EagleRJO

I generally agree with someone selling at a trade show or holding themselves out as a coin dealer or knowledgeable about coins. However, some of the people on sites like ebay are just selling coins for older relatives just looking to get rid of some left over coins that are not collectors or internet savy, which I have encounteted. I don't think older people should be taken advantage of, so I sometimes check if they sell all kinds of things. But I would take a slightly different approach at the garage sale, if it looked legit without doing a careful deep dive. I would let them know they likely have a rare coin, about what a dealer might pay for the coin or the net it might realize from consignment at auction if legit, and offer to split it at whatever they thought was fair within reason. We should both benefit from my knowledge and you never know what something might actually sell for, and it could possibly be a very deceptive counterfeit, so it's not reasonable for me to accept all the risk.

oh boy, hopefully not another one of those that just kicks the counterfeit and misattributed coin cans down the road fleecing some on the way.

It may partially be a mint error related to missing outer cladding that peeled off, either before of after the strike, but it's hard to tell with those photos. I agree that it looks like there is a foreign substance on the reverse at the top right quadrant and around 9 o'clock. Are those areas raised as they appear to be? I would also be curious to see what happens from a 24hr acetone soak, but if a raised area it may be like an epoxy glue that will not be affected. Just be very careful as that stuff and the fumes are super flammable. After the soak maybe post some better photos that are also cropped like the attached, which should come out better if cropped before posting. If you are taking the photos with a phone, rest your hand on something and then check that when you zoom in it doesn't get blurry. Also, is the coin at the copper colored area slightly thinner, with a lip at the edge of the area? You likely wouldn't be able to see that from photos directly above. And a weight to 0.01g would be helpful.

What references, die variety books and procedures are you using to authenticate them? And I doubt you could even see the die indicators given the condition of most of the coins and the usual poor photos. Even then a layperson can be easily fooled by some of the counterfeits. And with that coin it would need to be submitted to a TPG for attribution in order to reasonably add any collector value, and in such a poor condition you would likely spend more on the submittal than it would be worth in the end. That's the reality of the Etsy coins, and most of the ones on ebay.

What was that coin listed for and why did you think it was undervalued, if even legit, as it's obviously significantly overgraded.

Completely forget about buying raw coins on Etsy, which is even worse that eBay in terms of counterfeits and misattributed varieties and errors. And on both sites virtually every raw coin is over-graded by at least one adjectival grade, and sometimes two. The only exceptions I have found are reputable dealers that also have an eBay Store. But then you often can get a better price just going directly to the dealers regular website if they list the same coin there. So for me Etsy is completely a no-go, and eBay has become mostly just another slabbed coin auction site. That is unless I see a raw coin I am having trouble finding at a good price, and feel like spending considerable time authenticating and grading the coin properly, which is not completely risk free, to then have a reasonable offer likely turned down.

I am curious where you found the dime as it's pretty worn and scratched up, with roll coins typically being in better shape. I agree you should look for coins in better condition to examine and evaluate, particularly for more modern coins where finding minor anomalies like this don't add any value at all and are not even worth putting aside as a curiosity find.

My guess is it looks like circulation wear combined with a minor error of some grease on the die since the base of the tree and lettering in that area is almost completely gone, but there is not similar significant wear on adjacent areas. But pretty common and not something with added value, particularly with a coin that is not in great shape.

I really don't get why a few people have such visceral responses to the fantasy pieces, and feel the need to hijack interesting discussions with their personal vendettas and attacks, like some comments here and in another topic about medals I just saw. If you don't like something or think it's legit don't collect that. Oh well, another one for the ignore list, and I hope that is not taken as being unwelcome.

Disagreement can be a bedrock of scientific principles or advancement, and I find discussions like these with @dcarr interesting and informative. If you don't think so you are free to skip to the next topic.

No, not to restore it as sadly it would still be damaged, and it was likely acquired like that. Btw, I don't think you're asking stupid questions, and shouldn't get any replies slamming you with how you asked. And this is the "newbie" sub-forum. It's usually people who totally misrepresent things with complete bravado, don't really want to learn and get belligerent when they don't like just honest opinions or advice members are offering where replies can get a little sarcastic.

There are no mintmark varieties of interest to collectors of the 1976-D 25C and only DDO's would be attributed by NGC. https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/united-states/quarters/washington-quarters-1932-1998/?page=2 http://varietyvista.com/25 What Are Die Varieties/Mintmark Varieties.htm Likely just the result of some common die chips on a circulated coin that have no collector value, and are simply curiosity finds for roll hunters.

Agreed, some interesting pieces, and it may be worth while to take the gold colored coins to a local coin shop with an XRF tester to verify the coins are gold. You could also measure specific gravity (density relative to water) and compare that to published values, but that is really an advanced area of coin collecting. The shop could also quote you a price if selling them is desired. Just keep in mind they will naturally quote you wholesale prices as a business, while most guides have retail prices or what someone would pay for the coins if purchasing them from a dealer or individual. It is really sad that 1911 Rooster was made into jewelry, which essentially turned it into bullion if real. I could clearly picture @Henri Charriere cringing looking at that.

