EagleRJO

Be careful using plastic double-pocket flips (popular with dealers) for other than short-term storage, which can have various pitfalls for the different types. Most don't have pvc anymore, but that results is a more rigid plastic flip. And rough handling can cause contact marks at high points called "flip rub", particularly with tight fitting flips or the more rigid flips which tend to also crack more easily. https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/1445/coin-holders-contain-PVC/ https://www.pcgs.com/News/Examining-Contact-Marks-On-Coins https://www.govmint.com/coin-authority/post/the-best-coin-holders-to-protect-your-collection It's why I only use capsules (similar to the ones used by mints) or after-market slabs (similar to the ones used by TPG's) for storing my raw coins, after carefully removing them from the flips they are usually in when sold. P.S. I also use albums for storing circulated coins found from searching pocket change or roll hunting, and even though they generally are circulated coins I carefully insert the nicer ones to ensure they are not sticking above the cardboard when I insert the plastic sheet over the top to avoid something called album "slide marks".

@Coins8890 I agree with others that the last 2 look like small date cents. I will bet the family ranch they weigh roughly 2.50g within about 0.10g.

They both are large date cents from the size and shape of the 8 and 2 as well as the distance to the rim at the 2. See the attached infographic to help in the future.

I don't know the point of spending the funds to produce those coins any more, particularly the cents. What can you buy for a cent anymore.

It looks like technically there is one (1) type of the "Sacagawea Golden Dollar" coin with Sacagawea on the obverse (front) and a soaring eagle on the reverse (back). This coin was struck between 2000 and 2008. https://www.usmint.gov/coins/coin-medal-programs/circulating-coins/sacagawea-golden-dollar Starting in 2009 the mint started producing the "Native American Dollar" coins with Sacagawea on the obverse and a different reverse each year so far from 2009 to 2023. So, that would be fifteen (15) different "Native American Dollar" coins to date. [Not including the 2 different positions (A or B) of the edge lettering for each relative to the coin obverse up due to the edge lettering being added with a separate machine.] https://www.usmint.gov/learn/coin-and-medal-programs/native-american-dollar-coins It seems to me like you are really asking how many different dollar coins have been produced so far with Sacagawea on the obverse and a different design on the reverse from both the "Sacagawea Golden Dollar" (2000-2008) and "Native American Dollar" (2009-Present) coin programs, which would be sixteen (16) different ones so far.

A minimum 10% misalignment to attribute a coin as having an error as indicated in the Red Book does seem reasonable. I suspect the mint has a tighter tolerance for misaligned dies, but couldn't find anything concrete. Maybe @RWB may know what the mint tolerance is for misaligned dies with all the records he has from the mint.

I would just pay the postage for the return shipping, and chalk it up to a lesson learned about the potential pitfalls of buying raw coins that are not certified by NGC or PCGS. At least it appears you will be refunded most of your money, and it shouldn't be an unknown result if you were told you will get a refund if you return the coin. Also, it wouldn't hurt to ask for you to be emailed a return shipping label, and send them a copy of your receipt for submitting the coin to NGC anyway. More reputable coin dealers often will send you a return shipping label to return a coin. They may even give you something like a percent discount or free shipping on your next order if there is a problem like the op had, but I don't think that's something which should be expected from this particular vendor. It appears that In the op's second and third posts they first attached the (lighter) listing pic of the coin, followed by (darker) pics of the obverse and then reverse of the coin in-hand. From a side by-side comparison of the areas identified by the op, as well as a very distinctive hook-like mark left of the hair on the obverse (which I circled in blue), it does in fact appear they are the same coins. See the attached side by-side comparisons with the (darker) coin in-hand on the left and the (lighter) listing pic on the right.

I agree with Sandon it's a 1923 Peace Dollar. I also agree that it's probably not worth more than $25 to $30, if that with such a badly stained reverse.

