Options
When the truth is somewhere in the middle...
TwoKopeiki
Posts: 9,539 ✭✭✭✭✭
Nice scarcer Large Bust variety of this Peruvian date. Above average obverse strike.
2 years ago at the Chicago ANA: "Choice AU - Cleaned, Lacquered, Lima mint, KM106.1, Cal-473. Impressively detailed for this very scarce variety, with unnaturally bright surfaces as a result of past cleaning and a light layer of lacquer over the tone-free surfaces."
Sold for $493.50 with BP
Here it is today. Sold shortly after being listed for the asking price of $550 (which is a great price for a problem-free AU, imo)
1
Comments
Interesting. 2K -is it yours?
And you posted this to show what? That the description of the coin with a price spread of $55 was CORRECTLY VALUED at each appearance?
I guess I will be more direct with the question. Wouldn't lacquer mask the surfaces, thus disqualifying from a straight NGC grade?
This does have a grade, but it certainly lacks originality and is clearly processed.
I would not call this “problem free”.
The eBay auction was a BIN with a Best Offer option that ended in under an hour of being listed for the full BIN amount. If anything, it's an indication of whoever ended-up buying it thinking it was such a good deal that an offer would risk the coin going to someone else.
I posted because the coin in question went from being a problem coin to an AU58 one. I thought it interesting to highlight the journeys some of our coins take to get them into their "final plastic" - whatever that might be.
Nope, but it caught my eye enough to investigate.
I had a similar thought about it. Someone saw it in-hand and thought that simply removing the lacquer would get this coin straight-graded, which turned-out to be true (i assume the lacquer was removed).
8 Reales Madness Collection
Ashamedly I never knew this variety even existed
Latin American Collection
That was the first "Indian" bust to appear in Lima in 1808. I always thought it was more detailed / attractive than the 1809-1811 variant.
8 Reales Madness Collection
If the lacquer is STILL on the coin when the NGC graders saw it, I should think the coin would have received a "details" grade. In my very limited experience, I can report that lacquer hides nothing except minor hairlines in some cases.
Coins go from straight grade to detailed or detailed to straight grade more often than you think. The latter is more common. I pity the dreamers who think they can send a coin that has problems to a different service for a straight grade. It appears that is the case here.
In the Heritage auction the coin wasn't slabbed.
Perhaps the buyer submitted it for conservation at NCS and then subsequently onward to NGC.
Charles III Album
Charles III Portrait Set
Charles IV Album
Charles IV Portrait Set
There's a difference between sending a coin that has problems to a different service and sending a coin one particular service thinks has problems to a different service.
No there is not! If a major TPGS puts a coin into a details holder, 97% of the time it will remain that way. It is folly to try for a straight gradeat a different MAJOR TPGS. This coin is one of the exceptions. Lacquer comes off w/o a trace if you know what you are doing!
The only time the percentages I quote were not true was with PCI Red Label "problem coins." To protect the customer, we were too strict. Dealers would stop by our table all the time with coins straight graded by the major grading services that were cracked out of our "details" slabs to show how smart they were. Commonly heard words from dealers: "I buy every PCI Red Label coin I see!"
So 3% of the time, it won't? That seems to work against the "No there is not" claim.
BTW, about the 3%... how do you know it's not 4%?
edited to add... if the major TPGS services don't make mistakes, why do they offer "Reconsideration" services?
LOL, apparently I have confused you.
The crossover rate of problem coins to straight grades as actually measured over a year at a TPGS that shall go unnamed was .04% but I wished to cover all the services by using a much higher percentage to make sure I was not blowing smoke.
Furthermore, there is a very BIG difference between an actual grading mistake and
CHOOSING TO OVERLOOK A PROBLEM BECAUSE OF SOME REASON!
"Market acceptability" seems to be used to cover these decisions. That's because one man's "hairlines" is another man's "harshly cleaned." Studying problem coins in slabs is a great way to learn what "market acceptability " is not.
I'll look forward to helping you out with any other misconceptions you might have.
One thing I noticed over the years is that NGC is way more forgiving when it comes to hairlines and stripped surfaces. I have at least 10 examples of coins that were body bagged by PCGS straight grade at NGC. At least in the portrait 8 Reales series. One of the reasons I prefer having my collection graded by our hosts. Although I have seen some dogs in both holders.
8 Reales Madness Collection
By moving the goalposts, yes- you have.
While earlier,
Coins can get out of a details holder in more ways than crossover attempts, you know. How could anybody accurately measure the percent of details coins that get cracked out, submitted raw and subsequently straight grade? Clearly, that can't be done and yet, those coins do get grades. So it would appear your claimed .04% is too low. 3% might be too low too, but nobody can really know for sure, can they?
Such generosity- what a guy!
@MasonG said: "Such generosity- what a guy!"
Thank you! I do my best.
For example: Since this still seems to be confusing (clearly my fault!): "If a major TPGS puts a coin into a details holder, 97% of the time it will remain that way." I'll try once mote.
What this means is there is an extremely slim chance that one major TPGS's problem coin will be straight graded by another TPGS if sent in still slabbed. It can happen, but unless you are a very experienced collector/dealer who knows the coin market thoroughly, you'll have more chance getting a tour of the PCGS grading room.
Next, @MasonG wrote: "Coins can get out of a details holder in more ways than crossover attempts, you know. How could anybody accurately measure the percent of details coins that get cracked out, submitted raw and subsequently straight grade? Clearly, that can't be done and yet, those coins do get grades. So it would appear your claimed .04% is too low. 3% might be too low too, but nobody can really know for sure, can they?
The coin in the OP was RAW. It was described in an auction as having problems. Later it was straight graded by a major TPGS. Clearly a difference in opinion OR a change in the coin (conservation?). Therefore. I'm glad you got a chance to explain the obvious in your quote above. I'll agree. that there is virtually no way to tell that most raw coins have ever been seen at a TPGS. That's why resubmitted RAW COINS DON'T COUNT in any attempt to get them out of a problem slab and straight graded.
Very interesting discussion regarding TPG holders and detail vs straight grade but I fear you may be overlooking an important point, that is an extremely well struck beautiful example of a coin variety that is very difficult to obtain in high grade without problems. Had I seen that coin on Ebay for $550 I would have bought it instantly raw, details or straight graded. Sometimes I feel we put too much emphasis on the slab and lose sight of the coin itself. Just my humble opinion