I'm not sure where we should draw the line when it comes to damage and corrosion of very early federal coins. But I think it should be somewhere north of that.
Lance.
I certainly agree it is 'Poor'...and, IMO, probably a tad worse than that....However, being what it is, I would keep it, and treasure it, for the history. Cheers, RickO
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
The obverse actually appears to have G4 details. The reverse details appear similar to my Liberty Cap cent which has no corrosion and is in a PCGS G4 holder. That’s some pretty major net grading IMO.
I also have a PCGS G4 Fugio that has significantly better details but very rough surfaces. I’m wondering if there is a trend toward net grading of early copper by TPG’s, or if this is something they have always been doing. Early copper is tough to grade using traditional criteria, hence the EAC grading that specialists in that area tend to use.
It would be great if our hosts or another TPG started an EAC grading option for copper. It would require specialized graders, however, and maybe there wouldn’t be enough volume? Also I know a lot of those folks prefer their coins raw.
Volumes could be written on the inconsistent grading (straight vs details) of early copper. One of these days I'll get around to posting some of my more interesting examples...
Comments
Probably not.
I'm not sure where we should draw the line when it comes to damage and corrosion of very early federal coins. But I think it should be somewhere north of that.
Lance.
That may actually be in a problem/net graded holder.
It's not in a problem/details graded holder.
That could be it. Thanks.
Well, it is graded POOR. I think they nailed it.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
I think nailing it would have been “Poor details, corroded”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I guess they examined the rev with an overlay and saw the barest of design detail? It's kinda nice looking no matter what. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, Ricko, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, Jzyskowski1, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich
I certainly agree it is 'Poor'...and, IMO, probably a tad worse than that....However, being what it is, I would keep it, and treasure it, for the history. Cheers, RickO
What's the cert number of that coin?
The obverse actually appears to have G4 details. The reverse details appear similar to my Liberty Cap cent which has no corrosion and is in a PCGS G4 holder. That’s some pretty major net grading IMO.
I also have a PCGS G4 Fugio that has significantly better details but very rough surfaces. I’m wondering if there is a trend toward net grading of early copper by TPG’s, or if this is something they have always been doing. Early copper is tough to grade using traditional criteria, hence the EAC grading that specialists in that area tend to use.
It would be great if our hosts or another TPG started an EAC grading option for copper. It would require specialized graders, however, and maybe there wouldn’t be enough volume? Also I know a lot of those folks prefer their coins raw.
I think nailing it would look like this
Volumes could be written on the inconsistent grading (straight vs details) of early copper. One of these days I'll get around to posting some of my more interesting examples...
Smitten with DBLCs.
@Aotearoa I would be quite interested to see your examples!
Successful BST Transactions: erwindoc, VTchaser, moursund, robkool, RelicKING, Herb_T