coinman1794

This piece is completely genuine, but it is not a coin, it's a medal. This is the bronze, 1962 Bashlow Restrike (HK-853A) of the famous 1876 Dickeson Continental Dollar copy (HK-853). These are fairly popular and can sell for good prices in the right grades. This one does not look bad, considering the sulfurous packaging that caused almost all of these to tone. We have done a couple different educational articles on the variations of these medals: http://www.dmrarecoins.com/Research-Articles.php

This is the more common Type 2 reverse, characterized by narrow lettering. The Type 1 chows fat letters, by comparison, and is scarcer.

This variety often comes with striking softness on the central obverse.

That was also my first thought.

This does look like a die chip, to me.

A worthy Star, it is! Glad it got fixed!

If the Star was awarded for reasons other than eye appeal, it was to note that the coin has a PL obverse, or that both sides just missed PL by a hair. Therefore, a full PL designation is objectively better than the Star, (again, if it's a case where the star was not used for eye appeal).

On classic US coins (pre 1839), a rotated reverse is relatively common and not considered a major error. Thus, it tends to have little or no affect on the value, in many cases. Therefore, I would argue it is a matter of taste, and I would also prefer not to have a rotation. On later coins, this error is much more unusual and will add value to a coin if the rotation is greater than 10-15%, in most cases. These are generally classified as Mint Errors and collected mostly by the Error community.

It looks like an MS65. It would grade higher without the reeding marks in front of the face. It is not possible to determine, from the pics, whether or not it is PL.

Make sure to set the white balance on your camera if possible. Some of your backgrounds have a noticeable, reddish tinge.

Heritage sells higher caliber coins, and generally sells their coins for more money. Heritage also takes their coins all over the country to market them in featured, coin show auctions. Additionally, they have an army of numismatists, consignment directors, and staff in house. Heritage makes an attempt to describe many of their lots. On those points alone, I think comparing them to GC would be apples to oranges. On returns, GC offers 1 free return per month. The rest will be charged a 5% restocking fee. Heritage will accept returns, with a 5% restocking fee, if there is a mistake or discrepancy in the listing. That's why you needed a reason and an approval. GC can always ship right away because they are always in one place. Heritage lots can be delayed when they are at a destination auction. They take about a week to ship most other lots.

If the picture shows everything, this is a cosmetic concern only. The lips often chip on these holders, even when properly packaged. That said, he did not package the coin properly, and that did not help. Being that it is a question of $10, you would think the seller would give in and pay.

The surfaces have ridges because of air bubbles between the zinc layer and the copper coating. These bubbled are ubiquitous and do not add value. I think some dates should be worth more money when found without bubbles. In recent years, they have gotten much better at preventing them, but I'm not sure what they are doing differently.

Oddities begin to appear in change around Christmas. Unfortunately, this is often the result of someone cashing in the old coin collection, at the bank.

The gas was certainly not an improvement

That would come back as "Altered Color," "Improperly Cleaned," or both.

The die polishing "typical of most PL Washington quarters from say like the '40s" is an as of yet unexplained finish that is unique to the 1934-1955 period. It is found on virtually all denominations. It is mostly found on S-mint coins, with some D-mint coins seen, and seemingly zero Philadelphia coins. It is not seen after the closer of the San Francisco Mint, after 1955. The PL coins of 1964 are the result of some completely different process. There are many 1964-D, and fewer 1964-P quarters, that show a PL obverse and a reverse that just misses, due to slight die erosion in the centers, around the eagle. Generally, these coins look very much like SMS coins of 1965, with mirrored fields and noticeably frosted devices. It is theoretically possible that the obverse dies were Proof dies or unfinished Proof dies, or some experimental hybrids. I have been looking for a fully PL 1964/64-D for a long time but have not been able to find one. NGC does list a handful of PLs for the date, so they are out there. I agree that the reverse of the original poster's coin falls short of PL, and will likely receive the Star designation, as do most of these 64 and 64-D PL Obv coins. The 1964-D shown below is a good example of the Denver version.

Generally, they are not worth any more than the regular design. And when they are well-circulated, like the coins in the picture, they are worth $1 each.

The weight is pretty close to normal, so i don't suspect this to be a common, contemporary counterfeit. It really doesn't look like one either. The edge has begun to crumble due to environmental damage. This piece was likely dug up somewhere.

I'm wondering if the 1804 is actually a contemporary counterfeit.

Typically, the coins struck from later die states have more pronounced, frosty luster that drowns out imperfections. This causes them to grade higher than early and middle die states that otherwise show the same marks.

Yes, as has been said, circulation strike Kennedy halves were eliminated in 2002.

It's possible this could be a toning spot or a dip spot. However, Silver Eagles have been plagued by tiny round strike-through errors, typically from blobs of congealed die grease dropping onto the coins during striking. Most of the time, the grease falls out, leaving a cavity; but sometimes the grease blob is retained and looks very much like that spot. Because these are Mint Errors, they do not affect the grade, in most cases. However, when you are distinguishing between 69 and 70, they very well might have an effect. Spot or strike-through, I would have that coin reviewed.

This looks like one of two things: a broken die or a planchet lamination which separated before striking. Both could result in that line and in the coin being uneven in thickness. NGC would probably not mention it at all if it is a die break. It it is a lamination, they would recognize it under the Mint Error service.

This appears to be die fatigue. Many Lincoln cents develop that ring around the rim, about 1mm inward. Whatever designs are in the way of this ripple will get stretched.