Getting pretty far off track here, but one last thought. It is a fact that TPG's presently use "improper annealing" instead of the "siltered plating" term formerly used, as the latter is really a contradiction in terms or as a minimum confusing. While "sintered" could be applied to powdered metal that ends up on a planchet which is then solidified with heat, the plating that supposedly affects is already solid so it can't be "sintered plating", and likely why the term for that error was changed. Maybe if the powdered metal contaminate didn't affect the already solid outer coin layer, but I understand that's what occurs. And if the mint has ever used "sintered" concerning coin production, plating or defects I am all ears. [By the way, from your handle, some of your posts and your location I assume your first name is Dan, and I admire a lot of your work and have acquired a few pieces I really liked. We have had some interesting discussions about the 1964-D Fantasy Morgan and the mint finding master hubs for a 1964 (P) Morgan being considered. It would also make a lot of sense having some disagreements with Roger. ] Back to the op's coin, I seriously doubt that appearance and rust like color would result from improper annealing, or metal dust that ended up on the planchet when being annealed. There are also no signs of any flaking or an added layer from such metal dust contamination. I think the pictures on error-ref.com clearly show how that error would present, as well as photos of slabbed error coins that I have seen with a darkened or off-color appearance identified as improperly annealed, including the "Black Beauty" error coins.

It looks like there are three lines to me, or actually vertical ribs with a small space between them, like on the left or above the banner, with some of the areas on the op's coin obscured by wear, gunk or discoloration combined with a somewhat blurry photo. I agree a bigger issue is the lettering on the shield being raised if that is in fact how it presents on the op's coin.

I am also an engineer, and as a fellow engineer you should know that term is improperly used relative to discoloration errors from a powder on a solid metal, and why the TPG's changed that term as noted on reputable sites like error-ref.com and with current labeling of those errors which is now identified only as "improper annealing". As far as I know it's not a term used by the mint for something which could occur during annealing, or as part of coin production at all, and no longer used by TPG's relative to coin production or errors. But many more experienced collectors will likely know what you are referring to if used like with the "Black Beauty" nickels, which I think some TPG's incorrectly labeled a while ago as "sintered plating".

I can't tell the difference between an MS68 and an MS68+, and even struggle with an MS64 vs an MS66 so I find multiple examples for the exact coin I am examining often helps. And for identifying "+" grades maybe one of these days, in a galaxy far far away ,,.

It is looking like that. That's a great grading reference, but they don't have multiple examples in various conditions or colors for a particular grade which I sometimes find helpful, and found I was then going to other sites for more info. So I have just been using CoinFacts for the specific coin and variety, unless there was an in between or lower grade not shown there in the examples. Like they don't have circulated grades for the 1979 (P) 1C the op was asking about ... https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1979-1c-rd/images/2995

You can typically find copies of this reference in decent local libraries (you know, those big buildings with lots of books ) that are not that old and is good enough for basic info and relative pricing for someone who doesn't intend on becoming a coin collector.

Sintered refers to an industrial process of heating just powdered metal alone below melt point to form shapes and doesn't have anything to do with coin production, cladding or errors involving contaminated surfaces, and why the term was changed to "improper annealing" relative to coins. If you look on reputable sites like error-ref.com linked above you will see references to "sintered plating" being used "in times past" to describe these "improper annealing" errors which is how TPG's label these now. @RWB may have more info on the improper use of that term as he wrote a book "From Mine to Mint" on the coin production process.

I wouldn't go anywhere near ebay for coin grades as most of them, even on sold listings, are overgraded to try increasing the sale price. Stick with graded examples from reputable sources like CoinFacts or slabbed coins on auction sites like GC or HA. NGC Coin Explorer also has a few graded examples for each coin from their registry, but not the comprehensive grade examples that you find on CoinFacts.

Even melt + $5 sounds like a fire sale for an ASE as that is more in line with a raw bar price or off-brand silver round. I usually see the ASE's go for more on reputable dealer sites.

I don't know if you still read the posts here as your last one was from earlier this year, but nice discovery and notch in your coin collecting belt. The original post was from quite a while ago, but I seem to remember discussing a possible new variety you found and I'm glad it worked out. You make it sound like you will be putting on the WWE coin collectors division wrestling tights.

Sintered is not the correct term for metal dust possibly baked onto a coin surface, or have anything to do with coin production. It was improperly used by TPG's in the past to describe a mint error for a coin with darkened surfaces which may have also been peeling. That is correctly described now as just "improper annealing" as noted on the Error-Ref.com page linked above.

Thats a nice "find" for $28 Bill. Looks like a pretty old ANACS slab that doesn't have an FS variety number. Btw, I like the modern ANACS slabs that have the angled top with basic info you can read from either the front or top. I wish NGC and PCG$ would do that for when slabs are in like a storage box with closely spaced vertical slots.