EagleRJO

Jokes aside that jumped out at me too, but actually doing a little digging on a site I use to check German coins where I am looking for more info, I came across the attached from this site ... Coin catalog - uCoin.net (https://en.ucoin.net/catalog/?q=1830+10+lepta) It indicates that the weight should be 16 grams, with a diameter of 34mm and a thickness of 1.7mm which I am not sure if the OP measured carefully. Of the two basic types the second "10 lepta, 1830" seems closer (particularly with the cross) with even more pictures that vary considerably within that basic type such as cross location, flames, character locations, etc. so it seems to vary considerably. I do not know much about these coins at all but figured I would throw out there some additional info I found for others with more experience to consider as I may have jumped to conclusions based on the weight difference before.

Yea, I just shake my head sometimes at such minor variations, and then add in differences between various graders with the more subjective current market grading. I started a while ago just lumping them into MS-60 to MS-64 (BU) and then MS-65 to MS-70 (Gem BU) and I'm trying to zero in a little more.

I thought I did with my reply to them above about the meaning of "cooked".

I think that became apparent with the grammar and missed intent of the jokes.

It doesn't look like most including the one you just posted, and then there are ones like the reverse and most of the obverse (except the face) of the NGC identified one posted above (attached is the slab) that don't have the obvious swirls, built up metal at high points or the appearance, but do have a lot of smaller marks all over which is why I decided to be cautious and post it.

"Cooked" up meaning people are saying it was likely made up to resemble an authentic coin or is a counterfeit as RWB and others implied. A source to authentic coins was provided, and you even posted a different one initially, which you acknowledged that the coin did not match either source in appearance or weight. If you still think it's some kind of rare variation of the coin regardless of what some very experienced people are trying to tell you by all means submit it to a grading company for authentication but be prepared for the more likely outcome that it's a waste of money and the coin comes back as not authentic. Just my 2 Indian head nickels.

That was the question I was trying to figure out. I have the ANA standards and I'm familiar with the table for MS Morgans that actually has a heading in the table for "Contact Marks", which I thought was unusual at first, but it makes sense. Morgans are large heavy coins mass produced for circulation which were not gently handled that commonly have marks from roughly handled blanks as well as multiple edge dings and bag marks from being dropped in bins after being struck and then tossed in large mint bags after being counted, and then the bags are roughly tossed around causing more of the common marks I am used to seeing on Morgans. I do see many of the classic dings and contact marks on the coin, but there were many other smaller marks or scrapes all over both sides of the coin which left me scratching my head as it's not like anything I have seen before. It wasn't like just multiple contact and rub marks from circulation with the limited amount of wear on the coin, or the classic scrape marks from cleaning I often see, like that are prominently all over the junk coin JP posted. I still can't get over the number of deep cleaning scrape marks on that one, and you are left wondering what kind of rocket scientist decided to do that. It did look a little like one coin I saw in an NGC holder labeled whizzed attached, except for the device on the obverse which has longer more sweeping marks, which is why I asked about a possible poor attempt to do that ... or maybe a better version of that which hid those types of lines. But I guess it's possible the surface is just a result of circulation damage made worse by someone trying to "fix" the appearance that I just haven't seen before.

I have noticed the number of people that post parking lot coins thinking it's some kind of mint error. To the point where I actually started a Road Rashed Parking Lot Coin Set to have some fun with that called "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" with 3 coins of each denomination that I actually find in parking lots discussed in a thread I started. And I will probably borrow your line about mint errors at some point. I agree there is no way all the marks on the coin occurred at the mint or is a mint error of any kind, and they were nothing like I have ever seen on slabbed or example grade Morgans which set off red flags in addition to the off appearance.

Hmmm, maybe it was "cooked" up 😜

Harshly cleaned from the reject jar? Btw, nice touch with the cotton glove for your junk coin.

In addition to the unusual appearance I thought it was strange to have that many surface marks for a coin with not much wear.

Thanks. The pic gets blurry when you try to zoom in, but it looked like somebody went at it with a wire brush and then polished it to try and hide that. I guess that would just be a harsh cleaning and polishing.

Thanks, I was seeing contact marks all over the coin and an un-natural shiny appearance, so I wasn't sure if it was a poor attempt at whizzing the coin.

The surface of this coin looks off. Was this whizzed?

I think lost packages is a potential issue with any delivery method. I just had my first lost package with 6 nice coins worth quite a lot lost that were sent via USPS Priority Mail. It's insured, but man what a hassle and letdown when I was dripping with anticipation of getting these coins in hand ... literally since they were raw. I told the CS rep apparently is wasn't a "Priority" getting the package to me.

Like this one which I think is an example of an O-110A "Ugly 3" that are ridiculously priced vs the other types.

My understanding is that without the physical indicators of a lower overall grade, e.g. a minor circulation rub, that it would just drop that within a given overall grade. So you may still be good with an MS grade, just a lower one.

I don't see the wear at ANA focus areas for an AU. Am I missing something, or maybe I just haven't closely looked at many of those coins.

Nice! Now that I can see both sides (ahemm) I like the coin. MS-63 to MS-64 or slightly better? For me the differentiation between the MS grades is so minor sometimes and hard to pick up.

Know the coins you are buying, look at them carefully regardless of a label with an experts' opinion, and as others have said stick with reputable sellers with a no questions return policy. I tend to be very cautious with any coin being considered as I buy mostly raw ones which you have to be very careful with, and that has pretty much carried over to any slabbed coins I buy also. TPG slabs can be counterfeits too, although the risk is mostly with more expensive coins.

Hmmm, I seem to recall a sticky topic about posting pics of both sides of the coin when asking questions, with this guy Neophyte something being the last one to post there. [Duck, Swing & Miss ... couldn't resist. ]

Oh noooooooooo ... another whizzed Morgan. I have seen a number lately on eBay. Of course, the "Whizzed" or "Details" isn't in the listing header, go figure. I feel the coin crying out from the abuse!

After @Just Bob pointed out the coin I originally posted looked like an O-108A variety I looked closely at the date, devices and stars (location, shape, spacing, alignment & point direction) on the obverse, as well as the devices, lettering and denomination on the reverse and it looks like a match with the O-108A. I think the 3 in the date on that one is pretty close but not an exact match with the "Tampered 3" from the CoinBook site (which looks like an O-106A) than any of the others. I just don't see any varieties like the O-108A described in terms of the 3 like the others (e.g. "Ugly 3"), except for also calling it a Tampered 3. For the last raw 1823 50C posted I also looked closely at the devices, stars and date on the obverse, as well as the devices, lettering and denomination on the reverse and it looks like a solid match with an O-101A or "Patched 3". Attached is the Date from that coin (top) and the date from an O-101A (bot). If I do get one for this year to go in an early half dollar collection it would probably be a "Patched 3" or "Normal 3" as they are a little more reasonably priced in the VF to XF range compared to say an "Ugly 3" which I think are overpriced.

I like the collection of books and coin albums in your office I think someone mentioned in another thread that are in the pics from that site.

So how is the O-108A variety described? The 3 wouldn't be "Normal", "Broken", "Patched" or "Ugly" and it seems pretty close to a "Tampered". Maybe when I get my book back out on loan (what am I, a library ) I will see if there is anything noted there as I don't even see "Tampered" in the NGC info or on PCGS CoinFacts. And talking about 1823 50C varieties attached is another raw one I saw recently probably VF at best which I think is a O-101A or "Patched 3".