JKK

You either like them or you don't. I don't, at all, but a lot of people do. If you like them, watch closely on value and do your research because many of the sellers overprice them. This is because they hope for impulse sales to people who have no idea what it's really worth.

Hey, some people think discolored modern coins are special. As in $900 special.

I see the rub on the high points, but I don't think it's circulated. I think that's poor or negligent storage sometime in the past 170 years. I think we'd see a lot more evidence in the fields in the case of circulation. I do not think 63 is outside the realm of reason.

That last is a perfect summary of one of our greatest problems around here: People who have known a lot for so long they can no longer conceive of not knowing a lot. They can see only their own perspectives. The idea of not knowing the proper color of a penny is too alien for them to contemplate; thus, anyone who doesn't must surely be illogical, not too bright, etc. Never mind that, unlike mint errors and mechanical doubling and parking lot damage, the color issue is a little more advanced knowledge because it comes not just from seeing pennies, but examining them with a critical eye. Most people out in society have seen a lot of pennies, but few examine them. What is obvious to them, they figure, must automatically be obvious to even the rankest beginner. There is probably a philosophical or psychological term for this inability to see other perspectives, but I'm neither a psychologist nor a philosopher.
Obviously, there are degrees of this. Coin color might be at the high newbie level of understanding. Parking lot damage seems to me pretty easy to diagnose, given that most people have found a penny in a parking lot. Doubling is toward the high end of newbie. Phantom dates and lettering are toward the low, given that they seem to be triggered by a lot of reallywannaseeit (aka pareidoilia, or however it's spelled). Non-numismatic critical thinking will tend to dispose of the low-end ones, such as "I think this is a quarter struck on a nickel planchet." Research and self-education will also help, but for people to get worked up about those, they have to hang around long enough to care. Even then, not all research is created equal. That presented on YT is so consistently awful that "I researched it on YT" is like announcing "I think my proof coins look better with thumb prints."
This intellectual myopia exists in many areas. It's much like the chemistry professors forced by their jobs to teach freshman chemistry, and doing an awful and cruel job of it, because they would rather be dealing with grad students and research. It's this way with many techies: they can fix it, but if you want them to teach you how to fix it yourself, they can't because the idea of not knowing is beyond their recent experience. It's a human tendency.

Because it looks different than what they are used to; they aren't very familiar with coins; they want to check with knowledgeable people before they just go off half-cocked and send it in. In short, because they are being prudent and sensible. And since they are not debating with us, they are benefiting from the opinions and using good sense.

Color does not look natural, at least in the photos. Doesn't mean it's not a rare or interesting coin, just means the surface does look altered. Sounds to me like NGC got it right.

Because it looks different than what they are used to; they aren't very familiar with coins; they want to check with knowledgeable people before they just go off half-cocked and send it in. In short, because they are being prudent and sensible. And since they are not debating with us, they are benefiting from the opinions and using good sense.

Because it looks different than what they are used to; they aren't very familiar with coins; they want to check with knowledgeable people before they just go off half-cocked and send it in. In short, because they are being prudent and sensible. And since they are not debating with us, they are benefiting from the opinions and using good sense.

Because it looks different than what they are used to; they aren't very familiar with coins; they want to check with knowledgeable people before they just go off half-cocked and send it in. In short, because they are being prudent and sensible. And since they are not debating with us, they are benefiting from the opinions and using good sense.

No, it's not.

No, it's not.

Color does not look natural, at least in the photos. Doesn't mean it's not a rare or interesting coin, just means the surface does look altered. Sounds to me like NGC got it right.

Yep. Most places don't take plastic for bullion. What's most hilarious is when people pronounce it like "bouillon," which is a soup component. It was all I could do not to say "grocery store is down the road a little ways."

Yep. Most places don't take plastic for bullion. What's most hilarious is when people pronounce it like "bouillon," which is a soup component. It was all I could do not to say "grocery store is down the road a little ways."

