EagleRJO

NGC doesn't just label graded coins the way each person wants, or that would create a monster without any consistency for various series. I think they were pretty accommodating revising the label for your medal and it now has the denomination as well as an identification that it's medallic coinage. I think the revised label is now pretty consistent with a handful of other similar 1963 Lux gold medals I saw, like the two attached. And it now has more information than the label for the 1963 bronze medal, except that it just doesn't have a KM or X number which typically isn't included on their labels and can always be added to a listing description if so desired. I assume you are jumping through all these hoops as you intend to sell the medal, and I am curious what venue you selected to accomplish that. Also, maybe you could check back in after it's sold as I think it would be interesting to see what it goes for.

Coingate 2005 was a rare coin investment scandal and that 1874-S Trade Dollar is not rare, and in fact is one of the more common ones. If you want to torture yourself you could request court documents related to the case that may have lists of coins involved to see if it might be listed.

Ebay and YT (except vids from like ANA, NGC or PCGS) are horrible places to learn about coins as evidenced by the coins posted so far and descriptions. I recommend you start over from scratch beginning with the following topics, and also spend some time on Error-Ref.com if you are interested in error coins and then post more coins with questions. https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/428817-resources-for-new-collectors/ https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/430263-basic-resources-glossary/

Sorry, it's not a match with the Variety Vista RPM-017 as the mintmark on your coin is in the wrong position (too high and to the right), and does not appear to match any of the 22 RPMs listed on Variety Vista for a 1959-D 1C (RPM-001 TO RPM-022). There are also 145 RPMs listed on Wexler's for a 1959-D 1C (WRPM-001 to WRPM-145} with detailed descriptions and die markers if you really want to torture yourself, but I'm not convinced it actually is an RPM but you have the coin in-hand.

It does look like a small date. In addition to some exposed zinc from the core, I would bet the family ranch it weighs about 2.50g indicative of a 1982-D copper plated zinc cent with no added value. If you are going down that rabbit hole searching for a powerball odds chance at finding a super rare 1982-D small date brass cent, which should weigh about 3.11g, then the attached infographic may help with your rainbow unicorn search. Initially focus on the "2" in the date. And you will need a decent scale accurate to 0.01g with a calibration weight or you might as well just give up now.

Keep in mind there are also 18 RPMs listed on Wexler's Die Varieties site, and it could be an EDS without some or all of the markers. For this coin it appears to be a RPM, but I think there is too much wear and damage to definitively attribute that RPM as noted, and it wouldn't be one significant enough to be listed on NGC VarietyPlus anyway.

I think it's a good idea to post the coin to the CONECA forum for some more feedback, but if you are sure it is solid raised lines on the coin then it can't be "linear plating blisters" which are hollow by definition per the links provided above. Your coin also does not have the appearance of linear plating blisters which vary in width, are not straight lines, and are not just limited to the fields like the attached example of that from Error-Ref.com. That essentially just leaves dies scrapes or scratches from the feeder or some other source which would be solid raised lines on the coin that are straighter, more consistent in width, more regularly spaced, and are only in the fields of the coin like the attached example of that from Error-Ref.com, which is consistent with the raised lines on your coin. Notice how the lines on the example cent are only in the fields and are broken up by design elements on the die, like at the "O" in One and the "T" in Cent. This is consistent with something scraping across the surface of the working die and only affecting the exposed fields on that die, similar to the attached die for a shield cent where you can visualize the effect of something scraping across the surface and only affecting the raised fields on the die. For your coin I don't think it is worth if to pay a fee to have either CONECA or a TPG examine the coin and identify the error. I have seen similar coins with a similar feeder die scrape error sell for about $10 to $20 on eBay, so you would essentially loose any value the coin may have. I would just put it in a labeled flip and keep it in a box with miscellaneous error coins you find. Also, if you do post the coin on the CONECA forum let us know what feedback you receive.

That may be an avenue to request a refund if it was listed as a "roll of 1964 unopened Federal Reserve Bank of cleveland half dollars" and the FRB did not issue rolls of coins. The op may need to purchase your book to quote that, but in the end it might be better to chalk it up as a learning experience related to "unsearched" or "unopened" rolls of coins which typically is a scam.

Yes. And I will bet the family ranch the small date on top weighs roughly between 2.40g to 2.60g on a calibrated scale with a 0.01g accuracy indicative of a 1982-D small date copper plated zinc cent with no added value. You are basically chasing your tail looking for the super rare 1982-D small date brass cent that would weigh about 3.11g.

