Options
Improved 1860-O $20 XF Details
BloodMan
Posts: 1,830 ✭✭✭✭✭
Most knowledgeable collectors are opposed to doctoring/altering coins to improve their appearance and deceive potential buyers. The major grading services along with CAC provide an important service to collectors by identifying coins that have been doctored, puttied, cleaned, tooled, recolored, smoothed, etc. In general, it is unlikely that coins can be significantly doctored and make it into a no-problem holder, and even less likely to receive a CAC sticker. Problem coins with details grades generally sell for far less than a no-problem PCGS/NGC graded coins with the same level of detail.
I have recently noticed several gold coins that were identified by the major services as problem coins, which have been subsequently altered to improve their appearance by minimizing the detracting aspects. One such example is shown below.
1860-O double eagles are rare in all grades. Doug Winter estimates there are 85-95 known, so even problem coins command a large premium. This 1860-O $20 was in a PCGS Genuine Tooled XF Details holder and sold for $9400 in April 2014. The coin had obvious tool marks on the obverse, especially on the right obverse field and on Liberty’s nose and face, which are prime focal areas. There was also tooling scattered across the reverse. The price realized for this rare date was a little lower than I would have expected even for a problem coin, but the tooling was a significant detraction.
In a recent auction, the same coin was offered in a PCGS Genuine Cleaned XF Details holder. Based on the photos, see below, the shallow tooling marks have been removed/minimized and are no longer obvious on the obverse or reverse. For a problem coin, the appearance seems to have been improved, and the price realized reflects this--$21,150, which is a 125% increase in under 18 months.
What are your thoughts? Is it ethical to alter a problem coin, presumably with the intent to increase its value? Should the grading service have described the problem differently, eg, Smoothing or Altered Surfaces? Can anyone speculate how this was accomplished? Suppose the buyer didn’t know the coin’s history, how would he feel upon reading this post?
I have recently noticed several gold coins that were identified by the major services as problem coins, which have been subsequently altered to improve their appearance by minimizing the detracting aspects. One such example is shown below.
1860-O double eagles are rare in all grades. Doug Winter estimates there are 85-95 known, so even problem coins command a large premium. This 1860-O $20 was in a PCGS Genuine Tooled XF Details holder and sold for $9400 in April 2014. The coin had obvious tool marks on the obverse, especially on the right obverse field and on Liberty’s nose and face, which are prime focal areas. There was also tooling scattered across the reverse. The price realized for this rare date was a little lower than I would have expected even for a problem coin, but the tooling was a significant detraction.
In a recent auction, the same coin was offered in a PCGS Genuine Cleaned XF Details holder. Based on the photos, see below, the shallow tooling marks have been removed/minimized and are no longer obvious on the obverse or reverse. For a problem coin, the appearance seems to have been improved, and the price realized reflects this--$21,150, which is a 125% increase in under 18 months.
What are your thoughts? Is it ethical to alter a problem coin, presumably with the intent to increase its value? Should the grading service have described the problem differently, eg, Smoothing or Altered Surfaces? Can anyone speculate how this was accomplished? Suppose the buyer didn’t know the coin’s history, how would he feel upon reading this post?
0
Comments
I suppose that it looks better esthetically, but I would hope that I would be able to spot the problem in a personal examination. The close-up picture of the smoothed out reverse makes this coin look to be okay.
Buying circulated coins like this is a real mine field. I was interested in an 1854-O Three Dollar Gold Piece was offered in an auction this summer. It looked okay from the photos, but when I saw it in person, I was convinced that it had probably been puttied. That coin was in a "no problem" holder, but something had been done to smooth the surfaces.
Thanks again.
Most folks these days just say, "let the buyer (bidders) and seller agree on what it's worth" which is exactly what this coin is an example of. What's a reasonable net grade? The coin is obviously not "worthless", rather it's "worth less" than a problem free specimen.
The coin is worth what it sold for, by definition. Who's to say they're wrong?
Only the next buyer.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
It seems that once a coin is in a Details holder, there is almost nothing to lose in doctoring it, if you are a skilled doctor.
"should" it??
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>it sure looks better now.... but it should be worth less.
"should" it??
Depends on what it would be worth with all the issues disclosed - what it could be sold for to a knowledgable buyer.
Presumably, he has a magnifying glass and access to the internet, in addition to the funds to be able to afford such a purchase, and wants one that fits his collection
If it were me, I'd rather have the smoothed coin than the ugly scratched one, in my set
But truth be told, I'd rather have a superb gem common date $20 Lib than a rare date with either of the appearances of the 1860-O.
I also think far more coins have been "improved" than most people think, even ones in graded slabs and stickers.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Certainly, it appears a PNG dealer would have needed to disclose the issues under the PNG Code of Ethics. Was the seller a PNG dealer? If yes, it appears the buyer could raise an issue with the PNG if things aren't to his / her satisfaction.
