EagleRJO

Wait, you started collecting coins?

I agree with RWB and Coinbuf to forget about what is on a label, and just go with what you find appealing. I also like the way Morgans similar to that look, with just a hint of toning that has a slight progression which is a little more pronounced near the edges, and have several in my Morgan collection like that.

Another resource that can be utilized are published lists of known doubled die coins. When the doubled elements are a result of the dies having that doubling there are considerably more than just one of those coins being struck and entering circulation, which over time error collectors have identified and cataloged. For Memorial Cent doubled dies see the following webpages for lists of these. Note that the LMC you have with the doubling of the face is not on those lists of DDO's, so that's another indicator that it's a one-off machine doubling. http://doubleddie.com/300201.html http://varietyvista.com/01b LC Doubled Dies Vol 2/DDO listing.htm Agreed. I was just commenting on using the term "bounce doubling", as MD is the more widely accepted term. From the pictures there appears to be a pretty well defined shelf, with the doubled face outline appearing to be lower. Note that it may not have a well defined slope as shown in the infographic I posted, as that is just a graphic representation.

Yea, there are a number of chop marks, which I don't mind if they are legit. The ones I don't get are to the right of liberty and above the wheat bundles. Those 2 just don't look like typical chop marks. Also, it looks like the letter "F" scratched into the reverse on the left side. Because of those questions I am considering passing on this one but wanted to see what others thought.

I think the attached 1874-S Trade Dollar is likely in the F+ to VF range, possibly cleaned. There is wear to liberty's dress and knees as well as the banner and eagle's head, outer portion of the wings, and left leg (right facing) on the reverse. Also, it looks to be a legit Trade Dollar to me from the overall appearance and checking details against a similar certified example. It also has a Type-1 obverse and Type-1 reverse, which is correct for a 1974 Trade Dollar. Some feedback would be appreciated.

Perhaps @RWB or @JKK could help. Having the diameter in mm to 1 place and the weight in grams to 2 places is likely needed to help. And not having the word "copy" on the coin is meaningless, unless it's a counterfeit in which case that simply means it doesn't comply with the Hobby Protection Act like most counterfeits.

oh boy, the Rooster is back! Btw, this is the hat Kurt wears to all of these events.

Powermad, you do realize that the SBA question was from 2019?

That's what "machine doubling" is, from the dies bouncing as a coin is struck. https://coinweek.com/doubled-dies-vs-machine-doubling/

The attached may help differentiate between a doubled die and common machine doubling aka strike doubling

even if it straight graded XF it would still likely be a loss submitting it due to the tight raw/slabbed value spread of lower cost coins.

Attached is a 1964-D 10C MPM FS-502 graded MS65 from PCGS CoinFacts (https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1964-d-10c-mpm-fs-502/145599) and NGC VarietyPlus. Both of these, as well as others from CoinFacts, seem to just have the small raised area next to the torch, which is consistent with the op's coin. So I think it's a match.

Bill is hoarding scuffed up silver album coins. I think he needs CCA ... Coin Collectors Anonymous!

Sounds like you need a meeting.

Also see the following announcement by PCS$ on the "prooflike" designation ... https://www.pcgs.com/news/pcgs-announcement-about-prooflike

The 63 looks a little scuffed up. Why the pick up?

I think your right, and hope that was just a hypothetical reference to sending it in for grading.

The attached may help in differentiating between coins with common die deterioration doubling or machine doubling (aka "shelf doubling") and coins with true die or hub doubling. Note that it is very unlikely that modern coins have true die or hub doubling since in the mid to late 1990's the US mint switched to a single squeeze process to produce master dies. This significantly limits true doubling of the dies to something shifting during this process. https://doubleddie.com/58222.html

Its "specific gravity" (SG), and it is a test to help identify the composition of materials, such as metals used for coins, by measuring a relative density or unit weight (e.g. grams/cm^3) of the material and comparing that to published values. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_gravity The Coin World Almanac pages Sandon scanned have additional information about this test and published values for some common coin materials. Note that lead and (pure) silver have distinctly different SG values (11.35 vs. 10.50). XRF (or "X-Ray Fluorescence) is a newer technology used to identify the composition of various materials, and what many of the larger coin dealers presently use to establish the type of metal used for coins. Both NGC and PCGS offer this testing as an add-on service. https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/1591/

Has a specific gravity test been done to help identify the type of metal?

This must be on both sides to be designated "prooflike" according to the standards I referenced above.

Regardless, it is addressed in the grading standards under "Surface". Definitions, including PL, are included on page 9 of the PCGS Guide I referenced which addresses the "Surface", with a detailed discussion in the grading standards book I referenced.

PCGS publishes their grading standards, starting with a general guide, and which includes a visual grading resource for each US coin (PCGS CoinFacts) as well as a book on how they grade coins. I have a copy of the book, and it's pretty well done although there are still some black and while photos which I think could be updated. PCGS General Grading Guide PCGS CoinFacts - Visual Grading Resource PCGS Book on Coin Grading The PCGS CoinFacts resource in particular is an excellent grading reference as you can call up images for how each US coin is graded. Maybe they will eventually extend this resource to world coins like the Australian 1884-M Gold Sovereign above. I think NGC should do the same thing, so their grading standards are clear.

My mind convinced me it was 1964 SMS, and I went right past that. It's amazing how when you expect to see something you can go right past it. There is a name for that, but my mind convinced me to go right past that too.

Alternately rest your arm on a stack of books or similar. It's not an easy task going through VAMs for someone who has no experience with coin collecting, so I would take a stab at a few that look promising and post what you think the VAM is with some focused pics to get some feedback. Then as you go through them post ones where it may be questionable, which no doubt will happen as sometimes evaluating VAMs for Morgans can be as clear as muddy water. For the 1884-CC I think the line at the base of the date on the op's coin is too straight to be a VAM-2. Pics are still a little too blurry, but might be an earlier die state VAM-3A. The date and mark seem to be a pretty good match, as well as what may be a die chip/break at the top left wreath, but without the die crack extending thru the stars from the date. Coin in-hand or much better pics are really needed there, but a VAM-3A would be my call.