EagleRJO

The OP was asking if the coin was "worth getting graded", or if they should submit it to a TPG in my translation. To me they seemed to be really asking if it could be a rare bronze cent from 1982 since they provided the 3.1g weight, which is often asked related to that, and not what a specific grade for the coin would be. There are many others who ask a common question related to if a particular coin should be submitted thinking it might be an error, variety or otherwise valuable coin. A common response is that a coin is or more frequently isn't worth submitting, without even addressing a grade although that is a factor in value. I generally dont provide any opinions on specific grades unless it looks like they took the time to learn some basics and offer thier own opinion on the grade. I mean even I get stuck sometimes when it seems right in between two grades, and ask for some feedback. But I do provide my opinion on the grade. And I still haven't figured out "+" grades, and don't know if I ever will.

I have not seen or heard of anything like that, but there is the appearance of outer cladding loss with charing in spots including two large areas on the obverse. A guess would be some type of fire damage. I don't see any severe overall heat damage or blistering, although there are some signs of excessive heat exposure. So maybe some embers from a fire dropped on the coin or visa versa as it appears on both sides. But I think the important part is I agree it wouldn't be something that could occur at the mint. What did the expert opine likely caused the damage?

Had they started using gang punches for the entire date by the 1820's, which should be more consistent, by creating a master date hub from a steel block which was then used to produce working date gang punches from a softened and then quenched steel rod? I recall reading that process was being used in the late 1830's but I am not sure when it started. I also seem to recall that after creating the working date individual punches or gang punches from a master hub they would sometimes touch those up during use, which could lead to some very minor variations. Like perhaps at the top of the 1832 10C "1" which does seem to have some very minor variations, but not to the extent of resembling a 1827 10C "flat top 1".

Hmmm, somebody doesn't like cats, which I seem to recall from a while ago.

That really is an excellent way to organize and temporarily store coins as you go through rolls I picked up from JPM a while ago, and have been using. You can have either 3 spots or 5 spots per coin depending on which way you organize them. I only found a handful of the 3x5 stackable standard size ice cube trays at a local thrift store, and cant seem to find any more in local stores or online. If someone knows where you can find more of the standard 3x5's please let me know.

You get that with a few bad apples on just about any internet forum these days, and why they have the "ignore" feature mentioned. I hope you do stick around continuing to post more coins and reading topics as you can learn a lot about coin collecting here.

I agree with Sandon that your 1832 dime and almost all of the NGC VP 1832 dimes referenced appear to have "flat top 1s", with some minor variations within reason considering different wear or contact marks on coins, or slightly different working die date punches. One seems to have taken a hit at the "1" and "8" (The first JR-2 example) which I wouldn't include as a date comparison. Did you look at the 1832 dimes Sandon referenced? I think you need to start over from scratch with how you are doing your variety research and attributions. Where did you get the example dates you identified as an "1832 Pointed 1" you were comparing the coin to? At least one has taken a hit at the top which shouldn't be used as it could be distorted in that area, and the other one is somewhat blurry. And one comparison date included is from a different year, which can be expected to have a different shape. Also, If you got them off raw coins listed on Etsy or eBay, which you have suggested as a reference in other topics, that could be the discrepancy. The date examples you found may be the anomaly, or perhaps there are different date fonts in the same year not noted in the Red Book, which would not be unusual. I would check NGC VarietyPlus, PCG$ CoinFacts or VarietyVista.com when looking for various examples or varieties, maybe all particularly when someting doesn't appear to match. There are also additional reputable references for DD's and RPM's.

Oh boy, misattributing coins again. The op's coin is a 1984 (P) Lincoln Cent!

It is the 1982-D small date copper cent from the Denver mint with a weight of 3.11g which is the super rare coin you may be thinking of. That is not one of them since there is no "D" mintmark, and you would have better odds hitting the Powerball jackpot. If you still decide to look, as some do no matter how unlikely it would be to find, see the attached infographic.

Welcome to the forum. You are probably getting a dose of reality from your dad that it is rare to find anything remotely valuable in pocket change pails or bank rolls. But it does happen occasionally. With the high prices you may be looking at some ripoff ebay listings all over that site which try to sell things like regular pocket change for ridiculous prices. Remember the old addage that "a fool and his money are soon parted". Look at the sold records for a better idea of what coins are going for, but there are anomalies sometimes that fit the previous addage. Or you may be watching over-hyped click-bait clueless tuber vids about very rare and valuable coins found with the sole purpose of getting you to watch more vids with the lure of possibly getting rich from pocket change. We get that alot, and you would have better odds hitting the Powerball jackpot than finding more of the super rare and very valuable lure coins. If you are interested in coin collecting consider spending some time with your dad if possible going through some coins and what he looks for. Maybe get a bunch of bank rolls for coins you both may find interesting, and some Dansco or Littleton albums to start putting them in. He may be very happy to pass on what he has learned over time. And the links Sandon provided are a good start or continuation as well.

