Options
Some Thoughts on Grading and a Good Loupe.
Newmismatist
Posts: 1,802 ✭✭
Grading coins has been problematic since the earliest days of collecting. The advent of slabbing by Third Party Grading Services (TPGS) in the mid 80s was advertised and is promoted to collectors as a way of eliminating the common practice of over-grading coins and selling doctored and problem coins as high-grade when the were in reality over-graded junk. Indeed, the mantra is often: You can buy XXXX graded coins with confidence as they are accurately graded. Is this true? Can we really dispense with grading skills and buy XXXX graded coins because they are really accurately graded? And, if XXXX graded coins are really accurately graded, do we even need a loupe, much less one of those $100+ loupes?
Well, here’s a true incident - it happened at this most recent FUN show - the names are changed or hidden to protect the guilty.
I looked at lots in all the 3 major auctions at FUN - there were probably over 12,000 lots up for auction at FUN, so you may rest assured that I did NOT look at every lot.
There was a key date rarity in one of the premier auctions, happens to be in a series that I specialize in so I looked at all of the coins in that particular series in all of the auctions - probably around 400 total coins. I use an Eschenbach 3/6/9 loupe - it has a large viewing field and excellent optics. IMO, it is one of the very best loupes to look at coins.
Now the set up: Prior to slabbing by the major TPGSs in 1986, for a major rarity, one that is expensive and the key to the series, it would be very important that you would HAVE to look very carefully at that major rarity that is the key to the series. Prior to 1986, tooled, whizzed, polished and retoned coins were routinely sold as Gem Uncs to unsuspecting collectors. Now, with the reputable Third Party slabbed coins you don’t have to even look at those coins, much less even look at them with a loupe. Right? Well read on.
(I will mention at this point that the coin in question is a copper coin and it was designated MS65RD).
As I look at slabbed coins I first look at them with a good light and do not initially use my loupe. This is because it saves me a lot of time - if I don’t like the coin without using my loupe, no sense looking further, it will look worse, not better when I loupe it. If the coin passes the "look in the light" test and I find the coin attractive I will then look at the coin with my loupe. When looking at copper, I always use the strongest power (9x) for my initial look. Copper coins are small, and my eyes are much older than when I used to cherry pick coins 40 years ago. On the key date coin in question, it passed the "look in the light" test. The coin had an attractive look and it appeared to be the stated grade: MS65RD, the cheek was very clean and looked PQ and the reverse looked very PQ for the grade. BUT there were a few things that needed careful scrutiny: There was a small shiny spot at 12 O’clock, and several minor metal disturbances in the fields. Out came the trusty loupe and a careful scrutiny of the coin began. One thing that everyone who is looking at a high end coin MUST do is use the light source to help you grade and analyze a coin. IF you look at a coin without moving it in the light, you will absolutely miss problems and you will not be able to properly grade the coin.
Here’s what I found when I rotated this coin in the light while using my loupe:
1. The small shiny spot at 12 O’Clock was in fact an area of the coin that had been expertly tooled, then polished and then retoned to try and disguise a major problem - probably a significant spot that was black and prominent and which at one time had been crudely removed. This was a repaired coin where metal had been moved with a blunt steel tool, resulting in numerous tiny swirls and then that area had been lightly polished to remove or tone down the evidence of the tooling, then retoned to try and blend the repaired area with the rest of the coin. Conclusion: Tooled, polished and retoned. 3 separate reasons to "bag the coin" - Altered surfaces.
2. In the fields, in several places there was evidence of spots having been removed - the spots had eaten into the metal so they had been "dug out" either with a sharp pointed tool, or acid or both. There was no evidence of tooling here, but again retoning was evident, probably with a liquid as there was an indication that there was a slight line where the liquid ended when it dried. Conclusion: Significant Spots removed and very evident retoning - both should have prevented this coin from slabbing as a MS65RD. Technically this should have also have been a reason to "bag" the coin, but as no metal appeared to have been moved in the spot removal process - and if this had been the only problem the coin could have net or market graded at a maximum MS64RB - about 1/10th of the MS65RD value.
3. Again looking in the fields, there was a significant planchet flaw right in front of the face. This flaw was easily visible and distracting - Conclusion: it should have grade limited the coin to MS64, but no higher.
