Kudos Once Again to PCGS Restoration - Before and After Photos

winesteven

I've read, and participated, in a few threads regarding PCGS Restoration. While some others have knocked this service, my sense is that some of the critics have done so without having had first hand experience of using this service with their own coins. However, I'm sure there are some examples that may not have been positive. However, ALL of my experiences with this service have been positive, excluding at times the decison of the professionals to not accept my coin for Restoration, where I then get charged only the $10 evaluation fee. But I've been happy every time they have chosen to professionally restore a coin. Admittedly, it's only been a handful of times.

I never send a coin to Restoration with the goal or expectation of having a grade increase, although getting a grade increase has happened to me one time - a 1904 $20 Liberty bought as a PCGS MS64+ with a CAC ended up as MS65+, and CAC gave it back its sticker (CAC only says it's solid as a 65, as they ignore + grades).

In my opinion more people would use the PCGS Restoration service if they saw more real examples, and understood the costs and minimization of certain risks. As noted above, if they choose to not accept the coin for Restoration, the cost is only $10 (plus shipping expenses). If they do choose to restore a coin, the charge is then 3% of the PCGS Price Guide value based on the final grade. Here's a key point - they guarantee the grade will NOT drop!

Now to my most recent example. I bought an 1854 Seated Half Dollar (Arrows) PCGS MS64 w/CAC to "fill a hole". This is a Type coin of only three years. To me, this was the ugliest coin in my entire collection! I subsequently upgraded that coin in my collection. I then sent "Ms Ugly" to PCGS for professional Restoration, they accepted it, and it kept the same grade. Since it underwent PCGS Restoration, a new cert number had to be assigned. As such, getting the CAC back is NOT automatic, but it did indeed get the CAC back. The total pop as MS64 is 69 (36 by PCGS and 33 by NGC), and this is one of only five with a CAC! I have subsequently sold the coin to a collector friend, disclosing all of the above to him in advance of his decision.

Not tied to the above, the dies for this coin had some issues. I was shown a photo of another 1854 coin by a forum member that was made with this same pair of dies, but that coin is graded MS66. As such, there are several "marks" you'll see on my coin that are actually from the dies. Besides the clash marks, there's a diagonal line on the obverse from the left arm to the "T" in United; what looks like a little gouge from the forearm holding the pole, among others. The weakness in the reverse center by the feather talons and the weakness in the strike of one set of claws is also identical on the MS66 coin (NOT shown here).

Finally, the slight rainbow coloration on the obverse periphery now seen in the "After" TrueView" was actually visible on the coin in hand "Before", but not seen in the photos of the "Before". PCGS Restoration did NOT add any coloration or toning.

Before:

After:

kaz

That's good to know. thanks for posting the before and after.

ms70

Lucky you.

morgandollar1878

Looks pretty good from what it was before. I have used the service a couple times and have been pretty happy with the results.

Jimnight

That is nice!

Pnies20

They did a nice job. Coin looks awesome. I have a few coins in mind that I don’t currently own that could probably benefit... 🤔

airplanenut

With the before and after photos so differently lit, it’s difficult to know what differences are due to lighting versus what was done to the coin. I think restoration has its place, but that means the submitters and PCGS have to be responsible about it. Just turning a coin white isn’t a great option. Getting rid of a contaminant or a localized bit of ugly is much more reasonable. Years ago I sent a walker to NCS because it has two flecks that were starting to grow halos. They got rid of them debris and the halos, and you’d never know the coin ever had a problem or was fixed. That’s perfect and where I think the services really add value.

LanceNewmanOCC

well hats off.

i cringed when i saw the first image and thought, well, there goes another neat toned seated half to the land of stripped out whiteville. very glad i was mistaken.

nice half.

zoom in on the face and you can see liberty's pupil !!

Aotearoa

That's a relief. The last time I opened one of these threads I cringed for two days. Well done.

OldIndianNutKase

VERY impressive results. Your coin is now a keeper no matter if it changed grade. A lot to be said about messing with your coins, but PCGS truly restored this coin very well.

OINK

cameonut2011

Do you have any non True View after pics? It's hard to compare given different photo techniques and TVs are known for being glamor shots in many cases. It looks improved.

skier07

The photo techniques are so different that it’s very difficult to compare the images. IDK.

koynekwest

Looks a helluva lot better. I was pleased with the two coins I've had conserved.

PerryHall

Is it true they use ricko as a technical consultant?

winesteven

@cameonut2011 said:
Do you have any non True View after pics? It's hard to compare given different photo techniques and TVs are known for being glamor shots in many cases. It looks improved.