Yes, I got the thought from collecting ASE's where "uncirculated" as used by the mint more recently for those coins meant a different "burnished" finish as listed in the Red Book. Leave it to the mint to then use that term to mean something completely different for anual mint sets. [I never could figure out why the mint uses the term "uncirculated" for those specially prepared and struck ASE's, and perhaps they should call them "burnished" like the rest of the world.]

Aren't the "uncirculated" mint sets what people normally refer to as "burnished". Perhaps that's why there is a difference in the description from the typical proof mint sets.

Good pick up as the 1917 25C from PhotoGrade used for comparison would have big differences like a date not recessed and no stars below the eagle that you would expect to see on a 1926 25C. One of the reasons I always look for an exact date and mintmark match. I don't see good overall photos for SLQ's in NGC VarietyPlus for comparison and to look for die indicators. Good reminder for raw coins, and some of the counterfeits are very deceptive. Like the attached screenshot comparing the dates with a CoinFacts photo, which is pretty simple to do.

@powermad5000 I am expecting the same canned dodge reply, and I am done with my venting.

I have never found a need to create a comparison image like those, and it's limited. I do a split screen with the listed coin and the comparison coin side-by-side. Then you can zoom in each half of the split screen to compare things in more detail directly, like the dates zoomed in.

BAIL! And I prefer to go to CoinFacts for a specific year and mintmark comparison picture like the attached if there is no specific date or mark variety on NGC VarietyPlus, and they typically have enough grades to check that next. I only go to PhotoGrade if there isn't a good specific year and mark grade example.

Since it's solid and does not seem to be consistent with a die crack, I think it's a corrosion induced solid blister like the attached from error-ref.com, and not a linear plating blister which would be hollow. At least with how those terms are used on error-ref.com which makes a distinction between the two based on if the blister is solid or hollow. There may be a snowballs chance that's a wide die crack being solid, even if it doesn't look like those I have seen. Perhaps the coin was struck right before a die break and the significantly wider spots were edge spalling and widening of a crack leading up to the break. That would take quite a lot of digging to find similar progressive cracks or cuds of the same coin with the die broken off where there is the line. But I don’t really think so and it likely wouldn't be worth the effort, as even if a die crack that wouldn't add much value at all. And a copper plated zinc 1984 (P) Lincoln cent with blisters has no added collector value in either case, regardless of any blister being poped either by checking it too forcefully or from the coin being in circulation. Example Corrosion Induced "Solid Blister":

Then I think either it's a die crack or a break in the thin cladding that induced corrosion below, which expands and pushes up the adjacent cladding. You would need to look carefully for any break or scratch in the cladding with like a 40x loupe or a scope. I think it's a cladding break or scratch with corrosion, even if that may be hard to see. It appears a little too straight and wide, particularly in spots around the date and shoulder, compared to most die cracks on coins I have seen, even relatively prominent ones like the attached die crack.

Different than what the op was asking about, but yea another possibility. Some of these coins that aren't just straight damage like most are a mystery that is occasionally interesting to try to figure out.

What was the original purpose of this thread before you stuck your foot in your mouth and then started dodging questions? To let newbies know raw coins on Etsy are overgraded? That is all over this forum and you reiterated that in the first paragraph of your first post, without any examples of sample listings with your grade, grading methods and explanations to educate the newbies. Or is the intent to continue just posting raw coins with a variety guess you frequently have been misattributing to get feedback as you are struggling with that, which seems to be the real intent. If you needed help or wanted to confirm a variety you thought was found you simply should have asked instead of derailing your own topic into a massive thread wreckage by dodging questions or comments about things you posted yourself.

I don't think you completely misread the post and it was very poorly worded, so I wouldn't "loose any sleep" over it. @GBrad is right that those are two different things and wouldn't occur at the same spot. However, per my post above there could have been a crack in the thin outer plating of the coin which allowed corrosion leading to blistering. As noted more info is needed to really narrow it down.

Yes, a crack could be either a die crack, which is raised on a struck coin, or a planchet crack which would be incuse. But he said a "die crack could be either ..." which might make sense if you take out "die" there. I don't think it's either, but may be a crack in the thin outer cladding which bubbled up from corrosion as it appears raised and randomly wider to me.

A common occurrence with coins, so carry on.

Considering the date and appearance I would tend to agree with a linear plating blister from gasses building up below the coin surface. That would collapse if you gently pushed down on it with say a q-tip. It could also be a scratch or break in the outer cladding, which you may not see without good magnification. That can cause corrosion to push the thin cladding up, and randomly widen in spots like near the date and shoulder. This would be a solid corrosion blister in the same general plating defects category at error-ref.com. https://www.error-ref.com/blisteredplating/ Same thing. A true die crack is raised on the coin, but typically in a thin jagged pattern. Die cracks can present as being significant when they are bi-level, but it doesn't have that appearance.

I think you are missing the point some were trying to make about what you're doing being shady. You are buying raw coins and then reselling them raw at a higher price without proper authentication or attributing of any varieties. You can't seem to be able to answer the proper way to do that, so I suspect it's not being done. And just within this post it looks like even with a reference variety you have gotten two wrong.