4. I now looked at the devices - the face, check and surrounding area - a very small indication that another spot had been removed, but this spot was quite small and that should not have prevented the coin from grading - even as a 65RD this spot removal was expertly done, the evidence of the spot removal was only evident upon very careful scrutiny and it was well hidden by its location. Conclusion: No real concern here. No reason to lower the grade because of this.
5. I now looked at the face and check. Here I found the most surprising thing. There had been an X engraved on the back of the lower jaw - it was hard to see, but as I rotated the coin in the light at one discreet point it popped right up - an X with curl at each of the 4 ends of the X. As you rotated the coin the X disappeared - the area all around was very clean and smooth. It was clear that the X had been whizzed or smoothed to remove it - then the coin had been expertly lightly toned, but not enough to loose the Red designation. Conclusion: Whizzing, smoothing and retoning. Very expertly done - the hardest of the many flaws on this coin to find.
All of the above took little over a minute for me to find - far longer than the average grader spends looking at a coin he grades. I then looked at the coin again in the light but without the loupe. Items 1-3 could be seen with the naked eye, items 4 & 5 could not be seen by me with the naked eye. I showed this coin to several others. When they used their inexpensive loupes, they generally only found the planchet flaw and 1 of the spots that I noted in item 2. Most MISSED the tooling I described in item 1 when they used a cheap loupe, but found it when I gave them my Eschenbach 3/6/9 loupe. I think they could have found that tooling with their cheap loupes IF they had used the light source, but most held the coin still while they used their loupes to look at the coin. But everyone that I told to look at that coin with my loupe was able to find the tooling and the polishing using the Eschenbach 3/6/9 loupe.
Overall Conclusion: Nothing has changed since the TPGSs have started slabbing coins. Unscrupulous persons are still Tooling, Whizzing, Polishing and retoning coins. Spot removal on copper coins is still a cottage industry with mixed success. If you don’t take the time to learn to grade, learn to use light when looking at coins and purchase (and know how to use) a good loupe, you can buy what is known to dealers as a POS (yes it does stand for Piece of Sh!t).
That coin sold for nearly $30,000. Its worth about $1,000, only because it’s a key date. It would be a great filler coin as at first glance, it looked high end, even PQ. Funny thing, not only was it slabbed by one of the top 2 TPGSs, it was a "named" coin as it was in a top registry set. Go figure! - Better yet, buy a good loupe and learn how to grade - Blindly relying on the TPGSs to grade your coins could cost you significant money, and leave you with one of those POS coins in your collection.
Well, here’s a true incident - it happened at this most recent FUN show - the names are changed or hidden to protect the guilty.
I looked at lots in all the 3 major auctions at FUN - there were probably over 12,000 lots up for auction at FUN, so you may rest assured that I did NOT look at every lot.
There was a key date rarity in one of the premier auctions, happens to be in a series that I specialize in so I looked at all of the coins in that particular series in all of the auctions - probably around 400 total coins. I use an Eschenbach 3/6/9 loupe - it has a large viewing field and excellent optics. IMO, it is one of the very best loupes to look at coins.
Now the set up: Prior to slabbing by the major TPGSs in 1986, for a major rarity, one that is expensive and the key to the series, it would be very important that you would HAVE to look very carefully at that major rarity that is the key to the series. Prior to 1986, tooled, whizzed, polished and retoned coins were routinely sold as Gem Uncs to unsuspecting collectors. Now, with the reputable Third Party slabbed coins you don’t have to even look at those coins, much less even look at them with a loupe. Right? Well read on.
(I will mention at this point that the coin in question is a copper coin and it was designated MS65RD).
