JKK

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Looks like it was nicer before it had a cleaning. Almost certainly not worth sending in for grading, and I would take that "extra education" as dubious unless someone can actually point out a variety and show their work. That poster has been dishing out wishful thinking to unsuspecting newcomers for some weeks now, and creating false hope in novices is a very wrong thing to do.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Looks like it was nicer before it had a cleaning. Almost certainly not worth sending in for grading, and I would take that "extra education" as dubious unless someone can actually point out a variety and show their work. That poster has been dishing out wishful thinking to unsuspecting newcomers for some weeks now, and creating false hope in novices is a very wrong thing to do.

Looks like it was nicer before it had a cleaning. Almost certainly not worth sending in for grading, and I would take that "extra education" as dubious unless someone can actually point out a variety and show their work. That poster has been dishing out wishful thinking to unsuspecting newcomers for some weeks now, and creating false hope in novices is a very wrong thing to do.

Looks like it took a hit in circulation.

Looks like it was nicer before it had a cleaning. Almost certainly not worth sending in for grading, and I would take that "extra education" as dubious unless someone can actually point out a variety and show their work. That poster has been dishing out wishful thinking to unsuspecting newcomers for some weeks now, and creating false hope in novices is a very wrong thing to do.

It might have been cleaned before that. It happens.
The kind of cleaning that appears possible here is abrasive, as in usually a wire brush. Look real close under magnification and see if you see lateral scratches all over it. They differ from circulation wear (of which this coin seems likely to have very little) in that circulation wear is random whereas wire brush cleaning is rotary (Dremel tool) or lateral (usually handheld brush). I can't say for sure from the pictures, but I'd give it a closer look.
If not cleaned, this might be in the mid-to-high AU range or even low MS. What looks like a rub spot above the ear can often be slight strike weakness on a Morgan. Look also on the eagle's breast, which is another high spot.