EagleRJO

NGC VarietyPlus likely has the DDO listed as it was assigned an "FS" number, and any doubling by this date is more unusual due to single-squeeze die production being employed. http://doubleddie.com/58222.html

Where do you see clash marks which may be consistent with the rare 1999 1C MUDC? http://www.maddieclashes.com/mudc-1c-1999-01/

Even worse, like this ...

That colorized $1 coin was pretty bad, but still not as horrible as some of the colorized ASEs I have seen.

Include 90%+ of ebay coin sellers for listing counterfeit, misrepresented, grossly overpriced and significantly overgraded coins. And if you are just starting out avoid ebay like the plague for raw coins until you get very good at grading coins as well as identifying counterfeits and varieties.

@Mr.Bill347 Wow, that is one fruity car! Was that really a "production" color ... or a botched reproduction or resto-mod?

The weight at 2.32g would not be consistent with a 25C blank that had both the outer cladding layers peeled off, which would be about 3.73g (5.67g - 0.97g - 0.97g) or roughly 3.9g at 30% underweight per the pcgs article. So it doesn't look like that's a possibility. Also, that size and weight doesn't seem to be close to any blanks for foreign copper, brass or bronze coins the mint may have been producing around 1974 if the following list is accurate. https://libertycoinservice.com/wp-content/uploads/learning-center/collectors-checklist-foreign-coins-by-us-mint-type.pdf It's looking like it is either acid damaged, even if that's not likely with the appearance of a struck coin and so much metal loss while the reeded edge is still visible, or an attempt at copying a very rare mint error of a quarter missing both outer clad layers.

Agree. And I think the op should put away the scope until it's really needed Wait, so those clouds that look like angels are not real?

I was doing a little surfing for the latest Innovation dollar coins and came across this colorized version of the 2023 Indiana Innovation dollar. Blah! I didn't know a "classic production car" was available back then in puke purple.

Submerging a coin in a very weak acidic solution like Coca Cola to remove more reactive surface organics, which "cleans" an old dirty coin, and submerging one in an acid strong enough to completely remove hard outer nickel-copper cladding, like concentrated sulfuric acid we played around with in chemistry lab, are two completely different things. The latter eats away the very reactive copper core more readily, so it ends up starting to look like an "oreo cookie" even before the cladding is dissolved. Attached is an acid damaged coin from this forum not that long ago, and another one from an error-ref.com link. By the time the outer cladding is dissolved the reeded edge would be completely gone, and surfaces would be a little mushy with a granular appearance. I think the second example shows this more clearly, and the op's coin doesn't look anything like these or the ones we played around with in chemistry lab. So no dice. https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/429415-quarter-damage-hard-to-explain-what-happened-to-this-guy-especially-on-the-edge/ The only thing I can think of if it's legit is a foreign copper coin blank got mixed in with some 25C blanks, or both outer cladding layers were not well bonded and peeled off after blanking. But both of those seem extremely unlikely, which is why I think this one is strange, and the dealer just ended up punting the op's coin. I would also contact Sullivan Numismatics, as others have suggested too, who are well known experts on error coins and have a number of them with missing clad layers listed on their website. I don't think it can hurt, and if they and the expert you were referred to agree on what you have that would be a pretty definitive answer. https://sullivannumismatics.com/search.php?page=1&section=product&search_query=missing+clad+layers

This one really is a little strange, and I'm not so sure it's acid damaged as it doesn't have that really mushy and granular appearance, like the damaged clad ones that have been posted here or as shown on Error-Ref,com. And how likely is it for an acid to completely eat away the outer cladding and not significantly damage the core when copper is more reactive. Did the dealer who looked at the coin indicate why they thought you should show it to an expert instead of identifying it as damaged? And have you tried contacting Sullivan Numismatics about the coin?

Now the cat is out of the bag. I assume you want it slabbed for your registry set because the original 1964-D nickel posted looks like a pretty good album coin.

The attached which is part of the referenced infographic should make it clear what Sandon is referring to.

Seems to me like there were more from the stay-at-home lock down period were people were so bored they were picking up new hobbies and going through pocket change. Deffinely also significant spikes in prices at that time from people picking up the hobby.

Well, hopefully when you look at the 1964 (P) 5C in your set it has a "D" mint mark! P.S. I think they would correct the mechanical label error at no charge and likely keep the pedigree label. The only real hassle is if you then have a duplicate 1964 (P) 5C you would need to sell and replace.

You typ just have to look at the shape or font of the "2" and the offset from the rim, which in this case clearly indicates a large date for both. Keep in mind there are only a few Bronze 1982-D 1C Small Date transitional error coins known to exist from billions of cents struck that year, and they are not believed to have come from general circulation. You have better odds hitting the Powerball lottery or finding a real rainbow unicorn.

Looks like it's just worn. What do you think is the error?

Those are common date Morgans that are not in great shape, so I don't think it would be worth submitting them for grading.

Other than calling some local coin shops to see if they might be interested in buying them or consigning them to GC it doesn't seem like it would be worth the effort trying to sell them with a limited value.