As I look at slabbed coins I first look at them with a good light and do not initially use my loupe. This is because it saves me a lot of time - if I don’t like the coin without using my loupe, no sense looking further, it will look worse, not better when I loupe it. If the coin passes the "look in the light" test and I find the coin attractive I will then look at the coin with my loupe. When looking at copper, I always use the strongest power (9x) for my initial look. Copper coins are small, and my eyes are much older than when I used to cherry pick coins 40 years ago. On the key date coin in question, it passed the "look in the light" test. The coin had an attractive look and it appeared to be the stated grade: MS65RD, the cheek was very clean and looked PQ and the reverse looked very PQ for the grade. BUT there were a few things that needed careful scrutiny: There was a small shiny spot at 12 O’clock, and several minor metal disturbances in the fields. Out came the trusty loupe and a careful scrutiny of the coin began. One thing that everyone who is looking at a high end coin MUST do is use the light source to help you grade and analyze a coin. IF you look at a coin without moving it in the light, you will absolutely miss problems and you will not be able to properly grade the coin.
Here’s what I found when I rotated this coin in the light while using my loupe:
1. The small shiny spot at 12 O’Clock was in fact an area of the coin that had been expertly tooled, then polished and then retoned to try and disguise a major problem - probably a significant spot that was black and prominent and which at one time had been crudely removed. This was a repaired coin where metal had been moved with a blunt steel tool, resulting in numerous tiny swirls and then that area had been lightly polished to remove or tone down the evidence of the tooling, then retoned to try and blend the repaired area with the rest of the coin. Conclusion: Tooled, polished and retoned. 3 separate reasons to "bag the coin" - Altered surfaces.
2. In the fields, in several places there was evidence of spots having been removed - the spots had eaten into the metal so they had been "dug out" either with a sharp pointed tool, or acid or both. There was no evidence of tooling here, but again retoning was evident, probably with a liquid as there was an indication that there was a slight line where the liquid ended when it dried. Conclusion: Significant Spots removed and very evident retoning - both should have prevented this coin from slabbing as a MS65RD. Technically this should have also have been a reason to "bag" the coin, but as no metal appeared to have been moved in the spot removal process - and if this had been the only problem the coin could have net or market graded at a maximum MS64RB - about 1/10th of the MS65RD value.
3. Again looking in the fields, there was a significant planchet flaw right in front of the face. This flaw was easily visible and distracting - Conclusion: it should have grade limited the coin to MS64, but no higher.
4. I now looked at the devices - the face, check and surrounding area - a very small indication that another spot had been removed, but this spot was quite small and that should not have prevented the coin from grading - even as a 65RD this spot removal was expertly done, the evidence of the spot removal was only evident upon very careful scrutiny and it was well hidden by its location. Conclusion: No real concern here. No reason to lower the grade because of this.
5. I now looked at the face and check. Here I found the most surprising thing. There had been an X engraved on the back of the lower jaw - it was hard to see, but as I rotated the coin in the light at one discreet point it popped right up - an X with curl at each of the 4 ends of the X. As you rotated the coin the X disappeared - the area all around was very clean and smooth. It was clear that the X had been whizzed or smoothed to remove it - then the coin had been expertly lightly toned, but not enough to loose the Red designation. Conclusion: Whizzing, smoothing and retoning. Very expertly done - the hardest of the many flaws on this coin to find.
All of the above took little over a minute for me to find - far longer than the average grader spends looking at a coin he grades. I then looked at the coin again in the light but without the loupe. Items 1-3 could be seen with the naked eye, items 4 & 5 could not be seen by me with the naked eye. I showed this coin to several others. When they used their inexpensive loupes, they generally only found the planchet flaw and 1 of the spots that I noted in item 2. Most MISSED the tooling I described in item 1 when they used a cheap loupe, but found it when I gave them my Eschenbach 3/6/9 loupe. I think they could have found that tooling with their cheap loupes IF they had used the light source, but most held the coin still while they used their loupes to look at the coin. But everyone that I told to look at that coin with my loupe was able to find the tooling and the polishing using the Eschenbach 3/6/9 loupe.
Overall Conclusion: Nothing has changed since the TPGSs have started slabbing coins. Unscrupulous persons are still Tooling, Whizzing, Polishing and retoning coins. Spot removal on copper coins is still a cottage industry with mixed success. If you don’t take the time to learn to grade, learn to use light when looking at coins and purchase (and know how to use) a good loupe, you can buy what is known to dealers as a POS (yes it does stand for Piece of Sh!t).
