JKK

The scratches look pretty faint in that picture. Photos can be misleading, though.

There's a pretty good way to check that. Go to the shop and buy a few inexpensive coins that you'd like to have. Take them home. Go over them with the grading guide in hand and check their grading in detail. Once you have arrived at conservative grades (on the logic that shops should err in the direction of undergrading if they are going to err), look them up in price guides and get some sold listing comparisons on EB. This will give you a pretty good idea of what kind of value, competence, and honesty you can expect from that dealer, and obviously you can't do most of that in the store. If you find that you got a bad deal, you then get to test whether you can return coins to that dealer. Don't tell them the truth about why; just say you decided to go in a different direction. Most people would say differently, but most Americans have this quaint notion that if consumers expose themselves to potential hassle and chastisement by giving businesses feedback, the world will become a better place because businesses will improve. Nah, especially not in the small-shop coin business, which is generally run by autists who are never going to improve. You're not planning to shop there anymore, but you might someday for whatever reason, so it's best to avoid having a debate. Just be vague. If you think about it, an overgrading, overpricing ripoff house doesn't really deserve a reward such as constructive criticism.

It's cool to find, but not worth a bunch of money. With sharp photos we will probably be able to suss out the date, which is very likely 1935-37. Mint would be under the hill the bison stands on, and I don't see any. Dealer would probably have it in a Buff junk tray for 20c. Simply put, they are very common in this condition and thus supply massively outguns demand.

I assume you are specifying sold listings. Anyone can put whatever price they wish on something; that doesn't mean anyone will pay it. What someone paid is a datum.

This is the variety called 'hot garbage.' The coin is badly enough corroded that any other varieties do not matter and are pointless to explore.

No problem. It's one of those situations that requires rotating the chessboard, so to speak. If the OP keeps adding coins to the thread (which they ought not to be doing), that's one thing; at least any replies are to one of their coins. Far as I am concerned, if they get confused and have no idea which one we're talking about, that's excellent because it'll teach them why we tell them to post one coin per thread. But when a second poster comes in, now it's not even clear to whom replies are. We do get that people hesitate to start new threads because threadspamming is a major faux pas on some forums, and that using an existing thread is normally considered a good thing in other places. On top of that, if they have fifteen coins, there's the natural question: "You really want me to post fifteen threads? You won't get mad?" It's a fair question. The answer is yeah, we really do want them to, but I can see why people feel a little nervous about that. On some forums that would get one's butt thrown right off there--but not here. (It being almost impossible to get one's butt thrown off this one, which has made it a great haven for some huge dill doughs, but that's another topic.)

For one thing, you're posting it in someone else's thread, when the preferred practice is to start a new one. Otherwise people responding have to figure out what a given post is talking about, which is a pain, so many of us will just ignore it.

I doubt it, if the grading has a financial motive. I'd like to see evidence that someone has actually paid $60 or so for an example.

Looks pretty original to me, and rather nice. Not sure how obvious the notable scratch on the cheek is, but that and some field scratches in front of her nose would seem to me to be the grade limiters, along with what might be a pretty good ding under TRUST. The first are in prime focal areas, so the question is how obvious those are without magnification. We see blown-up pics of coins so often it's easy to forget that grading is without magnification, and what's obvious to us here might be less so in hand. If those are still obvious in hand, I think this tops at 63. If they look relatively faint in hand, perhaps 64-65. I think there are enough scattered contact marks to keep it from going much higher. I think if you get it in the mid-$500s you probably got a very good deal. That's competitive 63 pricing. 64 would send it up around $800-900. If it were 65, competitive pricing would be closer to $2000 or so. So whatever they're asking, you can tell what grade they think it is by the price. Then you can decide if that's a fair grade (we'll help).

I don't see any errors, but the way you asked is okay because it lets experienced people scrutinize your coins and see if they find anything that's an error. Those would normally jump out at us like neon signs if they were real errors. If/when no one notices any, maybe then it's important to explain what it is you think might be an error. The only time you need to be specific right off the bat is if the error is very small, hard to see in a full photo. Speaking of which, very nice photos. You pretty much did it right, which is more than can be said for most first-timers.

In case it's of interest to you, it shows that you have done some homework. Nicely done; you have accelerated your path out of the Usual Questions Everyone Asks That We Don't Mind Answering But Are Eager To Move On From And Start Talking About More Interesting Numismatic Aspects. It's fun to watch when someone sees the passing lane, uses it, puts the hammer down, and skips some of the dull steps. Short version: As you seem to have sussed out already, finding modern coins that are rare and valuable is very uncommon. The whole striking it rich through pocket change thing is bunkum. It's all much more difficult than that. You can see examples all over: That which looks too good to be true looks that way for a clear reason. Welcome. If you ever decide that ancients are your thing, bong a gong or something to get my attention, and we'll start you down that specialized path. Otherwise, most people here know more than me, and since you're open to actual learning, will teach you all you want to learn.