When I worked at the coin shop, the people we hated above all were the gold buyers and sellers. The buyers, who were there to spend Biiiiig Money, expected their derrieres to be smooched Real Hard because we were going to be making Big Money on them (we were such vampires, you know, preying on the poor metal hoarder), and often went insane when we charged them about $20 above melt per ounce (as if we were somehow breaking the law). The sellers were even worse. Bringing gold, they expected us to kiss up to them; they were shocked to find that we didn't quite pay melt, and that we weren't even very excited about any of it. And in the meantime, they kept throwing out conversational leads inviting us to endorse their world views.
To anyone who thought it through, of course, the reason would be obvious. Let's see: how about we tie up thousands of dollars of capital in something tethered to a metric we cannot control, on which we will probably lose money anyway because of when people buy and sell it, and when even at flat pricing our margin is about 5% or less, and where buyers and sellers are unbearable. Yeah, let's go deep on that. We could have spent that money on world coins and gotten far better margin; ditto for old currency, even US coins.

When I worked at the coin shop, the people we hated above all were the gold buyers and sellers. The buyers, who were there to spend Biiiiig Money, expected their derrieres to be smooched Real Hard because we were going to be making Big Money on them (we were such vampires, you know, preying on the poor metal hoarder), and often went insane when we charged them about $20 above melt per ounce (as if we were somehow breaking the law). The sellers were even worse. Bringing gold, they expected us to kiss up to them; they were shocked to find that we didn't quite pay melt, and that we weren't even very excited about any of it. And in the meantime, they kept throwing out conversational leads inviting us to endorse their world views.
To anyone who thought it through, of course, the reason would be obvious. Let's see: how about we tie up thousands of dollars of capital in something tethered to a metric we cannot control, on which we will probably lose money anyway because of when people buy and sell it, and when even at flat pricing our margin is about 5% or less, and where buyers and sellers are unbearable. Yeah, let's go deep on that. We could have spent that money on world coins and gotten far better margin; ditto for old currency, even US coins.

@Ron_48
You already did the research to prove it's plated.  In your first post you said it weighs 3.11 gms and is the same diameter as a cent.  Unless there is a noticeable thickness difference (it looks normal in your pic) that would indicate that the density of the metal is the same as a cent. 
For example steel and aluminum have lower densities than 95%Cu so a coin of normal size would weigh less, while silver and gold have higher densities would weigh more.  Your coin weighs the same, so unless You can find a metal with the same density as a cent AND find some evidence that the mint used it as experimental planchets or to strike foreign coins, you simply have a plated coin. 
No sense in sending it back in, you already proved it.  Gotta love science 
 
 

They update the online price guide? When?

They update the online price guide? When?

What doubling I see does not look consistent with doubled dies. It does look consistent with mechanical doubling, which is not special.

What doubling I see does not look consistent with doubled dies. It does look consistent with mechanical doubling, which is not special.

What doubling I see does not look consistent with doubled dies. It does look consistent with mechanical doubling, which is not special.

A lot of evaluation is looking for the high points. Sometimes it's strike weakness, for example, where the full detail was never present; that can look like wear, but is not. You have seen that when you compare your coin to the real deal, it has lost so much detail that it's in the lower grading tier. If it were rare, it'd be worth something, but it's not. Another important thing is to look for the cleaning, which this coin very clearly appears whizzed (abrasively cleaned). Some cleaned coins are whizzed, and some are chemically cleaned. A few are both, which is a special grade of hideous.
To help yourself away from misunderstanding, burn this into your knowledge base: shiny does not automatically equal good. While you might have figured that out by now, notice that the brightness of your coin is unnatural; that is, for its level of wear, it's not the right color. Cleaning tends to cause that. So when you see a coin that looks shiny, look for the detail. Likewise, when you see a coin that looks dull or dark, look for the detail. It might shock you to learn that a very tarnished example of your coin, with full detail, could well be mint state (as in uncirculated). Happens with copper all the time, since Cu is very reactive (including, of course, the Cu that is alloyed with Ag to make your coin).
Detail, detail, detail. For example, a nice Morgan would have details on the cotton leaves and bolls (in her hair), and you'd be able to see some breast feathers on the bird. A lightly struck Morgan could be missing some of that. We look at the detail. If you glance at Roger's example, you'll see weakness on the hair above her ear, some on the cotton, and very much on the eagle's breast. How does one know that those are not wear? The fields are part of the detail. If the coin were circulated, there'd be all sorts of microscratches in the fields. As it stands, Roger's example has attractive fields free of wear (what you are seeing on her cheek and the field by it are bag marks).
When you know what ought to be there, you can see what is not, and then assess whether that absence represents wear or weakness. That will take you very far in coin collecting.

The real BB looks more like a vampire effect. Like wise old Ben has been out preying on the living.

The real BB looks more like a vampire effect. Like wise old Ben has been out preying on the living.