<< <i>It seems like the issue isn't which one a collector would rather have. It's more whether the buyer would have known of the issues / recent alterations and, independent of this, whether the issues should have been disclosed?
Certainly, it appears a PNG dealer would have needed to disclose the issues under the PNG Code of Ethics. Was the seller a PNG dealer? If yes, it appears the buyer could raise an issue with the PNG if things aren't to his / her satisfaction. >>
This and if I had only seen the coin in the last holder I would not know it was tooled and would have relied on the TPG to state the negs of the coin. Seems to be some room for improvement here as I also agree that the tooling/smoothing is more important than the cleaning. Many if not most older circulated coins have some sort of cleaning if gold or silver. In Europe it is still common practice to clean silver.
Description:
"1860-O $20 AU Details, Tooled, Improperly Cleaned, NCS. The reddish-gold surfaces retain remnants of prooflike luster in areas where the aggressive cleaning could not reach. There are few sizeable distractions, but the surfaces are noticeably hairlined from whizzing. In addition, the field before Liberty's portrait has been smoothed over, probably to conceal a large impairment."
http://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-double-eagles/1860-o-20-au-details-tooled-improperly-cleaned-ncs/a/346-9975.s?hdnJumpToLot=1x=0&y=0#
<< <i> I think that typically only 1 problem is listed on the label, and it is not necessarily the most "important" one. >>
+++1
.
<< <i>Here's another appearance of the coin, in a 2004 auction, when it was in an NCS AU Details holder:
[...images cut...]
Description:
"1860-O $20 AU Details, Tooled, Improperly Cleaned, NCS. The reddish-gold surfaces retain remnants of prooflike luster in areas where the aggressive cleaning could not reach. There are few sizeable distractions, but the surfaces are noticeably hairlined from whizzing. In addition, the field before Liberty's portrait has been smoothed over, probably to conceal a large impairment."
http://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-double-eagles/1860-o-20-au-details-tooled-improperly-cleaned-ncs/a/346-9975.s?hdnJumpToLot=1x=0&y=0# >>
That's a nice description. The latest description makes no mention of the tooling, smoothing, whizzing, etc. that were mentioned in the previous descriptions.
Here's a quick history for comparison:
- May 2004 - $3,680: 1860-O $20 AU Details, Tooled, Improperly Cleaned, NCS. The reddish-gold surfaces retain remnants of prooflike luster in areas where the aggressive cleaning could not reach. There are few sizeable distractions, but the surfaces are noticeably hairlined from whizzing. In addition, the field before Liberty's portrait has been smoothed over, probably to conceal a large impairment. The fourth rarest O-mint Double Eagle after the 1854-O, 1856-O, and 1859-O, the 1860-O has an extant population of only 60-65 coins from an original mintage of 6,600 pieces. Despite the inescapable distractions, this is an obviously important example for the Southern gold collector.
- April 2014 - $9,400: 1860-O $20 -- Tooled -- PCGS Genuine. XF Details. Variety 1. Examples of this low-mintage (only 6,600 pieces produced) New Orleans issue are rare in any condition. This example is well-struck and most of the original design details remain clearly evident. The green-gold surfaces display evidence of tooling, or smoothing, and have a somewhat muted appearance as a result
- Sept 2015 - $21,150: 1860-O $20 -- Cleaning -- PCGS Genuine. XF Details. Variety 2. After the opening of the San Francisco Mint in 1854, gold deposits in New Orleans declined. As a result, double eagle production slid to a paltry levels; in 1860, only 6,600 twenty dollar gold pieces were struck. This date is scarce in all grades and only a single Mint State piece, heavily abraded, is known. This lightly circulated example shows bright yellow-gold surfaces with few obvious abrasions. Wear is minimal and the left-hand obverse stars show the only mentionable weakness, where it is slight. Some semiprooflike reflectivity remains in the protected fields around the reverse periphery.
<< <i>Is there any chance the auction house did not know the history of the coin? If they did this seems very unethical. >>
That seems like a distinct possibility. Perhaps they just went by what was listed on the holder?
Given that the auction house is a PNG dealer, what is their obligation under the PNG Code of Ethics?
<< <i>My other question is "who has these skills as that looks like master jeweler work there?". >>
Allen Stockton Has the Skills to do this work, if not better.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>
<< <i>My other question is "who has these skills as that looks like master jeweler work there?". >>
Allen Stockton Has the Skills to do this work, if not better. >>
Allen is well known for doing very good work.
Reviewing his site reminds me of the 1892-O Micro O half dollar when the results were first posted here.
<< <i>Is there any chance the auction house did not know the history of the coin? If they did this seems very unethical. >>