That coin sold for nearly $30,000. Its worth about $1,000, only because it’s a key date. It would be a great filler coin as at first glance, it looked high end, even PQ. Funny thing, not only was it slabbed by one of the top 2 TPGSs, it was a "named" coin as it was in a top registry set. Go figure! - Better yet, buy a good loupe and learn how to grade - Blindly relying on the TPGSs to grade your coins could cost you significant money, and leave you with one of those POS coins in your collection.
Collecting eye-appealing Proof and MS Indian Head Cents, 1858 Flying Eagle and IHC patterns and beautiful toned coins.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
0
Comments
<< <i>IF you look at a coin without moving it in the light, you will absolutely miss problems and you will not be able to properly grade the coin. >>
This is an absolutely critical point; far more important than the type of loupe used. It's also something I learned the hard way submitting proof coins and getting crappy grades because I missed hairlines due to static viewing.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Nice report. I missed half of what you saw and still didn't like the coin.
Several items were indeed hard to find and that coin was expertly done. When I said that on my second non-loupe look:
<< <i>Items 1-3 could be seen with the naked eye >>
I should clarify that you could see that there was somethings going on with that coin that needed further scrutiny - the tooling could NOT be detected without using a loupe and the light.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
What exactly is a Eschenbach 3/6/9, does it have three lenses? Does it have a light? Do you have a model number?
Michael
Do you have a model number for your loupe? Still trying to figure out what 3/6/9 means? Thanks.
Michael
<< <i>Still trying to figure out what 3/6/9 means? >>
Magnification - 3x, 6x, 9x.
Russ, NCNE
Unscrupulous persons are still Tooling, Whizzing, Polishing and retoning coins
And the TPGs continue to slab them.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
The Eschenbach: 9870-B
The Zeiss: D36
Michael
<< <i>I found the Eschenbach 3/6/9 here. >>
Mike - that's it - both the Zeiss and the Eschenbach have 2 lens that separate 3x & 6x that when combined = a 9x lens - If anyone is interested in the Eschenbach, I'm going to place a wholesale order for 10 of the 3/6/9s and they will be about $100 or so depending on shipping - PM me and if there's enough interest, I'll get 10 of them and pass on the savings to our members who know that spending $100 to save $28,000 is good math.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
Learned somthing today. Thank You "Very Much"!
<< <i>Terrific post, Ron. I learned a lot and will take all of the advice offered. My collecting mentor suggested that I buy a Zeiss 3/6/9 (similar to yours, I believe). When I resisted, he bought one for me and made me pay him back. It was the best $110 (or so) I have spent in the hobby. Robert >>
Thanks Robert - the Zeiss is a 3/6/9 loupe - the model number is D36 - that loupe will save you thousands - it is a must for those collecting high end and expensive coins - also thanks to Russ for the nice comment - using the light and moving the coin is critical to finding out whether a coin has problems. Using a high quality loupe - particularly on copper is also essential. Low quality loupes cause enough distortion so that problems such as those that I've described are often missed. If you're going to spend $30K for a coin at least look at it with a loupe before you pull the trigger.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
You show a knowledge that many "collectors" seem to lack.That is knowing what to look in your area of expertise.
Many modern collectors shy away from the old classics for just that reason.There is no knowledge.
The TPG are the middle man to protect us both.........
Good lighting and a good loupe tells a good story..........
<< <i>
<< <i>I found the Eschenbach 3/6/9 here. >>
Mike - that's it - both the Zeiss and the Eschenbach have 2 lens that separate 3x & 6x that when combined = a 9x lens - If anyone is interested in the Eschenbach, I'm going to place a wholesale order for 10 of the 3/6/9s and they will be about $100 or so depending on shipping - PM me and if there's enough interest, I'll get 10 of them and pass on the savings to our members who know that spending $100 to save $28,000 is good math. >>
That is very kind of you to offer, but please be aware the website I posted has it for $99.99, and I placed my order there before your kind offer. Sorry....Mike
p.s. fabulous post, BTW.
It reminds me of the time when I was looking at a Morgan 1889-CC in au58 graded by PCGS. The coin was a legit coin, and had tremendous eye appeal in the hand, with prooflike fields. I just didn't feel comfortable dropping $14,000 on it without giving it an intense inspection, so I brought my microscope to inspect it. Yes I felt a little ridiculous, but I was very glad I did. Under inspection it looked horrible, and I passed. It was a very tough coin to grade -- may have been a conservative au55 but got bumped up because of the pl fields. There was virtually no wear in the hair or on the eagle's breast, or elsewhere, but the coin had a lot of hits.
