EagleRJO

Looks like significantly more than rim dings or bag marks, with damage and a crack on the reverse from about 11:00 to 11:30 with a good chunk broken off at 11, which is why it seemed a bit much.

I bet NGC can protect a close likeness to thier slabs even without the logo, but I have a feeling they are overseas. Still really burns my butt seeing stuff like that so at least I let someone at NGC know what I saw, and posting it here might help raise awareness a little.

I sent the info. Looks like another Chineese AliBaba or AliExpress site, but at least I let someone know I saw that.

I saw this 1880-CC Rev 78 Morgan with a straight F15 grade, but it has a damaged rim (7 o'clock obverse, 11 o'clock reverse). I thought that damage would get it a Details grade and wanted to see what others thought.

I came across this fake NGC slab on Temu for a 1880 (P) Morgan, advertised as "Commemorative" 1880-O MS68 "Replica". Looks like there are quite a few fake NGC slabs on this site, that do not say "replica" or "copy" on the label or coin, that I think someone at NGC should be made aware of, but I'm not sure who that would be. Temu Fake NGC Slabs

Seems like you got it for a pretty good price if legit, even with the scratch on the cheek which to me looks pretty pronounced from the pics and is in a prominent focal area of the coin for that series. So if it looks that way in-hand would likely result in a Details grade, which often knocks off 1/4 to 1/3 the value.. I would just weigh the coin when received, and wouldn't worry at this point about XRF testing unless something is really off like the weight or appearance. It's likely valuable enough to submit for grading, even with the scratch, which would also answer many of the questions. Check back if you do submit the coin with the results, which is always interesting to get feedback on, and can be done through a local dealer.

I don't think what caused that is from a coin wrapper as the diameter of the circle is too small, which would actually be smaller than the crimped roll end, and the width of the inscribed mark seems too wide (see attached example wrapper end and damage). Looks to me like it was struck by something circular, which would just be damage, as if that was a struck through there wouldn't be device details in that area which I seem to see. Also why use a scope?

Pretty funny stuff to maybe add to wanting to leave early for lunch. Still a really poor mark location to me.

It's not just you or those coins. The world class reputation of the mint is gone, the overall quality of the design and production for most of the coins from the mint has been flushed, there have been unresolved problems like milk spots on ASEs which hit me with the one from the previous year, and there have been changes to really cheap dollar store like capsules and packaging the last 2 years. This all occured because the mint went woke and quality seems like a distant second, which has been severely disappointing. They say many of the changes were needed due to budget problems, but what they don't tell you is that's mostly because they refused to pull the rip cord on unpopular woke coin programs that are loosers. I ended up canceling all my mint subscriptions except for very inexpensive ones like the Innovation dollar coins and one basic annual set It really is a shame as some go back to the mid 1980's or include favorite coins like the ASEs, AGEs and Morgans. Hopefully they will realize why so many collectors are bailing on them, but I am not holding my breath.

No, that is from a long time ago when the errors were first being discovered and the cause was uncertain. ANACS is the only one still flip-flopping recently between "Impropper Alloy Mix" and "Impropperly Annealed Planchet", even more recently.

Both NGC and PCG$ currently label them as "Impropperly Annealed Planchet", and have for a while [PCG$ changed a few times a long time ago]. You might be thinking of ANACS which keeps flip-flopping even more recently.

There are other years with the "Impropperly Annealed Planchet" error and dark discoloration including the attached 1964-D, and I have also seen them from the late 1930's.

I believe that both NGC and PCGS currently use "Improppery Annealed Planchet" for those black beauty nickels. I think you are right that ANACS is the only TPG to use "Black Beauty" on the label. I'm not sure what ANACS labels the error as lately since they seem to flip-flop between "Impropper Alloy Mix" and "Impropperly Annealed Planchet" to go along with "Black Beauty".

Try to get focused cropped photos of both sides with just 75W/100W background lighting at an angle, and also a photo of the edge.

You would need to post a focused cropped photo of the obverse (front) as well as another focused enlargement of the mintmark as it is hard to tell if that's a "filled" Morgan "O" mintmark from a die chip or a Morgan "narrow slit O" mintmark that just took a hit. I seem to see remnants of the narrow slit mintmark which might indicate just a hit that mashed that down, but it gets out of focus when I zoom in.

Some earlier date nickels had the dark discoloration from having the planchet improperly annealed, but I understand it was specifically the deeper dark discoloration on the 1958/1959 nickels that earned the nickname "Black Beauly". it's hard to tell if the coin in the original post is in fact a black beauty since there appears to be a lot of reflection from the lighting. And you are probably better off buying a coin already slabbed and labeled with that error than submitting a coin.

At that time the mintmark was hand punched separately into the working dies, along with the date [from earlier years], so the mark location could vary greatly.

Nice 1941 (P) 1C album coin Bill. I agree it's not worth getting graded. Because it's eBay Bill with countless scam artists! Those are ridiculous asking prices that only a total sucker would buy for anything near that. How about the following from eBay which is a normal circulated 2010 Lincoln Presidential dollar coin worth ... drum roll, $1.00 ... listed for $2,500 ... WOW! I usually see these with the date listed as 1861-1865 which were the years Lincoln was president as noted on the obverse to give the appearance of being that old. Reported when I see these as usual! eBay Listing: Presidential Dollar Coin 16th President Abraham Lincoln 2010 P Position B @ $2,499.99

Hmmm, what "roles" were they selling, perhaps actors pretending to be coin collectors?

Die indicators such as die cracks and marks are indeed difficult but not impossible to reproduce accurately, so if you are sure it has a matching die crack, as well as a date and mintmark which match, to go with the overall appearance which seems about right it's likely legit. That's very unusual that it just happens to have matching die indicators for the same date/mark coin you have, and normally someone inexperienced like this should stay far away from raw uncertified coins on sites like Etsy/eBay.

Unless that coin is from a larger more reputable coin dealer and you know how to properly authenticate Morgan dollar coins, which is an advanced area of coin collecting and very difficult to do just based on photos, I would not buy raw uncertified coins on sites like Etsy/eBay. There are quite a lot of Chinese counterfeits on sites like that, with some of them being very deceptive and you can easily get burned. Unless you are able to post a Morgan VAM and approximate grade for someone here to take a look at, do yourself a favor and stick with coins already certified by a grading company.

I'm just curious, why would you be weighing nickels?

Fingers look about the same comparing that to an example from Coinfacts on the right, even thoigh they are a little like sausage fingers. That possibly combined with reflection off the packaging may be giving it the "off" appearance noted.

🙄