There is a difference between a mint tolerance and what NGC will attribute as an error. For example, I understand the mint tolerance for die rotation is 5 degrees (e.g. Coin World Almanac, 8th Edition), but NGC will only attribute a rotation of 15 degrees or greater ... https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/7765/learn-grading-mint-errors-part-1/ Likewise, a die alignment that results in the word "WE" missing on a coin to me is an error, but apparently not significant enough of a misalignment for NGC to attribute that as an error, which they likely just consider a "minor error" (along with any die rotation from 5 degrees up to 15 degrees). I did a search as well as checked the references I have, and was unable to find what the mint uses as a tolerance for misalignment. I also didn't see any indication of the magnitude of a misalignment that NGC will attribute. The only thing I could find was an indication in the Red Book that there is no premium for a coin misaligned by less than 10%. I'm curious if anyone knows what the mint tolerance is for a misaligned die or at what point NGC will attribute that error.

From what you are describing and the close up photos provided, like the attached I used for a comparison, I don't think this is a struck-through error, as in that case the entire letter "S" in "Silver" would likely have been completely obliterated. I cant think of anything that could end up on the dies which would cause a depression around the entire letter, but permit a part of the letter to show through. Looks like a minor planchet defect where a piece of the planchet around the "S" flaked off and was missing when the coin was being struck, and the pressure from striking the coin couldn't completely level that out. Perhaps a little shallower near the top of the "S" as that part was partially struck. Regardless of if it's a small planchet defect error or a small struck-thru error, the errors are relatively minor so I cant see there being any added value (particularly if a struck-thru where the object on the dies cant be identified), or likely something that NGC would even identify on a label. So, I cant see a resubmission to NGC being worth it. That would be interesting to take a look at. Can you post a link to where to view those coins. P.S. If it were my coin that chip or depression at the "S" would likely bug me to the point of exchanging it, even though it is just a bullion coin.

According to the US mint coloration of coins is considered an alteration, but does not require thier permission or authorization. https://www.usmint.gov/news/consumer-alerts/consumer/colorized-and-plated-coins While coloration of coins doesn't interest me, or more traditional collectors, there are some collectors who find it appealing. To each his own. Colorized ASEs like the attached are one of the most popular. The effect on price seems very variable, but generally doesn't appear to significantly affect the value. There are some sellers unrealistically asking for significant premiums, I guess hoping to find less knowledgeable collectors. Like $200 for a colorized ASE in one listing, while it's generally available for under $40 or about the cost of one not colorized. https://bulliontradingllc.com/product/2000-colorized-1-oz-american-silver-eagle-coin/

I think you are confusing blurry pics of a coin that may have some minor strike or machine doubling (MD) with hub doubling or a doubled die (DD), since your 1958 Cent is not the 1958 DDO variety as others have indicated. See attached comparison pics and an infographic from this topic ... https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/430263-basic-resources-glossary-for-those-posting-questions/ ... to help you distinguish between MD and DD in the future.

I am just curious what mint errors you thought the coins may have had. And if your not familiar with what actually constitutes an "error" see the following topic and website ... https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/430263-basic-resources-glossary-for-those-posting-questions/ www.error-ref.com

The scale is the same, but as noted less scrupulous or inexperienced sellers commonly overstate grades of raw coins on sites like eBay. I would recommend getting better at grading coins yourself, and for raw coins stick with more reputable and well known dealers like Apmex, MCM and Littleton. And carefully and completely evaluate any coin, raw or slabbed, as soon as you receive it. Many dealers/sellers have a time limit on returns. Buying raw coins on eBay from sellers who do not have solid reviews and no questions returns, and without having good grading skills, is just asking for trouble. Good advice that would likely keep a lot of people buying raw coins on eBay out of trouble.

It sounds like you have an issue with one of the vendors, Asian African Art, and not really with MA-Shops. Also, it seems you bought a raw coin that was not authenticated by NGC for a considerable amount of money, which collectors should be very careful doing and have adequate knowledge about before considering. If you have the option to return the coin for a refund it's not clear why you are not doing that, and it's pretty standard for a business to receive an item being returned before they issue a refund. I would just follow the return requirements given, and make sure there is a record of returning the item.

Just curious why some historical pricing would be so important.

Can always resubmit for a "+" designation if an older exceptional coin for that grade. Unless you like extra stickers on your slabs.

Wow, Littleton Coin Company selling colorized coins to represent rainbow toning, which some might consider AT. So much for Littleton's reputation, which is often used to justify their higher prices. It's petty ugly, and doesn't even look like real rainbow toning. We both know not long. And it's only a matter of time before people start posting them here asking about star grades and values, or they start showing up on eBay for outrageous prices.

