cent, so it is unlikely that all or any of them are "close AMs". There is no way we could tell without clear, cropped photos of each coin.  The "AM" looks close even on the common "wide AM" variety. On the "close AM" the numerals nearly touch at the bottom. These images from PCGS Coinfacts show the comparison.

   Unless you have the knowledge and experience to grade and otherwise evaluate coins yourself, including being able to identify die varieties, you should not submit coins to third-party grading services. You will likely waste a great deal of money if you do. Your referring to some of the coins as "almost proof" indicates a lack of basic knowledge, as "proof" is a method of manufacture, not a grade, and all proof 1992 cents are 1992-S.

The so-called (and misnamed) 1964 "SMS" coins were apparently first strikes made for presentation purposes from new, highly polished dies showing an unusual matte-like finish and many die polish marks and were well-struck. Based on the photos you provided, your coins do not have this finish or strike. The so-called "SMS" coins apparently originate from a particular source and are not found among coins issued for circulation. Moreover, they were struck at the Philadelphia mint with no mint mark, and your coins are both 1964-Ds, struck at the Denver mint with a "D" mint mark. They couldn't possibly be the so-called "SMS" pieces.
   You are obviously a victim of internet disinformation and a lack of proper numismatic education. Please see the following forum topics for reliable print and online resources from which you may learn about U.S. coins:
 

The 1955 doubled die obverse cent is classified as a die variety, not a mint error, because the obvious doubling was in the die that struck the coins and imparted it to all the coins it struck. A mint error is created by flaws in the planchet or striking of an individual coin, and each one is usually different from all others.  
   Your coin is an ordinary 1955 cent in at best a lower end mint state grade and worth less than a dollar. Contrary to what you may have seen on some websites that spread disinformation, it is extremely unusual to find any major mint error, die variety, or other coin of substantial value in your change or in accumulations of coins.
   From what resources (print and online) are you obtaining your information about coins?
 

The 1955 doubled die obverse cent is classified as a die variety, not a mint error, because the obvious doubling was in the die that struck the coins and imparted it to all the coins it struck. A mint error is created by flaws in the planchet or striking of an individual coin, and each one is usually different from all others.  
   Your coin is an ordinary 1955 cent in at best a lower end mint state grade and worth less than a dollar. Contrary to what you may have seen on some websites that spread disinformation, it is extremely unusual to find any major mint error, die variety, or other coin of substantial value in your change or in accumulations of coins.
   From what resources (print and online) are you obtaining your information about coins?
 

Welcome to the NGC chat board.
   It would be extremely unusual to find even a single 1992 "close AM" cent, so it is unlikely that all or any of them are "close AMs". There is no way we could tell without clear, cropped photos of each coin.  The "AM" looks close even on the common "wide AM" variety. On the "close AM" the numerals nearly touch at the bottom. These images from PCGS Coinfacts show the comparison.

   Unless you have the knowledge and experience to grade and otherwise evaluate coins yourself, including being able to identify die varieties, you should not submit coins to third-party grading services. You will likely waste a great deal of money if you do. Your referring to some of the coins as "almost proof" indicates a lack of basic knowledge, as "proof" is a method of manufacture, not a grade, and all proof 1992 cents are 1992-S.

The 1955 doubled die obverse cent is classified as a die variety, not a mint error, because the obvious doubling was in the die that struck the coins and imparted it to all the coins it struck. A mint error is created by flaws in the planchet or striking of an individual coin, and each one is usually different from all others.  
   Your coin is an ordinary 1955 cent in at best a lower end mint state grade and worth less than a dollar. Contrary to what you may have seen on some websites that spread disinformation, it is extremely unusual to find any major mint error, die variety, or other coin of substantial value in your change or in accumulations of coins.
   From what resources (print and online) are you obtaining your information about coins?
 

Not an error just damaged. Looks like it was exposed to high heat.

Not a wounded eagle, just a scratch.
Here is an example of what a wouded eagle looks like. The lines should be raised, not incuse.