I do not have other photos, and the coin is no longer mine. I agree the photo techniques are different, so it’s not a complete apples to apples comparison. That’s why I added some verbal descriptions at the end of my OP to give that some tiny extra perspective.

2dueces

Does the restoration guarantee that the (stains-corrosion) or whatever was on the coin will not reappear after time? Not asking if Pcgs guarantees it. Just asking if it will stand the test of time.

winesteven

@2dueces said:
Does the restoration guarantee that the (stains-corrosion) or whatever was on the coin will not reappear after time? Not asking if Pcgs guarantees it. Just asking if it will stand the test of time.

I don't know. My guess is that it can change, but that's only the guess of a layperson without the expertise and experience of the professionals at PCGS or the pros here on the forum.

jessewvu

I used the service recently to get rid of a finger touch mark I accidentally put on an expensive proof coin, looked great after and taught me a very good lesson about handling coins. I was being so careful I was shaking and bumped it ever so slightly. All was well in the end.

1984worldcoins

This looks great!

BuffaloIronTail

@Jimnight said:
That is nice!

That's even noice.

Pete

Batman23

Thanks for the before and after. It might be the lighting but it looks like they only took off the surface haze and allowed the luster and color to become more visible. Nice looking Half.

WAYNEAS

Do you think that the restoration fee was worth the result? If you are happy, to me, that is all that would matter. I like the restored coin and believe it was worth the cost.
Wayne

Broadstruck

I'm glad they managed to remove whatever surface contaminate was on this.

Yet sorry to say as even at gunpoint I would not pay over AU Details money for this no matter how many stickers it has since it's still frighteningly ugly

Yorkshireman

Wow!
What a stellar coin you have now.

jesbroken

Great job. First I had seen of a PCGS restoration. I had NGC do one for me many years ago.
Thanks for sharing b4naft pics.
Jim

DoubleEagle59

Restoration is very nice, but do we all agree it's an ms64?

winesteven

@WAYNEAS said:
Do you think that the restoration fee was worth the result? If you are happy, to me, that is all that would matter. I like the restored coin and believe it was worth the cost.
Wayne

The total charge was only $62, which includes the standard $10 PCGS submission fee, and the $2 handling for return using my FedEx account, Added to that is about $18 in FedEx charges returning it to me. Since I included the submiission with three other submissions anyway, i don't add on any separate shipping cost in getting the coin to PCGS.

Since this previously, and still is, one of only five with a CAC (out of 69 in this grade) at the value of this coin, this was DEFINITELY worth that nominal fee! For those that agree, please indicate as such. If you disagree, that's OK. You can say as such, or LOL.

winesteven

@DoubleEagle59 said:
Restoration is very nice, but do we all agree it's an ms64?

Virtually all planchet "distractions" one sees are actually from the dies. Here's a TV from Cert # 84723895, graded MS66, but made from the same dies.

ricko

Good work there... One can still see traces of 'where it was', but barely. Cheers, RickO

stman

Can you take an after image of the slab shot? Imo, it’s apples and oranges comparing the after with a pcgs view.

winesteven

@stman said:
Can you take an after image of the slab shot? Imo, it’s apples and oranges comparing the after with a pcgs view.

I do not have other photos, and the coin is no longer mine. I agree the photo techniques are different, so it’s not a complete apples to apples comparison. That’s why I added some verbal descriptions at the end of my OP to give that some tiny extra perspective.

stman

Thanks for your reply. Not a good, true comparison whatsoever imo.

telephoto1

No offense, I actually like the look of the coin but imo 64 was a gift particularly with the stuff that looks like carbon in the A. Also the lighting is so drastically different between the two images it's hard to see apples to apples what they did to the coin. The color looks dramatically different.

CalifornianKing

WOW! Looks better!

winesteven

@telephoto1 said:
No offense, I actually like the look of the coin but imo 64 was a gift particularly with the stuff that looks like carbon in the A. Also the lighting is so drastically different between the two images it's hard to see apples to apples what they did to the coin. The color looks dramatically different.

No offense taken, as PCGS felt it was a 64, and CAC felt it was SOLID as a 64 (perhaps a "B" coin). I agree grading is subjective, and some of us can indeed choose to disagree with both PCGS and CAC, althought they each had the benefit of seeing the coin in hand, an advantage that others here do not have.

AuldFartte

That coin after restoration is beautiful! Money well spent, IMHO.

PhilLynott

Very nice! Do you have before and after pics of the $20 gold you restored?

I'm considering sending a $20 lib in myself to hopefully remove a bit of haze that annoys me on an otherwise complete knockout of a coin. I always worried about them removing it and there being an issue after but the way you described the process (them approving it first off then second guaranteeing no grade drop) makes me feel it's worth sending in.