Put the bag of coins down and slowly step away from the table.

It's not clear why you believed that a given percentage of coins submitted would receive a 70 grade, when it naturally should be expected that they will be graded on the quality of the coins. And as Kurt was trying to point out many of the better quality coins have already been cherrypicked by dealers and collectors, so I think it makes sense that as time passes fewer high grade coins are left and the percentage of coins graded 70 will go down. Also, writing posts in all capitals is the equivalent of yelling, and can annoy some reducing the likelihood of receiving good lfeedback.

That is a 1956-D 1C FS-501 RPM and a nice find. It's a keeper and significant enough to have an FS number as well as to be listed in NGC VarietyPlus. https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/united-states/cents/lincoln-cents-wheat-reverse-1909-1958/?page=2

Yea, looks like another RPM. But again not a coin in great shape or one listed on NGC VarietyPlus.

Yea, agreed it's not a mint error as that is just damage from some type of cutting tool with no added value. I ceased to be amazed long ago at what people will do to coins. And so you know, coins are not printed, they are struck at a coining press or machine.

dprince has made it crystal clear that they do not care at all about their reputation, which has already been damaged beyond repair, and I have given up pointing out counterfeits or misattribuled varieties they have posted. The really sad part is it's also damaging the reputation of NGC, this forum and its members simply by association and @Administrator allowing this "dumpster fire" to continue.

That's a normal Rev 88 for your 1988 1C. There is a more detailed description here ... https://www.error-ref.com/transitional-reverse-1988-1c-with-reverse-of-1989/

You should know the drill by now, please ignore posts by dprince. That is not a CONECA RPM-003 or a match with any of the other dozens of RPMs listed on VarietyVista.com or DoubledDie.com. Looks it's likely just a small die chip at the mintmark.

That is just a coin which has been mangled after it left the mint, which is technically referred to as a "parking lot coin" in numismatics. I am trying to put this gently considering how much time you spent examining the coin, researching errors, and writing the initial post but if you thought anything on that coin was the result of a mint error you need to start over from scratch learning about coins and how they are made, and that does not include youtube videos except from ANA, NGC or PCGS. You can start by going through the following topics ... https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/428817-resources-for-new-collectors/ https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/430263-basic-resources-glossary/

Agreed, but with such a small die for the cent and a large rotary feeder the line would likely only be slightly curved. Looking at rotated enlargements of the longer lines on the first pic of the coin there does in fact appear to be a curve in the lines, particularly apparent with the longer line that goes through the "S" in "Pluribus". So I am still going with die scrapes or scratches caused by the feeder.

Good point, and since that's a possibility it might be better to just refer to what is on the op's coin as "feeding scrapes".

You know what they say about "if something seems too good to be true". It doesn't matter with these coins, but if you are going to handle coins with your bare hands only touch them on the edges.

Those do look like "feeder finger" die scrapes also, similar to what is on your coin. That is a significant die scrape error on your coin, although likely not worth any premium. So I would put it in a labeled flip and toss it in a miscellaneous errors box. About the hubbing process see the following links from the US mint and a discussion about that on Wexler's site. I will also provide a link to a topic on basic coin info, including a good one about "resources for newer collectors" by Sandon. https://www.usmint.gov/learn/production-process/die-making https://doubleddie.com/58201.html https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/430263-basic-resources-glossary/

Please disregard any posts by dprince as they have an established history of providing misinformation and linking unreliable sources. That aside die trails are an interesting type of error, but I haven't seen any coins with that hubbing error. And that coin does have some pretty significant die scrapes.

If they are raised solid lines as indicated by the op then they can not be (linear) plating blisters since they have a different appearance, are only in the fields, do not continue across design elements, and are not hollow as discussed at the following Error-Ref link ... https://www.error-ref.com/blisteredplating/ They also don't appear to be "die trail lines" with associated deterioration since they are not mostly short tapered raised lines emanating from design elements as discussed at the following Error-Ref link and website referenced therein ... https://www.error-ref.com/die-deterioration-promoted-by-trails/ https://www.traildies.com/ Since they are regularly spaced longer raised lines that continue across and are broken up by multiple design elements, instead of just emanating from particular ones, I think they are die scrapes caused by feeder fingers scratching the die as discussed at the following Error-Ref link ... https://www.error-ref.com/die-scrapes/

Since you didn't know those were from die chips I would recommend checking out the information on errors and resources for newer collectors at the following link ... https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/430263-basic-resources-glossary/