Suggest you study on what an actual error is, so far every one of your listings have been damage or not worth the cost of grading  . Any Auction company would not accept any of the coins you have shown for auction.
Here is an example of the valuable 1955 DDO  
 
 
 
 

Presumably, the reference is to the 2016-W centennial commemorative issue, containing a tenth of an ounce of .9999 fine gold and bearing the design of the "Mercury" dime. The mint sold 124,885 of them, according to the "Red Book", which lists them in between the 2015 and 2016 Roosevelt dime issues, at least in the 2023 edition.  There were similar 2016-W gold commemorative issues of the Standing Liberty quarter and the Liberty Walking half dollar.

Welcome to the NGC chat board.
    The last thing you would want to do as a new collector is to submit these coins to a third-party grading service. Common date and mint, circulated Morgan and Peace dollars may not be worth much more than their current high silver value of about $23 per coin. The minimum grading fee at NGC would also be $23 per coin, plus substantial processing, shipping and insurance costs. Unless a coin has a market value of at least several hundred dollars, it isn't cost effective for a collector to submit it to a grading service.
    You state that you inherited these coins. The laws of many states require that property go through a probate proceeding before it can be distributed to heirs or will beneficiaries, and this process usually involves an appraisal of the market value of the property as of the date of the owner's death.  You should first determine whether the coins were appraised and ask the estate lawyer or executor for a copy of the estate appraisal.  Otherwise, you will need to determine the dates, mints and approximate grades (condition) of the coins before you can attempt to value them. Please see the following forum topic to locate basic resources from which you can learn to identify and get some idea of the coins' condition:
   The basic resources you will need for your purposes are a current (2025) or recent "Red Book" as identified in this topic and a grading guide. If you don't want to purchase these relatively inexpensive books, you can use such online resources as PCGS Photograde, PCGS Coinfacts, the NGC Coin Explorer, and the NGC and PCGS price guides.  You can also post images of a few of the coins for our opinions, but this wouldn't be practical for all 153 coins.
     

1851-O silver three cent piece, now NGC graded AU 50:
 

1871 silver three cent piece, PCGS graded AU 53, another rare late date:


Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.
 

Hello and welcome to the forum. Without having this coin in my hands from the photos you provided I would diagnose this coin as being struck by a sunken die or deformed die. Sometimes a soft area of ill produced metal in the coin die itself begins to sink or deform inwards leaving a raised area on the coin. This is called a die subduction/ deformation strike, and it is relatively common. It's not a recognized or sought after error coin and is not a variety. It is technically a mint error but really, it's just a mint quality control issue. The coin has no extra value or desirability to experienced collectors beyond a novelty or specimen of the common type of error. My second opinion is that this is a large plating blister that developed immediately after striking. To determine for sure, I'd need it in hand. It's not worth much ... Cheers!

Not exactly. Many "weak Ds" are passed off as "1922 No Ds", and even a "No D" (a.k.a. 1922 "Plain") often shows a trace of the "D". The variety with a strong reverse is valued more highly in price guides than those with a weak reverse, and some regard only the variety with a strong reverse as a true "No D". If you want a "No D", I recommend buying it in a reputable certified holder.  I regard this as just a coin struck from a worn die and never wanted one.

The curved discolored area that runs between the date and "IN GOD WE TRUST" appears to me to be simply a stain from dirt or some chemical compound that has formed on the surface of this circulated 1983-P quarter, which is composed of a chemically active alloy of 75% copper, 25% nickel. It doesn't appear as an indentation based on the photos both on this and your previous topic. This stain probably formed long after the coin left the mint from exposure to some substance that the coin encountered, such as the circumstances described by @powermad5000. The coin likely continued to circulate after the stain formed, causing the dirt or chemical compound on the tops of the lettering to be rubbed off.
    If for whatever reason you find this coin interesting, you are welcome to collect it, but don't expect any knowledgeable numismatist to classify it as a mint error.

