EagleRJO

I came across a coin I hadn't noticed before, which is called a Silver Trime (example attached). I did some digging and was expecting it to be something unusual like a 30 cent coin from the name (maybe shortened from Tri Dime), but it turned out to be a silver 3 cent piece struck from 1851 to 1873. I was aware of a Cu-Ni 3 cent coin struck around the same time, so it didn't make sense at first that another 3 cent coin was being struck. Apparently these 3 cent silver coins, and other silver coins, were being hoarded with a resulting shortage in Silver Trimes. So the Cu-Ni Three Cent piece was struck starting in 1865 and continuing through 1889. It's interesting what you find from something simple like looking up a mint spec for another coin. One thing I wasn't able to dig up is where the name came from. Okay, "tri" for 3 cents, but how does it get to be a "trime"? Maybe one of our coin history buffs like @RWBor @Sandonmay know.

@Abigail1964I am curious about what led you to measure the weight of that 1965 quarter in the first place. Perhaps you are weighing all the 1965 quarters you get hoping to find a rare mint error of that coin being mistakenly struck on a 1964 90% pure silver planchet? I understand there were a handful of those error coins struck at the beginning of 1965 that are worth a good amount, but very rare ... like Powerball odds rare. Note that you do not need to weigh every 1965 quarter looking for that error. Just look at the edge of the coin. The core of the normal Cu-Ni coins is pure copper (with a little bit of the lighter colored 25% nickel and 75% copper thin outer cladding showing on the edge near each face), which it sounds like that quarter has. So it's not the rare error of being struck on a heavier silver planchet from the prior year. You probably just have an inaccurate scale which is showing a different weight. Also, there have been a few topics lately about coins possibly being struck on the wrong planchet with pictures which may help in your search for that unicorn quarter. And welcome to the forum.

Very true. I had a really cheap pocket scale when I switched from roll hunting to more serious collecting about a year ago which gave me results sometimes that made me scratch my head, and needed to be recalibrated frequently. There are also people who have posted questionable weight results on the board from using the cheap/pocket scales, which usually turns out to be incorrect weights. So I threw the cheap one out and spent a little more on a small laboratory grade scale. It has a 3 decimal place or 0.001g accuracy, and came with multiple calibration weights to do a very precise sequential calibration. It also has a slightly depressed area where you place the coin that's larger than any standard coin, so there is no way for the coin to accidently slide off the scale. It's probably also overkill, but the results from the cheap one left me with a bad taste, and it was under $50. I have never had results from the new scale that made me scratch my head, and even though its spot on and has not needed recalibration so far, I still quickly check accuracy with the smallest calibration weight before I weigh a coin. I also look at every raw coin carefully, do a quick check to see if it there might be counterfeits, and compare it to known legit coins. I just don't feel comfortable yet with only examining a coin, so I take the extra steps of measuring weight and dimensions, as well as figuring an approximate density from those measurements if something doesn't look right. Maybe after I have decades of experience like you and Coinbuf I wont feel the need to take those extra steps for raw coins, other than for frequently counterfeited or questionable coins.

I'm just curious about the source for the tolerance? I have two US mint spec tables (one from ANA and one from Coin World Almanac) which does have the 5.67g weight, but they both list the tolerance as +/- 0.227g for the 1965 Cu-Ni quarter, which would give an acceptable weight range of 5.44g to 5.90g. [Note the 0.19g tolerance is given for 1947 thru 1964 Ag quarters] Perhaps you measure diameter and thickness in lieu of weights to check if older raw coins are legit? I not only check weights, but I accurately measure diameter and thickness for older raw coins, and also use that info to check density. Plus, if anything isn't adding up I might also do a specific gravity test. It's probably overkill, but I tend to be very cautious with raw coins I purchase.

More of a novelty item at $2

I received the copper round I ordered just to check these out, and it has some nice detail and mirror like surfaces. Also, at one ounce and 39mm diameter it's a nice larger size with some heft, which I prefer. Not bad for under $2, but of course different from the silver trade dollar it was based on. I will have to keep my eyes open for ones where there is a matching silver and copper round which I think is interesting, but I just don't see it as another low-cost area for collecting.

Some dealers submit bank bags or roll boxes full of coins at significantly reduced rates, and it's also bulk S&H which is a good chunk of the individuals cost per coin. Economy of scale.

I asked about the mint mark just based on appearance and nothing else. It is a strangely small mark for that coin ... or maybe time for new glasses. [I can clearly see an "S" mark on the coin Sandon posted.]

I guess it could be a very small "S" that kind of looks like a "D" zoomed out.

Virtually all of the YT stuff is click-bait nonsense, self-promotion or just plain garbage. Stick with YT vids from the ANA and stuff from the ANA eLearning Academy. Some of the really old ANA vids are a little dated, but still relevant. Also, start with basic topics first, and then jump into areas of interest later.

