EagleRJO

The attached infographic is from the following topic, which also has a few links about doubling and other errors/varieties ... https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/430263-basic-resources-glossary-for-those-posting-questions/ True doubling is usually just as high as the doubled elements, which is best to look for with the coin in-hand, and also look for notching at corners per the doubling infographic.

Is the 1879 Morgan coin in the cracked holder damaged, or is the discoloration on the holder?

I have found Littleton to be a little bit on the high side with prices in general. I buy alot of bullion and coins from Ampex and have had a good experience with generally competitive prices, although you should price shop a little on sites like MCM, USSQ and LCR for comparison as other reputable dealers sometimes have better prices.

I have found MCM and USSQ, as well as ebay and Apmex sometimes, to be a decent source for buying proof sets at a reasonable price. Also, @Mr.Bill347 put together a huge mint set collection so he may have some other reputable sites to check out.

When I see stuff like that I often just do a quick complaint by clicking on the "Report this Item" link, which is in blue down a little way on the right side of listing page. The rest is up to ebay, occasionally resulting in the listing being pulled but more often than not nothing happens or it just gets re-listed at a slightly different price. However, I think that if more people did this it might help cut down on these rip off listings which I think are ruining ebay.

I also agree about passing on that one since it really isn't that appealing, at least to me. Another reason I don't get that hung up on paper labels or always looking for MS coins. I often find that some lower grade XF or AU grade coins actually look nicer and more authentic to me than higher grade and more expensive ones, as most coins were meant to be circulated, like the attached AU slider 1881-S Morgan

The pictures are really too bury to tell for sure. See the attached infographic from this thread to help you determine that they, and any future ones you find, are not the rainbow unicorn rare 1982-D small date bronze cents ... https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/430263-basic-resources-glossary-for-those-posting-questions/ Also, I'm not sure what you meant by "no mint date", and perhaps you meant no mint mark, which just means it was struck at the Philadelphia mint. You can just say it's a 1982 Lincoln Cent, or 1982 (P) for clarity. And for values see this NGC price guide ... https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/united-states/cents/100/

A new case as suggested by Bill is a good option instead of the hassle of returning an item, although it's actually not that bad to return something as there should be a return label and return form right on the receipt from the mint. I don't think it's luck at all as the mint doesn't seem to put quality high on it's priority list anymore, since around mid to late 2021 when new woke management took over.

Perhaps you are referring to the location of the mark, since it's almost touching the date? At that time marks were hand punched into working dies separately, and therefore the location could vary greatly. So it's nothing special. See this link to see how much the mark location can vary if that's the question ... https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1952-s-1c-bn/images/2801

As mentioned, do you have some examples of these older holders going for less? Perhaps a few were just an anomaly or they were inferior coins, as there is a common misconception some have that ALL coins in older holders are undergraded, so for the same grade label they typically actually go for more. I have been working on a collection of Morgans and older half dollars, where I am still missing a handful of Morgans and quite alot of the half dollars. So for these, as well as some other coins that interest me, I watch prices closely and bid at auctions. I don't even bother with coins in say an early generation NGC holder any more, because even if the coin is accurately graded they still go for more. Even for circulated coins where standards really haven't changed that much, coins in older holders typically go for more just because of the misconception.

That is not always the case with collectible coins, particularly in the short term, due to costs and overhead related to buying and selling them. I don't consider coins to be a good "investment", unless you are very good as spotting varieties that others miss, and over the short term should be expected to result in a loss. The best thing you can do to mitigate any potential losses is to learn as much as you can about the coins you are interested in, including grading and values, before you start buying them.

Might be struck-through grease, but it appears a little too shiny for that. It looks polished. Maybe a struck-through grease or cloth that someone then polished, ruining the error.

I think it was @J P M who posted that an old school check for proof or prooflike was you needed to be able to see the reflection of a #2 pencil in the fields and read the lettering. That coin doesn't look very reflective at all. https://www.pcgs.com/news/differences-between-proof-and-prooflike-coins Someone is on a rarity fishing expedition 😆

I don't collect by VAMS, but have a few I find interesting like a "Spitting Eagle". Lower grades may not show the variety as prominent. I think most are overpriced, but that is just me. Collect what you like, and if it's an area you find interesting maybe start a new topic to get some feedback from some others also. There are a number on the forum that collect Morgans.

I do collect Morgans and don't pay much attention to special labels like that. It's just a particular collector that focuses more on higher end Morgans, but it doesn't change the coin grade. I focus on the coins, not the paper labels.

I see indications of abrasive cleaning, but not whizzing which would be very detrimental to the coin value.

If it looks the same than it's likely also a spooned coin. In the future start a new thread if you would like to ask about a coin instead of digging up a thread started over 2 years ago.

Why do you want to weigh coins that are already authenticated and slabbed?

Actually PCGS differentiates between "cleaning" and "dipping". Cleaning (PCGS Code 92) relates to abrasive treatments to remove dirt and grime from a coin surface, and specifically excludes "dipping". I don't think NGC makes the same differentiation. https://www.pcgs.com/grades#grade92

With the flat top feather of the clutched arrows it's definitely a 78 reverse, which leaves a VAM 4, 7 or 7A, but none of those are a match as both the date and mark appear to be different. That leaves either a new VAM or a counterfeit, and after this much time a new VAM is not very likely. Also, getting the reverse wrong is a classic counterfeit flag. So I am leaning towards counterfeit.

Looks like a large date to me also, so another swing and miss. You have better odds hitting the mega lottery.

It could be a new VAM, but not likely.

I am starting to wounder if in addition to being over-dipped that this coin may be a counterfeit, and perhaps it was intentionally over-dipped to hide things. It has a Reverse of 78 since the top clutched arrow feather is flat, which means it would need to be either a VAM-4 or VAM-7/VAM-7A since those are the only ones listed with that reverse. http://www.vamworld.com/wiki/1880-CC_Reverses However, the mint mark doesn't match either one, and the VAM-7 also isn't a match since there is no mark below the second "8" in the date. In addition, the date position doesn't match either the VAM-4 or VAM-7.

Sure, here is an example of each.

Gee, ya think someone on ebay might stoop to that level.