EagleRJO

You will likely be happier in the long run doing that. And I agree with Sandon about avoiding raw coins on sites like Etsy/eBay except from larger very reputable dealers. There are counterfeits all over those sites.

ANA has a lot of good YT vids. Also their eLearning center at money.org has a bunch of good ones.

Another risk you run with recommended conservation is that it reveals something below which results in a Details grade. That occasionally happens to people who understandably get upset and rip into NGC on the forum. But they don't have x-ray vision.

Since there is a loss of the rim and details on BOTH sides of the op's coin It might be a strike error, like a loose die, and slight clipped planchet such that it wasn't significant enough to result in the Blakesley Effect. But we still don't know from the op if its in the same spot on either side. https://www.australian-coins.com/error-coins/how-to-determine-if-a-clipped-planchet-error-is-real/

I think the op's coin is a different case since there is a loss of the rims and details on both sides, which may involve multiple minor errors. Although I don't think it's grease. And@Edwardram still needs to let us know if the effect is in exactly the same area on both sides which may also indicate rotated dies.

That's YT for you, which I suspect is the reason for the search.

Or see if you can clearly read the inscription on a #2 pencil in the fields. I understand grading rooms have something similar to identify prooflike.

The coin does not have a lot of wear but it's in poor condition with the cleaning, dings, scratches and heavy bag marks, particularly in the face area which is a significant distraction, so I would pass. And the person selling it doesn't know how to handle coins. Was there a reason you were looking to possible buy this coin even though it's impared?

That is an interesting and developing area of science. However, I don't think warp speeds had anything to do with black holes, but I'm not a "trekkie" so don't quote me on that. Who knows, maybe it's the basis for warp drive theory or something. And talk about getting off-topic.

I assume you were looking for the valuable 1990-S No S cent after watching some YT vids about hitting it big looking through pocket change. You might want to start over with the following topics, and avoid YT vids except maybe from ANA, NGC or PCGS. https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/428817-resources-for-new-collectors/ https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/430263-basic-resources-glossary/

I agree with JPM that the coins appear to have "worthless" machine or mechanical doubling, as it has the appearance of being step or shelf like. It does not appear to be the result of deteriorated dies as it does not have a mushy appearance or present on more than one side. See the attached infographic to help identify true hub doubling, and the following webpage which discusses the various types of doubling and how dies are made. https://doubleddie.com/ Also, I think you should put away the scope and just use a 10x loupe or mag glass for now, at least until you get into more advanced coin collecting issues down the road. And any errors or varieties you find that may be worth some premium should not need a scope to see.

Of course he developed laws, but I naturally assumed we were discussing Einstiene's theories relative to warp speeds, including that an object can approach but not reach or exceed the speed of light. That theory would need to be superceded for warp speeds to be reached.

Did you have a loss of detail and rims on both sides in the same location?

Okay I will, of a time when we can travel through space at fantastic speeds exploring new worlds. But I will agree with the timeline being too optimistic, and they are called Einstein's theories not laws for a reason.

80 years is not a lot in the scientific long term. At one time it was thought the earth was flat, that the universe revolved around us, that the sound barrier couldn't be broken, and traveling to the moon was inconceivable. One thing is for certain, and that is scientific knowledge and resulting technology continues to change and advance. So yes, radical shifts are likely given enough time.

Thanks for the link. Cross talk aside, it was interesting. I see QA/HC hasn't changed much. I would not have thought that toning damage could present in such a regular linear pattern as shown in the initial post, and that seemed to throw off a lot of people. Other images of the toning damage seemed more like what you would expect. I was also surprised at the reference to the bright rainbow colored toning that some pay vast sums of money for as "terminal toning".

Now your thinking about better ways to waste your money. Kidding aside, if you are looking for a shipwreck coin I would keep my eyes out for one that has very minimal effect from being in a wreck. Then you can still enjoy the look of the coin but you have the pedigree associated with owning a coin that came from a shipwreck. I have two shipwreck coins just because I like the idea of having some reasonably priced coins that actually came from a wreck. One was barely affected and the other is more like the one you posted. I am thinking about selling the one more affected because it just doesn't look that great.

Where did I say any of that was "real". You just have to be willing to accept the possibility that some futuristic version of us has made the massive scientific and technological breakthrough that blows Einstein's theories out of the water and facilitates construction of warp drives.

Or like half the people who post "error coins" here. Not so fast hot shot. At warp 8, or over 1,000 times the speed of light, you could cross the galaxy with an estimated 200 to 400 billion stars in about 80 days. Those stars would go by the windows pretty fast.

I found the 5 cent companion to your token (see attached) that was made out of brass, not gold as that would be worth far more than 5 cents. Brass along with copper were the most common metals for store tokens due to availability, cost and ease of striking since they were softer metals. The two companion tokens were likely different shapes and compositions in order to more easily distinguish the denominations.

I don't think there is any doubt that No Date LWC has been subjected to environmental damage either from an acid or burial. I think if you weighed the coin you would see a reduction, but not significant enough for a split planchet, and the coin also doesn't have an appearance consistent with a split planchet. I am leaning towards acid damage as I am not seeing any corrosion spots like on the attached example cent damaged from being buried. I think @Hoghead515 may have some additional metal detector finds of some cents. However, the coin does have an appearance consistent with acid damage. Also, see the following Error-Ref.com webpage on acid damage. https://www.error-ref.com/acid-shrunkacid-shrunk Btw, nice find with those "Cheerios" cents, and I would agree with leaving them in the original packaging as long as that remained in decent condition. Let us know how you make out with the subnittal of that No Date LWC if you decide to proceed.

If you have a link to something like that or a similar article I would be interested in checking that out as I have seen massively toned coins dipped in eZest and Bam almost good as new, but that stuff is super tricky and usually affects luster. Although I have seen a number of heavily toned coins with just the tarnish removed come back straight graded. So I wouldn't refer to those coins as "terminally toned".

It's not just nickels, it seems like ever since the change by the mint to single squeeze hubing that there is only very minute doubling left to attribute. And about the op's coin it just seemed like a cut and dry case of DDD at the date.

I was talking more about the use of the word "terminal" and "deterioration" related to the toning that they just learned about. Sure toning will continue, we all know that, but I wouldn’t consider that "terminal deterioration" of the coin which makes it sound like the coin will be destroyed, and why I asked the op what they meant by using those terms.