I would tend to agree with that when you think about the possibilities of what could have occured at the mint, and considering that it's also much thinner than a typical quarter. It's usually one side missing an outer clad layer that peels off after rolling or blanking which ends up being thinner, but that would be the typical diameter with rims. There seem to be a bunch of these just looking at the HA auction records. Then there is the extremely rare case of dual outer cladding layers missing when it's struck on a blank punched from the end of a roll where both sheets for the outer cladding layer were shorter than the copper core sheet. But this would also be the typical diameter with rims, and in addition would roll out to the proper thickness. From a quick search I didn't find any certified examples of these. It doesn't seem possible to have come from the mint like that with both outer cladding layers missing and it being smaller. Im thinking it's most likely the result of exposure to acid, but that may not explain the missing rims from the ones I have seen, and it doesn't seem to have the same mushy appearance. Maybe there is a colored unicorn shot as some type of thinner and slightly smaller foreign copper blank that got mixed in with the 25C blanks, or possibly the cladding peeling off both sides and edges after blanking, so the upsetting machine didn't add a rim. But I can't think of any foreign coins that could be a match, and it's very unlikely that both cladding layers had a poor bond in the same spot. What is the weight of your coin (to 0.01g) as well as the diameter and thickness (to 0.1mm if you have a vernier caliper)? I think each outer cladding layer is 0.97g if someone could check me on that and get a thickness. Also, the following links may be helpful for doing a little more digging, and I agree with Sandon to contact Sullivan Numismatics or post it on the CONECA website if it does start looking like it may be legit, which so far it doesn't. https://www.pcgs.com/news/missing-clad-layer-mint-error-coins https://www.error-ref.com/part-v-planchet-errors/ https://www.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?No=0&Ntk=SI_Titles-Desc&N=0&Ntt=missing+clad+layer+25c https://sullivannumismatics.com/search.php?page=1&section=product&search_query=missing+clad+layers

Good post and very commendable to admit the mistake which maybe others can learn from. Many would have likely just wanted to forget that. And not only does an error have to be clearly visible at 5x, but it also has to be significant enough, which it sounds like you may have also encountered. For example, die rotations between say 5 and 15 degrees would be considered an error as it's beyond typical mint tolerances. However, those rotations are not very significant with no collector value, and NGC will only attribute a rotation of at least 15 degrees as an error. And for NGC to attribute any variety, which also includes doubled dies, it needs to be listed on NGC VarietyPlus. I don't see any doubled dies for a 2023 25C listed there or on other variety sites. https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/7765/learn-grading-mint-errors-part-1/ https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/ https://www.error-ref.com/

That's why I don't think the 1/20th ounce 1862 G$1 coin is a viable option if the op is also looking for gold content, and the reason I stick with 1-ounce gold coins. Except for the 1/4-ounce $5 Indian Head Half Eagles, because I really like the design of those coins and the way they look However the 1-ounce or even 1/2-ounce gold coins would be way above the op's target price, so I think the 1/4-ounce $5 Liberty Head Half-Eagle or even the 1/4-ounce $10 American Gold Eagle coins are more viable options. I actually really like the design of the AGE's thru 2021 with the Saint-Gaudens like obverse and flying eagles on the reverse, which I think has more detail and a better strike than older bullion coins like the Saints.

This use to happen to me ... well I guess it still does, particularly since the photos also magnify the coin. That is until I got a 10x mag glass with a built-in light that does a really good job of showing any imperfections that will present in photos.

I know. I must have misread your above comments (thinking you were saying it would be on your list to submit if in better condition) now that I read that again. I don't know if that's the whole story as I don't think the planchets would become so darkened from just too long a heat exposure, and it wouldn't be exposed to flames or appear as heat damage discoloration would. I had read about this being debunked also, and the description changing. Possibly some kind of alloy mixing issue combined with the heat, and maybe why ANACS changed the error to "Improper Alloy Mix". That PCG$ label looks pretty old too, so I don't know if they also updated the error description. But I don't think the term really is critical, as I am just spitballing and as long as it's clear what the end result appearance is.

There is a whole series of Presidential Golden Dollar coins (mixed copper alloy) struck from 2007 to 2016 plus 2020 with various business strikes (P & D marks), proof strikes (S mark) and reverse proof strikes (P or S mark) depending on the president. The following is a link to a full listing of the Presidential dollars with some ballpark values. https://www.usacoinbook.com/coins/dollars/presidential/ Even in near perfect mint state condition (BU grade), which your coin is not, the business strikes only go for a few dollars each. The proof (PF) and reverse proof (Rev PF) strikes do go for more, but still not enough for it to be worth grading. P.S. I am finishing up my Complete Presidential and Innovation dollar sets in BU and PF grades with the 2023 Rev PF Innovation dollars. I think @Hoghead515 has the same collection, which is not that much to assemble and keep up to date, except for like two of the reverse proof Presidential $1 coins like for the Isenhower Rev PF.