I kept looking and found a wonderful Morgan in 1889-CC au58pl graded by NGC. It too had awesome eye appeal, but under inspection it looked perfert, no hits of any sort. I sent the coin in for crossover knowing I'd lose the pl designation, and it crossed at au58. I kept the NGC tag just to show its pl designation by NGC, although it is apparent from the coin in any event.
The difference between the coins -- night and day. Although both coins were probably correctly graded, I would have no reservations paying $3000 more for the coin looking better under the microscope, even though in the hand the coins were seemingly identical.
I use the Esch. 6x for finalizing the grade (if needed) and a 12x for authentication, and those "shiny spots".
That technique of moving the coin under the light was very awkward for me to learn - in the sense of moving it the right way, such that I would be seeing the light come off the coin at all different angles. I envy those who have done it for so long that it's second nature.
And it is absolutely critical to seeing everything there is to see.
Sounds like the consignor was quite fortunate to have things turn out the way they did. And if the underbidder reads this, I'm sure there's a huge sense of relief.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
I stayed with Ron for the FUN show (along with FooDude), and each night ended with a few hours of coin conversation. On Wednesday night, Ron told me there was a coin that had problems that made it into a holder as a gem. He gave me the lot number, and assigned me to come report back with my findings. Thursday morning, I set off to lot viewing to see the piece. I looked at it with a naked eye, then my crappy $10 loupe. I noticed the shiny patch at 12:00, but it appeared to be die polish under my loupe--I couldn't see it clearly enough to figure out anything else.
Needless to say, I was discouraged that I knew there were things wrong with the coin, and that I couldn't find them. Later in the day, Ron gave me his loupe, told me where to look, and I set back to lot viewing. Again, I looked with my loupe and saw nothing. Then, I used his. Granted, the problems were difficult to see (small [but major] flaws on a small coin), but there they were! I then looked at some other pieces, and kept going between his and my loupe. The results were astounding--with his loupe, I could see far more of the coin with much, much more clarity. There was just no comparison. Thus, I'm sold on that loupe, and would strongly suggest it to everyone else. It's really a fine piece of optics.
Jeremy
It was an amazing loupe. Don't know if it is worth $200.00 more than my Zeiss but it was definitely better. Stuff really jumped out at you.
One thing I like about the Zeiss is, it is clear out to the rim of the lense without the distortion you get with other loupes around the periphery.
<< <i>Great Post! Reminds me of the 1918-D Merc Dime in MS-65FB I saw with the band split "by hand". >>
When I was explaining the coin that I talked about in this thread to another dealer he told me of several Merc dimes that were FB'd "by hand" and in respected TPGS, and the FBs were wobbly - Again - get a good loupe and LOOK at the coins CAREFULLY - IF that FB triples the price of the coin, make sure you're getting mint made FBs and not an exacto knife FB coin. It will make a lot of difference when you go to sell your coins.
3 other egregious grading mistakes that I saw in the auction lots I viewed at FUN: A couple of MS67 $20 Saints, 1 would be lucky to make a MS65, the other was no better than a MS64 - a 1916 Stdg Lib 25CN MS63FH - an AU58 and NOT even close to FH. All these coins were in respected TPGS slabs
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
Ron - How about posting images of those coins???
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
... and not just on the value of a good loupe, but on the value of how to look at coins ... excellent post
I started a thread yesterday having not read this ... where a coin that had quite similar problems (although of much less value) came to visit me ... albeit for a very short time similar coin
Based on Ron's description of the coin, the same type of problems were present ... although it was a silver coin ... and this is unfortunately one of several of the type I have seen lately.
Although we can hope for consistent, accurate garding, and that the TPG's will catch 99.5% of the problems ... a good loupe, a good light and a practiced eye can not be replaced.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
i learned a lot and am beginning to realize that TPGs are just
certifying to make money, with little care to true accuracy.
Robert A. Heinlein