EagleRJO

Looks like it might be an RPM but there is too much wear and damage to [definitively attribute that]. In any event it wouldn't be one that is significant enough to be attributed by NGC as listed in VarietyPlus. For minor varieties like this I would look for coins in better condition.

I agree with damage as it would be very unlikely for just the side of the "B" to be grease filled in such a well defined straight line like that. It looks like a hit mashed the side of the "B" before that displaced metal came off, with indications or a shadow of where the displaced metal was. There have been numerous topics where parts of characters on coins made of copper, which is a very soft metal, have been displaced or completely knocked off.

What would the FRBs do with the bags? Distribute them to local banks without opening them?

There are actually quite a lot of counterfeits and misattributed coins on Etsy, not just very valuable ones like the 1804 dollar. Stay away from Etsy when buying raw coins.

1973 in not a transitional year where you might find an off-metal or wrong planchet error that might be indicated by a weight difference. So it's not clear to me why you were weighing this cent or might think it could be valuable enough to be worth submitting.

Looks like a 1911-1933 China Tibet Rupe. You can usually identify coins like that doing a google image search. The chop mark is usually a merchants mark verifying it's silver, and almost impossible to identify as noted. See the following NGC and PCG$ price guides ... https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/tibet-rupee-y-3.2-1911-16-1930-33-cuid-1090430-duid-1536475 https://www.pcgs.com/valueview/rupee-1902-1942/1911-33-rupee-lm-359/4781?sn=164435&g=50&h=auctionprices

Looks like a bad attempt to create some type of error with a home made punch that would leave raised letters. Think about it, how would that have been created from a coining press at the mint, particularly with the bent shape.

I agree that does look like a match with an RPM-004, with the attached comparison to the NGC VarietyPlus example. Another nice find.

Nice pick up as it seems to have just minor wear. Is that for your half dollar type set?

No problem. As noted there is nothing special about the cent or quarter, and the quarter just has a minor rotated die. The rotation appears to be less than 15 degrees from the photo, which is the threshold for NGC to consider that to be an error. You can read more about "rotated dies" by searching the board for that term as there have been numerous topics about that. Also, if you want to learn more about coins and collecting them start with the following linked topics: https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/428817-resources-for-new-collectors/ https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/430263-basic-resources-glossary/

Or "worthless" filled mintmarks to grind @Henri Charriere gears a little.

I think that photo tells the whole story as Sandon noted, since it appears the lighting being used is sending you down rabbit holes. If you are using a scope to quickly check coins and you see something like that, pick up the coin and examine it with a 10x loupe or mag glass while you turn it in your hand. That is also helpful when checking for luster and doubling.

Besides the date and mintmark being off, that grainy or granular appearance with the full shield also didn't look right. So I think that was a good clarification of what a number of us were seeing. In addition, as a general comment, there is no reason to continuously post multiple additional examples as the ones Sandon and I posted or linked are more than sufficient and widely recognized for comparison. This likely will just overwhelm or confuse the op when no additional examples were requested, just to try and appear useful when it's not.

The guidelines posted in a coin sharing topic are up to the OP. If you don’t like them don't post on the topic. Or just start your own topic, but good luck with that.

It does look like there was some minor die deterioration with the slightly "mushy" appearance, combined with wear and some hits.

I agree with a XF grade as there appears to be some minor wear such as on the eagles breast, as well as some rub marks. The value would be around $50 using the NGC Price guide, but that would be what a dealer would sell the coin for. So a dealer would likely offer around 2/3 to 1/2 that.

I think you need to look again, as I agree with Sandon and others that your coin is a counterfeit and does not match genuine examples, particularly with the overall appearance as well as the date and mintmark in particular. Sandon provided a link to the CoinFacts example, and you can also compare it to the NGC VarietyPlus 1918-S 8/7 25C FS-101 at this link ... NGC VarietyPlus 1918/7 S 25C ... like that shown on the attached side-by-side date and mintmark comparison. If you recently purchased this coin I would try to get a refund and not submit the coin, as that would not only cost you extra money but may also take you beyond any refund period if that is still available. Note that if it was purchased on eBay you may still be able to get a refund if the seller is unresponsive but time is limited.

Please disregard this post with a link and comparison of the second op's coin to a 1969-S 1C DDO-001, as that is an incorrect attribution. Not only is the date not a match with the referenced doubled die, but one look at the attached word "Liberty" from the DDO-001 and it should be crystal clear it's a misattribution by dprince.

Looks like wishful thinking. See the following webpage with DDO listings for a 1969-S cent in order to compare the coin in-hand with those identified to verify for yourself they don't match. https://doubleddie.com/314201.html

That is your right to do as you see fit within their listing guidelines. As it is the right of members here to question that when it appears shady or where you may be improperly using the NGC forum to support that, point out incorrect or self-serving posts, and to report listings that may have inaccurate or misleading information.

I thought everyone was playing CS Source.

According to data from the mint compiled by Coin World a 1947-1962 "bronze" cent (95% Cu + 5% Zn + trace Tin) and a 1962-1982 brass cent (95% Cu + 5% Zn) both have a spec weight of 3.110g +/- 0.130g and virtually the same Cu/Zn content. So a circulated 1953-D cent with a weight of 2.7g and metal analysis, probably done with XRF tests, showing 95% Cu and 5% Zn would simply indicate a worn coin with a slightly thinner than usual blank as noted, and not some type of off-metal planchet error which you seem to think. Also, 1953 was not a transitional year for cent composition, the 1962-1982 brass cent blanks you seem convinced this coin was struck on were not even being produced in 1953, and XRF testing likely wouldn't pick up the trace amounts of tin in your "bronze" cent.

Counterfeit coins have been coming out of countries like China for quite a while, and in the 70's a flood of counterfeits came from the Middle East. The coin isn't valuable enough to submit for authentication just based on that, but you might consider submitting it or bringing the coin to a local coin shop to have them look at it if the coin has sentimental value and you want to make sure it's legit.

I agree with Sandon that 1861 3CS may be a contemporary counterfeit which some people collect. It appears old, but perhaps they can be made to look that way. I recall @ldhair might have some of these, but I'm not sure if any assistance could be provided in identifying same.

While I understand your point, I think newer collectors are better advised with a completely honest and straight forward answer, compared to some wishy-washy reply delivered with kid gloves. I also think we should be using terms that are very direct, will not mislead newer collectors and are commonly encountered on well known websites about this topic such as the following ... Wexler's Die Varieties: Worthless Doubling And it appears in this case, as well as some other newbie topics, that not being more direct initially may have led the op to continue down a rabbit hole resulting in additional confusion.