The thing is to get through to why they imagine they should clean them. Two customary assumptions: The more "shinny" the coin, the more valuable it is. No one will ever catch them at it. (You can almost see the little smirks on their faces as they dismiss the reflex answers. "Yeah," they think, "but their just a bunch of grumpy boomers who are'nt so smart.") The truth: In the first place, anyone too dumb to spell "shiny" is too dumb to collect coins. Makes me gag. But in fact, this whole perception is false. There are natural looks and unnatural looks, and cleaning (especially during amateur hour, when some imbecile goes to work with Brasso or a wire brush) makes nearly all coins look unnatural. A worn coin is not supposed to look shiny. Shiny is not automatically good. Natural is good. Damaged is bad. Amateur cleaners damage. In the second, the only people who can do it without us catching it know who they are, and they aren't novices. There aren't a great many. There's one in our club. Anyone who has to ask anything on any coin board about it is almost surely not one of those experts. Just asking the question is interpreted as: "Hi. I'm not only a fool, but I have no idea how great a fool I am." We use magnification, scrutiny, and experience to catch the cleaned coins. We know more about it than novices. Some of us use powerful coin microscopes and we can see abrasive cleaning scratches like they were furrows in a plowed field. Doesn't mean we're special, just that we've been at it a while and invested time and money. Those of us who have learned some whens and whys have typically paid tuition for that. Did I succeed in blowing the bronze disease off an ancient copper that looked like it was covered in smurf snot? Yeah. But I only did that because the coin was literally deteriorating and needed rescue. You'll only penetrate their skulls by refuting the underlying reasoning. And even then, only sometimes.

Here's the best argument I can make to help prevent you from wasting your money. Suppose you spend $250 for plastic and to have it confirmed that the coins are no big deal (overwhelming likelihood). How much coin could you have bought for $250? For that I can get two Roman Republic denarii in nice condition and have money to spare for a decent bronze. I could also get a very respectable bustie (early 1800s capped bust half). I could just about get a lower-grade 1914-D cent. How much for gold $1 coins these days? Pretty sure one is within that financial reach. Or I could have plastic that tells me my coins are of minimal value. If that doesn't move you, you're dead set on it, and I can do nothing but watch helplessly.

Probably artificial toning. One way to do this is a certain kind of heat treatment. Probably making good money bilking the rubes, who look and think "ooohhhh shinny" (most of them don't spell too well) and that "shinny is better, so pretty pretty rainbow colors are better still."

There is no chance it could get anywhere near 68 with this much cloudiness. I'm not feeling like digging out my grading guide, but I think PR-61 is more probable. As I recall, even to get much above 63 the luster needs not to be badly impaired.

Ebenezer and YT are very fraught ways to learn, where you take one step forward and five steps back. What you need to realize is that to everyone here--that is credible, anyway--"I saw it on Ebay/Youtube" is code for "I'm completely deluded and you will have to break down everything I think I know in order to help me." Not saying that to be hurtful, just being completely frank. F-bomb Ebay and YT. Compared to several books I could recommend, they are great wastes of time. So if you do want to learn might as well go ahead and express everything you believe that you learned there, so we can tell you what's wrong with it and get you started learning how to really collect coins. Lesson one: modern pennies are mostly not worth much and that is especially true when they've already begun to corrode (see those little teal spots). Lesson two: nearly everything you have learned is a Rare Mint Error is of minimal interest to most serious collectors.

Given that you already found a couple of bogus pieces in that lot, if you have as much sense as you seem to, you will now be questioning the authenticity of any piece therein that seems to be valuable enough anyone would bother to counterfeit it.

I would mark it down as tuition, avoid that vendor in the future, and make a stronger vetting effort on vendors in the future. There's no way to prove the allegation. Without proof, no return. I can't see how they make enough money on this to be worth going back and forth with rolls. They would argue that maybe you went through it and now want to send it back because you didn't find glory. It's too nebulous a battle to win.

I don't know. What I do know is that toning is often artificial, sometimes appealing and sometimes uglier than sickcoins' posts, and varies highly based on environmental factors. If the coins are in an older album, some form of toning is highly likely.

There are decent and bad counterfeits of 1804 dollars. Then there are the atrocious, and unfortunately, yours is among them. Can't speak to the 1870 due to the pics.

Eye of the beholder, and I expect it probably did. I think it looks beautiful and natural--but I long passed the stage where the goal was bright and shiny. Too much of that is cleaned. Give me a naturally toned patina on an otherwise fully clean, original surface any day. There's nothing wrong with you preferring them untoned--and you will save some money over the years by not overpaying for coins baked in potatoes--but you should reasonably expect to find yourself in a minority.

They are ordinary.

One good tell here is that the shield and head on the phony piece are fully "struck" (in reality, cheaply cast), and not worn down. Full strikes are hard enough to find, but when found--and not worn down--one would expect nice clean fields, not this grainy business. Nope, it's not real; it's a counterfeit, and a pretty lousy one.

No. I just wanted to see if he'd respond to a straightforward question so that I could either give up on him or hold out some hope and respect. It was a 'take your best shot and we'll go by that.' Answer received.

Are you making a deliberate effort to spread misinformation out of a desire to troll, or are you simply blurting out commentary on subjects you don't know enough about? I suspect the former, but the latter is possible. If it's the latter, then please stop typing and start reading. You might learn things. Right now you're peeing in the numismatic pool. The beauty of the situation is you need take no action. Just don't talk; listen. Easiest solution there could be. It's a serious question. I will respect an honest answer. If you're just mad and acting out because people keep calling you out, say so. If you're clueless, please admit that. I despise mobs and gangs and have hesitated to join in your blanket party for the most part, and even think it has gone too far on some occasions, but you're making an unbeliever out of even me. Come clean. Hock it up. I totally get what it's like to come to despise a place or its people so much that you only want to make them uncomfortable--especially if one feels ganged up on--though I think acting that out as trolling is juvenile. Some forums really are bad that way; in such cases I just walk away. (Hi there, civfanatics. Not long enough time no see.) But seriously, kindly answer me. Foolish or childish? Which is it? Even a non-numismatist with elementary understanding of physics and mintage would understand that an edge ding would raise metal as a higher version of the rim, not create a dip in the existing rim, as the OP indicated by sensibly shooting an edge-on photo. In an edge ding there would be a flat spot, and since the metal must go somewhere, some gets mushed upward. A slight planchet clip, just enough to impair but not eliminate the rim production from the strike, is a logical diagnosis here.