EagleRJO

Just magnifying what you previously posted doesn't change that there is nothing there. Put away the scope as it's just leading you down rabbit holes as PowerMad noted, and start over from scratch. Get a Red Book, ANA grading standards, and 10x loupe or glass so you can first learn more about coins and examine a coin while you turn it in your hand to see what other are able to identify from experience.

I don't collect nickels, and typically go for either a bright silver color or what some may consider more of a bland old coin like appearance which to me is more "natural". But I actually really like that nickel.

Curious that there were "Souvenir" mint sets, but no official "Uncirculated" mint sets in those years. Were they both "business strike" coins (intended for circulation)? You are dating yourself again.

There might be some shadows or minor step/shelf like worthless machine doubling (strike or deterioration) of the letters above Jefferson's head, which would not be hub doubling or a "doubled die". See the attached to help you distinguish the two with the coin in-hand. Looks like just a rub mark on the nose and the chin looks normal ... https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/2007-p-1-thomas-jefferson-position/148056

It's hard to tell from those photos, but there are some better die markers with complete descriptions and photos for a 1972 (P) 1C WDDO-010 at DoubledDie.com at the following link to compare with the coin in-hand. Also, even if a match it doesn't look like it would be significant enough to be attributed by NGC. https://doubleddie.com/384301.html https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/united-states/cents/lincoln-cents-memorial-reverse-1959-2008/?page=1

I understand how it can get confusing, particularly with those weights. The 1976 quarter that weighs 5.75g is likely a 40% silver clad coin as that is the specified weight for that composition. The specified weight for a normal clad copper 1998-D quarter is 5.670g, but there is a weight tolerance of 0.227g, so it could weigh anywhere between 5.44g and 5.90g. So your 5.75g 1998-D coin would not be considered an error. While most clad copper 1998 quarters will likely weigh right around the specified 5.67g weight, occasionally blanks are punched from a thinner than normal coil strip which would usually be near an end. So it's very likely just a total coincidence that both the 1976 40% silver clad quarter and the 1998-D clad copper quarter both weigh 5.75g (and that it's not from the San Francisco mint where there might a powerball odds chance of a left over dusty silver clad coil still being there). You can look up specified coin compositions and weights in the Red Book, which you should get if you don't have one. And, a pretty good way to tell the difference between the various composition coins is to look at the edge of the coins and compare with the attached, keeping in mind some variation is normal.

Please disregard any replies by dprince or david prince as they have an established history of posting incorrect, misleading and irrelevant information. Your coin doesn't have an "impact condition" or more correctly impact damage. If the coin had taken a hit to a face at the rim, with a similar shaped rounded object on the opposite side in the exact same location however unlikely or ridiculous that sounds, it would not have created a flat like indentation of the edge as shown on the attached. And if it had taken an edge hit to create that indentation there would not have been a depressed or flat rim at the edge hit. Your coin does have a clipped planchet error, although a very minor one that appears to be a straight clip, likely from a blank being punched from an end or side of the coil strip. There are some indications of an expected weak strike and/or distorted rim area at the clip, but there would not necessarily be a weakly struck area opposite the clip ("Blakesley Effect") since it is so minor with what looks like a substantial rim opposite the clip. Nice find to put in a flip and add to the miscellaneous error box.

JKK, did you really expect anything other than dodged questions or further misinformation?

Attached is the die clash overlay for that cent series, and it doesn't look like a match to me.

I don't think the VAM list will be "complete" any time soon as every once in a while a new one might pop up, although it's probably substantially complete. It is a very comprehensive listing, a widely accepted Morgan die reference, and it's my understanding very few new ones are being added. So I think if it doesn't have a VAM match it's very likely a counterfeit.

However unlikely a counterfeit 1900 (P) Morgan would be I'm not seeing a match for this one to properly authenticate, particularly with the appearance of the date. What VAM are you thinking this morgan is a match with?

I agree that cent looks like it has MD with a possible die chip or die deterioration at the "9", but it's not the same as the op's coin. To me the upper left part of the "9" on the op's coin looks flatter and wider than the rest of the "9", and there is a disturbed area at the top of the loop indicative of some of the soft copper being displaced from a hit. We have had a few copper cent over time with a similar look where pieces of the date were actually completely displaced.

The registry type sets I referenced above have both a small eagle and large eagle type for the Draped Bust half dollar series per the attached from my prior post since they are different as Conder also noted. But you can collect them any way you want, and perhaps you originally intended to just obtain one half dollar from each of the 8 basic series per the attachment to your last post. Flowing Hair is still going to be a tough one.

Photos are not great, but it looks cleaned to me, likely from a while ago, with loss of luster and minor wear or rub marks at high points. It may be the photos again, but that date looks off to me like it's a little too "mushy" for the level of coin wear and without a VAM match. I have never heard of a 1900 (P) Morgan counterfeit. But these days stranger things, with cleaning to hide tool marks and/or bulk marble tumbling to give the appearance of being circulated, have come out of China.

You guys do realize this is from 1-1/2 years ago.

I agree it looks more like a normal 1882 1C in Fair condition with significant wear and damage. May be worth a few bucks to someone putting together a lowball set, but finding them is another story.

I get a 23 degree die rotation doing a digital analysis by first centering then rotating the reverse photo provided. Nice find that NGC would attribute as a mint error as it's greater than a 15 degree die rotation, even those these relatively minor errors are not that desirable to error collectors so it likely wouldn't be worth submitting. If you are really into collecting rotated die coins i think Wizard Coin Supply sells "Rota Flips" with a booklet explaining the use that also lists all the known significantly rotated dies except for the most recent modern coins. You can also download a similar image, or look in this forum for one which I recall seeing, and print a number out on a thick clear plastic sheet.

With all the other inaccuracies you have posted and refusal to answer basic questions about apparent shady coin flipping you are doing I don't think this is reliable information or something anyone cares about at this point.

That a good suggestion if you have a calibrated scale with a 0.01g accuracy, as the mint had very tight tolerances for gold coins and there isn't much apparent wear. [For this gold quarter eagle coin it's 4.180g +/- 0.016g] That could help identify a crude fake, but doesn't ensure authenticity. Keep in mind many of the better counterfeits are made of gold with a very close weight, and can be extremely deceptive with only things like tooling marks identifying the counterfeit. There is a reason this coin is referred to as the "King of the Counterfeit Gold Coin Series" and why these raw coins should be submitted to a TPG like NGC to authenticate ... https://www.pcgs.com/News/Indian-Head-Quarter-Eagles-King-Of-The-Counterfeit-Gold-Coin

Wrong again, without even reading the link and this is now multiple times It's been corrected. It's "doubled" dies. https://www.pcgs.com/news/its-doubled-die