I'm glad you opened that can of worms as I wasn't aware that one sided trial strikes or splashers were done using hubs. I thought trial strikes were only done with the master and working dies with positive struck images, which I remembered reading about on a mint webpage a while ago. I doubled checked and the mint webpage still talks only about master and working die trial strikes, so that's good additional information to fill in some gaps.

Was that a mistake, or does the mint routinely strike those? [Check that, I just saw the links with multiples of hub trials. You learn something new every day. Is that something the mint still does, as the mint's webpage on the coin production process only talks about test strikes of the dies? Now if it was only the correct weight, then maybe ...]

Okay, so there is a struck coin that isn't ejected stuck to reverse anvil die and the feeder finger malfunctions and pushes two blank planchets stuck together over the capped reverse anvil die to accurately place the two planchets stuck together directly over the struck coin, with all 3 aligned and staying in place. Then the mint press strikes all 3 coins creating the op's middle coin, which magically isn't a broadstrike, with the lower side a brockage having a negative image of the obverse from the capped reverse anvil die, and the upper side blank from being stuck to another planchet. And in addition, the retaining collar somehow raises up to not only keep the middle coin from being broadstruck, but also imparts a reeded edge to the op's middle coin as all 3 are struck. Then the malfunctioning feeder finger and retaining collar magically starts working normally again, and the feeder finger ejects all 3 coins as a new planchet is normally feed into the press, so that a mint worker doesn't have to check out a problem and notice several improperly struck coins. Plus, it's significantly underweight, for a period correct 90% Ag coin, since there is also a coil roll with a significantly thinner end that would be way off mint tolerances, with a planchet that becomes the middle of a coin sandwich punched out of that significantly thinner end. Then decades later the coin magically expands, so that when the op takes measurements it the correct diameter and thickness. Yea, I'm not buying it. This is not the Twilight Zone.

It doesn't appear to be raised or a positive image, as it would be on a hub or struck coin, but instead appears to be incuse or a negative image as it would be on a die (see attached side-by-side comparison). Plus the date and lettering are backwards, so it should logically be an incuse or negative image. How would you even get a coin with raised backwards letters and numbers. Regardless, to much detail would be lost counterfeiting using it as an intermediate coin and then creating hubs and/or dies. However, maybe Kurt is onto something, and it's one half or the obverse part of a home brewed counterfeit die set. Next step is to use a home brewed reverse die and put them both in a piped shop vice with a blank in between ... and voila. 😆 Also, I thought test strikes were always done with working dies for the obverse and reverse. I have never heard of test strikes with hubs, particularly with just a hub of only one side.

Wouldn't the transfer be from a host coin directly to the counterfeit working die, and not to some intermediate strike coin.

I agree with others that it's not a legit error coin, and the blank second side is a dead give away. Looks to me like half of a home brewed vice job attempt at an error coin on a planchet that is likely not silver, with something similar to the attached non-silver zinc alloy blanks from China. Due to the weight difference (s/b about 6.250g +/- 0.194g for a 1925 25C) I doubt the coin is 90% silver, which it should have been for a period correct quarter. If there was a question on authenticity did you measure the size of the coin and try getting a specific gravity, which is fairly simple to do with an accurate scale, cup of water and some thread?

I think this one was really a toss up if it was a small or large date due to wear, damage and poor pics. The shape of the "8" would suggest a large date. But the alignment of the date and distance to the rim of the "2" would suggest a small date. It looks like everything pretty much lines up at the top and bottom, without the upper part of the "9" projecting above the others at the top, or the lower part of the "8" projecting below the others at the bottom, considering the lower part of the "1" looks like it's been damaged from a hit and deterioration. In addition, the distance to the rim of the "2" is at least about or a little more than the width of the 2 base, also suggesting a small date. The diagnostics for the font of the "2" seemed to be a toss up, with the overall shape seeming to match a large date, but with the missing serifs at the base more closely matching a small date. This was an interesting one due to conflicting diagnostics. If it went to a TPG they would probably be more conservative since all the diagnostics don't match and go with a large date, but everything seems to point more at it being a small date, so I went with that. Better pics, including full size pics of both sides, might help. But unless it weighs about 3.11g it's really pointless.