Thanks for the thread.

cameonut2011

@winesteven said:

@telephoto1 said:
No offense, I actually like the look of the coin but imo 64 was a gift particularly with the stuff that looks like carbon in the A. Also the lighting is so drastically different between the two images it's hard to see apples to apples what they did to the coin. The color looks dramatically different.

No offense taken, as PCGS felt it was a 64, and CAC felt it was SOLID as a 64 (perhpas a "B" coin). I agree grading is subjective, and some of us can indeed choose to disagree with both PCGS and CAC, althought they each had the benefit of seeing the coin in hand, an advantage that others here do not have.

That's why everyone was asking about the photos. If the coin ever looked like the original images, it is shocking that CAC would sticker it and that PCGS would have graded it MS64. Eye appeal alone would take it out of 64 range, and the coin would approach environmentally damaged status. I do NOT think CAC and PCGS would both make a mistake that obvious. I'm assuming the coin looked a lot better and was much lighter than the initial photos.

winesteven

The coin originally was not lighter than the original photos. I agree the eye appeal was not nice (in my opinion), and that's why I referred to it as the ugliest coin in my collection.

winesteven

@PhilLynott said:
Very nice! Do you have before and after pics of the $20 gold you restored?

I'm considering sending a $20 lib in myself to hopefully remove a bit of haze that annoys me on an otherwise complete knockout of a coin. I always worried about them removing it and there being an issue after but the way you described the process (them approving it first off then second guaranteeing no grade drop) makes me feel it's worth sending in.

Thanks for the thread.

I only have the after pic, but it is NOT a dramatic difference. As you note, your coin is worth sending in. Good luck, and let us know how you make out.

Steve

sedulous

Was talking about this thread with a local coin shop friend and I have a question... How in the heck did the coin get a CAC sticker in the first place with all that gunk pre-restoration? The only logical reasoning I can come up with (which, by the way doesn't make sense) is that it got that way in-holder after the CAC sticker was applied. If not, how in the world could the John A. team think the coin was worthy of a CAC sticker? I could much better understand it deserving a CAC green bean post-restoration... not pre-restoration.

winesteven

As I noted above, while I agree the coin is ugly, I believe the before photos are actually worse than the coin in hand, Additionally, I pointed out above that much of the planchet "distractions" were due to the dies, and not wear or pmd. Apparently that is why PCGS felt this was a 64, and JA felt this was Solid as a 64 when the coin is in hand and not based on the photos.

sedulous

@winesteven said:
As I noted above, while I agree the coin is ugly, I believe the before photos are actually worse than the coin in hand, Additionally, I pointed out above that much of the planchet "distractions" were due to the dies, and not wear or pmd. Apparently that is why PCGS felt this was a 64, and JA felt this was Solid as a 64 when the coin is in hand and not based on the photos.

Oookkaayyy. Like you said, it is hard to make those determinations based off a picture. So congratulations... IMO, you are sittin' pretty now which is what really matters in the end.

oih82w8

@LanceNewmanOCC said:
well hats off.

i cringed when i saw the first image and thought, well, there goes another neat toned seated half to the land of stripped out whiteville. very glad i was mistaken.

nice half.

zoom in on the face and you can see liberty's pupil !!

The Eagle on the reverse has one as well.

winesteven

@sedulous said:

Oookkaayyy. Like you said, it is hard to make those determinations based off a picture. So congratulations... IMO, you are sittin' pretty now which is what really matters in the end.

I upgraded this coin in my Registry Dansco 7070 set to a 65+ with a CAC, and after disclosing everything about the 64 to a friend, sold that one to him after my upgrade.

LanceNewmanOCC

@oih82w8 said:

zoom in on the face and you can see liberty's pupil !!

The Eagle on the reverse has one as well.

.
i mean an actual BLACK pupil !

talk about looking lifelike.

leothelyon

@winesteven said:

@2dueces said:. Was
Does the restoration guarantee that the (stains-corrosion) or whatever was on the coin will not reappear after time? Not asking if Pcgs guarantees it. Just asking if it will stand the test of time.

I don't know. My guess is that it can change, but that's only the guess of a layperson without the expertise and experience of the professionals at PCGS or the pros here on the forum.

While I'm not a pro, I have a book or two that says, the refined copper in the coin wants to turn back into the copper ore it once was/it came from. How fast it happens depends on its environment its subjected to. Humidity is the culprit that will affect your coins. It's virtually impossible to escape from but can be slowed down. Was told, the only way to keep a coin from toning or corroding was to seal it in a 2 inch square block of acrylic lucite. Desiccant packages will help absorb any moisture in the air where your coins are stored. But many here already know this. Also when coins get really cold, is another way moisture can form on them if not properly stored.

Leo