EagleRJO

I also don't see the need to upgrade a RB 2023 edition for at least a few years, which is what I have, and can be supplemented with online info from NGC and PCG$.

I was recently reading through that thread ATS, which we also discussed further here not too long ago, and some time had elapsed between the initial submission and the grade and price bumps. The biggest thing were the price jumps, which for similar rainbow color toned coins ended with some really crazy bidding wars as each one can be fairly unique.

Maybe with limited bag marks and a brighter silver color it might present well, but that's really for ms coins and it's nothing special with the "normal" duller grey color. Unfortunately, people just look at paper labels so I would bet the family ranch it goes for XF money. I think that would be overly cumbersome and almost impossible to quantify given the voluminous combinations of those things just for a single grade. I think the standards are fine if they are followed, which is not always the case on either side of a particular grade. I don't think there were gross errors on the Franklin grades in that thread, just a lack of awareness of how much sometimes very unique rainbow like toned coins had become extremely popular with a positive effect on grades (appearance) and especially values, with bidding wars over individual coins.

Features on a coin, such as the spikes above Liberty's head, are cut into metal dies and there would be no way for one of the spikes to simply end up in the wrong direction.

I am always evaluating the grade of coins, even if it's in a TPG coin coffin. The attached 1893 (P) Morgan was graded XF40 by one of the big boys, but it looks over-graded. There seems to be too much wear of the hair and cotton leaves on the obverse and the eagle's feathers (right facing wing, neck and legs) as well as the wreath on the reverse for that grade. And the coin doesn't have an exceptional appearance either, with a duller gray color, to offset any of that. It looks like VF+ to me. Am I just being a little overly critical?

If it's an incuse cloth-like pattern then it probably is a struck-through cloth. I can't picture anything else producing that kind of incuse pattern on a limited area of the obverse.

I have quite a lot of silver and part silver coins, which can vary in appearance but it looks like part silver to me. Did you compare your coin to other silver alloy nickels and realize it wasn't an astronomically rare off-metal planchet error? What were the percent compositions, which the jewelry store would have had if tested with modern XRF equipment. Anything other than modern XRF or SG testing, including negative results of an indicator, are worthless imo. Sure, but why would you want to spend about $80 to have that done? Having a 1943-P war nickel with an off-metal planchet error is astronomically rare.

That is a good attitude and half the battle. Plus you took Kurt's brutally honest observations pretty well. If you truly are interested in learning about coins I would recommend starting with the following topics on this board ... https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/428817-resources-for-new-collectors/ https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/430263-basic-resources-glossary-for-those-posting-questions/

I assume by "train job" you are referring to putting a coin between two others so that impressions from the outer coins are transferred to the middle coin with great pressure. Difficult to do well since they move. I remember messing around as a kid with putting various coins or a few of them stacked on train rails. Some interesting impressions. Older copper cents were the best for flattening out from multiple passes since copper is so soft. But it's pretty obvious when you have a vise job or train job coin.

Very easy way to tell the difference, with that visually represented in the infographic I did about this coin Sandon noted, that so many ask about and think they might have. Also, the shape or font of the "2" used for the large date cent is another good indicator, which looks like a swan or coiled snake and is also pretty obvious. I assure you it most certainly is NOT a small date 1982-D copper penny.

Very important, in addition to authentication using die markers and certified examples (e.g. NGC VarietyPlus, VAM World, PCGS CoinFacts, etc.). Even for slabbed coins as some are improperly graded and counterfeits have worked their way to slabbed coins.

Almost my entire collection is raw coins. I see no need to send in coins for someone to put them in a plastic coin coffin with a paper label that has an opinion, unless it's a very valuable coin. If you want to be able to more easily sell them in the future you are usually better off just buying them slabbed in the first place. That's a pretty good general rule, unless the coin is worth more than about $300.

Very useful. That's from a great site on die clashes, with many useful clash overlays ... http://www.maddieclashes.com/

It's just another AliBaba Chinese fakes site, and the prices should be a hint. But yea, that kind of garbage sometimes ends up on eBay being sold by people as the real deal. Even the ones that show the word "COPY" on the listing usually just have that word photoshopped on the picture, and the coin delivered doesn't have that on the coin. If you notice that word almost always looks the same. AliBaba does the same thing.