Your numbers are off. I have heard that dealers all-in grading costs for large bulk submissions can be as low as $8 to $10 per coin, and Sandon mentioned above that he has encountered $7 per coin. Also the $23 to $35 you noted is just a minimum base grading cost depending on the type, which goes up from there. Also, you need to add shipping to NGC w/ insurance, $10 handling, and $28 return shipping w/ insurance. That comes to about $80 all-in grading cost for a coin. You can reduce that number by waiting to submit several coins at once and spread out the S&H costs.

Sounds like you are watching ANA eLearning vids and jumping around a bit, including some advanced topics as Sandon thought. There are also quite a lot of ANA vids, which can be overwhelming itself. Try taking it in chunks and sticking to basic ANA vids at first that cover topics like the minting process, toning, cleaning, grading, collecting strategies, etc. Also, as a minimum you should have the Red Book and ANA Grading Standards to start, and consider addition resources on grading. Grading is one of the most difficult and important topics (including details coins), so pay attention to those and post raw coins from say eBay with how you would grade it for feedback. Then get into more advanced topics like counterfeits, errors & varieties, prototypes, cherry-picking, etc. I think this approach has served me well as I progress with the coin collecting hobby. Also, isn't that a "D" mint mark 1971 Ike?

Tarnish

@lcourtney123I also can't imagine why you would submit this coin for grading. That is a lower value Morgan in what appears to be a VF+ condition (e.g. wear of the hair and eagle's wings) where you would actually be losing money by submitting it to a TPG, and wouldn't make sense unless it was a good BU grade. It also wouldn't be a good candidate for a registry set requiring graded coins, as it is commonly available in better grades for a reasonable cost. I wouldn't submit coins for grading unless there is a specific reason to have that done.

Meaning, if a coin isn't in the Red Book that should be a flag to the average collector it may not be legit and requires further research.

I think part of the issue with discussing say counterfeits versus fantasy coins is a lack of clarification within the regulations and court interpretations. For example, at what point is there an "intent to defraud", and how is that established. And then the grandaddy ... would fool the average collector. Perhaps the latter could be tied to what is currently in the Red Book, a widely referenced and accepted resource in the industry.

Sometimes you get hung up just trying to switch systems which has happened to me before. Try manually logging out of the NGC system you are in, close all windows, and then log into the one desired. The two different systems don't seem to play nice together, which was another reason I went with Word/Excel.

That's exactly what I meant when I mentioned including a photo log link in the collection log. You can also include hyperlinks to coin error or reference data webpages, like VamWorld for the Morgans I have. It really is amazing what you can do with MS Word/Excel.

@GoldFinger1969Its just basic math. You have what you can sell a raw coin for, compared to what you can sell that same coin for slabbed, which increases with the value to a certain point, less the cost of grading at say around $80 or so all-in for an individual coin (bulk dealer submissions aside). If you have say a coin you can sell for $120 raw and it's worth $150 slabbed, you would lose $50 submitting it for grading (net realized is $70 = $150 sale less $80 grading cost). I have heard a good break even coin value is around $300 before considering a coin for grading just based on re-sale value. If it was an individual submitted originally that is likely a loser sale, perhaps for a Registry Set where they are upgrading and just looking to get whatever they can out of the coin. It could also have been part of a large dealer bulk submission where significantly lower grading costs are negotiated between a dealer and a TPG if a lot of coins are submitted all at once, on top of any dealer discounts they may already get.

The ears?

All of the coins are in rough shape and not worth very much. If you did send them in for grading you would lose money. The Lincoln cent may have a minor struck-thru mint error as there isn't wear of the rim consistent with the missing or worn off part of the "6" in the date. https://www.error-ref.com/ Even for potential minor errors like that you would also need to identify exactly what it was struck thru even to have a small value increase, which I don't think can be done, and the very rough condition would more than offset that. None of the coins posted are even worth your effort trying to sell, and I think you need substantially more education and experience before even considering that area. See the post above by Sandon on "Resources", and if you are interested in coin errors and trying to sell them the attached guide book is an additional must have resource. But first you need to know some basics, including identifying errors and grading of coins which plays a part in value. Btw, welcome!

Interesting Australian coin design with what I presume are anti-counterfeiting features. Also, smart man getting the better half some coins she likes. Have you purchased any of the new King Charles III coins for her?

That's an image from the website Bill originally posted ... https://barskilz.com/products/Set It wouldn’t surprise me if that is a Danburry set as it looks like they just grabbed pics from all over for the scam listing, with many that don't even match. 🙄

I don't see any indications of polishing or disturbed fields on the op's or CoinFacts coins, which is why I was thinking those were from before the die scratches occured. That, or they did a really good job blending the die scratches.

There were previously questions about what coins qualified for that "First Strike" designation, which was buried a little.