EagleRJO

I think it's great you are trying to be helpful but I think you may be over analyzing die deterioration doubling (DDD) with the associated appearance of ghosting, and where deterioration does not necessary occur in a linear manner the way hub doubling does. See the attached example of DDD from Error-Ref.com, which looks very similar to how some numbers in the date appear on the op's coin. And in this case I think the op needs to simply pick up the coin and look at it with some magnification to verify that it's also DDD on the reverse instead of submitting the coin to CONECA.

It just might be, and why the op only posted one side

I agree with Moxie that it appears to be a store token, and quite a lot of them were issued. I have a few sources to look up tokens and didn't find anything with the info from that side of the token. If you post both sides with some focused images I could see if anything comes up. It may just be a less well known store token with limited info available.

Road Kill!

I was just trying to provide standard nomenclature in numismatics relative to coins which either normally don't have a mintmark or where one might be missing. That was a "helpful hint" which you seem to want to just ignore. It's not really clear what you were trying to prove by posting a photo showing part of a different coin with true doubling, misrepresenting that it was on your coin when members had already identified deterioration of dies for your coin, and then underhandedly asking members to verify it was die deterioration on your coin when you knew it wasn't. At that point most people had already formed opinions on the worthless doubling observed on your coin from the previous photos, and then indicated either your questions were not clear or that the additional photo appeared to be from a different coin and/or indicated that photo did show some minor true die doubling. That was a duplicitous way to try and validate the false belief your coin had true doubling, when it does not. And they actually gave you the correct evaluation or advice. You will likely not get much help here being underhanded and duplicitous in an attempt to prove a misguided point, which in your case failed miserably and will likely end with you just being added to "ignore" lists. You will be added to mine.

You would need to evaluate the doubking by looking at the coin in-hand with a loupe or mag glass to see if it is in fact step-like or shelf-like "worthless" doubling. See this webpage for info ... https://doubleddie.com/144801.html

They struck 1 million of the 1892 50C Columbians and 1.5 million of the 1893 50C Columbians for a commemorative coin that doesn't seem super popular, so there are plenty around. Some have really nice toning like the attached. And what kind of shop do you have? SIlver becomes toned or tarnished, but that's not deterioration which might make it "terminal". It's not like wood that gets termites, so it's not clear to me what you are referring to.

With those research sources I think all that is missing is a diving board for the pool. For help in identifying hub doubling see the attached, and for researching doubling see Wexler's website ... https://doubleddie.com/1801.html For a cent from Philly that normally doesn't have a mintmark it's not necessary to say "no mint mark", and could actually be misleading that one should be there but is missing. It's usually just written "1990 Cent", or to be more precise "1990 (P) Cent". For additional information about the coin including examples of various colors and grades see the following CoinFacts page ... https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1990-1c-rb/3082 I agree with others that the coin has "worthless" doubling since it appears to be lower than the design element without any notching. See the following webpage for a more complete description of that ,,, https://doubleddie.com/144801.html (Wexler's "Worthless Doubling)

I recall searching high and wide over a considerable period of time to pick up the 1892 and 1893 50C Columbian commemorative coins in a raw BU grade that were a bright silver color. A vast majority of them had a minor to significant dark discoloration, with a bunch that were cleaned and a few counterfeits sprinkled in. I was actually surprised at the counterfeits considering they are not very valuable coins.

Maybe we should consider ourselves lucky it's not like that here with what seems like a very level handed and mostly hands off approach unless clear lines are crossed. But with mods like that I am curious how CT is still a viable forum which continues being discussed here. I would have bailed on the forum the moment I found out it was like that.

NGC has very good images for both coins from the links above. I answered the op's question as requested, but looking at both sides didn't change that anyway or I would have just made a note of that along with my comment on rarity/value

What jumped out at me was the hair and stars on the obverse as well as the wreath above the eagles head, but yea that ribbon is another dead give away when I got to that.

Back to back.

I think you meant to say the brass cent that weighs about 3.11g It seems like you are hunting for the super rare 1982-D small date brass cent that weighs about 3.11g, which is a transitional off-metal planchet error. There are only two known to exist out of billions of cents struck that year so the odds of you finding one are virtually zero. If it doesn't have a "D" mintmark, is a large date, or weighs about 2.50g then it's not the super rare one. And if you decide you are going to continue down that rabbit hole and continue looking see the attached infographic to help with that search.

The 1935 (P) Peace dollar since it looks a little nicer, even though it's slightly less valuable. https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/2105286-004/58/ https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/2105286-046/58/

Why would you want to do that?

For your 1893 50C Columbian commemorative coin even assuming what appears to be rub marks are just flip reflection, resulting in a low MS grade, the value would be under $100 so it wouldn't be worth submitting. And those coins are known for typically becoming darkened. https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-explorer/united-states/commemoratives/silver-commemoratives-1892-1954/19297/1893-columbian-50c-ms/?des=ms

It's usually one CC sucker ender and than a sucker ender date on the other end which when combined together would be a jackpot. And of course nice shiny BU enders with just common garbage in between.

Oh boy, a topic about a random "2" on a coin turning into a debate on the Enterprise speed.

You are very lucky it worked out as that almost never happens.

See my comments above concerning the weight of 22.5g not being within range for a 40% silver planchet, so it can't be an off-metal planchet error. There have been similar claims of a transitional planchet error just based on the edge appearance which didn't pan out

I assume you are banned too with deeply personal attacks on someone like that.

I posted this in the "Newbie" sub-forum but I think it's appropriate to also post it here. I wanted to know why my forum banner says both "Seasoned Veteran" and "Newbie" which is an oxymoron and doesn't make any sense as well as being confusing. And I agree that the forum banner layout creates a lot of space between posts which gets annoying.

Don't clean any coins, no matter how harmless it may seem. The most you should be doing is giving coins an acetone bath.

So if I am understanding this correctly you have a 1971-D Ike Dollar which should be a Cu-Ni composition, but you think it was struck on a 40% silver clad planchet intended to be produced at the San Francisco mint that would have an "S" mintmark based on the edge appearance (see attached). While your coin does not seem to have the appearance of a Cu-Ni clad coin looking at the edge, we have had similar dollar and half dollar coins with that edge appearance which turned out to be Cu-Ni clad. The weight of 22.5g for your coin would seem to verify its a normal Cu-Ni clad dollar with a specified weight of 22.58g, while the 40% silver dollar has a specified weight of 24.59g with a tolerance of 0,91g, so that is NOT a match with an off-metal planchet error. However if your not convinced, you could do a Specific Gravity (SG) test but that is really an advanced topic, so perhaps you could take it to a local coin shop that has an XRF tester to check the composition and give it a good look with the coin in-hand to see if it might be a fake or not.