I don't see any errors either, and the first one appears to have some deteriorated die or machine doubling (MD). See the graphic attached to this post which may help with identifying MD in the future ... https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/430263-basic-resources-glossary-for-those-posting-questions/

My understanding is that the mint tolerance for die rotation is 5 to 7 degrees (e.g. Coin World Almanac, 8th Edition, Pg 370, et. al.), but that any rotation less than about 15 degrees has no added value. I have also heard in another thread on this board that 17 degrees was the reported mint tolerance, but that seems a bit excessive and was not substantiated. It looks like there is a 19 degree rotation of the reverse. See the attached rotated 19 degrees. Even though that exceeds the 15 degree added value cutoff it is still a minor die rotation in my mind.

I think that if it was "tooled" or "smoothed" either would be a No-Grade Code 98 - Damage. I just didn't see evidence of tooling except where someone tried to smooth out the cleaning scratches. I would have expected it to be described as "smoothed", which is why I did a double take looking at the slab.

Yea, I normally would provide better cropped pics ... ... but all I had was the slab pics from an eBay listing and the cert didn't have better pics. I think you can caulk this one up to just a loosely used term from a while ago by PCG$ related to trying to hide evidence of cleaning throughout the fields.

This one just seemed strange as I would normally think of "tooling" as marks on a coin in a limited area, say around an altered mint mark or repaired hole, in an attempt to hide evidence of those alterations. I don't think the scrapes or scratches by Liberty's head would be tooling, as it looks more like just scratches or etchings without any attempts to hide or smooth out those scratches. It seems like the "tooling" relates to the cleaning or attempts to hide those scratches all over the fields. I have seen the "smoothed" designation before, which referred to trying to hide scratches from a previous improper cleaning all over the fields of the coin, and this one looked similar. But you may be right that the grading companies have been a little loose over the years on how they used certain terms related to impairments.

I saw this label indicating "Tooled - AU Details". I don't see a concise PCG$ definition of "tooled", but NGC defines it as "either the smoothing of a coin’s fields to remove scratches, corrosion and other forms of damage or to the restoration of lost details through use of a graver or knife" The coin just looks cleaned to me, with some attempts to hide that and marks or scratches near Liberty's head. Where is this coin "tooled"? Is it smoothed over fields in an attempt to remove scratches from a cleaning?

Welcome! I am just curious about what led you to believe the coin you posted had errors.

No, the NGC standards (https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-grading/grading-scale/) for an MS69 are "a fully struck coin with nearly imperceptible imperfections" as previously noted. The magnification you are referring to only applies to an MS70 at 5x without any imperfections. The circled areas in the second pic you posted are magnified, and if you look at the full coin pic posted you can barely even make out there is a bag mark. As many have said, just leave it, unless you want a perfect bullion coin then sell it and put that towards an MS70 bullion coin. But I would just take that money and buy a collectible Proof ASE. From the mint it's about the same you would likely pay for an MS70 bullion coin on the market, and imo the proof coins are much nicer. That's just me though. https://catalog.usmint.gov/american-eagle-2023-one-ounce-silver-proof-coin-23EA.html?cgid=american-eagle-coins#start=1

Where did you get that from? Look at the NGC and ANA Grading Standards for that coin.

I was just pointing out that the correct certification number (3255205-144 @ 69 and not ... 114) was not showing up as valid and could be either possibility, not that it was counterfeit. I really don't get why it's such a big deal about a bag mark by the waist when an MS69 is not a perfect coin. If you want a perfect coin sell that one and pay the extra $30 to $40 for a perfect coin. But it doesn't change it's still a bullion coin. If you want collectible ASEs look at the proof coins.

That certification number is not showing up so it was either pulled by NGC as incorrect or it's a counterfeit slab however unlikely. Also, the lower portion of the coin circled by the op looks like just a continuation of the dress bottom so it may just be the bag mark by the waist. In any event, the 2009 ASE is a bullion coin, and below MS70 would be less than about a $10 cost difference in MS grades, and likely doesn't even belong in a holder to begin with having a bag mark. I would just leave it.