Whether a coin was damaged at the mint after it was struck or whether it was damaged after it left the mint, damage is damage. Not to be confused with what is a real true mint error which is in a technical sense damage, but it is done during the strike or to the raw planchet before the coin was struck. Anything that happens after the coin is ejected from the striking chamber is simply damage.
On this well worn and highly circulated quarter you have posted here, I don't see a striking error on it. The filled mintmark is simply overuse of a die in which finally suffered a broken post allowing metal of the strike fill in the open space of the mintmark. Filled mintmarks do not qualify as mint errors. They happen either due to the tiny post breaking on the die, or due to a mint employee overpolishing the mintmark area on the die which gets put back into service, or due simply to a die that was highly overused past the point where it should have been removed from service and cancelled or destroyed.
What I see on your quarter doesn't seem to fall into anything I have seen that would be considered an error. It almost looks like at some point like another coin was sitting on top of the quarter for awhile, perhaps a nickel or a penny. There is a condition with metals called galvanic corrosion (aka bimetallic corrosion or dissimilar metal corrosion) in which when two dissimilar metals are placed in contact with each other over a period of time, in the presence of an electrolyte (in some cases very humid air) it can cause corrosion of both metals in contact with each other. Electricians experience this effect when having to join copper wire to aluminum wire. Special fittings have to be used at the connection to keep this process from corroding both types of cables being joined. I think this is what happened in the case of your quarter and what you are seeing is a mild corrosion on the quarter now that whatever was resting on it has been removed.
Since my opinion is just an opinion and is one of many, you can wait for the others to give you their opinion of your quarter.

Presumably, the reference is to the 2016-W centennial commemorative issue, containing a tenth of an ounce of .9999 fine gold and bearing the design of the "Mercury" dime. The mint sold 124,885 of them, according to the "Red Book", which lists them in between the 2015 and 2016 Roosevelt dime issues, at least in the 2023 edition.  There were similar 2016-W gold commemorative issues of the Standing Liberty quarter and the Liberty Walking half dollar.

1851-O silver three cent piece, now NGC graded AU 50:
 

Welcome to the NGC chat board.
   Based on the photo and assuming that the anomaly involves metal that is flaking or peeling off of the coin, I think that it is what is known as a planchet lamination. See https://www.error-ref.com/?s=lamination.  I agree with @Greenstang that in-hand examination would be necessary for a sound opinion.

Welcome to the NGC chat board.
   Based on the photo and assuming that the anomaly involves metal that is flaking or peeling off of the coin, I think that it is what is known as a planchet lamination. See https://www.error-ref.com/?s=lamination.  I agree with @Greenstang that in-hand examination would be necessary for a sound opinion.

1942-P proof wartime Jefferson five-cent piece, PCGS graded PR 66+. Proofs of this series aren't designated "FS", but if any truly has six full steps, this one does:


Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

Whoever told you this was wrong. There is a great deal of disinformation about coins on the Internet. A 1941 cent in circulated (Fine or so) condition like this one is only worth a few cents. The "L" being near the rim, likely the result of a worn die combined with wear, adds no value.
   Please see the following forum topics to find reliable print and online resources from which you can learn about U.S. coins:
 

None of these "Indian" (actually the goddess of Liberty wearing a feathered headdress) cents is worth the cost of submission to a third-party grading service. However, any coin that you want to collect is "worth grading"--by you. It is fundamental that if you want to collect or "invest" in coins, you acquire grading knowledge and skills yourself. Here are approximate grades and current Coin World retail values for the coins you posted:
1. 1859 Good   $13
2. 1860, broad bust   Good   $12
3. 1862 Fine details, corroded, net Good   $10
4. 1864 bronze, no "L" Good   $14
5. 1898 Very Fine   $5 ($10 in Extremely Fine)
6. 1899 Very Fine   $5
7.1900 Very Good to Fine (VG 10) $2.50
    The NGC "Economy" tier grading fee alone for coins valued at no more than $300 is $23 per coin, so submission would be a losing proposition. They are, however, nice coins for display in a Whitman or Dansco album.
    By way of comparison, here are images of a Choice Uncirculated 1895 Indian cent that NGC graded MS 64 RB, retaining much of its original mint color and with a retail value of approximately $225, which is around the minimum value worthy of submission, in my opinion: