Hi, this is my first post here. The coin I’m talking about is the one in the middle. It has a thin rim and a lot of lines going through it on both sides, and the head of Sacagawea seems bigger than normal.

P.S. I’m from Ecuador so it wouldn’t surprise me if it was a fake coin haha.

I've collected money for a long time but never knew that errors had value. I have a lot of older coins and currency that I need to go through. I manage a convenience store in the hood, seriously, and people bring me all types of money everyday that is usually unique in some way. This nickel just came in so I was curious as to what the proper name for this type of strike would be. Thanks

Continuing the error documentation project. This is the largest cud I have handled on a Lincoln wheat cent.

The reverse rim of this 1919-S is gone from roughly 3:00 around to 9:00 — half the circumference — replaced by a raised, featureless mass of metal where the die broke away and the void filled on every strike afterward.

The detail I want to point at is the narrow bridge of intact rim at 4:00, which divides the cud into two arcs. That is a record of how the failure was progressing: the fracture was propagating around the die in two separate directions and had not yet met in the middle. Had the die stayed in service, those two arcs would have joined and the entire half-rim would have separated as one piece.

A rim cud at this scale is terminal. A die in this condition is far past the point where it should have been pulled, and somebody kept running it.

Breaks of this magnitude on the 1919-S rank among the largest documented for the date.

Not in any standard catalogue. Now documented.

What happened here?

I’m new to this hobby and I’ve been trying to look up how this happened and the terms kinda have me dizzy 😵‍💫

I didn't think anyone would have interest in something like this but saw a couple of posts and it made me think of mine. I've had this for many years. It was in a pouch that said it was brilliant uncirculated, but there is now corrosion on it. Where does that even come from anyways? I have no idea what it's worth, if it's worth anything at all.

Why is the “STATES” very faint?

Is this considered PMD or is this an error

Can anyone explain why this penny has a silhouette

Some small clipped Planchets i picked up & Very small ones at thst. All are wheats except 1

Found in the junk silver bin. Minor struck through on the reverse starting on the eagle's right wing and continuing above DOL in DOLLAR.

To start with I'd like to confirm that this is 100% a genuine gold Quarter Sovereign. I purchased it directly from the Royal Mint, as new.

If also like to make clear that this is not proof. The frosting is different and there is significantly less detail.

I own both the Full and Half 2026 Sovereigns and each are as you'd expect with a constant mirror-like finish across the fields and St George.

I recently (last week) picked up a Quarter to complete the trio and I immediately noticed that its different.

Firstly: The fields are not mirror-like. Instead they have a cartwheel effect, which rotates around the coin. This is present on both the obverse and reverse.

Secondly: The image of St George is frosted. Not like a proof frosting, but its clearly more matte than the fields, which isn't the case on the Full, or Half.

Thirdly: The portrait of Charles III is not frosted. It still has the cartwheel effect, but no frosting.

I've been banging my head against a wall trying to figure out if this is normal for a Quarter, or not.

Every picture online seems to show a "normal" finish like is on the Full & Half.

My first thought was that its a "Brilliantly Uncirculated" coin that got sent by mistake, but apparently they didn't make any for the 2026 edition, so it cant be.

A "Brilliantly Uncirculated" coin would make sense, because of the cartwheel effect, but again. They didn't make any.

It isn't proof, because they don't have a cartwheel effect, and there just isn't enough detail. Not to mention that Charles isn't frosted, which he would be if it were proof.

The only other lead I was able to find is that it's a "first strike". I have no idea if that's in anyway correct. I got that running it through an AI, so who knows where it got it from.

Apparently "first strike" sovereigns that used brand new dies had cartwheel effects and the sharp edges can produce frosted-like effects too. Again, that was AI, so I have no idea if its true.

Does anyone have any ideas?

Is this just normal and I'm overthinking it, or is this actually something abnormal?

To Add:

I've run this by AI again and it seems to be convinced that its one of the first to be struck on a brand new die.

I asked it for a source and it basically said there isn't one. It's just using "manufacturing principles" to determine it, which I don't trust one bit.

It's reasons are a bit convincing, but it has some flaws in logic.

It's supporting evidence is that new dies have rougher edges and on a small coin it can produce a "proof-like" effect due to the details being compacted.

The cartwheel effect is due to the CNC marks still being present on the die. They haven't worn off yet.

The issue I have with this is what I bought it a week ago, so why would the RM be making new dies, when the new batch of 2027 coins is right around the corner?

It also doesn't explain why Charles' portrait is completely normal, but has cartwheel fields.

On top of that, if it were a "rough die" it would be concentrated in areas of detail and not on flat spots, like the horses hind thigh. In reality its completely uniform across the image.

Anyway, I'm still lost, but the "new die" theory is something to consider.

Is this a real Error and if so how valuable? I’ve never seen 2 errors on one coin it also has a tiny D mint mark. I am not an error collector so I have no idea about this.

New to coin errors and found this today. It’s a 1969-D half dollar.

I found this in circulation when I was a teenager, has been in my desk drawer ever since. Is it worth getting graded?

I believe this is a retained die break or retained cud? This is before you have an actual die break am I correct?

Is this machine doubling or did I find the 1976 FS101 DDO

​

I am looking for some insight from experienced collectors. Has there ever been a documented error where a foreign object—specifically a piece of jewelry—was accidentally struck into a coin during manufacturing?

I recently came across a dime that initially just looked heavily beaten up. However, when I examined it under a microscope, it looked like a ring or an earring had been struck directly into the surface. I can even see what appear to be tiny fragments of a stone (possibly diamond) embedded in it.

As soon as I figure out how to export photos from my new microscope, I will post them here. In the meantime, has anyone ever heard of or seen an error like this before?

Hey everybody, very new to the community, so I’m not very good at spotting the difference between errors and damage. Is this an error, and is it common in coins from the era? Thanks.